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 .
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 1-22 of application 19/055,929 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 12229807. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-22 of application 19/055,929 are the same as claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 12229807 except for word variations. For example, see table below:
Application 19/055,929
Patent No. 12229807
1. A system for automatically classifying and processing objects present in images or videos, comprising: a memory; and a processor in communication with the memory, the processor: capturing an image or a video frame; classifying one or more objects present in the image or the video frame; adding the classified objects to an inventory; generating a set of item codes corresponding to the classified objects; and transmitting the inventory and the set of item codes corresponding to the classified objects to a server in communication with the processor, the server processing the set of item codes to generate a completed inventory with associated pricing information.
1. A system for automatically classifying and processing objects present in images or videos, comprising: a memory; and a processor in communication with the memory, the processor: capturing an image or a video frame; classifying one or more objects present in the image or the video frame; generating a similarity score for each of the classified objects by comparing each of the classified objects to the stored images of objects; adding selected ones of the classified objects having similarity scores that exceed a pre-defined threshold to an inventory; generating a set of item codes corresponding to the selected ones of the classified objects; and transmitting the inventory and the set of item codes corresponding to the classified objects to a server in communication with the processor, the server processing the set of item codes to generate a completed inventory with associated pricing information.
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)(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.
Claims 1-3, 9-11, 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by FORSS (Pub. No.: US 2017/0270582A1).
With respect to claim 1:
FORSS discloses a system for automatically classifying and processing objects present in images or videos, comprising: a memory (fig. 2, item 214); and a processor in communication with the memory (fig. 2, item 212), the processor: capturing an image or a video frame (abstract and parag. 0013); classifying one or more objects present in the image or the video frame (abstract and parag. 0013); adding the classified objects to an inventory (parag. 0040); generating a set of item codes corresponding to the classified objects (parag. 0041); and transmitting the inventory and the set of item codes corresponding to the classified objects to a server in communication with the processor (parag. 0013, 0015), the server processing the set of item codes to generate a completed inventory with associated pricing information (parag. 0015).
With respect to claims 2, 10, 18:
FORSS discloses the system of Claim 1, wherein the video frame is taken from a live camera feed of a mobile device (para. 0017).
With respect to claims 3, 11, 19:
FORSS discloses the system of Claim 2, wherein the processor extracts still image or video frames from the live camera feed, resizes each of the still image or video frames based on a predetermined height and width, and classifies one or more objects present in the resized still image or video frames (parag. 0053).
With respect to claim 9:
FORSS discloses a method for automatically classifying and processing an object present in an image or video comprising the steps of capturing an image or a video frame (abstract and parag. 0013); classifying one or more objects present in the image or the video frame using a processor (abstract and parag. 0013); adding the classified objects to an inventory (parag. 0040); generating a set of item codes corresponding to the classified objects (parag. 0041); and transmitting the inventory and the set of item codes corresponding to the classified objects to a server in communication with the processor (parag. 0013, 0015), the server processing the set of item codes to generate a completed inventory with associated pricing information (parag. 0015).
With respect to claim 17:
FORSS discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon for automatically classifying and processing an object present in an image or video which, when executed by a processor, causes the processor to carry out the steps of capturing an image or a video frame (abstract and parag. 0013); classifying one or more objects present in the image or the video frame (parag. 0013); adding the classified objects to an inventory (parag. 0040); generating a set of item codes corresponding to the classified objects (parag. 0041); and transmitting the inventory and the set of item codes corresponding to the classified objects to a server in communication with the processor (parag. 0013, 0015), the server processing the set of item codes to generate a completed inventory with associated pricing information (parag. 0015).
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.
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 4, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FORSS (Pub. No.: US 2017/0270582A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Patel (Pub. No.: US 2018/0089593A1).
With respect to claims 4, 12:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated; FORSS does not explicitly disclose a convolutional neural network. Patel discloses a system comprising convolutional neural network (parag. 0088). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Patel into the teaching of FORSS in order to enable a reproducible processing of machine learning models and scalable deployment on a distributed network.
Claims 5-8, 13-16, 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FORSS (Pub. No.: US 2017/0270582A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim (Pub. No.: US 2001/0011234A1).
With respect to claims 5, 13, 20:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated; FORSS does not explicitly disclose wherein the server is in communication with a pricing information database and the server determines a predetermined price of the classified object based on a user input and pricing information obtained from the pricing information database.
Kim discloses wherein the server is in communication with a pricing information database and the server determines a predetermined price of the classified object based on a user input and pricing information obtained from the pricing information database (parag. 0017, 0022 and 0042).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of FORSS into the teaching of Kim in order to provide system and method for transacting with graded prices by users based on a network.
With respect to claims 6, 14:
FORSS discloses the system of Claim 1, wherein the server transmits the processed inventory to a third-party system (parag. 0023).
With respect to claims 7, 15, 21:
Patel discloses the system of Claim 1, wherein the processor utilizes a natural language processing algorithm to process audio data associated with the object present in the captured video frame (parag. 0022).
With respect to claims 8, 16, 22:
FORSS discloses the system of Claim 2, wherein the processor utilizes a tracking algorithm to track one or more objects moving through the live camera feed or appearing in and out of the live camera feed (parag. 0030).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AJIBOLA A AKINYEMI whose telephone number is (571)270-1846. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-5:00pm, EST.
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, YUWEN PAN can be reached on (571)-272-7855. 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.
/AJIBOLA A AKINYEMI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2649
Prosecution Insights