DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. Applicant elects to prosecute the claims of Group 1, (claims 1-7, 9, and 10) without traverse.
3. Claims 1-10 are pending and presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The representative claim 1 recites:
A processing device comprising:
a first difference calculation unit configured to calculate a difference between a plurality of reference point groups corresponding to three-dimensional position information of an object to be measured;
a dynamic point group extraction unit configured to extract a dynamic point group, the dynamic point group being a point group involving a change from the reference point groups on the basis of a calculation result in the first difference calculation unit;
a second difference calculation unit configured to calculate a difference between an inspection point group acquired after the reference point group and corresponding to three-dimensional position information of the object to be measured and the reference point group, and generate a differential point group;
a point group removal unit configured to remove a point group corresponding to the dynamic point group from the differential point group generated in the second difference calculation unit; and
an abnormal part identification unit configured to identify an abnormal part of the object to be measured on the basis of a differential point group from which the point group corresponding to the dynamic point group is removed.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claims are considered to be in a statutory category (process).
Under Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitation that fall into/recite abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter that, when recited as such in a claim limitation, covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) and/or mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
Next, under Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations in the claim are only: a first difference calculation unit; a dynamic point group extraction unit; a second difference calculation unit; a point group removal unit, and an abnormal part identification unit. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., can be considered as a computer structures performing a generic computer function of processing information) such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Finally, under Step 2B, we consider whether the additional elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as noted above, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer/computing components performing a generic computer functions of calculating, removing, and identifying). Further, the additional elements are conventional in the art, as evidenced by the art of record (see, Chihara et al. US 2019/0392225 (hereinafter, Chihara),([0039], Figs. 1-2), and Sarkisian et al. US 11341627 (hereinafter, Sarkisian), (Fig. 2). Therefore, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-7, add further details of the identified abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Independent claim 8, recites the limitations “a position information acquisition device configured to acquire three-dimensional position information of an object to be measured; and a processing device configured to identify an abnormal part of the object to be measured by using three-dimensional position information acquired in the position information acquisition device, wherein the processing device comprises: a first difference calculation unit configured to calculate a difference between a plurality of reference point groups corresponding to three-dimensional position information of the object to be measured; a dynamic point group extraction unit configured to extract a dynamic point group, the dynamic point group being a point group involving a change from the reference point groups on the basis of a calculation result in the first difference calculation unit; a second difference calculation unit configured to calculate a difference between an inspection point group acquired after the reference point group and corresponding to three-dimensional position information of the object to be measured and the reference point group, and generate a differential point group; a point group removal unit configured to remove a point group corresponding to the dynamic point group from the differential point group generated in the second difference calculation unit; and an abnormal part identification unit configured to identify an abnormal part of the object to be measured on the basis of a differential point group from which the point group corresponding to the dynamic point group is removed.”
Under Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitation that fall into/recite abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter that, when recited as such in a claim limitation, covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) and/or mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
Next, under Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations in the claim are only: a processing device,… a first difference calculation unit; a dynamic point group extraction unit; a second difference calculation unit; a point group removal unit, and an abnormal part identification unit. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., can be considered as a computer structures performing a generic computer function of processing information) such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
The claim limitation “a position information acquisition device configured to acquire three-dimensional position information of an object to be measured”, is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., gathering data using an acquisition device) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic device.
Finally, under Step 2B, we consider whether the additional elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 8 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as noted above, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as gathering data and a generic computer/computing components performing generic computer functions of calculating, removing, and identifying). Further, the additional elements are conventional in the art, as evidenced by the art of record (see, Chihara,([0009], Figs. 1-2), and Sarkisian, (Fig. 1). Therefore, claim 8 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claims 9 and 10, the claims are rejected with the same rationale as in claim 1 as explained above.
Claim Objection
6. Claims 1-10 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 1 and 8-10 recites “identify an abnormal part of the object to be measured on the basis of a differential point group from which the point group…” should read “identify an abnormal part of the object to be measured on the basis of [[a]] the differential point group from which the point group…” for clarity purpose. 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.
7. Claims 1-8 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) Claims 1-6 and 8 limitation use the terms “a first difference calculation unit; a dynamic point group extraction unit; a second difference calculation unit; a point group removal unit, an abnormal part identification unit, and grouping unit”, and an abnormal part identification unit” that are generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the terms “a first difference calculation unit; a dynamic point group extraction unit; a second difference calculation unit; a point group removal unit, an abnormal part identification unit, and grouping unit” or the generic placeholder are 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 terms “a first difference calculation unit; a dynamic point group extraction unit; a second difference calculation unit; a point group removal unit, an abnormal part identification unit, and grouping unit” or the generic placeholder are not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the terms “a first difference calculation unit; a dynamic point group extraction unit; a second difference calculation unit; a point group removal unit, an abnormal part identification unit, and grouping unit” 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 terms “a first difference calculation unit; a dynamic point group extraction unit; a second difference calculation unit; a point group removal unit, an abnormal part identification unit, and grouping unit” 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 terms “a first difference calculation unit; a dynamic point group extraction unit; a second difference calculation unit; a point group removal unit, and an abnormal part identification unit” 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 terms “a first difference calculation unit; a dynamic point group extraction unit; a second difference calculation unit; a point group removal unit, and an abnormal part identification unit” 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.
Examiner’s Notes
8. Claims 1-10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, and claim objections, set forth in this Office action.
9. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chihara (US 2019/0392225) discloses calculating the difference between a current three-dimensional point cloud with a past normal three-dimensional point cloud, and determining an abnormal part based on the difference. Klager et al. (US 20190164269) discloses a digital images obtained from two successively captured individual images are compared with each other, and the information which is identical on both images is eliminated, so as to obtain a difference image. Shima et al. (JP 2017133838) discloses extracting continuous point data of a three-dimensional point group data from a specific part set by the three-dimensional point group unit. The prior art of record does not teach or make obvious the claim invention in claims 1, 8, 9, and 10 “a point group removal unit configured to remove a point group corresponding to the dynamic point group from the differential point group generated in the second difference calculation unit; and an abnormal part identification unit configured to identify an abnormal part of the object to be measured on the basis of a differential point group from which the point group corresponding to the dynamic point group is removed” in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the Applicant.
Claim 8, previously withdrawn from consideration as a result of a restriction requirement, requires all the limitations of an allowable claim. Pursuant to the procedures set forth in MPEP § 821.04(a), the restriction requirement among inventions I and II, as set forth in the Office action mailed on April 21, 2026, is hereby withdrawn and claim 8 is hereby rejoined and fully examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104. Specifically, Claim 8 (inventions II), directed to “a point group removal unit configured to remove a point group corresponding to the dynamic point group from the differential point group generated in the second difference calculation unit; and an abnormal part identification unit configured to identify an abnormal part of the object to be measured on the basis of a differential point group from which the point group corresponding to the dynamic point group is removed”, is no longer withdrawn from consideration because the claim(s) require all the limitations of an allowable claim (see, claims 1, 9, and 10).
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EYOB HAGOS whose telephone number is (571)272-3508. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30-5:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Shelby Turner can be reached on 571-272-6334. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Eyob Hagos/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights