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 Amendments
The preliminary amendment to claim 6 is accepted and entered.
The preliminary amendments to the Drawings and the Specification are accepted and entered.
Claims 1-8 are pending regarding this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/27/2025 is considered and attached.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites “a plurality of the objects” in line 13. However, “a plurality of objects is already recited in line 4. As such, please amend line 13 to recite “the plurality of the objects”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
9. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
In claim 1: “A learning device that generates a pre-trained model”
After a careful analysis, as disclosed above, and a careful review of the specification, the above limitation in claim 1 is interpreted as computer-implemented 112(f). Below is the corresponding structure and algorithm which are being read into the above limitations:
“a learning device” (Applicant’s specification recites that “The learning device 100 includes a first scene graph creation element 110 and a pre-trained model generation element 120.” In para. [0010]. Para. [0010] further recites that the first scene graph creation element 110 and the pre-trained model generation element 120 each include a CPU and/or processor core. See FIG. 1 #100, #110, and #120. As such, the corresponding structure for the learning device is a general-purpose processor and the corresponding algorithm of the first scene graph creation element 110 and the pre-trained model generation element 120 which can be found in para. [0016]-[0064]).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the claim purports to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, but fails to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function. As such, the claim recites a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
Claim 1 claims a learning device coupled to functional language which is being interpreted under 112(f) (see above section regarding the claim interpretation of claim 1). Furthermore, the functional language coupled to the learning device does not appear in combination with another recited element means. See MPEP 2164.08(a) which recites “when claims depend on a recited property, […] the claim covers every conceivable structure (means) for achieving the stated property (result) while the specification discloses at most only those known to the inventor”. As such, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for failing to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function.
Claims 2-8 are rejected under 112(a) due to their dependency upon rejected claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 recites “with the target body as a reference” in line 7 and “with the designated place as a reference” in lines 10-11. Claim 1 additionally recites “with the designated place as a reference” in line 9. Although it is clear that two separate references are being referenced to in claim 2, the instance of the reference in line 11 of claim 2 fails to distinguish itself from the instance of the reference as recited in line 9 of claim 1, such as “a first reference” and “a second reference”. Therefore, it is unclear whether the “reference” as recited in line 11 of claim 2 is equivalent to or distinct from the “reference” as claimed in line 9 of claim 1. Furthermore, it is unclear whether the second instance of the “reference” is meant to replace the first instance of the “reference”, or if it is a completely separate entity.
Therefore, claim 2 is rejected for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 3 is rejected due to its dependence upon rejected claim 2.
Regarding claim 4, claim 4 recites “a weight” in line 2 and “a weight” in line 3. Here, the multiple instances of a weight present confusion as to whether the “weight” as referenced in line 2 is equivalent to or distinct from the “weight” as recited in line 3. Please amend to either introduce a first weight and a second weight, or, amend the second instance of “a weight” to recite “the weight”.
Therefore, claim 4 is rejected for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 5 is rejected due to its dependence upon rejected claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 recites “a node constituting one intermediate layer to a node constituting another intermediate layer” in lines 3-4. However, “nodes constituting an intermediate layer” is already recited in claim 4. As such, it is unclear whether the nodes as recited in claim 5 are equivalent to or distinct from the nodes as recited in claim 4. Furthermore “an intermediate layer” is recited in both claim 4 and claim 5, which presents confusion as to whether the intermediate layers as recited in claim 5 are equivalent to or distinct from the intermediate layer as recited in claim 4. Therefore, claim 5 is rejected for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 recites “wherein the pre-trained model is generated, as the learning data, the plurality of scene graphs” in lines 1-3. This portion of claim 6 grammatically does not make sense. It is unclear what is being interpreted as the learning data. Furthermore, it is unclear how the plurality of scene graphs relates to the other clauses of the sentence.
Additionally, claim 6 recites “a result of whether or not the designated state of the target body is realizable in the area” in lines 4-5. However, claim 1, upon which claim 6 depends, already recites “a result of whether or not the designated state of the target body is realizable” in line 7. As such, it is unclear whether the result as claimed in claim 1 is equivalent to or distinct from the result as claimed in claim 6. A suggestion may be to either amend the recitation of the result in claim 6 to recite “the result”, or, amend claim 1 to recite “a first result” and claim 6 to recite “a second result”.
Therefore, claim 6 is rejected for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 7-8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 2-6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
The best prior art of record is Pedersen et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0099334 A1), Inoue et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0033291 A1), hereinafter Inoue, and Devaranjan et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0275918), hereinafter Devaranjan, Liu et al. (CN 114511632 A, see English translation for citations), hereinafter Liu, Gao et al. (Graph U-Nets), hereinafter Gao, Cai et al. (CN 112560731 A, see attached English translation), hereinafter Cai, and Huang et al. (CN 115002726 A, see attached English translation), hereinafter Huang. Prior art applied alone or in combination with fails to anticipate or render obvious claims 1-8.
***Please note that the learning device is being interpreted under 112(f) as a computer-implemented means-plus-function limitation, wherein the corresponding algorithm of the acquisition unit is being read into the limitation: “A learning device that generates a pre-trained model”. Applicant’s specification recites that “The learning device 100 includes a first scene graph creation element 110 and a pre-trained model generation element 120.” In para. [0010]. Para. [0010] further recites that the first scene graph creation element 110 and the pre-trained model generation element 120 each include a CPU and/or processor core. See FIG. 1 #100, #110, and #120. As such, the corresponding structure for the learning device is a general-purpose processor and the corresponding algorithm which can be found in para. [0016]-[0064]. Claiming a means for performing a specific computer-implemented function and disclosing only a general-purpose computer as its structure amounts to pure functional claiming. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d 1328 at 1333, 86 USPQ2d at 1239. In this instance, the structure corresponding to a 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation for a computer-implemented function must include the algorithm needed to transform the general purpose computer or microprocessor disclosed in the specification. See MPEP 2181(II)(B). The specific information in the specification regarding the algorithm associated with the learning device that makes this limitation allowable includes, but is not limited to, the corresponding algorithm of the first scene graph creation element 110 and the pre-trained model generation element 120 as described in para. [0016]-[0064] of applicant’s specification.
Claim 1
Regarding claim 1, Pederson teaches a learning device that generates a
Inoue further teaches using location information of the target body and a locational relationship between the target body and the designated place as learning data.
Devaranjan further teaches a pre-trained model and utilizing scene graphs as learning data for vehicle navigation.
However, neither Pedersen, nor Inoue, nor Devaranjan, nor Liu, nor Cai, nor Huang, nor the combination, teaches the entirety of the corresponding algorithm for the first scene graph creation element 110 and the pre-trained model generation element 120 as described in para. [0016]-[0064] of applicant’s specification.
Claim 2-8 includes allowable subject matter by virtue of being dependent upon claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chen et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0383751 A1) teaches pre-training a machine learning model using a training dataset including a vehicle location.
Friedman et al. (US 2022/0205794 A1) teaches using a machine learning model for scoring candidate updated pickup locations for autonomous vehicles.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to KYLA G ALLEN whose telephone number is (703)756-5315. The examiner can
normally be reached M-F 7:30am - 4:30pm 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,
John Villecco can be reached on (571) 272-7319. 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.
/Kyla Guan-Ping Tiao Allen/
Examiner, Art Unit 2661
/JOHN VILLECCO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2661
Prosecution Insights