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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 02/27/2024, 11/07/2024, and 10/08/2025 is/are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
NOTE: Since independent claims 15 and 16 are apparatus claims, their proper interpretations are clear as both would require structure that can perform (b) and separately (c) when the predicates of (a) are met (see MPEP 2111.04, II, second paragraph).
Regarding independent claim 1¸ the claim is a method claim which recites the following clauses, hereafter referred to as clause (b) and clause (c), respectively:
(b) in accordance with a determination that the electronic device is configured to make a first type of decision with respect to the object at the current time, selecting a respective value as the value obtained from data detected by the first sensor or the value obtained from data detected by the second sensor;
(c) in accordance with a determination that the electronic device is configured to make a second type of decision with respect to the object at the current time, wherein the second type of decision is different from the first type of decision, forgoing selecting the respective value as the value obtained from data detected by the first sensor or the value obtained from data detected by the second sensor.
Both of these clauses are contingent limitations based on multiple predicates being satisfied in the other clause of the claim, hereafter referred to as clause (a):
(a) while detecting an object [1] that is within a threshold distance [2] from an electronic device and a value obtained from data detected by a first sensor and a value obtained from data detected by a second sensor, different from the first sensor, are not congruent [3] (emphasis added)
wherein of the italicized predicates [1]-[3] must be met before either of clauses (b) or (c) can occur. However, it is unclear what happens in if any of [1]-[3] are not met as the entire claim is a “while” loop. The broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of contingent limitations in method claims includes only those steps which are required to carry out the invention (see MPEP 2111.04, II, first paragraph). But since none of [1]-[3] are required, which is demonstrated by dependent claim 7 specifying a situation specifically when predicate [1] is met but [2] is not met, then one of ordinary skill in the art would not know the meets and bounds of the claim when for instance none of the predicates are met. It appears that if any of them are not met, then neither of steps (b) or (c) occur, which seems to be covering nothing occurring. This is further confounded as clauses (b) and (c) themselves as they are further contingent on:
(b) in accordance with a determination that the electronic device is configured to make a first type of decision [4] with respect to the object at the current time, selecting a respective value as the value obtained from data detected by the first sensor or the value obtained from data detected by the second sensor;
(c) in accordance with a determination that the electronic device is configured to make a second type of decision [5] with respect to the object at the current time, wherein the second type of decision is different from the first type of decision, forgoing selecting the respective value as the value obtained from data detected by the first sensor or the value obtained from data detected by the second sensor.
It is clear from the claim language that predicates [4] and [5] are mutually exclusive of each other as well as the Specification, particularly Figure 4. However, based on the above confusion with clause (a), it is unclear when/if either of these steps would occur if the predicates [1]-[3] are not met. Dependent claims 2-14 do not cure claim 1 of this issue and are similarly rejected.
Further regarding claim 2, the claim recites the following clauses, hereafter referred to as clause (d) and clause (e), respectively:
(d) wherein the first type of decision is a decision that is designated as requiring one or more respective operations to be performed,
(e) wherein the second type of decision is not a decision that requires one or more respective operations to be performed.
Clause (d) appears to only limit clause (b) and clause (e) appears to only limit clause (c). However, since (b) and (c) are mutually exclusive and even if the predicates of (a) are met, only one of them need occur. It is therefore unclear if claim 2 is supposed to be interpreted as clause (b) and clause (d) or clause (d) and clause (e). The same issue for what happens in [1]-[3] are not met also occurs. Dependent 3 recites similar limitations which raise the same issues.
Dependent claim 4 also exacerbate the clarity issues of claim 1 by reciting another “while” loop as follows:
“while detecting the object that is within the threshold distance from the electronic device [1]”.
The claim appears to now be giving a scenario where just [1] needs to occur, which is broader than the “while” loop of claim 1 needing all of [1]-[3] to occur. It is unclear if claim 4 can occur independent of claim 1 since only [1] needs to be fulfilled or if this is somehow happening in parallel to it. It is also now unclear what occurs when the predicate is not met like with claim 1. Furthermore, the claim goes on to recite:
“in accordance with a determination that the electronic device is configured to make the first type of decision [4] and the value obtained from data detected by the first sensor is not congruent with the value obtained from data detected by the second sensor [3], performing one or more operations; and
in accordance with a determination that the electronic device is configured to make the first type of decision [4] and the value obtained from data detected by the first sensor is congruent with the value obtained from data detected by the second sensor “not [3]”, forgoing performing one or more operations.”
This is yet another nested contingent limitation which now has brought in predicate [3] from the original “while” loop in claim 1. This causes further confusion as it gives a situation that is possibly in line with the predicates of clause (a) and a situation that is not, leading to more uncertainty as to which of the clauses are supposed to be performed. Predicate [4] from clause (b) is also present in the claim leading to confusion on if clause (b) is required for claim 4 even though not all of the predicates of clause (a) are necessary in this claim. Due to the confusion on when/if each clause is supposed to occur, one of ordinary skill in the art would find the claim incomprehensible. Claim 10 recites similar limitations which raise the same issues and dependent claims 11-13 do not cure claim 10 of said issues.
Dependent claim 7, also exacerbate the clarity issues of claim 1 by reciting another “while” loop as follows:
“while detecting a respective object [1] that is not within the threshold distance from the electronic device [2]”.
This appears to be a specific “negation” of clause (a) where predicate [1] is met but [2] is not with [3] not being mentioned. Therefore, it is unclear if clauses (b) and (c) should be occurring in this claim or not. This is further exacerbated by the rest of the claim which states
“in accordance with a determination that the electronic device is configured to make the first type of decision [4], selecting the respective value by fusing data obtained from data detected by the first sensor and data obtained from data detected by the second sensor.”
Predicate [4] from clause (b) is also present in the claim leading to confusion on if clause (b) is required for claim 7 even though the predicates in claims (a) are explicitly not met for this claim. It would be unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art if this specific combination of predicates being met and not met would require clause (b) of claim 1 to be included or not. Like with claim 4, one of ordinary skill in the art would find when/if each of the clauses occur to be incomprehensible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 15, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gulino et al, U.S. Publication No. 2020/0004259 in view of Bodenmueller, U.S. Publication No. 2011/0299734.
Regarding claim 1, Gulino teaches a method, comprising:
while detecting an object (see Gulino Abstract) and a value obtained from data detected by a first sensor and a value obtained from data detected by a second sensor, different from the first sensor (see Figure 8, sensor data 352-354 and paragraph [0106], “For example, sensor A data 350 may be associated with one or more first sensors, sensor B data 352 may be associated with one or more second sensors, and sensor N data may be associated with one or more third sensors”), are not congruent (see paragraph [0077], “A local context, such as consistency or disagreement between detectors, can be used to determine uncertainty of detected object”):
in accordance with a determination that the electronic device is configured to make a first type of decision with respect to the object at the current time, selecting a respective value as the value obtained from data detected by the first sensor or the value obtained from data detected by the second sensor (see Figure 8, fusing layers 370 and paragraph [0107], “The fusing layers, in some instances, may select the output of a particular perception pipeline”); and
in accordance with a determination that the electronic device is configured to make a second type of decision with respect to the object at the current time, wherein the second type of decision is different from the first type of decision, forgoing selecting the respective value as the value obtained from data detected by the first sensor or the value obtained from data detected by the second sensor (see paragraph [0077],“Rather than select the output of one object detector, multiple outputs or a fused output of each detector can be passed from the perception system”).
(NOTE: Due to the interpretation explained above, while both contingent limitations are taught in Gulino, only one needed to be taught to meet the BRI of method claim 1).
Gulino does not expressively teach
[processing occurs when the object] is within a threshold distance from an electronic device.
However, Gulino does teach that the distance of the object to an electronic device is detected (see Gulino paragraph [0051]).
Furthermore, Bodenmueller in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches a method of detecting an object (see Bodenmueller Figure 1, target z and paragraph [0045]) and detecting the distance of the object (see claim 3) to an electronic device (see Figure 1, sensor s1 and paragraph [0045]) wherein
[processing occurs when the object] is within a threshold distance from an electronic device (see paragraph [0024], “The criteria can represent absolute criteria, which if they are not met will mean a target object is excluded from further processing. An absolute criterion of this type can be, for example, the distance of the target object from the image sensor, wherein from a maximum distance preset as a threshold value, targets that are further distant from the image sensor are excluded from further processing”).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to combine the teaching of having a distance threshold for an object for further processing as taught in Bodenmueller with the method taught in Gulino, the motivation being to ensure the object resolution is sufficient for further processing (see Bodenmueller paragraph [0024], “because if the distance is too great, the target resolution in the image recorded by the image sensor is too low to be able to obtain reliable information about the target object in an image evaluation”).
Regarding claim 2, Gulino in view of Bodenmueller teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the first type of decision is a decision that is designated as requiring one or more respective operations to be performed (see Gulino paragraph [0107] which requires outputting of a particular pipeline and its uncertainty), and wherein the second type of decision is not a decision that requires one or more respective operations to be performed.
Regarding claim 3, Gulino in view of Bodenmueller teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the first type of decision is made based on one or more respective objects in a physical environment, and wherein the second type of decision is not made based on one or more respective objects in the physical environment (see Gulino paragraph [0077], wherein the decision is not based on particular objects).
Regarding claim 5, Gulino in view of Bodenmueller teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the first sensor is a camera sensor, a lidar sensor, a radar sensor, or any combination thereof (see Gulino paragraph [0050]).
Regarding claim 6, Gulino in view of Bodenmueller teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the first value is obtained via the first sensor and a third sensor that is different from the first sensor (see Gulino Figure 8, sensor data 350 and 354 and paragraph [0106], “For example, sensor A data 350 may be associated with one or more first sensors, sensor B data 352 may be associated with one or more second sensors, and sensor N data may be associated with one or more third sensors”), and wherein one or more of the first sensor and the third sensor are a camera sensor, a lidar sensor, a radar sensor, or any combination thereof (see Gulino paragraph [0050]).
Regarding claim 8, Gulino in view of Bodenmueller teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the first value is obtained via the first sensor and a third sensor that is different from the first sensor (see Gulino Figure 8, sensor data 350 and 354 and paragraph [0106], “For example, sensor A data 350 may be associated with one or more first sensors, sensor B data 352 may be associated with one or more second sensors, and sensor N data may be associated with one or more third sensors”), wherein the first value includes a combination of data detected by the first sensor and data detected by the third sensor (see Gulino paragraph [0077],“Rather than select the output of one object detector, multiple outputs or a fused output of each detector can be passed from the perception system” as applied to sensor data of Figure 8).
Regarding claim 9, Gulino in view of Bodenmueller teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the first sensor is a pair of camera sensors (see Gulino paragraph [0050]).
Regarding claim 15, Gulino teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing one or more programs configured to be executed by one or more processors of an electronic device (see Gulino Figure 1, computing system 102 and paragraph [0048]) that is in communication with a first sensor and a second sensor different from the first sensor (see Figure 1, sensors 101), the one or more programs including instructions for:
while detecting an object (see Gulino Abstract) and a value obtained from data detected by a first sensor and a value obtained from data detected by a second sensor, different from the first sensor (see Figure 8, sensor data 352-354 and paragraph [0106], “For example, sensor A data 350 may be associated with one or more first sensors, sensor B data 352 may be associated with one or more second sensors, and sensor N data may be associated with one or more third sensors”), are not congruent (see paragraph [0077], “A local context, such as consistency or disagreement between detectors, can be used to determine uncertainty of detected object”):
in accordance with a determination that the electronic device is configured to make a first type of decision with respect to the object at the current time, selecting a respective value as the value obtained from data detected by the first sensor or the value obtained from data detected by the second sensor (see Figure 8, fusing layers 370 and paragraph [0107], “The fusing layers, in some instances, may select the output of a particular perception pipeline”); and
in accordance with a determination that the electronic device is configured to make a second type of decision with respect to the object at the current time, wherein the second type of decision is different from the first type of decision, forgoing selecting the respective value as the value obtained from data detected by the first sensor or the value obtained from data detected by the second sensor (see paragraph [0077],“Rather than select the output of one object detector, multiple outputs or a fused output of each detector can be passed from the perception system”).
Guino does not expressively teach
[processing occurs when the object] is within a threshold distance from the electronic device.
However, Guino does teach that the distance of the object to the electronic device is detected (see Guino paragraph [0051]).
Furthermore, Bodenmueller in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches a method of detecting an object (see Bodenmueller Figure 1, target z and paragraph [0045]) and detecting the distance of the object (see claim 3) to an electronic device (see Figure 1, sensor s1 and paragraph [0045]) wherein
[processing occurs when the object] is within a threshold distance from the electronic device (see paragraph [0024], “The criteria can represent absolute criteria, which if they are not met will mean a target object is excluded from further processing. An absolute criterion of this type can be, for example, the distance of the target object from the image sensor, wherein from a maximum distance preset as a threshold value, targets that are further distant from the image sensor are excluded from further processing”).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to combine the teaching of having a distance threshold for an object for further processing as taught in Bodenmueller with the system taught in Guino, the motivation being to ensure the object resolution is sufficient for further processing (see Bodenmueller paragraph [0024], “because if the distance is too great, the target resolution in the image recorded by the image sensor is too low to be able to obtain reliable information about the target object in an image evaluation”).
