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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is a non-final First Office Action.
This action is in response to communications filed on 03/97/2023.
Claims 1-4 are pending and have been considered.
Claims 1-3 are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter, a judicial exception, an abstract idea, without significantly more.
Claims 1, 3, 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2019138817 A MATSUMOTO (“MAT”) in view of JP 2018152719 A Sato et al (“SAT”)
Claims 2 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2019138817 A MATSUMOTO (“MAT”) in view of JP 2018152719 A Sato et al (“SAT”) in further view of US 20030170552 A1 Miyashita (“MIY”)
Priority
The application claims priority to the Japanese Application JP2020-162038
Filed 09/28/2020. It is a 371 of PCT App # 18/025,042, PCT/JP2021/034570 with a filing date of 09/21/2021. Foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/27/2023, 11/26/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
Notations, Abbreviations and Conventions used.
The number in the parenthesis, following next to a claim number, when used, is the number of the parent claim.
The following abbreviations are used:
BRI = Broadest Reasonable Interpretation
POSITA = Person of Ordinary Skill in The Art
101 - 35 USC § 101
102 or 103 = 35 USC § 102 or 335 USC § 103
(S1)/(S2A1)/(S2A2) (S2B) = Steps 1, 2AProng , 2AProng2, and 2B of the multi-step eligibility analysis in the Alice/Mayo framework
WURC = Well Understood, Routine, Conventional
{ } text from the reference
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.
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 limitations are: ‘unit configured to’ for example in in the form “an acquisition unit configured to”, “reading unit configured to” , “calculation processing unit configured to”, “imaging condition optimization unit” in the independent claim 1. The 112(f) interpretation applies to dependent claims as well, and thus it applied to all claims, 1-3.
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 4 reciting the words “step of” is NOT interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “step”
(B) the “step” or the generic placeholder is NOT modified by functional language
(C) the term “step” IS modified by sufficient acts for performing the claimed function.
The claim elements following the term “steps of” in claim 4 are considered to be acts.
An additional reason in support of this interpretation is the MPEP guidance that “ On the other hand, the term ‘step’ alone and the phrase ‘steps of’ tend to show that Section 112, Para. 6 does not govern that limitation." MPEP2181 A
Thus, claim 4 is given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) 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.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under BRI but rather seeks to invoke U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim limitation(s) to force them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 directed to an ineligible judicial exception.
Claims are analyzed under the Alice/Mayo framework to determine whether the claims are directed to an ineligible judicial exception. Recitation of judicial exceptions are highlighted in bold font. Paraphrased language, shown in italics, is used to simplify reference. Claims with similar limitations, although not verbatim identical, that share the same rationale under Alice/Mayo steps Step 1 (S1) and Steps 2 Prongs A1, A2 and B (S2A1, S2A2, S2B) are grouped. The analysis is performed on a representative claim of each group. An additional analysis is performed if any claims in the group includes additional limitations.
Claims 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, a judicial exception (abstract idea, mental process and mathematical concept) without significantly more.
(S1) Prima facie, claim 4 is directed to a statutory category of invention: process (directed to a method).
INDEPENDENT CLAIMS
Regarding claims 4
(S2A1)
Claim 4 recites recite an abstract idea, shown in bold below:
[A] an acquisition step of acquiring from a 3-dimensional camera a distance image including the workpiece disposed in a field of view of the 3-dimensional camera;
[B] a reading step of reading a CAD model of the workpiece;
[C] a calculation processing step of performing matching between distance images captured by the 3-dimensional camera under a plurality of generated imaging conditions and the CAD model, and calculating degrees of match between the captured distance images and the CAD model; and
[D] an imaging condition optimization step of setting in the 3-dimensional camera an imaging condition under which the calculated degree of match becomes equal to or greater than a predetermined value set in advance.
According to the MPEP 2106.04 II. B guidance when multiple limitations reciting abstract ideas these should be combined for analysis as a single abstract idea. In broadest reasonable interpretation and in view of the specification the combination of abstract ideas in the bolded limitations claim recites a process aimed at: “calculating a degree of match between a model and images captured under different conditions ”.
This is a combination that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of limitations expressing observation, evaluation, judgement and decision-making. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from being practically performed mentally or manually by a human. These are Mental Processes – Concepts Performed in the Human Mind (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. The combination also at least involves a mathematical concepts (calculating) in the mental process.
Accordingly, claim 4 recites an abstract idea.
(S2A2)
The identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements in the claims only amount to Mere Instructions to Apply the judicial Exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)), an Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), or to a general link to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h).
The additional claim elements also recite: [A], [D]. [A] is a generic data gathering step. [D] merely sets the instrument (camera) to a configuration that was determined in step [C]. Nothing specific is recited about the setting, which is interpreted as simply data outputting – outputting the output with the specific index of the selected configuration. When considered individually, each amounts to nothing more than “Insignificant Extra-Solution (Pre-Solution and/or Post-Solution) Activity”, i.e. activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claims. Specifically, the claim elements are considered either pre-solution activity because they are mere gathering or pre-processing data/information in conjunction with the abstract idea, or post-solution activity because they are mere outputting or post-processing results from executing the abstract idea (see MPEP §2106.05(d); which the courts have identified did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional elements, taken individually or in combination, fail to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application when evaluated using the considerations in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h) because these do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, nor do they effect an improvement to any technology or technical field. Therefore, the claim remains directed to a judicial exception.
(S2B) Claim 4 does not include additional elements, which individually or in combination amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As analyzed in step S2A2 the additional elements recite Mere Instructions to Apply the judicial Exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)), and the Insignificant Extra (Pre-Solution and/or Post-Solution) Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), which for situations substantially similar to those here, these additional elements, including data gathering, data manipulation, and data transmission, data outputting recited at high level of generality were found by the courts to be Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll)).
When considered as a whole, with additional elements in an ordered combination, the additional elements in the claim only amount to instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer and Insignificant Extra Activities. Additional elements elaborate on the identified abstract idea but do not practically or significantly alter how the identified abstract idea would be performed. Moreover, as noted above, there is nothing about the computing environment or the additional steps that is significant or meaningful to the underlying judicial exception because the identified abstract idea “calculating a degree of match between a model and images captured under different conditions ” could have been reasonably performed when provided with the relevant data and/or information. There is no inventive concept beyond the judicial exception, and thus the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Therefore, it is concluded that claim 4 is ineligible.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
i. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
ii. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
iii. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
iv. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims that share substantially similar limitations (even though not verbatim) are grouped and analyzed together; the analysis is done on the claim with most comprehensive limitations. The parenthesis following a claim number indicates the parent claim.
Independent claim1 recites a system with components: C1 an imager acquires 3D (depth) images, under different conditions, C2, reader gets a 3D model, C3, calculator, calculates a match between images and model and C4, selector, sets imager to conditions those of a match larger than a predetermined value. Claim 4 recites the steps performed by these units
Dependent claims recite selector selects based on best match and respectively conditions include exposure time, amount of light, a block matching size, or a threshold value for a block matching score
Claims 1, 3, 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2019138817 A MATSUMOTO (“MAT”) in view of JP 2018152719 A Sato et al (“SAT”)
Fig 1 from MAT is used in several limitations of the claim and is provided here for reference.
PNG
media_image1.png
900
1423
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig 1.
Regarding claim 4 – in the method claim the steps correspond to the steps performed by the units in claim 1.
Regarding Claim(s) 1, 4 MAT discloses:
an acquisition unit configured to acquire from a 3-dimensional camera a distance image including the workpiece disposed in a field of view of the 3-dimensional camera; {Abstract: A three-dimensional measuring device comprises: a light projection unit for projecting pattern light in which data is encoded, to an object; an imaging unit for capturing an image of the object to which pattern light is projected; and a calculation unit for calculating positions of three-dimensional point groups on the basis of positions of feature points and decoded data. <Imaging unit> The imaging unit 30 captures an image of the object on which the pattern is projected, and may output the captured image to the control unit 40 or to another device. Fig. 1. Blocks 30, 40, }
a reading unit configured to read a CAD model of the workpiece; {<Recognition part> The recognition unit 50 includes a CAD model storage unit 51, a CAD matching calculation unit 52, and a CAD matching output unit 53. The CAD model storage unit 51 may store a three-dimensional CAD model of the object; <Control unit and recognition unit> The ROM 10c is capable of reading data out of the storage unit. Fig. 1}
a calculation processing unit configured to perform matching between distance images captured by the 3-dimensional camera under a plurality of generated imaging conditions and the CAD model, and calculate degrees of match between the captured distance images and the CAD model; and {<Recognition part> The recognition unit 50 includes a CAD model storage unit 51, a CAD matching calculation unit 52, and a CAD matching output unit 53. The CAD model storage unit 51 may store a three-dimensional CAD model of the object. The CAD matching calculation unit 52 may perform matching between the three-dimensional point group acquired from the three-dimensional point group output unit 44 and the three-dimensional CAD model of the object stored in the CAD model storage unit 51… The CAD matching output unit 53 may output the matching result calculated by the CAD matching calculation unit 52 to a display unit or another device; FIG. 6 is a diagram illustrating an example of a pattern disturbed due to a change in imaging conditions. … The example of the pattern which reproduced the fluctuation | variation of imaging conditions is shown.} Degree of match interpreted as matching result.
MAT does not teach however SAT teaches
an imaging condition optimization unit configured to set in the 3-dimensional camera an imaging condition under which the degree of match calculated by the calculation processing unit becomes equal to or greater than a predetermined value set in advance. { TECH-SOLUTION An imaging apparatus according to an embodiment of the present invention includes: a unit that sets a plurality of shooting conditions with different shooting parameters according to a user selection or an automatic setting;…According to another aspect of the present invention, there is provided a photographing apparatus including means for setting photographing conditions including a plurality of photographing parameters by automatic setting, means for photographing a subject based on a plurality of the photographing conditions, and a photographed image. ; Claim 6. The photographing apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the setting means automatically sets photographing conditions according to a photometric value.[2] Of the obtained plurality of images, an image that matches the user's intention is selected, and the mode is switched to a shooting condition setting shooting mode set to a shooting condition corresponding to the shooting condition of the selected image.} matches greater or equal then a value is interpreted as matching according to user intent. The whole point of the matching is to determine a good match. Such a choice is implicit, as if the match is poor (below a certain value) it makes no point to set it as imaging condition since it won’t get good enough images.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of MAT and SAT . Both are in the same field of imaging cameras and are concerned with matching captured images under a plurality of imaging conditions with a reference. A POSITA would have been motivated to combine them in order to obtain the saving time in setting the camera for the best imaging condition. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over MAT/SAT.
Regarding claim 2(1) MAT/SAT teaches the limitations of the parent claim. MAT/SAT does not teach however MIY teaches
wherein the imaging condition optimization unit determines the imaging condition that has the highest degree of match out of the degrees of match of the plurality of imaging conditions calculated by the calculation processing unit. { [0011]… the images of the pattern's resist images developed are picked up, and where pattern matching with a given template is performed on the image data to determine the best exposure conditions based on results of the pattern matching.} imaging condition that has the highest degree of match of the plurality of imaging conditions is interpreted as the results of matching that give best exposure.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of MAT/SAT and MIY . Both are in the field of imaging concerned imaging conditions. A POSITA would have been motivated to combine them in order to obtain the best conditions for setting the imaging system. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over MAT/SAT.
Regarding claim 3(1) MAT/SAT teaches the limitations of the parent claim. SAT further teaches
wherein the imaging condition includes at least one of an exposure time, an amount of light from a light source, a block matching size, or a threshold value for a block matching score. { [Background] Shooting conditions here are basically processing conditions such as aperture, shutter speed, sensitivity, strobe lighting, and camera shake correction settings and white balance. [2] If the landscape just before shooting in Fig. 7 (a) is shot in the temporary bracket mode, the shooting environment such as sunlight exposure and brightness will be substantial against the background of Fig. 7 (b) that the user intends to shoot. In FIG. 7B, the shooting conditions can be set mainly for the background of the subject to be shot by the user.}
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of MAT and SAT . Both are in the same field of imaging cameras and are concerned with matching captured images under a plurality of imaging conditions with a reference. A POSITA would have been motivated to combine them in order to obtain the saving time in setting the camera for the best imaging condition and lighting condition is known to be one of the most important conditions in determining image quality, in the diversity of modalities light is used to illuminate the object. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over MAT/SAT.
Prior art made of record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20210303904 A1
CN 104883553 A
AU 2011203028 B1
US 20230053519 A1
US 20160292925 A1
US 20190221000 A1, LI-CHEE-MING, (“LIC”)
US 20210303904 A1 Barish (“BAR”) match score
US 20230053519 A1
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADRIAN STOICA whose telephone number is (571) 272-3428. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9 a.m. -5 p.m. PT.
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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached on (571) 272-4071. 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.
/A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Prosecution Insights