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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. CN202211064537.5, filed on 09/01/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 10/29/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-12 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.
The term “allowable range of the first distance” in claims 1 and 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “allowable range” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear nor distinct what falls in the allowable range or falls outside of the allowable range of the first distance.
Examiner interprets the allowable range of the first distance as a preset range of the first distance.
Claims 2-12 are rejected due to dependence on Claim 1.
Claims 1-12 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.
Claim 1 recites in the preamble “the method is used to determine a first distance between a center of the first scanning surface and a center of the second scanning surface in a first direction”.
Claim 1, Lines 8-11 detail the limitation “based on the calculation model of a receiving cross section, within a preset rotation range of the first scanning apparatus and an allowable range of the first distance, obtaining a distribution set of sizes of cross sections corresponding to an angle of the first scanning apparatus, and a first distance”.
The limitation on Line 11 of “a first distance” is not clear nor distinct whether this is the same first distance as recited in the preamble and on line 9 or if it considered to be a separate first distance.
Examiner interprets it as the same first distance as the first distance given in the preamble and on Line 9.
Claims 2-12 are rejected due to dependence on Claim 1.
Claims 1-12 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.
Claim 1 details the limitation “selecting a corresponding first distance from the distribution set of sizes of cross sections, when the sizes of the receiving cross sections are symmetrically distributed relative to an angle of the first scanning apparatus.” It is not clear whether the corresponding first distance is one of the cross sections in the distribution set of sizes of cross sections or if the corresponding first distance is selected for the placement position of the second scanning apparatus from the distribution set of sizes of cross sections.
Examiner interprets the limitation as the corresponding first distance is selected for the placement position of the second scanning apparatus from the distribution set of sizes of cross sections.
Claims 2-12 are rejected due to dependence on Claim 1.
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 1-2 and 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. The claimed invention is directed to the abstract concept of performing abstract steps without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the following abstract concepts in BOLD of
1. A method of scanning apparatus placement, applied to a first scanning apparatus and a second scanning apparatus on the same horizontal plane, wherein the first scanning apparatus has a first scanning surface, and the second scanning apparatus has a second scanning surface, wherein the method is used to determine a first distance between a center of the first scanning surface and a center of the second scanning surface in a first direction, and comprises:
establishing a calculation model of a receiving cross section of the second scanning surface;
based on the calculation model of a receiving cross section, within a preset rotation range of the first scanning apparatus and an allowable range of the first distance, obtaining a distribution set of sizes of cross sections corresponding to an angle of the first scanning apparatus, and a first distance; and
selecting a corresponding first distance from the distribution set of sizes of cross sections, when the sizes of the receiving cross sections are symmetrically distributed relative to an angle of the first scanning apparatus.
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.
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 the 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 performing mathematics or mental steps.
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 there is no improvement to another technology or technical field; improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; a particular machine; effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Examiner notes that since the claimed methods and system are not tied to a particular machine or apparatus, they do not represent an improvement to another technology or technical field. Similarly there are no other meaningful limitations linking the use to a particular technological environment. Finally, there is nothing in the claims that indicates an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself or transform a particular article to a new state.
Finally, under Step 2B, we consider whether the additional elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 1 contain no additional elements.
Claims 2 and 7-10 further limit the abstract ideas without integrating the abstract concept into a practical application or including additional limitations that can be considered significantly more than the abstract idea.
The processor and memory of Claims 11-12 are interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation to be a generic computer elements. Generic computer elements are not considered significantly more than the abstract idea and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As recited in the MPEP, 2106.05(b), merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). See also OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093-94. The additional element of the communication interface of Claim 11 is considered to be well understood, routine, and conventional in the art, as evidenced by Zhao (US20200191972) in [0077] and Park (US20230139369) in [0135].
Claims 3-6 are not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. The limitation of Claim 3 of “wherein on an optical path of an echo beam, the first scanning apparatus is located upstream of an optical path of the second scanning apparatus, the first scanning surface is configured to reflect a laser beam incident on the first scanning surface to the second scanning surface, the first scanning surface has a first terminal and a second terminal sequentially distributed along the first direction, the second scanning surface has a third terminal and a fourth terminal sequentially distributed along the first direction, and the laser beam has a first side and a second side sequentially distributed along the first direction; and the boundary conditions comprise: boundary conditions for the first side: (1) when the laser beam is incident, the first side of the laser beam is on a side of the fourth terminal farther away from the third terminal; or (2) when the laser beam is incident, the first side of the laser beam is on a side of the first terminal closer to the second terminal; and (3) when the laser beam is reflected, the first side of the laser beam is on a side of the third terminal closer to the fourth terminal; and boundary conditions for the second side: (1) when the laser beam is incident, the second side of the laser beam is on a side of the second terminal closer to the first terminal; and (2) when the laser beam is reflected, the second side of the laser beam is on a side of the fourth terminal closer to the third terminal” integrates the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claims 4-6 are dependent on Claim 3.
Examiner’s Note
Claims 1-12 are not rejected under a prior art rejection (35 U.S.C. 102 or 35 U.S.C. 103).
Zhao (US20200191972) teaches a method for determining the position of LIDAR sensors based on the LIDAR sensor information in [0054]-[0062] and Figures 7-8.
Liu (CN113506376A) teaches a point cloud stitching ICP method that is based on a geometric model in [n0206].
Chun (KR20190080022A) teaches a first lidar acquiring point cloud data and a second lidar that has acquisition times of the point cloud data that are different from the first lidar, a position measurement unit for measuring the position and direction of the vehicle at the time of acquiring the point cloud data, and a control unit for generating first and second depth maps and direction maps from the point cloud data acquired from the first and second lidar in [0009]. Chun further teaches that estimations of distances can be performed from the point cloud and maps in [0010]. Chun further teaches the cross section with the point cloud view in [0047].
Mei (CN112254664A) teaches a geometric model with geometric parameter analysis associated with the point cloud contour analysis in [0037]. Mei details that the point cloud data includes the cross section of a complex high-performance component in [0005].
Kacyra (US20020149585) teaches a scanning laser device generating a model with a three dimension object.
Zhao, Liu, Chun, Mei, and Kacyra are silent with regards to the limitations of Claim 1 of “establishing a calculation model of a receiving cross section of the second scanning surface;
based on the calculation model of a receiving cross section, within a preset rotation range of the first scanning apparatus and an allowable range of the first distance, obtaining a distribution set of sizes of cross sections corresponding to an angle of the first scanning apparatus, and a first distance; and
selecting a corresponding first distance from the distribution set of sizes of cross sections, when the sizes of the receiving cross sections are symmetrically distributed relative to an angle of the first scanning apparatus.”.
Claims 2-12 are dependent on Claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YOSSEF KORANG-BEHESHTI whose telephone number is (571)272-3291. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 6:30 pm.
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, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
/YOSSEF KORANG-BEHESHTI/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights