DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
Claims 1-4 are pending in this application. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,131,478 issued from US Application 17/584,540. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are both directed towards a method and system for a trained neural network for image segmentation that generates an activation map with three loss terms that are co-extensive in scope.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the non-statutory double patenting rejections, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter. The prior art fails to teach the method of Claim 1 or the medium of Claim 4 which specifically comprises the following features in combination with other recited limitations, and which are co-extensive in scope with the previously patented claims in the parent application U.S. Patent No. 12,131,478 issued from US Application 17/584,540:
1. A method for object segmentation using a trained neural network, comprising: / 4. A computer-readable recording medium in which a program for performing a method for object segmentation using a trained neural network is stored, wherein the method includes:
1. receiving a target image, / 4. receiving a target image,
1. splitting the target image into unit images of a predetermined size, / 4. splitting the target image into unit images of a predetermined size,
1. generating a unit activation map for each unit image as a first segmentation result by applying the neural network, / 4. generating a unit activation map for each unit image as a first segmentation result by applying the neural network,
1. merging the unit activation maps into a merged activation map in a first process, and outputting a second segmentation result based on the merged activation; / 4. merging the unit activation maps into a merged activation map in a first process, and outputting a second segmentation result based on the merged activation;
1. and generating an entire activation map for the original target image by using the same neural network shared with the first process in a second process, / 4. and generating an entire activation map for the original target image by using the same neural network shared with the first process in a second process,
1. wherein the neural network is trained by defining a loss function comprising a first loss term representing the difference between the entire activation map from the second process and the ground truth segmentation, / 4. wherein the neural network is trained by defining a loss function comprising a first loss term representing the difference between the entire activation map from the second process and the ground truth segmentation,
1. a second loss term representing the difference between the merged activation map from the first process and the ground truth segmentation, / 4. a second loss term representing the difference between the merged activation map from the first process and the ground truth segmentation,
1. and a third loss term representing the difference between the entire activation map from the second process and the merged activation map from the first process./ 4. and a third loss term representing the difference between the entire activation map from the second process and the merged activation map from the first process.
Dependent claims 2-3 are dependent upon Claim 1 and are also allowable subject matter for the same reason as above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record in form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
PNG
media_image1.png
156
860
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAHMINA ANSARI whose telephone number is 571-270-3379. The examiner can normally be reached on IFP Flex - Monday through Friday 9 to 5.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAHMINA ANSARI whose telephone number is 571-270-3379. The examiner can normally be reached on IFP Flex - Monday through Friday 9 to 5.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, O’NEAL MISTRY can be reached on 313-446-4912. The fax phone numbers for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned are 571-273-8300 for regular communications and 571-273-8300 for After Final communications. TC 2600’s customer service number is 571-272-2600.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is 571-272-2600.
2674
/Tahmina Ansari/
June 26, 2026
/TAHMINA N ANSARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2674
Prosecution Insights