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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 3/10/2023 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed 3/10/2023 are approved by the examiner.
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, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
By way of example, claim 1 recites: A monitoring system comprising: at least one memory storing instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to: calculate a straight line connecting three-dimensional coordinates of a light source and three-dimensional coordinates of a three-dimensional measuring device configured to measure a target to be measured; define a three-dimension invalid region in which point cloud data acquired by the three-dimensional measuring device is invalid based on the straight line; and monitor the target to be measured based on the acquired point cloud data and the three-dimension invalid region.
The method set forth by the underlined text can be performed by a human observer drawing a straight line in 3D through a point cloud to connect a target and a light source, thus being an abstract concept based on geometry.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because claim 1 merely add a generic processor and memory to perform the abstract concept.
Therefore, claim 1 is directed to an abstract concept.
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform a geometric calculation amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claim 1 is not patent eligible.
By way of example, claim 10 recites: A monitoring method comprising: calculating a straight line connecting three-dimensional coordinates of a light source and three-dimensional coordinates of a three-dimensional measuring device configured to measure a target to be measured; defining a three-dimension invalid region in which point cloud data acquired by the three-dimensional measuring device is invalid based on the straight line; and monitoring the target to be measured based on the acquired point cloud data and the three-dimension invalid region.
The method set forth by the underlined text can be performed by a human observer drawing a straight line in 3D through a point cloud to connect a target and a light source, thus being an abstract concept based on geometry.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because claim 10 does not add any structure to perform the abstract concept.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because claim 10 merely recites a method to perform the abstract concept.
Claim 10 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 10 is not patent eligible.
By way of example, claim 11 recites: A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a monitoring program for causing a computer to execute processing of: calculating a straight line connecting three-dimensional coordinates of a light source and three-dimensional coordinates of a three-dimensional measuring device configured to measure a target to be measured; defining a three-dimension invalid region in which point cloud data acquired by the three-dimensional measuring device is invalid based on the straight line; and monitoring the target to be measured based on the acquired point cloud data and the three-dimension invalid region.
The method set forth by the underlined text can be performed by a human observer drawing a straight line in 3D through a point cloud to connect a target and a light source, thus being an abstract concept based on geometry.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because claim 11 merely add a memory operating a generic processor to perform the abstract concept.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform a geometric calculation amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claim 11 is not patent eligible.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki et al (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0377707).
With respect to claim 1, Sasaki et al disclose: A monitoring system [ taught by figures 1 to 4 ] comprising: at least one memory storing instructions [ taught by operating device (103); paragraph [0025] states, “…The operating device 103 also includes a storage unit such as a solid electronic memory, a hard disk drive, or the like, and various types of interface circuits…” ]; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions [ taught by operating device (103); paragraph [0025] states, “…The operating device 103 is hardware that functions as a computer and has each of the functional units shown in FIG. 2. Each of the functional units shown in FIG. 2 may be constructed of software or may be composed of a dedicated arithmetic circuit. In addition, a functional unit that is constructed of software and a functional unit that is composed of a dedicated arithmetic circuit may be used together…” ] to: calculate a straight line connecting three-dimensional coordinates of a light source and three-dimensional coordinates of a three-dimensional measuring device configured to measure a target to be measured [ figure 4 shows calculating a straight line from a light source (Sun) to a three dimensional measuring device (100) – the device (100) is taught by figure 1 and paragraph [0020] as measuring a three-dimensional point cloud ]; define a three-dimension invalid region in which point cloud data acquired by the three-dimensional measuring device is invalid based on the straight line [ figure 4 shows a region around the straight line wherein scan is restricted; paragraph [0005] defines sunlight as noise, thus meeting invalid data ]; and monitor the target to be measured based on the acquired point cloud data and the three-dimension invalid region [ taught by the scan setting unit (118); paragraph [0029] states, “…The scan condition setting unit 118 sets the scan condition of the laser scanner 105 based on the result of the evaluation that is performed by the brightness evaluating unit 117…”].
Claim 1 explicitly recites that the invalid point cloud data was acquired by the three dimensional measuring device.
Paragraph [0009] of Sasaki et al states, “…According to the first aspect of the present invention, misdetection of sunlight as measured light is greatly reduced. As the conditions restricting laser scanning, the following conditions may be described. [0010] (1) Inhibit emission of measurement laser light. [0011] (2) Perform emission of measurement laser light, but inhibit detection of the measurement laser light. [0012] (3) Do not use detected measured light that may include sunlight, as measured light, and use it as another data…”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have had a reasonable expectation of success in invalidating point cloud data acquired by the three dimensional sensor, when implementing the third suggested option of not using measured light that may include sunlight.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected by the teachings of Sasaki et al, as applied to claim 1.
Claim 3 is rejected by Sasaki et al, as applied to claim 1, in light of the operation of the brightness measuring unit (116) and brightness evaluation unit (117) operating in accordance with steps 106, 107 and 108 of figure 3.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 4-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With regard to claim 2, the cited prior art does not teach or suggest calculating a gradient of reflection brightness, as set forth in entire context.
With regard to claims 4, the cited prior art does not teach or suggest identifying a location of an abnormality based on effective point cloud data and outputting the result as monitoring processing data, as set forth in entire context.
With regard to claims 5, the cited prior art does not teach or suggest identifying a location of an abnormality based on acquired point cloud data and outputting the result as a monitoring processing data candidate, as set forth in entire context.
Claims 6-8 depend on claim 5.
With regard to claims 9, the cited prior art does not teach or suggest identifying a location of an abnormality based on acquired point cloud data and outputting the result as a monitoring processing data candidate, as set forth in entire context.
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to MARK HELLNER at telephone number (571)272-6981.
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
/MARK HELLNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645