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 and 10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 or 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,328,498 in view of Shukla et al. (US 2023/0353701 A1) hereinafter referenced as Shukla.
Regarding claims 1 and 10, claims 1 or 12 of ‘498 teaches all the limitations of instant claim 1 except that the boundaries are non-polygonal. However, the examiner maintains that it was well known in the art to provide this, as taught by Shukla.
In a similar field of endeavor, Shukla discloses based on receiving, from the user of the electronic device, an input that selects at least one non-polygonal boundary among the plurality of boundary suggestions (Although the figures show the boundary to be rectangular, [0069] explicitly states that the boundary includes any shape including circle and oval.), crop at least one area of the preview image along the selected at least one non-polygonal boundary (fig. 2D).
Claims 1 or 12 of ‘498 teaches suggesting a plurality of boundary suggestions respectively for a plurality of objects but is silent on the shapes of the boundary suggestions. Shukla teaches suggesting a plurality of boundary suggestions respectively for a plurality of objects wherein the boundary suggestions include non-polygonal boundaries. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the undisclosed shapes of the boundary with the non-polygonal shapes to achieve the predictable result of more precise cropping.
Claims 2 and 11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 or 12 and 4 or 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,328,498 in view of Shukla.
Regarding claims 2 and 11, claims 1 or 12 of ‘498 and Shukla, the combination, discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claims 1 and 10), in addition, claims 4 or 15 of ‘498 teach all the limitations of instant claims 2 and 11.
Claims 3 and 12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,328,498 in view of Shukla.
Regarding claims 3 and 12, claim 1 of ‘498 and Shukla, the combination, discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claims 1 and 10), in addition, claim 6 of ‘498 teach all the limitations of instant claims 3 and 12.
Claims 4 and 13 ar rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,328,498 in view of Shukla.
Regarding claims 4 and 13, claim 1 of ‘498 and Shukla, the combination, discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claims 1 and 10), in addition, claim 9 of ‘498 teach all the limitations of instant claims 4 and 13.
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,328,498 in view of Shukla.
Regarding claims 5 and 14, claim 1 of ‘498 and Shukla, the combination, discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claims 1 and 10), in addition, claim 10 of ‘498 teach all the limitations of instant claims 5 and 14.
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 12 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,328,498 in view of Shukla.
Regarding claims 6 and 15, claim 12 of ‘498 and Shukla, the combination, discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claims 1 and 10), in addition, claim 13 of ‘498 teach all the limitations of instant claims 6 and 15.
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 12 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,328,498 in view of Shukla.
Regarding claims 7 and 16, claim 12 of ‘498 and Shukla, the combination, discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claims 6 and 15), in addition, claim 14 of ‘498 teach all the limitations of instant claims 7 and 16.
Claims 8 and 17 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 12 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,328,498 in view of Shukla.
Regarding claims 8 and 17, claims 12 and 14 of ‘498 and Shukla, the combination, discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claims 6 and 15), in addition, claim 12 of ‘498 teach all the limitations of instant claims 8 and 17.
Claim 9 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 12 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,328,498 in view of Shukla further in view of Official Notice.
Regarding claims 9 and 18, claims 12 and 14 of ‘498 and Shukla, the combination, discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claims 8 and 17), however, the combination fails to explicitly disclose the AI model for determining relevance comprises a Neuro-symbolic model. However, the examiner takes official notice of the fact that it was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to provide this.
The combination teaches using an AI model to determine a relevance score between objects in an image. Neuro-symbolic AI is a well-known AI model used for object classification. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to substitute the AI model of the combination with a neuro-symbolic model to achieve the predictable result of accurately identifying relevant objects.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 10-12, 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shukla et al. (US 2023/0353701 A1) hereinafter referenced as Shukla.
Regarding claim 1, it discloses a method for implementing the apparatus of claim 10. Thus, claim 1 is an inherent variation of claim 10 and is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as stated below (see claim 10).
Regarding claim 2, it discloses a method for implementing the apparatus of claim 11. Thus, claim 2 is an inherent variation of claim 11 and is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as stated below (see claim 11).
Regarding claim 3, it discloses a method for implementing the apparatus of claim 12. Thus, claim 3 is an inherent variation of claim 12 and is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as stated below (see claim 12).
Regarding claim 5, it discloses a method for implementing the apparatus of claim 14. Thus, claim 5 is an inherent variation of claim 14 and is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as stated below (see claim 14).
Regarding claim 6, it discloses a method for implementing the apparatus of claim 15. Thus, claim 6 is an inherent variation of claim 15 and is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as stated below (see claim 15).
Regarding claim 10, Shukla discloses
An electronic device (1200; fig. 12; [0163]) comprising:
at least one processor (1202; fig. 12); and
memory (1204; fig. 12) storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to:
identify a plurality of objects on a preview image displayed by a display of the electronic device (fig. 2B; [0047]);
generate a plurality of boundary suggestions (202, 212, 214; fig. 2B) respectively for the plurality of objects by analyzing the preview image;
provide, to a user of the electronic device, the plurality of boundary suggestions generated respectively for the plurality of objects (fig. 2C); and
based on receiving, from the user of the electronic device, an input that selects at least one non-polygonal boundary among the plurality of boundary suggestions (Although the figures show the boundary to be rectangular, [0069] explicitly states that the boundary includes any shape including circle and oval.), crop at least one area of the preview image along the selected at least one non-polygonal boundary (fig. 2D),
wherein the at least one area comprises at least one object of the plurality of objects (fig. 2D; The area includes the man 206 and bird 208.).
