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 .
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 limitations are: a first training module, second training module, image acquisition module, test module in claims 1-11, 13-16 which corresponds to [0040] of the specification.
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 § 112
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.
Claim limitation “image acquisition module” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification does not point out which hardware component is corresponding to the limitation. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 1-16 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the trains" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of advancing prosecution, Examiner interprets the limitation to be “the training”.
Claims 2-8 are dependent from claim 1 and do not remedy the deficiencies of claim 1 and therefore are also rejected.
Claims 1 and 9 recites “performing second training on the instance segmentation model on which the first trains was performed based on a second dataset stored in a second database” and “a second training module configured to perform second training on the instance segmentation model on which the first training was performed based on a second dataset stored in a second database”. The limitations appear to recite that the first training was performed on a second dataset stored in a second database. However, this is contrary to applicant’s specification which shows that the first training is performed using the first database, then the results of the first training is then trained by a second training using dataset from a second database (See figs. 1 and 2). For the purposes of advancing prosecution, Examiner interprets the limitations to be those disclosed in the specification.
Claims 2-8 and 10-16 are dependent from claims 1 and 9 and do not remedy the deficiencies of claims 1 and 9 and therefore are also rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Construction Site Safety Management: A Computer Vision and Deep Learning Approach (Jaekyu Lee and Sangyub Lee, Sensors 2023, 23(2), 944; Published January 13, 2023; hereinafter “Lee”).
As to claim 9, Lee teaches a system (Hardware platform used to train the AI model is shown in Table 1.; 3.2 Development Environment and system configuration ) configured to train an instance segmentation (Table 3. Shows image segmentation) model, the system comprising: a first training module configured to perform first training on the instance segmentation model based on a first data set stored in a first database (ResNet backbone model is the previously trained model which is used as part of transfer learning; page 4, Section 3.1 and page 9, section 3.6); and a second training module configured to perform second training on the instance segmentation model on which the first training was performed based on a second dataset stored in a second database (application of transfer learning onto the ResNet backbone model; page 8, Section 3.5), wherein the second dataset comprises (i) a large-scale open-source dataset (various open source datasets are applied; page 8, Section 3.5) and (ii) an image without a segmentation target object that is acquired by capturing a working environment within an industrial site (construction image data are collected through CCTV and stored on the server; page 4, Section 3.1).
As to claim 10, Lee teaches the system of claim 9, further comprising an image acquisition module configured to capture the working environment within the industrial site to acquire the image without the segmentation target object and store the image without the segmentation target object in the second database (construction image data are collected through CCTV and stored on the server; page 4, Section 3.1).
As to claim 11, Lee teaches the system of claim 10, wherein the image acquisition module is configured to transform the image without the segmentation target object and store the transformed image in the second database (CCTV images are converted into high-quality data and stored on the server; page 4, Section 3.1).
As to claim 12, Lee teaches the system of claim 11, wherein transforming the image comprises horizontally flipping or resizing the image (Next, an image pyramid module was developed to enlarge or reduce the images. In addition, an image rotation module was designed to rotate the image data collected from the construction sites at various angles (e.g., 90◦, 45◦, and −45◦). This module is used to correct the images used in training and rotate the images at various angles; Page 7, lines 11-17).
As to claim 13, Lee teaches the system of claim 10, wherein the image acquisition module is configured to augment the image without the segmentation target object by inserting a target object and store the augmented image in the second database (The training dataset comprises the image files to be trained, the labels of the objects; Page 8, Section 3.5).
As to claim 14, Lee teaches the system of claim 9, further comprising a testing module configured to test performance of the instance segmentation model on which the second training was performed (Simulation and tests; Page 17, Section 4.3).
As to claims 1-6, they are the method claim of claims 9-14 and are addressed similarly. Please see above for detailed mapping.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claims 7-8 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Elbaz (US 2023/0126931 A1).
As to claim 15, Lee teaches testing module (Simulation and tests; Page 17, Section 4.3) and a second training module (application of transfer learning onto the ResNet backbone model; page 8, Section 3.5) but does not teaches wherein the testing module is configured to, based on a result of testing of the performance not satisfying a predetermined criterion, output a control signal to the second training module to cause the second training module to repeat the second training on the instance segmentation model. Elbaz teaches a vulnerability testing (title) wherein ML model manager 120 may be configured to review the trained ML models to determine the behavior of each ML model stored in model repository 150 using test datasets. ML model manager 120 may be configured to review determined behavior for any discrepancies and request data generator 114 for a specialized synthetic dataset to resolve behavior discrepancies in a previously trained ML model. ML model manager 120 may be configured to continuously make synthetic dataset generation requests to train an ML model further until a set criterion for ML model behavior is met ([0046]). It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have added the vulnerability testing of Elbaz to Lee in order to make a more robust system.
As to claim 16, Lee teaches testing module (Simulation and tests; Page 17, Section 4.3) and a second training module (application of transfer learning onto the ResNet backbone model; page 8, Section 3.5) but does not teaches wherein the testing module is configured to output a control signal based on a result of testing of the performance not satisfying a predetermined criterion, to update the second dataset by instructing the image acquisition module to additionally acquire the image without the segmentation target object and store the image in the second database. Elbaz teaches a vulnerability testing (title) wherein ML model manager 120 may be configured to review the trained ML models to determine the behavior of each ML model stored in model repository 150 using test datasets. ML model manager 120 may be configured to review determined behavior for any discrepancies and request data generator 114 for a specialized synthetic dataset to resolve behavior discrepancies in a previously trained ML model. ML model manager 120 may be configured to continuously make synthetic dataset generation requests to train an ML model further until a set criterion for ML model behavior is met ([0046]). It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have added the vulnerability testing of Elbaz to Lee in order to make a more robust system.
As to claims 7-8, they are the method claim of claims 15-16 and are addressed similarly. Please see above for detailed mapping.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAIRE X WANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1051. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Patricia Mallari can be reached at (571) 272-4729. 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.
CLAIRE X. WANG
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1774
/CLAIRE X WANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights