Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Priority
1. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/30/2024 has been considered by Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
4. Claims 1-16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "...a space tracking system..." in line 9; the term “a space tracking system" is previously presented in line 1 of the claim. It is not cleared that the limitation "a space tracking system" in line 9 referred back to the limitation "a space tracking system” claimed previously in line 1. Clarification is required.
Claim 1 recites the limitations "the observation" in line 1; "the set of predefined time intervals" in line 7. The terms “observation" and “set of predefined time intervals" are not previously presented in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claims 2-14 depend on claim 1. Therefore, the rejection of claims 2-14 are rejected the same as the rejection of claim 1 set forth above.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "...a space tracking system..." in line 8; the term “a tracking system of a space" is previously presented in line 1 of the claim. It is not cleared that the limitation "a space tracking system" in line 8 referred back to the limitation "a tracking system of a space” claimed previously in line 1. Clarification is required.
Claim 15 recites the limitations "the module" in line 1; "the control module" in lines 1-2. The terms “module" and “control module" are not previously presented in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 16 depend on claim 15. Therefore, the rejection of claim 16 is rejected the same as the rejection of claim 15 set forth above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
6. Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ancora et al. (U.S PAT. 12,499,670, hereinafter “Ancora”).
Consider claim 1, Ancora teaches a method of controlling the observation using a space tracking system, the method being implemented by a control module which is part of the tracking system (fig. 1, col. 3, lines 51-67), the control method including: a step of thumbnail training, each thumbnail gathering a set of data accessible to the tracking system over a respective zone and a predefined time interval, the zones associated with each thumbnail covering the space observed by the tracking system and the set of predefined time intervals covering an observation time interval, the data including at least sensor data (col. 4, lines 1-22 and col. 6, lines 28-40); and a step of monitoring the observation using a space tracking system corresponding to at least one thumbnail by applying a control function to all the data of the at least one thumbnail (col. 4, lines 1-29).
Consider claim 2, Ancora further teaches wherein the set of data of each thumbnail comprises a reconstructed trajectory (col. 8, lines 43-49).
Consider claim 3, Ancora further teaches wherein the tracking system (10) outputs computed data, the set of data of each thumbnail comprising the computed data (col. 1, lines 22-34).
Consider claim 4, Ancora further teaches wherein the control function is a function of detecting the presence of an anomaly in the thumbnail (col. 11, lines 6-17).
Consider claim 5, Ancora further teaches wherein the anomaly detection function is obtained by a learning procedure, the learning procedure including: learning a vector representation of thumbnails (col. 7, lines 38-43), and obtaining an anomaly detection function from the learned vector representation (col. 11, lines 6-17).
Consider claim 6, Ancora further teaches wherein the learning step comprises the learning of a first sub-function from a labeled data set so as to obtain a first learned sub- function suitable for implementing a pretext task, the first learned sub-function being a neural network including a plurality of layers of neurons, the vector representation being the penultimate layer of the first learned sub-function (col. 11, lines 18-26)
Consider claim 7, Ancora further teaches wherein the first sub-function is a residual neural network (col. 10, lines 25-31).
Consider claim 8, Ancora further teaches wherein the obtaining step is implemented using single-class support vector machines (col. 7, lines 38-43).
Consider claim 9, Ancora further teaches wherein the obtaining step is implemented using a neural network suitable for measuring the distance from a thumbnail to a set of thumbnails which are considered to be normal (col. 5, lines 60-67).
Consider claim 10, Ancora further teaches wherein the control method includes a step of identification of a possible cause of the presence of an anomaly by applying an identification function to the thumbnail or thumbnails wherein the presence of an anomaly was detected during the implementation step, the identification step being carried out by the anomaly correction module (col. 11, lines 6-17).
Consider claim 11, Ancora further teaches wherein the control method includes a test of a corrective action associated with the identified cause (col. 8, lines 3-12).
Consider claim 12, Ancora further teaches wherein the tracking system is apt to collect data coming from a plurality of sensors, the cause being a failure of a sensor and the corrective action being the removal of the data from the sensor presenting the failure (col. 9, line 58 through col. 10, line 2).
Consider claim 13, Ancora further teaches wherein the identification step comprises: the generation of thumbnails corresponding to data accessible to a plurality of subsets of distinct sensors the detection of anomalies in the thumbnails generated by the implementation of the detection method, and- the deduction of the sensor(s) causing the anomaly (col. 11, lines 6-17).
Consider claim 14, Ancora further teaches wherein the control function is a function for computing the performance of the tracking system (col. 3, lines 51-67).
Consider claim 15, the subject-matter of independent claim 15 relates to the module for monitoring observation by a tracking system of a space with features fully corresponding to the characteristics of claim 1. Therefore, the same argumentation presented in relation to claim 1 is, mutatis mutandis, of application to claim 15.
Consider claim 16, the subject-matter of independent claim 16 relates to a tracking system provided with a control module according to claim 15 with features fully corresponding to the characteristics of claim 15. Therefore, the same argumentation presented in relation to claim 15 is, mutatis mutandis, of application to claim 16.
Conclusion
7. Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Mail Stop_________ (Explanation, e.g., Amendment or After-final, etc.)
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Facsimile responses should be faxed to:
(571) 273-8300
Hand-delivered responses should be brought to:
Customer Service Window
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22313
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tuan H. Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-8329. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00Am - 5:00Pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Pan Yuwen can be reached on (571) 272-7855. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR.
Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/TUAN H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2649
Prosecution Insights