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 Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 17 should depend from claim 16 and not from claim 9 as “wherein enhancing by the first operation” as recited in claim 17 is performed in claim 16 and not in claim 9. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1 is 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. The term “a same resolution as that of the input image” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “for decoded features of a same resolution as that of the input image” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As seen in the claim 1 at lines 2 the encoding step recites “a plurality of encoded features of different resolutions based on an input image”. The recital of “for decoded features of a same resolution as that of the input image ‘ at lines 5-6 renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear as to what is the scope of “a same resolution as that of the input image is ?. Is it 256x256, 512X512, 1028X1028 ???? Or what ???. Amendments/clarification are required. Claims 2-21 depends directly or indirectly on claim 1, therefore they are rejected.
Claim 1 is 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. The term “a same resolution as the input image” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “predicting an output image of a same resolution as the input image” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As seen in the claim 1 at lines 2 the encoding step recites “a plurality of encoded features of different resolutions based on an input image”. The recital of “predicting an output image of a same resolution as the input image” at lines 7 renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear as to what is the scope of “a same resolution as the input image is ?. Is it 256x256, 512X512, 1028X1028 ???? Or what ???. Amendments/clarification are required. Claims 2-21 depends directly or indirectly on claim 1, therefore they are rejected.
Claim 8 is 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 8 recites in line 3 “the segmentation sub-module comprises???” Which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear as to comprises what???. Amendments/clarification are required. Claims 9, 17 depending from claim 8 are also rejected.
Claim 22 is 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. The term “a same resolution as that of the input image” in claim 22 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “for decoded features of a same resolution as that of the input image” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As seen in the claim 22 at lines 5-6 the encoding step recites “an encoding unit configured to generate, based on an input image and an encoder, a plurality of encoded features of different resolutions;”. The recital of “for decoded features of a same resolution as that of the input image ‘ at lines 8-9 renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear as to what is the scope of “a same resolution as that of the input image is ?. Is it 256x256, 512X512, 1028X1028 ???? Or what ???. Amendments/clarification are required. Amendments/clarification are required.
Claim 22 is 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. The term “a same resolution as the input image” in claim 22 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “predicting an output image of a same resolution as the input image” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As seen in the claim 22 at lines 5-6 the encoding step recites “an encoding unit configured to generate, based on an input image and an encoder, a plurality of encoded features of different resolutions;”. The recital of “a prediction unit configured to predict, based on the decoded features and a head module, an output image of a same resolution as the input image” at lines 10-11 renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear as to what is the scope of “a same resolution as the input image is ?. Is it 256x256, 512X512, 1028X1028 ???? Or what ???. Amendments/clarification are required.
Claim 23 is 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. The term “a same resolution as that of the input image” in claim 23 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “for decoded features of a same resolution as that of the input image” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As seen in the claim 23 at lines 3-4 the encoding step recites “an encoding unit configured to generate, based on an input image and an encoder, a plurality of encoded features of different resolutions;”. The recital of “for decoded features of a same resolution as that of the input image ‘ at lines 6-7 renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear as to what is the scope of “a same resolution as that of the input image is ?. Is it 256x256, 512X512, 1028X1028 ???? Or what ???. Amendments/clarification are required.
Claim 23 is 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. The term “a same resolution as the input image” in claim 23 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “predicting an output image of a same resolution as the input image” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As seen in the claim 23 at lines 3-4 the encoding step recites “an encoding unit configured to generate, based on an input image and an encoder, a plurality of encoded features of different resolutions;”. The recital of “a prediction unit configured to predict, based on the decoded features and a head module, an output image of a same resolution as the input image” at lines 8-9 renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear as to what is the scope of “a same resolution as the input image is ?. Is it 256x256, 512X512, 1028X1028 ???? Or what ???. Amendments/clarification are required.
Claims 10 and 12 recites the limitation " the at least one sub-modules” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 11-12 depends from claim 10, therefore they are rejected
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 1-9, 13, 19 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LI, Ya et al., (CN116486073A) hereafter LI in view of Guo et al. (US20210390323) hereafter Guo.
1. Regarding claim 1 as best understood by the examiner, LI discloses an image processing method (English translation pages 2-3, 6 and 10, Fig 1 in original CN document) the method comprising:
generating, in an encoding step, a plurality of encoded features of different resolutions based on an input image that is input into an encoder (page 3 step S1.1: discloses “The encoder receives the original input image, and sequentially outputs the feature images with different resolutions of the stages 1 to 4 by the encoder from the shallow layer to the deep layer, that is, the encoder outputs (generates) the feature images with different resolutions of the stages 1 to 4 respectively (i.e generates encoded features with different resolutions) , namely, the feature images with different resolutions of the stages 1 to 4 are processed by the encoder from the shallow layer to the deep layer. stage 1 feature diagram x1, stage 2 feature diagramx2, stage 3 feature diagram x3 and stage 4 feature diagram x4 meeting the claim limitations);
decoding, in a decoding step that based on the plurality of encoded features using a decoder of a plurality of cascaded decoding modules, for decoded features of a same resolution as that of the input image (page 6 step 2 discloses decoding, in a decoding step that based on the plurality of encoded features using a decoder of a plurality of cascaded decoding modules, for decoded features of a same resolution as that of the input image meeting the claim limitations). LI discloses outputting/predicting the decoded feature map with abundant semantic information at page 6 stpe 2. LI however is silent and fails to disclose and predicting an output image of a same resolution as the input image, based on the decoded features and a head module.
GUO shows and discloses predicting an output image of a same resolution as the input image, based on the decoded features and a head module (fig 2 and para 0047 shows and discloses predicting an output image 50 (fig 2 shows the size of the image 50 and the resolution is implied, para 0047 discloses output 50 corresponding to original document image 30) based on the decode features from the decoder 220 (see paras 0034, 0047 which discloses the decoder) and the second model 240 (i.e a head module) meeting the claim limitations of predicting an output image of a same resolution as the input image, based on the decoded features and a head module, examiner notes that the specifics of a head module are not required by the current claim). Before the effective filing date of the invention was made, LUI and GUO are combinable because they are from the same filed of endeavor and are analogous art of image processing. The suggestion/motivation would be an accurate and fast (fewer computational resources) method/system at para 0054. Therefore, it would be obvious and within one of ordinary skill in the art to have recognized the advantages of GUO in the method/system of LI to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
2. Regarding claim 2, LI and GUO disclose the method according to claim 1. LI discloses on pages 2-3 “a lightweight semantic segmentation method for processing the input image and produces the output image (i.e a segmented output image) meeting the limitations of wherein the output image is
3. Regarding claim 3, LI and GUO disclose the method according to claim 1. LI discloses the encoder generating encoded features of different resolutions in page 3. GUO also discloses encoder wherein the encoder is a multi-layer neural network and further comprising generating encoded features of gradually decreasing resolutions, wherein the multi-layer neural network is (fig 2 step 210 and para 0033 discloses wherein the encoder is a multi-layer neural network and further comprising generating encoded features of gradually decreasing resolutions, wherein the multi-layer neural network is MLP (i.e multi layer process or MLP, examiner notes that the specifics of MLP are not required by the current claim, examiner also notes that due to the recital of “or” only one is required to be met). LI and GUO in combination would therefore meet the limitations of claim 3.
4. Regarding claim 4, LI and GUO disclose the method according to claim 1. LI discloses on page 6 step 2 the network decoder is composed of the series of feature fusion modules in cascade meeting the limitations of plurality of cascaded decoding modules and GUO shows in fig 2 element 220 (paras 0033-0035) wherein each of the plurality of decoding modules of the decoder 220 respectively generates a decoded feature of a resolution consistent to an encoded feature generated in a corresponding encoding step (para 0033-0035 discloses the decoded features map corresponding to the encoded features map from the encoder 210 and as seen in fig 2 meeting the above claim limitations). Li and GUO in combination would therefore meet the limitations of claim 4.
5. Regarding claim 5, LI and GUO disclose the method according to claim 1. GUO discloses further wherein each of the decoding modules has at least one input feature (fig 2 elements 220, paras 0033-0035 and 0049 wherein each of the decoding modules has at least one input feature), wherein the at least one input feature is or from an output feature of an encoding step (fig 2 shows wherein the at least one feature in the decoding step 220 is from the output feature from the encoding 201 (see correspond arrows going from the encoders to corresponding decoders ), each of the decoding modules comprises at least one upsampling operation and at least one convolutional operation and generates an output feature (paras 0049-0051 discloses the decoders comprising an upsampling operation by model 240 and also performing the convolution operation by the second model 240 and producing the output feature 50 meeting the claim limitations, examiner notes that due to the recital of at least one upsampling and at least one convolution operation only one is required to be met).
