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 .
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.
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 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 12,193,634. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because patent 634’ claims fully disclose the features of the claims in the instant application.
Regarding method claim 1, system claim 18 and non-transitory computer readable medium claim 19, paten ‘634 discloses
Real-time detection of one or more objects and/or one or more structures and/or one or more patterns in a video (see claims 1, col. 28 lines 53-54), the method comprising
Receiving a sequence of frames of the video (see claim 1, col. 28 lines 56-57);
Applying a sliding window to the sequence of frames, and for each position of the sliding window, extracting one or more visual features from the frames within the sliding window, thereby generating a plurality of time images (see claim 1, col. 28 line 58-63);
Applying a trained classifier to each time image, wherein the trained classifier determines one or more detection scores that indicate likelihoods that a respective time image includes the one or more objects and/or one or more structures and/or one or more patterns (see claim 1, col. 28 lines 64-67); and
Outputting, in real-time, the detection of the one or more objects and/or one or more structures and/or one or more patterns when a detection score of the one or more detection scores is higher than a detection threshold of the trained classifier (see claim 1, col. 29 lines 1-4),
As to dependent claims 2-17 of the instant application, dependent claims 2-9 and 11-21 of patent ‘637 similarly correspond to the instant application.
Related Prior Art
Liang et al (10,861,151) a) receiving a sequence of frames of the video (note col. 8 lines 1-3, lines cite receiving video, multiple colonoscopy frames); c) applying a trained classifier to each image, wherein the trained classifier determines one or more detection scores that indicate likelihoods that the respective image includes the one or more objects and/or one or more structures and/or one or more patterns
(note fig. 11 block 1140 and 1150 and col. 9 lines 20-29, col. 14 lines 19-30 and col. 15 lines 12-22, blocks applying trained classifier to each image and determining probability score and lines cite detection of polyps with informative image labels in frame);
Angermann et al (11,017,526) Applying a sliding window to the sequence of frames, and for each position of the sliding window, extracting one or more visual features from the frames within the sliding window, thereby generating a plurality of time images (note col. 7 lines 8-15, performing scanning in real-time image with sliding window)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY M DESIRE whose telephone number is (571)272-7449. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30am-3:00pm.
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 at 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. 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.
G.D.
September 19, 2026
/GREGORY M DESIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2676
Prosecution Insights