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 .
Response to Arguments
In the response filed 10 August 2026 the applicant states on page 7 that the applicant shall consider submitting a terminal disclaimer upon allowance of the claims, as amended. Thus, since a terminal disclaimer has not been filed, the double patenting rejection is maintained.
Further, the applicant’s amendment to the claims has removed the allowable subject matter from the independent claims and moved them to dependent claims. As such, the dependent having the allowable subject matter claims are indicating as being allowable if a terminal disclaimer is filed, however, the broadening of the claim scope of the independent claims caused further consideration of the claims, resulting in a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Cho et al. (US 2012/0033728).
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 1-3, 5-7 and 21-32 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,223,417. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present claims are merely broader versions of the patented claims, and thus are anticipated by the patented claims.
Below is a comparison between present claim 1 vs. patented claim 2:
Present claim 1
Patented claim 2
An apparatus comprising:
processing circuitry to:
An apparatus comprising: processor circuitry coupled to a memory, the processor circuitry to:
initialize geometric shape-based training of a filter group based on one or more values obtained from a bin, wherein the bin is identified based on the filter group and selected based on a geometric shape of the object; and initiate geometric shape-specific training of a neural network based on the trained filter group.
wherein the processor circuitry is further to:
receive input images having geometric shapes associated with an object for which a neural network is trained; and
detect and select input images having geometric shapes associated with the object for which the neural network is to be trained,
obtain filters from weights generated based on the geometric shapes,
generate weights providing filters based on the geometric shapes;
wherein the filters are sorted in filter groups based on common geometric shapes,
sort the filters in filter groups based on common geometric shapes of the geographic shapes;
wherein the filter groups are stored in bins based on the common geometric shapes.
wherein the bin includes the filter group associated with the geometric shape of the object; and
store the filter groups in bins based on the common geometric shapes,
wherein one or more bins correspond to one or more geometric shapes.
As shown above, besides wording, the main difference between the claims is that present claim 1 is merely broader than patented claim 2. Therefore, the present claim 1 is anticipated by patented claim 2.
Present claims 2-3, 5-7 and 21-32 are similarly rejected as above over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,223,417.
Claims 1-3, 5-7 and 21-32 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,710,028. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present claims are merely broader versions of the patented claims, and thus are anticipated by the patented claims.
Below is a comparison between present claim 1 vs. patented claim 1:
Present claim 1
Patented claim 1
An apparatus comprising:
processing circuitry to:
An apparatus comprising: one or more processors coupled to memory, the one or more processors to:
receive input images having geometric shapes associated with an object for which a neural network is trained; and
detect and select input images having a plurality of geometric shapes associated with an object for which a neural network is to be trained;
obtaining filters from weights generated based on the geometric shapes,
generate weights providing filters based on the plurality of geometric shapes;
wherein the filters are sorted in filter groups based on common geometric shapes,
sort the filters in filter groups based on common geometric shapes of the plurality of geographic shapes,
wherein the common geometric shapes are identified based on analysis of lower-layer filters of the filters using one or more visualization inspection tools,
wherein the filter groups are stored in bins based on the common geometric shapes.
wherein two or more of the filters shared by a common geometric shape of the common geometric shapes are grouped into a single filter group of the filter groups; and
store the filter groups in bins based on the common geometric shapes such that a bin is selected based on a corresponding geometric shape of the object, the bin having a filter group associated with the geometric shape.
As shown above, besides wording, the main difference between the claims is that present claim 1 is merely broader than patented claim 1. Therefore, the present claim 1 is anticipated by patented claim 1.
Present claims 2-3, 5-7 and 21-32 are similarly rejected as above over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,710,028.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 5-7, 21, 24-27 and 30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (US 2017/0103309) in view of Prokhorov et al. (US 2018/0074493) and further in view of Cho et al. (US 2012/0033728).
Regarding claim 1, Chang et al. disclose an apparatus (Figure 10) comprising:
processing circuitry (Figure 10, 1410) to:
receive input images having geometric features associated with an object for which a neural network is trained (Figure 1, “sample input mat 100” and paragraphs [0022] and [0027], the input maps are input images depicting handwritten characters, where vertical lines, diagonal lines, are geometric features of which the neural network is trained.); and
obtain filters from weights generated based on the geometric shapes, wherein the filters are sorted in filter groups based on common geometric features (Figure 2-3 and paragraphs [0026]-[0027], weight values of the filters are learned, and the filter banks are the filters that are sorted into groups based on vertical line, diagonal line, etc.).
Chang et al. fail to teach wherein the geometric features make up specifically geometric shapes.
Prokhorov et al. disclose wherein a neural network is trained to detect geometric features, lines/curves, etc., so as to detect simple shapes, i.e. geometric shapes (Paragraph [0093].).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to “one of ordinary skill” in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the concept of identifying shapes as taught by Prokhorov et al. in the type of neural network taught by Chang et al. The motivation to combine would have been in order to develop an AI system that is able to provide multiple types of detections efficiently, with high accuracy, and improve the applicability into diverse systems.