6. Regarding claim 6, LI and GUO disclose the method according to claim 5.GUO discloses further wherein the input feature comprises at least one of or an encoded feature output from the encoding step, wherein the input feature further comprises an encoded feature with high-layer semantic, an encoded feature with low-layer detail, and a corresponding encoded feature (fig 2 and paras 0003, 0036 shows and discloses wherein the input feature comprises at least one of an encoded feature output from the encoding step, wherein the input feature further comprises an encoded feature with high-layer semantic, an encoded feature with low-layer detail, and a corresponding encoded feature).
7. Regarding claim 7, LI and GUO disclose the method according to claim 5. GUO discloses further wherein, in the decoding step, the decoding module comprises at least one sub-module that performs an upsampling operation and a convolutional operation to decode for features for different targets (paras 0029, 0049-0051 discloses the decoders comprising an upsampling operation by model 240 (i.e at least one sub-module) and also performing the convolution operation by the second model 240 and producing the output feature 50 for different objects as discloses in para 0029 (i.e for different targets) meeting the claim limitations).
8. Regarding claim 8 as best understood by the examiner see the explanation of claim 7.
9. Regarding claim 9 as best understood by the examiner see the corresponding explanation of claim 7.
10. Regarding claim 13, LI and GUO disclose the method according to claim 5. GUO discloses further wherein generating the output feature includes using different decoded features by integrated operations based on addition or (fig 2 shows the wherein generating the output feature 50 includes using different decoded features by integrated operations 221-227 based on addition (model 240 getting combined features input (i.e addition of the integrated operations from 224, 225 and 227) or .
11. Regarding claim 19, LI and GUO disclose the method according to claim 1. GUO discloses further wherein the head module comprises a segmentation head module that performs at least one convolutional operation and generates a segmentation image from a final encoded feature (fig 2, paras 0027, 0029 shows and discloses the segmentation head module 240 that perform the convolution operation (i.e segmentation neural network 240) producing the final image 50 (i.e segmentation image) from the final encoded feature 218 meeting the above claim limitations).
12. Claim 22 is s corresponding image processing apparatus claim of claim 1. See the corresponding explanation of claim 1. LI discloses the invention belongs to the field of “computer vision” on page 2. Examiner notes that: at least one memory storing instructions; and at least one processor that, upon execution of the stored instructions, is configured to operate as: encoding unit to generate, decoding unit to decode and prediction unit and performing corresponding steps is implied.
13. Claim 23 is s corresponding non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim of claim 1. See the corresponding explanation of claim 1. LI discloses the invention belongs to the field of “computer vision” on page 2. Examiner notes that: storing computer program for causing a computer to function as: an encoding unit to encode, a decoding unit and a prediction unit configured to predict, is implied.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LI in view of Guo and in further view of NPL1 (Encoder-Decoder with Cascaded CRFs for Semantic Segmentation, Jian Ji et al., IEEE, 2021, Pages 1926-1938) hereafter NPL1.
14. Regarding claim 14, LI and GUO disclose the method according to claim 7. LI and GUO both disclose the decoding module. LI and GUO however are silent and fail to disclose, wherein in the decoding module a skip-connection sub-module located before the at least one sub-module is included.
NPL1 disclose wherein in the decoding module a skip-connection sub-module located before the at least one sub-module is included (page 1928 shows fig 1 shows skip connections between the encoder and the decoder (i.e the skip connection sub module) located prior or before the at least one sub-module (page 1930 section C the at least one sub-module is included (i.e the upsampling sub-module in the decoding side) in the decoding stage meeting the above claim limitations). Before the effective filing date of the invention was made, NPL1, LI and GUO are combinable because they are from the same filed of endeavor and are analogous art of image processing. The suggestion/motivation would be an improved and accurate method/system on page 1927 section C and page 1928. Therefore, it would be obvious and within one of ordinary skill in the art to have recognized the advantages of NPL1 to obtain the invention as specified in claim 14.
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited figures, and paragraphs in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested for the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Examiner has also cited references in PTO892 but not relied on, which are relevant and pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure, and may also be reading (anticipatory/obvious) on the claims and claimed limitations. Applicant is advised to consider the references in preparing the response/amendments in-order to expedite the prosecution.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAYESH PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1227. The examiner can normally be reached IFW Mon-FRI.
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, Andrew Bee can be reached at 571-270-5183. 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.
/JAYESH A PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2677
/JAYESH PATEL/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2677
Prosecution Insights