Regarding claim 16, Gulino teaches an electronic device, comprising:
a first sensor; a second sensor that is different from the first sensor (see Gulino Figure 1, sensors 101);
one or more processors; and memory storing one or more programs configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including instructions for (see Figure 1, computing system 102 and paragraph [0048]):
while detecting an object (see Gulino Abstract) and a value obtained from data detected by a first sensor and a value obtained from data detected by a second sensor, different from the first sensor (see Figure 8, sensor data 352-354 and paragraph [0106], “For example, sensor A data 350 may be associated with one or more first sensors, sensor B data 352 may be associated with one or more second sensors, and sensor N data may be associated with one or more third sensors”), are not congruent (see paragraph [0077], “A local context, such as consistency or disagreement between detectors, can be used to determine uncertainty of detected object”):
in accordance with a determination that the electronic device is configured to make a first type of decision with respect to the object at the current time, selecting a respective value as the value obtained from data detected by the first sensor or the value obtained from data detected by the second sensor (see Figure 8, fusing layers 370 and paragraph [0107], “The fusing layers, in some instances, may select the output of a particular perception pipeline”); and
in accordance with a determination that the electronic device is configured to make a second type of decision with respect to the object at the current time, wherein the second type of decision is different from the first type of decision, forgoing selecting the respective value as the value obtained from data detected by the first sensor or the value obtained from data detected by the second sensor (see paragraph [0077],“Rather than select the output of one object detector, multiple outputs or a fused output of each detector can be passed from the perception system”).
Guino does not expressively teach
[processing occurs when the object] is within a threshold distance from the electronic device.
However, Guino does teach that the distance of the object to the electronic device is detected (see Guino paragraph [0051]).
Furthermore, Bodenmueller in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches a method of detecting an object (see Bodenmueller Figure 1, target z and paragraph [0045]) and detecting the distance of the object (see claim 3) to an electronic device (see Figure 1, sensor s1 and paragraph [0045]) wherein
[processing occurs when the object] is within a threshold distance from the electronic device (see paragraph [0024], “The criteria can represent absolute criteria, which if they are not met will mean a target object is excluded from further processing. An absolute criterion of this type can be, for example, the distance of the target object from the image sensor, wherein from a maximum distance preset as a threshold value, targets that are further distant from the image sensor are excluded from further processing”).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to combine the teaching of having a distance threshold for an object for further processing as taught in Bodenmueller with the system taught in Guino, the motivation being to ensure the object resolution is sufficient for further processing (see Bodenmueller paragraph [0024], “because if the distance is too great, the target resolution in the image recorded by the image sensor is too low to be able to obtain reliable information about the target object in an image evaluation”).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gulino et al, U.S. Publication No. 2020/0004259 in view of Bodenmueller, U.S. Publication No. 2011/0299734 and Terada et al, U.S. Publication No. 2020/0298941.
Regarding claim 14, Gulino in view of Bodenmueller teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but does not expressively teach wherein:
in accordance with a determination that movement characteristics of the electronic device has a first set of movement characteristics, the threshold distance is a first distance; and in accordance with a determination that movement characteristics of the electronic device has a second set of movement characteristics that is different from the first set of movement characteristics, the threshold distance is a second distance that is different from the first distance.
However, Terada in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches a method of determining if an object (see Terada Figure 5, other vessels present) is within a predetermined distance (see paragraph [0066]) of an electronic device (see Figure 3 which is an embodiment of a display device in vessel 100 shown in Figure 1) and adjusts processing based on this determination (see Figure 8, steps s3-s6) as taught in Gulino in view of Bodenmueller wherein
in accordance with a determination that movement characteristics of the electronic device has a first set of movement characteristics, the threshold distance is a first distance; and
in accordance with a determination that movement characteristics of the electronic device has a second set of movement characteristics that is different from the first set of movement characteristics, the threshold distance is a second distance that is different from the first distance (see paragraph [0066] which describes adjusting a threshold distance based on output from speed detector 60, which paragraph [0095] indicates is for the vessel 100 of Figure 1).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to combine the teaching of adjusting a threshold distance based on movement characteristics of an electronic device as taught in Terada with the method taught in Gulino in view of Bodenmueller, the motivation being to account for such movements to ensure the object can be properly imaged and further analyzed.
Conclusion
Although no prior art is used against claims 4, 7, and 10-13, this is not an indication that it/they is/are allowable. See MPEP 2173.06, section II, second paragraph. The 112 issues cause a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of the claim(s). It is therefore difficult for the Examiner to properly search for prior art for the invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASEY L KRETZER whose telephone number is (571)272-5639. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00-7:00 PM Pacific Time.
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, David Payne can be reached at (571)272-3024. 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.
/CASEY L KRETZER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2635