DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/08/2024, 12/31/2024, 02/24/2025, and 05/21/2025 has/have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a first generation unit configured to”, “a second generation unit configured to” in claims 1, 4, “a combining unit configured to”, “a division unit configured to”, “a mixing unit configured to” in claim 1, “a third unit configured”, “a fourth unit configured to” in claim 4, “a shift unit configured to” in claim 5 and “a task execution unit configured to” in claim 7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-8 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cai et al (2023 IEEE/CVF), hereinafter Cai.
-Regarding Claim 1, Cai discloses an information processing apparatus, comprising (Abstract; FIGS. 1-4
PNG
media_image1.png
360
763
media_image1.png
Greyscale
): a first generation unit configured to generate first feature amounts from a first image (FIG.2(a), it & ht (bottom); FIG. 2(b),
v
i
t
,
k
i
t
,
q
i
t
;
v
h
t
,
k
h
t
,
q
h
t
;); a second generation unit configured to generate second feature amounts from a second image that is different from the first image (FIG.2(a), sr (bottom); FIG. 2(b),
s
r
i
t
,
s
r
i
t
,
s
r
i
t
); a combining unit configured to combine the first feature amounts and the second feature amounts (FIG. 2(a); FIG. 2(b) (left, bottom (input)), Rearrange & Concatenate); a division unit configured to divide the combined feature amounts into a plurality of groups (FIG. 2(b) (middle), Rearrange & Concatenate; equations (6)-(8)); and a mixing unit configured to mix feature amounts included in each of the plurality of groups on a group-by-group basis (FIG. 1; FIG. 2(b); equations (9)-(11); Page 9555, 2nd Col., 1st paragraph, “… cross-attention (CA) … self-attention …”; Page 9558, 2nd Col., 1st paragraph), wherein at least one group included among the plurality of groups includes both of the first feature amounts and the second feature amounts (FIG. 2(b) (middle), Rearrange & Concatenate; equations (6)-(8)).
-Regarding claim 2, Cai discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Cai further discloses wherein the combining unit combines the first feature amounts and the second feature amounts alternately in a spatial direction (FIG. 2(b)).
-Regarding claim 3, Cai discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Cai further discloses wherein the combining unit combines the first feature amounts and the second feature amounts irregularly in a spatial direction (FIG. 2(b); equations (6)-(8); Cai has no restriction on combining features in spatial direction).
-Regarding claim 7, Cai discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Cai further disclose comprising a task execution unit configured to execute a predetermined task that uses a neural network (NN) based on the feature amounts obtained by the mixing unit (FIG.2(a); Page 9556, 1st Col., 2nd paragraph, “propose a robust object modeling framework for visual tracking (ROMTrack) …”).
-Regarding claim 8, Cai discloses the apparatus of claim 7. Cai further disclose wherein the first image is a first frame image included in moving image data, the second image is a second frame image included in the moving image data, and the predetermined task is a tracking task (FIG. 2; Page 9556, 1st Col., 1st paragraph, “target’s motion during a short period is usually smooth but may be accompanied by large changes in appearance …”; 2nd paragraph, “propose a robust object modeling framework for visual tracking (ROMTrack) …”).
-Regarding Claim 11, Cai discloses a control method for information processing apparatus, the control method comprising (Abstract; FIGS. 1-4): generating first feature amounts from a first image (FIG.2(a), it & ht (bottom); FIG. 2(b),
v
i
t
,
k
i
t
,
q
i
t
;
v
h
t
,
k
h
t
,
q
h
t
;); generating second feature amounts from a second image that is different from the first image (FIG.2(a), sr (bottom); FIG. 2(b),
s
r
i
t
,
s
r
i
t
,
s
r
i
t
); combining the first feature amounts and the second feature amounts (FIG. 2(a); FIG. 2(b) (left, bottom (input)), Rearrange & Concatenate); dividing the combined feature amounts into a plurality of groups (FIG. 2(b) (middle), Rearrange & Concatenate; equations (6)-(8)); mixing feature amounts included in each of the plurality of groups on a group-by-group basis (FIG. 1; FIG. 2(b); equations (9)-(11); Page 9555, 2nd Col., 1st paragraph, “… cross-attention (CA) … self-attention …”; Page 9558, 2nd Col., 1st paragraph), wherein at least one group included among the plurality of groups includes both of the first feature amounts and the second feature amounts (FIG. 2(b) (middle), Rearrange & Concatenate; equations (6)-(8)).
