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 (IDS) submitted on 04/25/2023, 08/09/2023, 12/02/2024, and 12/13/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
Examiner’s Note
To help the reader, examiner notes in this detailed action claim language are in bold, strikethrough limitations are not explicitly taught and language added to explain a reference mapping are isolated from quotations via square brackets.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/13/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. An explanation is provided below.
Applicant alleges on p.9:
Furukawa describes in [0020] that the sensor state vector is calculated in the global coordinate system by each sensor. However, this refers to the state of the sensor itself (e.g., its position and orientation), not to the position of the observed target.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s allegation Furukawa does not teach ‘the position of the observed target’ is unpersuasive because Furukawa states on p.4 “the target position vector .sub.y 11 ~ of the local coordinate system corresponding to the sensor .sub.1 1 of the target .sub.T 1 of the target state of the global coordinate system of the synchronization time .sub.t k vector .sub.x~ 11 (k)”.
Applicant alleges on p.9:
Similarly, [0008] of Furukawa merely states that track data are target state values in the local or global coordinate system that are observed by the sensors. However, this reference does not disclose or suggest that a single sensor is capable of determining the position of the target in the global coordinate system. In practice, this is also technically impossible, as a single sensor can only provide direction or distance information in the local coordinate system. Determining the absolute target position in the global coordinate system requires the fusion of data from multiple sensors and the application of suitable algorithms.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. No where in the claim does it require that ‘a single sensor is capable of determining the position of the target in the global coordinate system. As such, applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant alleges on p.10
Neither [0020] nor [0008] of Furukawa discloses that a single sensor can determine the position of the target in the global coordinate system. The transformation and position determination are only performed by fusing data from multiple sensors, which differs from Claim 1. Accordingly, [0021] of Furukawa describes a function f₁ that calculates global target state information from local target state data and sensor state data. However, there is not explicitly disclosed that this calculation involves a mathematical transformation (e.g., rotation/translation) of a position vector from the local to the global coordinate system, as required in the claim.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Montes teaches on para 0024 “the signal processing device is additionally configured to transform the signals from different local coordinate systems into a unique and global coordinate system”. Furthermore, the mathematical description (state vector) of Furukawa on at least p.3 corresponds to mathematical transformation for a coordinate system transformation.
Applicant alleges on p.10
In [0026] of Furukawa, there is described that the target position vector y in the local coordinate system corresponds to the target position vector X in the global coordinate system at a synchronization time t. Here, too, it is not explicitly stated that the local target position vector y is transferred from the local to the global coordinate system by way of a mathematical transformation (e.g., rotation, translation, application of transformation parameters). Rather, correspondence is established at a specific point in time, but no explicit transformation or conversion of the coordinates is specified.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees for similar reason above. The claims do not define any specific math regarding the claimed transformation parameters. As such the teachings of Furukawa and Montes explained above teach the claimed limitations.
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 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, 4-5, 8, 11-14, 16, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hidetoshi Furukawa (JP 6702562 hereinafter Furukawa (‘562)) in view of Montes et al. (US 20150114103 hereinafter Montes (‘103)).
Regarding claim 1, Furukawa (‘562) teaches A method for determining a position of an object by a sensor (p.4 “the target position vector”; p.4 “sensor”), comprising:
setting a local sensor coordinate system; setting a global target coordinate system (p. 3 “the track data is the time for the target .sub.T j to sensor .sub.1 i is observed .sub.t k-1 of the local coordinate system target state vector .sub.y ij of the (k-1), sensor .sub.1 i at time .sub.t k-1 of The sensor state vector z .sub.i (k-1) in the global coordinate system is input (step S101).”);
(p. 3 “the track data is the time for the target .sub.T j to sensor .sub.1 i is observed .sub.t k-1 of the local coordinate system); and
transforming the position of the object to coordinates in the global target coordinate system based on the determined transformation parameters (p.3 “since the time of the target state vector of the local coordinate system or a global coordinate system are different, and determines the synchronization time t .sub.k, the time synchronization between the track data as to calculate the target state vector in the global coordinate system at synchronization time .sub.t k of the sensor .sub.1 1, .sub.1 2, respectively of the target .sub.T 1.”).
