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 .
Notice re prior art available under both pre-AIA and 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 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.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meidar, et al. (WO 2020/129066 A1) in view of Scholz (US 2010/0082628 A1).
With regard to claim 1, Meidar, et al. (hereinafter “Meidar”) discloses a method of object recognition, i.e., product/item recognition (See for example, Figs. 1-3), comprising:
obtaining an
With regard to claim2. The method according to claim 1, wherein obtaining the aggregation result of the plurality of objects comprises: obtaining the aggregation result by classifying the plurality of objects based on the similarity (See for example, paragraph 0015 of Meidar “each classifier is trained to recognize a small portion of products sharing similar characteristics”).
With regard to claim 3, the method according to claim 1, wherein obtaining the aggregation result of the plurality of objects comprises: determining a similarity between an object to be aggregated and a group of objects in the at least one group of objects comprised in the aggregation result ; and in response to determining that the similarity is greater than a predetermined threshold, adding the object to be aggregated to the group of objects (See for example, paragraphs 0031-0033 of Scholz).
With regard to claim 4, the method according to claim 1, wherein determining the target entity comprises: determining at least one of text information or image information of the at least one group of objects; obtaining entity information of a plurality of candidate entities, i.e., relevant classifiers, the entity information indicating at least one of a recognition duration or a recognition accuracy (emphasis added by the examiner) of each of the plurality of candidate entities; and determining the target entity from the plurality of candidate entities based on the at least one of the text information or the image information and the entity information (See for example, 0034,0037-0038, and 0071 of Meidar).
With regard to claim 5, the method according to claim 4, wherein determining the target entity from the plurality of candidate entities comprises: determining at least one of a text feature representation or an image feature representation of the group of objects based on the at least one of the text information or the image information; determining entity feature representations of the plurality of candidate entities based on the entity information; and applying the at least one of the text feature representation or the image feature representation and the entity feature representations to a trained entity selection model to determine the target entity (See for example, paragraphs 0034-0035; 0037; and 0080 Meidar).
With regard to claim 6, the method according to claim 5, wherein the entity selection model is trained by using a reference text feature representation, a reference image feature representation, and a reference entity feature representation as input and using a recognition duration (this feature is considered inherent within the term “rapidly”) and a recognition accuracy of a reference entity as output (Aww for example, paragraphs 0037-0038; and 0080 of Meidar).
With regard to claim 7, the method according to claim 1, wherein determining the target entity comprises: obtaining entity allocation information indicating at least a correspondence between a group of objects and an entity that performs object recognition on the group of objects; and determining, based on the entity allocation information, an entity corresponding to a group identifier of the at least one group of objects as the target entity (See for example, paragraph 0037, 0075, and 0080 of Meidar).
With regard to claim 8, the method according to claim 1, further comprising: updating entity allocation information based on the target entity and the at least one group of objects, the entity allocation information indicating at least a correspondence between a group of objects and an entity that performs object recognition on the group of objects (See for example, paragraphs 0061 and 0072 of Meidar).
Claim 9 is rejected the same as claim 1 except claim 9 is an apparatus claim. Thus, argument similar to that presented above for claim 1 is applicable to claim 9. With respect to the at least one processing unit; and at least one memory coupled to the at least one processing unit and storing instructions executable by the at least one processing unit, the instructions, when executed by the at least one processing unit, applicant’s attention is invited to paragraphs 0054-0055 and 0080 of Meidar).
Claims 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 are rejected the same as claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 respectively, except claims 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 apparatus claims. Thus, arguments similar to those presented above for claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 are respectively applicable to claims 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16.
Claim 17 is rejected the same as claim 1. Thus, argument similar to that presented above for claim 1 is applicable to claim 17. Claim 17 distinguishes from claim 1 only in that it recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program. Fortunately, Meidar (See for example, paragraphs 0054-0055 and 0080) teaches this feature.
Claims 18, 19, and 20 are rejected the same as claims 2, 3, and 4 respectively. Thus, arguments similar to those presented above for claims 2, 3, and 4 are respectively applicable to claims 18, 19, and 20.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent Number: 7,966,291 (See for example, col. 1, line 54 – col. 2, line 3) and 11, 360,971 (See for example, the Abstract); and US Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0386068 (See for example, Fig. 1 and the associated text).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL G MARIAM whose telephone number is (571)272-7394. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 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, Mathew Bella can be reached at (571)272-7778. 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.
/DANIEL G MARIAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2675
Prosecution Insights