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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: The following recitations should be rewritten as “equation of the plane” or the like:
“wherein the correcting value generator calculates an equation of plane”
“wherein the correcting value generator compares the equation of plane”
Claim 10 recites “generating the correcting value gincludes” which should read ““generating the correcting value includes” or the like.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 includes the limitations of, “a correcting value generator that calculates a correcting value for the distance image using the luminance image and the distance image,” “wherein the correcting value generator calculates an equation of plane that approximates the plane of the plane area,” and “wherein the correcting value generator compares the equation of plane with a measured distance value of the distance image in the plane area, thereby calculating the correcting value for correcting a measured distance value of the distance image in the target object area” which analyzed under Step 2A Prong One, includes limitations which clearly involve mathematical calculations which thus fall under the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Further, claim 1 includes the limitations of, “wherein the correcting value generator provisionally classifies, using the luminance image and the distance image, an image area of the space into a target object area configured by an image of the target object and a plane area configured by an image of a plane included in the space,” which analyzed under Step 2A Prong One, includes limitations of formulating classifications given specific data which can reasonably be performed using pen and paper/with the human mind and thus falls within the, “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 includes the additional limitation of, “a distance image corrector that corrects the distance image using the correcting value,” which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, includes limitations of correcting/adjusting a value which just merely applies the use of the judicial exception using generic computer components (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Claim 1 further includes the limitations of, “a light emitter that irradiates light to the target object,” “an optical receiver that receives light reflected from the target object,” “a luminance image generator that generates, using an intensity of the light received by the optical receiver, a luminance image of a space which includes the target object,” and “a distance image generator that generates a distance image of the space using an intensity of the light received by the optical receiver” which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, includes a plurality of limitations describing various components of the measuring apparatus which simply link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). The components do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the light emitter and optical receiver are well-understood and routinely-used components of distance measuring apparatuses, and the luminance image generator and distance image generator and well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions. See, e.g., Saitou et al. (US 2022/0011436 A1), which teaches a light emitter 4, a light receiver 5, a range image generator 8, and a luminance image generator 9 in paras. [0046-0050] and as shown in fig. 1
Dependent claims 2 and 4-9 are likewise rejected, and dependent claim 3 fails to cure the deficiencies.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is directed towards a computer program product which can be reasonably interpreted as being representative of software per se which is not one of the statutory categories.
Specifically, claim 10 recites “A distance measuring program that causes a computer to perform a process measuring a distance to a target object…” which relates entirely to a computer program product, rather than a method or some other statutory category.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a light emitter that irradiates light to the target object” which is indefinite, because it is unclear if the recitation is referring to a method step of irradiating a target object, an intent to use the light emitter to irradiate a target object, or that the light emitter is merely configured to irradiate a target object. The following subsequent recitations are likewise rejected:
“an optical receiver that receives light reflected from the target object”
“a luminance image generator that generates…a luminance image of a space”
“a distance image generator that generates a distance image of the space”
“a correcting value generator that calculates a correcting value for the distance image”
“a distance image corrector that corrects the distance image”
“wherein the correcting value generator provisionally classifies…an image area of the space”
“wherein the correcting value generator calculates an equation of plane”
“wherein the correcting value generator compares the equation of plane”
Similar recitations in claims 2 and 4-9 are likewise rejected, and claim 3 fails to cure the deficiency.
Claim 10 recites “a distance measuring program” and then subsequently recites only method steps and limitations of said method steps, which is indefinite because it is unclear at what point infringement would occur, i.e., whether the existence of the program alone would cause infringement (buying or selling the program), or whether the program must actually be fully executed in order for infringement to occur. Furthermore, given that the claimed distance measuring program does not clearly fall into one of the four patentable statutory categories (see related rejection under §101 detailed above), it is unclear whether said limitations serve to properly narrow or otherwise limit the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The cited references made of record in the contemporaneously filed PTO-892 form and not relied upon in the instant office action are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, and may have one or more of the elements in Applicant’s disclosure and at least claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADY W FRAZIER whose telephone number is (469)295-9263. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm CT.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at 571-272-6909. 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.
/BRADY W FRAZIER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647