DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status.
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. Claims 1-20 filed on 01/07/2025 are pending and being examined. Claims 1, 11, and 19 are independent form.
Priority
3. This application is a continuation of US patent application 17/418,562, filed on Jun 25, 2021, now US Patent 12,229,220.
Nonstatutory Double Patenting
4. 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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
5. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,229,220. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the respective claims between the instant application and U.S. Patent No.12,229,220 describe the same invention. The examiner shall not detail the minor difference and the mapping between each of the instant application claims and its corresponding patented claims in U.S. Patent No.12,229,220. However, should applicant request such a detailed breakdown, the examiner will be happy to oblige in subsequent Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. 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 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.
7. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
8. Claims 1-2, 9-12, and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al (“Cross-Media Image-Text Retrieval Combined with Global Similarity and Local Similarity”, IEEE, Oct. 2019, hereinafter “Li”).
Regarding claim 1, Li discloses a data similarity determination method (the cross-media two-level network” (and the method) for exploring better semantic matching between images and text; see fig.1 and Abstract), comprising:
acquiring first data of a first object, wherein the first data comprises first sub-data of a first modality or a second modality (acquiring N instances
i
n
,
t
n
n
=
1
N
, each of which is an image-text {
i
n
,
t
n
}
pair obtained from the two modalities. See Sec. III, para.2. Also see the upper/global part in fig.1, i.e., the “image” and “Sentence” pair of an instance);
mapping the first sub-data as a first semantic representation in a semantic comparison space, wherein the semantic comparison space enables a similarity between a semantic representation obtained by mapping data of the first modality to the semantic comparison space and a semantic representation obtained by mapping data of the second modality to the semantic comparison space to be computed (the Char-CNN generates the “sentence feature” from the sentence while the CNN generates the “image feature” from the image; wherein both the sentence feature and the image feature are mapped/transformed into 1024-dimensional “common subspaces” to compute cross-media similarity between images and text. See the “common subspace” of fig.1 and the last paragraph of Sec. III-A);
acquiring second data of a second object, wherein the second data comprises second sub-data of the first modality or the second modality; mapping the second sub-data as a second semantic representation in the semantic comparison space (wherein the input data includes the positive sample pairs, such as
{
i
+
n
,
t
+
n
}
,
n
=
1
,
…
,
N
, and the negative sample pairs, such as
{
i
+
n
,
t
-
n
}
a
n
d
{
i
-
n
,
t
+
n
}
,
n
=
1
,
…
,
N
. See Eq (9) and Sec. III-C, para.1—par.2, on the left column, on page 149; wherein the features extracted from each sample pair are mapped in the common subspace for calculating their similarities. It should be noticed that: where
{
i
+
n
,
t
+
n
}
can be interpreted to represent “a second object” while
{
i
+
n
,
t
-
n
}
can be interpreted to represent “a first object”); and
calculating a similarity between the first data and the second data based on at least the first semantic representation and the second semantic representation (calculating the similarities
d
g
i
+
n
,
g
t
-
n
a
n
d
d
g
i
+
n
,
g
t
+
n
; see Eq(9). Also see the sentence right up the Eq(11): “Finally, we designed a cross-media synthesis similarity between image im and text tk. We calculate the similarity in the 1024-dimensional common subspace”).
Regarding claim 2, Li discloses the data similarity determination method according to claim 1, wherein the first modality is a text, and the second modality is an image (see the “image” and “sentence” pair in fig.1).
Regarding claims 9-12, 16-18, each of them is an inherent variation of claim 1, thus it is interpreted and rejected for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, Li discloses the training method according to claim 11, further comprising: performing data preprocessing on original data before acquiring the first training data of the training object (see sec.III-A, para.1: “each input image is adjusted to 256x256...”).
Regarding claim 15, Li discloses the training method according to claim 11, wherein the similarity between the first training semantic representation and the second training semantic representation of the training object is maximized by minimizing the loss function (see loss functions Lglobal and Llocal defined by Eq(9) and Eq(10)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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 of this title, 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.
10. Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Takata et al (US 20130311502, hereinafter “Takata”).
Regarding claim 19 Li discloses the claimed invention. The mere difference is Li does not explicitly disclose the object in an image is “a patient” in “medical image data” as recited in claim 19. However, Takata discloses apparatus which includes: an image similarity degree determining unit which calculates an image similarity degree between a first interpretation target image data item obtained by an interpretation target obtaining unit and a second interpretation target image data item registered in a case database; a text similarity degree determining unit which calculates the text similarity degree between a first image interpretation information item obtained by the interpretation target obtaining unit and the second image interpretation information item registered in the case database; and a different-text case searching unit which preferentially search out one or more case data items included in the case data items stored in the case database in a descending order of image similarity degrees determined by the image similarity degree determining unit and an ascending order of text similarity degrees determined by the text similarity degree determining unit. Specifically, Takata discloses wherein the images include medical images and the text data includes the image interpretation made by a doctor. See fig.2, para. 76-77. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the teachings of Li and the teachings of Takata and apply the method of Li to medical image search as taught by Takata. Suggestion or motivation for doing so would have been to search out such a similar case having different diagnostic details in images by key words. See Taketa, para.5—para.7. Therefore, claim 19 is unpatentable over Li in view of Taketa.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 is an inherent variation of claim 19, thus it is interpreted and rejected for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 19.
Subject Matter Not Found in Prior Art
11. The subject matter of claims 3-8 and 13, in combination with the base claim and intervening claims, were not found in the prior art. Allowability is not indicated currently due to the double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yang et al, “Visual and Semantic Knowledge Transfer for Large Scale Semi-Supervised Object Detection”, 2018.
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUIPING LI whose telephone number is (571)270-3376. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am--5:30pm.
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, HENOK SHIFERAW can be reached on (571)272-4637. 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; 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.
/RUIPING LI/Primary Examiner, Ph.D., Art Unit 2676
Prosecution Insights