Chang et al. and Prokhorov et al. fail to explicitly teach wherein the filter groups are stored in bins based on the common geometric shapes.
Cho et al. disclose generally wherein filter groups are stored in bins based on their common attributes (Figure 5 shows that filter groups 210, 220, 230 are stored in their groups, paragraph [0011] mentions a filter bank for storing the filters in groups, i.e. bins.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to “one of ordinary skill” in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the storing teachings of Cho et al. such that the filter groups 309 taught by Chang et al. in the combination of Chang et al. and Prokhorov et al., that comprises the common geometric shapes, would be stored in “bins” as bin or binning, as is known in the art, means storing associated data values together as a group.
Hence the prior art includes each element claimed although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of the actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In combination, the combination of Chang et al. and Prokhorov et al. performs the same function as it does separately of sorting in filter groups based on common geometric shapes, and Cho et al. performs the same function as it does separately of storing filter groups, in “bins.”
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performed the same function as it does separately. The results of the combination would have been predictable and resulted in the filter groups being stored in bins based on the common geometric shapes.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 5, Chang et al., Prokhorov et al. and Cho et al. disclose the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further to detect layers of the neural network, wherein the layers include higher layers and lower layers (Chang et al.: Figure 1 shows the layers of the neural network, which has “higher” and “lower” layers.), and further to detect and identify existing convolution filters associated with the lower-level layers (Chang et al.: Paragraphs [0026]-[0027] and Figure 2 show that the filter bank is ”associated with” all of the layer and thus they are detected and identified and associated with the lower-layers.).
Regarding claim 6, Chang et al., Prokhorov et al. and Cho et al. disclose the apparatus of claim 5, wherein the processing circuitry is further to separate the existing convolution filters of the neural network into pairs of new convolution filters, wherein a new convolution filter is half in size of an existing convolution filter, wherein the neural network is further trained based on the pairs of new convolution filters (Chang et al.: Figure 1, 512x512 is separated into pair of 256x256, which is half the size. The training is based on the pairs, see paragraph [0027].).
Regarding claim 7, Chang et al., Prokhorov et al. and Cho et al. disclose the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is coupled to a memory, the processing circuitry comprising one or more of graphics preprocess circuitry or application processing circuitry (Chang et al.: Figure 10, processor 1410 comprises CPU, GPU and ALU, and is coupled to memory 1420.).
Regarding claim 21, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
Regarding claim 24, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 5.
Regarding claim 25, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 6.
Regarding claim 26, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 7.
Regarding claim 27, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
Regarding claim 30, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 5.
Regarding claim 31, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 6.
Regarding claim 32, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 7.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3, 22-23 and 28-29 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the Double Patenting rejections, set forth in this Office action, or by filing a Terminal Disclaimer.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The primary reason for indicating allowable subject matter is the inclusion of the limitations reciting “wherein one or more bins of the bins correspond to one or more respective geometric shapes of the common geometric shapes” which, in combination with the other recited features, is not taught and/or suggested either singularly or in combination within the prior art.
In the closest prior art:
Chang et al. (US 2017/0103309) disclose of receiving input images having shapes/features (Figure 1 and paragraphs [0022] and [0027], the shapes are vertical lines, diagonal lines, etc. for handwritten characters.), and obtaining filters based on the shapes/features (Figures 2-3 and paragraphs [0026]-[0027].). Chang et al. fail to teach of the specifically claimed geometric shapes and also fails to teach of bins. See page 8 of the Non-Final Rejection dated 16 September 2025. See also pages 7-8 of the response filed 16 December 2025.
Prokhorov et al. (US 2018/0074493) disclose generally of detecting geometric features, lines/curves, etc. so as to detect simple shapes, i.e. geometric shapes (Paragraph [0093].). Prokhorov et al. fail to teach of storing in bins.
Cho et al. (US 2012/0033728) disclose generally wherein filter groups are stored in bins based on their common attributes (Figure 5 shows that filter groups 210, 220, 230 are stored in their groups, paragraph [0011] mentions a filter bank for storing the filters in groups, i.e. bins.).
Valdiserri et al. (US 2007/0177784) disclose generally of “bin” or “binning” which, as known in the art, refers to storing associated data as a collection or group of data (Paragraph [0014]), however, fails to apply this teaching to the specifically claimed application. See pages 7-8 of the response filed 16 March 2026 where the applicant explains the fundamental difference between Valdiserri et al. and the claimed invention.
Thus, even in combination, the closest prior art fails to teach and/or suggest the specifically claimed features as highlighted above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN G SHERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2941. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00am - 4pm ET.
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, AMR AWAD can be reached at (571)272-7764. 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.
/STEPHEN G SHERMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621
26 August 2026
Prosecution Insights