Regarding claim 11, Shukla discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 10), in addition, Shukla discloses, wherein the plurality of objects have one of a polygonal and a non-polygonal shape ([0069]; The boundaries for the objects may include any shape including polygonal (square, rectangle) and non-polygonal (circle, oval).).
Regarding claim 12, Shukla discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 10), in addition, Shukla discloses, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, further cause the electronic device to visualize the plurality of boundary suggestions by using a border-line construction model (fig. 2B; [0069]).
Regarding claim 14, Shukla discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 10), in addition, Shukla discloses, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, further cause the electronic device to store the cropped at least one area of the preview image in a storage of the electronic device (The cropped image may include the image without the selected object as shown in figs. 2E, 2F. The cropped image 230 is stored in a gallery in fig. 2F; [0056]-[0057]).
Regarding claim 15, Shukla discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 10), in addition, Shukla discloses, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, further cause the electronic device to generate the plurality of boundary suggestions by using at least one first type Artificial Intelligence (AI) based model (Neural Network 300; fig. 3).
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.
Claim(s) 4, 7, 13, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shukla in view of Official Notice.
Regarding claim 4, it discloses a method for implementing the apparatus of claim 13. Thus, claim 4 is an inherent variation of claim 13 and is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as stated below (see claim 13).
Regarding claim 7, it discloses a method for implementing the apparatus of claim 16. Thus, claim 7 is an inherent variation of claim 16 and is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as stated below (see claim 16).
Regarding claim 13, Shukla discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 10), however, Shukla fails to explicitly disclose eliminating redundant or irrelevant image frames. However, the examiner takes official notice of the fact that it was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to provide this.
Shukla teaches providing a live view image stream to a display. Eliminating redundant or irrelevant image frames from an image stream is well-known. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to improve Shukla by applying the technique of eliminating redundant or irrelevant image frames from the image stream to achieve the predictable result of reducing the computational load of the system.
Regarding claim 16, Shukla discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 15), in addition, Shukla discloses, wherein the at least one first type AI based model comprises an enhanced [R-CNN] for outline boundary determination ([0064]), and
wherein the enhanced [R-CNN} is integrated with an instance segmentation [Convolutional] Neural Network ([CNN]) ([0064]).
However, Shukla fails to explicitly disclose the enhanced RPN is integrated with a DNN. However, the examiner takes official notice of the fact that it was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to provide this.
Shukla teaches an R-CNN. RPNs integrated with DNNs are well-known. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to substitute the R-CNN with an RPN integrated with a DNN to achieve the predictable result of quickly suggesting a boundary with high accuracy.
Claim(s) 8, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shukla in view of Barkan et al. (US 2022/0269895 A1) hereinafter referenced as Barkan.
Regarding claim 8, it discloses a method for implementing the apparatus of claim 17. Thus, claim 8 is an inherent variation of claim 17 and is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as stated below (see claim 17).
Regarding claim 17, Shukla, discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 15), however, Shukla, fails to explicitly disclose determining a relevance score about the two objects. However, the examiner maintains that it was well known in the art to provide this, as taught by Barkan.
In a similar field of endeavor, Barkan discloses wherein the at least one object of the plurality of objects comprises two objects ([0021]), and
wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, further cause the electronic device to determine a relevance score about the two objects, based on at least one context of the two objects, by using at least one second type AI based model ([0021]; [0028]; Heatmap generator 114 comprises a CNN.).
Shukla teaches identifying objects in an image. Barkan teaches identifying objects in an image and determining a relevance score between the objects based on the context. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve Shukla by applying the technique of Barkan to achieve the predictable result of grouping relevant objects as described in Barkan ([0044]).
Claim(s) 9, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shukla in view of Barkan et al. (US 2022/0269895 A1) hereinafter referenced as Barkan further in view of Official Notice.
Regarding claim 9, it discloses a method for implementing the apparatus of claim 18. Thus, claim 9 is an inherent variation of claim 18 and is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as stated below (see claim 18).
Regarding claim 18, Shukla and Barkan, the combination, discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 17), however, the combination fails to explicitly disclose the AI model for determining relevance comprises a Neuro-symbolic model. However, the examiner takes official notice of the fact that it was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to provide this.
The combination teaches using an AI model to determine a relevance score between objects in an image. Neuro-symbolic AI is a well-known AI model used for object classification. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to substitute the AI model of the combination with a neuro-symbolic model to achieve the predictable result of accurately identifying relevant objects.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hirano et al. (US 2019/0066304 A1) teaches identifying non-polygonal object boundaries in a live view image (fig. 4B).
Yu et al. (US 2014/0184858 A1) teaches identifying non-polygonal objects in an image and removing them (fig. 4).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL M BERARDESCA whose telephone number is (571)270-3579. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 10-8, Fri 10-2.
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, Sinh Tran can be reached at (571)272-7564. 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.
PAUL M. BERARDESCA
Examiner
Art Unit 2637
/PAUL M BERARDESCA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2637 8/22/2026
Prosecution Insights