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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
IT is noted that claims 1-19 are considered eligible subject matter. Even if the claims could be interpreted as an abstract idea, the claims contain limitations that provide a practical application, i.e. processing of synthetic aperture radar image data.
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.
Claims 7-9 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.
Claims 7 and 8 recite the limitation “the instruction” in the last line. The applicant previously claims many different instructions, so it is unclear as to which instruction the applicant is referring to.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the annotation data” in the last line. The applicant previously claims many different annotation data, so it is unclear as to which annotation data the applicant is referring to.
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 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by “Object Detection in SAR via Generative Knowledge Transfer” (Lou et al).
Regarding claim 12, Lou et al discloses an image generation method comprising: acquiring an optical image in which an object is imaged, images in an optical image domain (page 1, paragraph 5); acquiring annotation data regarding the object applied to the optical image, i.e. labels of the optical image (page 1, paragraph 5); generating a pseudo-synthetic aperture radar (SAR) image that simulates an SAR image from the optical image by conversion processing by applying transfer learning (page 1, paragraph 5, page 2, part 2, “Knowledge transfer network”); and adding the pseudo-SAR image to training data in association with annotation data (page 1, paragraph 6).
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 10, 13, 15, 16, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lou et al in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20240428567 (Annagi et al).
Regarding claim 13, Lou et al discloses all of the claimed elements as set forth above, and incorporated herein by reference. Lou et al further discloses displaying relevant data including the optical image and the pseudo-SAR image generated from the optical image in association with each other (fig. 3, associated images displayed vertically).
Lou et al does not disclose expressly outputting a screen that displays the relevant data.
Annagi et al discloses outputting a screen that displays the relevant data on aa display (page 10, paragraph 75).
Lou and Annagi et al are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, i.e. training data processing.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to display data on a display.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been a more user-friendly system by allowing users to view the results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the method of Lou et al with display of Annagi et al to obtain the invention as specified in claim 13.
Regarding claim 15, Lou et al discloses displaying the pseudo-SAR image corresponding to a range designated in the optical image (fig. 3, same range). Annagi et al discloses outputting a screen for display (page 10, paragraph 75).
Claim 1 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 12. Thus, the arguments analogous to that presented above for claim 12 are equally applicable to claim a. Claim 1 distinguishes from claim 12 only in that claim 1 is an image generation apparatus claim, comprising: at least one memory configured to store instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to: carry out the method of claim 12. Annagi et al teaches further this feature, i.e. an image generation apparatus (fig. 10), comprising: at least one memory configured to store instructions (fig. 10, item 1006, 1014); and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions (fig. 10 10, item 1004).
Claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 12. Thus, the arguments analogous to that presented above for claim 12 are equally applicable to claim 16. Claim 16 distinguishes from claim 12 only in that claim 16 is a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium that records a program for causing a computer to execute the method of claim 1. Annagi et al teaches further this feature, i.e. no-transitory computer readable recording mediums of fig. 10, item 1007, 1014, page 12, paragraph 90.
Claims 2 and 17 rejected for the same reasons as claim 13. Thus, the arguments analogous to that presented above for claim 13 are equally applicable to claims 2 and 17. Claims 2 and 17 distinguish from claim 13 only in that they have different dependencies, both of which have been previously rejected. Therefore, prior art applies.
Claims 4 and 19 rejected for the same reasons as claim 15. Thus, the arguments analogous to that presented above for claim 15 are equally applicable to claims 4 and 19. Claims 4 and 19 distinguish from claim 15 only in that they have different dependencies, both of which have been previously rejected. Therefore, prior art applies.
Regarding claim 7, Annagi et al discloses receiving an instruction, user input/ feedback (page 6, paragraph 49, page 11, paragraph 82) to add the training image to training data by utilizing the synthetic image when feedback is positive (page 10, paragraph 77); and add the training image to the training data in association with the annotation data in a case where the instruction is received (page 10, paragraph 77). Lou et al discloses the training image is a pseudo-SAR image (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 10, Lou et al discloses the conversion processing is processing of generating the pseudo-SAR image from the optical image by using a generative adversarial network (page 2, paragraph 3, fig. 1).
Claims 3, 14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lou et al in view of Annagi et al, as applied to claims 2, 13 and 17 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication NO. 20250022256 (Welsch et al).
Regarding claim 3, Lou et al (as modified by Annagi et al) discloses all of the claimed elements as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference. Lou et al discloses the range of an object of the annotation in the pseudo-SAR image is displayed (fig. 4, green boxes), and Annagi et al discloses the output on a screen for display (page 10, paragraph 75).