-Regarding Claim 12, Cai discloses a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program that, when executed by a computer, causes the computer to perform a control method for an information processing apparatus (one or more memories and processors has to be used in order to implement Cai’s method in the FIG.2), the control method comprising (Abstract; FIGS. 1-4): generating first feature amounts from a first image (FIG.2(a), it & ht (bottom); FIG. 2(b),
v
i
t
,
k
i
t
,
q
i
t
;
v
h
t
,
k
h
t
,
q
h
t
;); generating second feature amounts from a second image that is different from the first image (FIG.2(a), sr (bottom); FIG. 2(b),
s
r
i
t
,
s
r
i
t
,
s
r
i
t
); combining the first feature amounts and the second feature amounts (FIG. 2(a); FIG. 2(b) (left, bottom (input)), Rearrange & Concatenate); dividing the combined feature amounts into a plurality of groups (FIG. 2(b) (middle), Rearrange & Concatenate; equations (6)-(8)); mixing feature amounts included in each of the plurality of groups on a group-by-group basis (FIG. 1; FIG. 2(b); equations (9)-(11); Page 9555, 2nd Col., 1st paragraph, “… cross-attention (CA) … self-attention …”; Page 9558, 2nd Col., 1st paragraph), wherein at least one group included among the plurality of groups includes both of the first feature amounts and the second feature amounts (FIG. 2(b) (middle), Rearrange & Concatenate; equations (6)-(8)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai et al (2023 IEEE/CVF), hereinafter Cai in view of Lin et al (arXiv:2112.00995v3 2022), hereinafter Song et al (2022 CVPR).
-Regarding claim 5, Cai discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Cai does not disclose comprising a shift unit configured to cyclically shift, in a spatial direction, at least one of the first feature amounts and the second feature amounts before or after the combining by the combining unit.
In the same field of endeavor, Song teaches a transformer tracking method with cyclic shifting window attention (Abstract; FIGS. 1-5). Song further teaches comprising a shift unit configured to cyclically shift, in a spatial direction, at least one of the first feature amounts and the second feature amounts before or after the combining by the combining unit (Song: FIGS. 2-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Cai with the teaching of Song by using cyclic shifting window attention in order to improve tracking accuracy (Song: page 8782, 1st Col., 2nd paragraph).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai et al (2023 IEEE/CVF), hereinafter Cai in view of Lin et al (arXiv:2112.00995v3 2022), hereinafter Lin.
-Regarding claim 6, Cai discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Cai does not disclose wherein the mixing unit includes a fully-connected layer or multi-head self-attention (MSA).
In the same field of endeavor, Lin teaches a method for tracking target from a search range using Swin Transformer (Lin: Abstract; FIG. 2) . Lin further teaches wherein the mixing unit includes a fully-connected layer or MSA (Lin: equation (1); Page 4, Sec. 3.2., 2nd – 3rd paragraphs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Cai with the teaching of Lin by using MSA in order to more efficient conduct self-attention and cross-attention (Lin: Page 4, Sec. 3.2., 3rd paragraph).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai et al (2023 IEEE/CVF), hereinafter Cai in view of Gonzalez-Aguirre (US 20240214694 A1), hereinafter Gonzalez-Aguirre.
-Regarding claim 9, Cai discloses the apparatus of claim 7.
Cai does not disclose wherein the first image is an image for a right eye obtained by a stereo camera, the second image is an image for a left eye obtained by the stereo camera, and the predetermined task is a parallax estimation task.
In the same field of endeavor, Gonzalez-Aguirre teaches a method for our-dimensional event detection and identification (Gonzalez-Aguirre: Abstract; 1-12). Gonzalez-Aguirre further teaches wherein the first image is an image for a right eye obtained by a stereo camera, the second image is an image for a left eye obtained by the stereo camera, and the predetermined task is a parallax estimation task (Gonzalez-Aguirre: FIGS. 1-3; [0017]; [0020], “enabling the pairs of scan lines of the left and right images to be processed in parallel”; [0024]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Cai with the teaching of Gonzalez-Aguirre by performing parallax estimation task in order to provide a real-world application.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai et al (2023 IEEE/CVF), hereinafter Cai in view of Tate et al (US 20240087364 A1), hereinafter Tate.
-Regarding claim 10, Cai discloses the apparatus of claim 7.
Cai does not disclose wherein the first image is a first face image obtained at a time of authentication processing by an authentication system, the second image is a second face image that has been pre-registered with the authentication system, and the predetermined task is a face authentication task.
In the same field of endeavor, Tate teaches a verification method to determine, based on the first feature amount and the second feature amount, whether an object in the first image and an object in the second image are the same (Tate: FIGS. 1-21). Tate further teaches wherein the first image is a first face image obtained at a time of authentication processing by an authentication system, the second image is a second face image that has been pre-registered with the authentication system, and the predetermined task is a face authentication task (Tate: FIGS. 13A-3B, 4; [0048], “transformer network”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Cai with the teaching of Tate by performing a face authentication task in order to provide a real-world application.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIAO LIU whose telephone number is (571)272-4539. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday and Alternate Fridays 8:30-4:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Mehmood can be reached at (571) 272-2976. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/XIAO LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2664
Prosecution Insights