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 .
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112
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 1-10 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.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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: “means for receiving open map data”; “means for receiving texture map data” in claim 1. The claim limitation uses generic placeholders “means for” coupled with functional Language “receiving” without reciting sufficient structure and the generic placeholders “means for” are not preceded by a structural modifier.
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.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory 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 non-statutory obviousness-type 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 LongL 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); and 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 a non-statutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 1.32(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be
used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will
determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled
out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all
requirements are auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to
http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-l.jsp. Claims 1-20, are rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-25 respectively of U.S. Patent No. 12,307,598. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent claims anticipated present claims as shown in the table 2 below for comparison.
The following table illustrates the conflicting claim pairs:
Current Application
(19/213,295)
1
2
2
3
4
5
6
6
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
16
16
17
18
19
20
Patent (12,307,598)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The following table illustrates a comparison of independent claims 1, 11 of the present application 19/213,295 against independent claims1, 14 of Patent 12,307,598:
Current Application (19/213,295)
Patent (12,307,598)
1. A system for generating a simulated scene from open map data for training a machine learning system, comprising:
a simulation computer system;
means for receiving open map data;
means for receiving texture map data; and
a scene generation software engine executed by the simulation computer system, the scene generation software engine causing the simulation computer system to:
generate a three-dimensional (3D) scene layout using the open map data and the texture map data;
capture the scene layout; and
generate machine learning training data using the captured scene layout.
11. A method for generating a simulated scene from open map data for training a machine learning system, comprising:
receiving open map data;
receiving texture map data generating at a simulation computer system a three-dimensional (3D) scene layout using the open map data and the texture map data;
capturing the scene layout; and
generating machine learning training data using the captured scene layout.
1. A system for generating a simulated scene from open map data for training a machine learning system, comprising:
a simulation computer system;
means for receiving open map data;
means for receiving texture map data; and
a scene generation software engine executed by the simulation computer system, the scene generation software engine causing the simulation computer system to:
generate a three-dimensional (3D) scene layout using the open map data and the texture map data;
capture the scene layout from a plurality of different camera view points; and
generate machine learning training data using the captured scene layout.
14. A method for generating a simulated scene from open map data for training a machine learning system, comprising:
receiving open map data;
receiving texture map data generating at a simulation computer system a three-dimensional (3D) scene layout using the open map data and the texture map data;
capturing the scene layout from a plurality of different camera view points; and
generating machine learning training data using the captured scene layout.
Regarding Claim 1 is rejected under non-statutory double patenting.
Regarding Claim 11 is substantially similar to claim 1 is rejected based on similar analyses.
Allowable Subject Matter
All current claims 1-20 could be on a condition for allowance. However, the application is rejected under a non-statutory double patenting.
Claims 1-20 can be allowed if Applicant files a terminal disclaimer overcome the Double Patenting rejection above.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
" the reference does not fully teach the particularly recited method set forth for a scene generation software engine executed by the simulation computer system, the scene generation software engine causing the simulation computer system to: generate a three-dimensional (3D) scene layout using the open map data and the texture map data; capture the scene layout; and generate machine learning training data using the
captured scene layout” recited in independent claims 1 and 11.
The dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 are allowed because they are depended on the independent/parent claims 1 and 11.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHOA VU whose telephone number is (571)272-5994. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00- 4:00.
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, Kee Tung can be reached at 571-272-7794. 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.
/KHOA VU/Examiner, Art Unit 2611
/KEE M TUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2611