Lou et al (as modified by Annagi et al) does not disclose expressly enlarging the range of the object/ region of interest
Welsch et al discloses enlarging the region of interest (page 6, paragraph 49)
Lou et al (as modified by Annagi et al) and Welsch et al are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, i.e. processing regions of interest.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to enlarge the region of interest.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been provide a more robust system by allowing for more detailed processing of the region of interest.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the apparatus of Lou et al (as modified by Annagi et al) with enlarging regions of interest of Welsch et al to obtain the invention as specified in claim 3.
Claims 14 and 18 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 3. Thus, the arguments analogous to that presented above for claim 3 are equally applicable to claims 14 and 18. Claims 14 and 18 distinguish from claim 3 only in that they have different dependencies, both of which have been previously rejected. Therefore, prior art applies.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lou et al in view of Annagi et al, as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication NO. 20190333198 (Wang et al).
Regarding claim 8, Lou et al (as modified by Annagi et al) discloses all of the claimed elements as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference. Lou et al further discloses the image generated is a pseudo-SAR image (fig. 3), generated from the optical image (fig. 3)
Lou et al (as modified by Annagi et al)does not disclose expressly receiving an instruction to generate the generated image again; and generate the generated image again by the conversion processing in a case where the instruction is received.
Wang et al discloses receiving an instruction to generate the generated image again, user input (page 15, paragraph 168); and generate the generated image again by the conversion processing, transformation processing, in a case where the instruction is received (page 15, paragraph 168)
Lou et al (as modified by Annagi et al) & Wang et al are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, i.e. image generation.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to allow the user to regenerate the image.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide a more robust apparatus by allowing user feedback.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the apparatus of Lou et al (as modified by Annagi et al) with the image generation of Wang et al to obtain the invention as specified in claim 8.
Claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lou et al in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No 20250022137 (Rajapakse et al).
Claim 1 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 12. Thus, the arguments analogous to that presented above for claim 12 are equally applicable to claim a. Claim 1 distinguishes from claim 12 only in that claim 1 is an image generation apparatus claim, comprising: at least one memory configured to store instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to: carry out the method of claim 12. Rajapakse et al teaches further this feature, i.e. an image generation apparatus (fig. 7), comprising: at least one memory configured to store instructions (fig. 7, item 704); and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions (fig. 1, item 710).
Lou et al & Rajapakse et al are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, i.e. synthetic image generation.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use an apparatus to carry out the method.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide a more robust method by having a means in which the method can be accurately and quickly carried out.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the method of Lou et al with the apparatus of Rajapakse et al to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, Lou et al discloses acquiring an SAR image in which an object is imaged (Page 4, paragraph 1, SENI set); acquire annotation data regarding the object applied to the SAR image, the label data that is used to train the network of page 4, paragraph 1); and add the SAR image to the training data in association with the annotation data (page 4, paragraph 1). Lou et al does not disclose expressly that the object in the additionally acquired image corresponds to the object in the corresponding image that generates the synthetic image. Rajapakse et al discloses the object in the additionally acquired image (fig. 1, original CT image of step 106) corresponds to the object, the subject (fig. 1, item 102) in the corresponding image (fig. 1, item 102, MR image) that generates synthetic image (fig. 1, item 104, synthetic CT image).
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lou et al in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication NO. 20240280670 (Regev).
Claim 1 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 12. Thus, the arguments analogous to that presented above for claim 12 are equally applicable to claim a. Claim 1 distinguishes from claim 12 only in that claim 1 is an apparatus claim, comprising: at least one memory configured to store instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to: carry out the method of claim 12. Regev teaches further this feature, i.e. an apparatus (page 2, paragraph 11), comprising: at least one memory configured to store instructions, a memory circuit (page 2, paragraph 11); and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions (a processor (page 2, paragraph 11).
Lou et al & Regev are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, i.e. machine learning of image data.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use an apparatus to carry out the method.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide a more robust method by having a means in which the method can be accurately and quickly carried out.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the method of Lou et al with the apparatus of Regev to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, Lou et al discloses acquiring the annotation data in a case where the object is a ship (fig. 3). Lou et al does not disclose expressly using automatic identification system (AIS) information. Regev discloses using AIS information for ship location training (page 3, paragraph 30)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 6 are 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.
Claim 5 contains allowable subject matter regarding generating a pseudo-optical image that simulates the claimed optical image, from the claimed pseudo-SAR image (generated from the optical image) by conversion processing
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kathleen Yuan Dulaney whose telephone number is (571)272-2902. 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, Emily Terrell can be reached at 5712703717. 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.
/KATHLEEN Y DULANEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2666 7/13/2026
Prosecution Insights