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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/02/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 2 recites “position of the object” which Examiner suggests amending to “a position of the object”. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8, 11, and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,223,714. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
With regards to claim 1, it is met by claim 1 of U.S. Patent 12,223,714.
With regards to claim 2, it is met by claim 2 of U.S. Patent 12,223,714.
With regards to claim 3, it is met by claim 5 of U.S. Patent 12,223,714.
With regards to claim 4, it is met by claim 6 of U.S. Patent 12,223,714.
With regards to claim 5, it is met by claim 3 of U.S. Patent 12,223,714.
With regards to claim 6, it is met by claim 7 of U.S. Patent 12,223,714.
With regards to claim 7, it is met by claim 4 of U.S. Patent 12,223,714.
With regards to claim 8, it is met by claim 8 of U.S. Patent 12,223,714.
With regards to claim 9, it is met by claim 11 of U.S. Patent 12,223,714.
With regards to claim 10, it is met by claim 12 of U.S. Patent 12,223,714.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the non-statutory double patenting rejection, set forth in this Office action.
With regards to claims 1 and 10, Cavigelli et al. (Computationally Efficient Target Classification in Multispectral Image Data with Deep Neural Networks) discloses the concept of classifying the object included in the image by applying a classification model trained with a machine learning algorithm to the image data, however, there is no mention of the image data being data of a multiplexed image in which a plurality of wavelength information are multiplexed in one pixel, nor is there any mention that the classification model is trained to output a classification result specifically without reconstructing individual images in the plurality of wavelength information from the image data. Ando et al. (US 2016/0138975) discloses the concept of acquiring a multispectral image where the image data is data of a multiplexed image in which a plurality of wavelength information are multiplexed in one pixel from multiple reconstructed images of the plurality of wavelength information. However, there is no mention of classifying the object using a classification model or where the classification model is trained to output a classification result without reconstructing individual images in the plurality of wavelength information from the image data. Thus, while different prior arts disclose parts of the claim, none of the prior arts disclose or have reasonable motivation to combine to disclose all of the limitations of the claim as a whole.
Claims 2-9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the non-statutory double patenting rejection, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With regards to claims 2-9, they are dependent on claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Applicants are directed to consider additional pertinent prior art included on the Notice of References Cited (PTOL 892) attached herewith.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAROL W CHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5766. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-3:30 M-F.
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, Sumati Lefkowitz can be reached on (571) 272-3638. 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.
/CAROL W CHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2672
Prosecution Insights