While Furukawa (‘562) discloses (p.3 “since the time of the target state vector of the local coordinate system or a global coordinate system are different, and determines the synchronization time t .sub.k, the time synchronization between the track data as to calculate the target state vector in the global coordinate system at synchronization time .sub.t k of the sensor .sub.1 1, .sub.1 2, respectively of the target .sub.T 1.”), Furukawa (‘562) does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Montes (‘103) teaches (0024 “the signal processing device is additionally configured to transform the signals from different local coordinate systems into a unique and global coordinate system”)
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Montes (‘103) with the teachings of Furukawa (‘562). One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve system accuracy (Montes (‘103) 0010). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Montes (‘103) merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular local/global coordinate system for sensor measurements. Since both Furukawa (‘562) and Montes (‘103) disclose similar measurement/position systems using local/global coordinates, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 4, the prior art teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein the global target coordinate system is a Cartesian coordinate system having an orientation of one of its axes in a celestial direction (Montes (‘103) fig 2) and an orientation of one of its further axes in a gravitational direction, or is a geodetic coordinate system (Montes (‘103) fig 2 [corresponds to an axes in a gravitational direction due to a northern direction]).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Montes (‘103) with the teachings of Furukawa (‘562). One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve system accuracy (Montes (‘103) 0010). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Montes (‘103) merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular local/global coordinate system for sensor measurements. Since both Furukawa (‘562) and Montes (‘103) disclose similar measurement/position systems using local/global coordinates, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 5, the prior art teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein a plane determined by a direction of gravity, as a normal lies, at a container-related height (Montes (‘103) fig 1).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Montes (‘103) with the teachings of Furukawa (‘562). One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve system accuracy (Montes (‘103) 0010). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Montes (‘103) merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular local/global coordinate system for sensor measurements. Since both Furukawa (‘562) and Montes (‘103) disclose similar measurement/position systems using local/global coordinates, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 8, the prior art teaches The method according to claim 7, wherein the additional sensors in the sensor is one or more of a compass, a GPS receiver, an accelerometer, a celestial observation unit comprising at least an optical, a date and a time detection (Montes (‘103) 0016 “at least one three-axis accelerometer coupled with the rigid support, wherein the three-axis accelerometer provides a second set of three signals (SAx, SAy, SAz)”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Montes (‘103) with the teachings of Furukawa (‘562). One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve system accuracy (Montes (‘103) 0010). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Montes (‘103) merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular local/global coordinate system for sensor measurements. Since both Furukawa (‘562) and Montes (‘103) disclose similar measurement/position systems using local/global coordinates, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 11, the prior art teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises transmitting the coordinates of the object in the target coordinate system or in a user-defined coordinate system via an interface to data acquisition unit (Montes (‘103) fig 1 [Furukawa (‘562) teaches calculating the coordinates of a target and Montes (‘103) teaches transmitting and displaying the results on a display system 6]).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Montes (‘103) with the teachings of Furukawa (‘562). One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve system accuracy (Montes (‘103) 0010). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Montes (‘103) merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular local/global coordinate system for sensor measurements. Since both Furukawa (‘562) and Montes (‘103) disclose similar measurement/position systems using local/global coordinates, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 1. Montes (‘103) further teaches a processor and memory (Abstract “a signal processing device”; fig 1).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Montes (‘103) with the teachings of Furukawa (‘562). One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve system accuracy (Montes (‘103) 0010). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Montes (‘103) merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular local/global coordinate system for sensor measurements. Since both Furukawa (‘562) and Montes (‘103) disclose similar measurement/position systems using local/global coordinates, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 13, the prior art teaches A sensor comprising the device according to claim 12 (Furukawa (‘562) p.4 “sensor”).
Regarding claim 14, the prior art teaches A system comprising: the device according to claim 12 and a sensor for determining a position of an object in a local coordinate system (Furukawa (‘562) p. 3 “the track data is the time for the target .sub.T j to sensor .sub.1 i is observed .sub.t k-1 of the local coordinate system target state vector .sub.y ij of the (k-1),).
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 4. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 4.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 4. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 4.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 5. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 5.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hidetoshi Furukawa (JP 6702562 hereinafter Furukawa (‘562)) in view of Montes et al. (US 20150114103 hereinafter Montes (‘103)) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Hu (US 20160299209 hereinafter Hu ‘209).
Regarding claim 2, the prior art teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein the local coordinate system is a spherical coordinate system or a Cartesian coordinate system (Montes (‘103) fig 2 [corresponds to a Cartesian coordinate system]), and
wherein setting a local coordinate system comprises defining a sensor plane as an equatorial plane or xy plane (Montes (‘103) fig 2),
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Montes (‘103) with the teachings of Furukawa (‘562). One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve system accuracy (Montes (‘103) 0010). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Montes (‘103) merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular local/global coordinate system for sensor measurements. Since both Furukawa (‘562) and Montes (‘103) disclose similar measurement/position systems using local/global coordinates, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
The combination does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Hu (‘209)teaches a center of the sensor plane as an origin of the local coordinate system, and a reference point on the outside of the sensor plane as a reference direction or direction of one of the axes in the sensor plane from the origin toward the reference point (0022 “It should be noted that the coordinates in this embodiment are in a two-dimensional Cartesian coordinate system, the reference point 100 is given as the origin of the two-dimensional Cartesian coordinate system, and the reference direction used in step S32 is parallel to an X-axis of the two-dimensional Cartesian coordinate system.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Hu (‘209)with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve system accuracy (Hu (‘209)0032). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Hu (‘209)merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular coordinate system features. Since both the cited prior art and Hu (‘209)similar measurement/position systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 3, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hidetoshi Furukawa (JP 6702562 hereinafter Furukawa (‘562)) in view of Montes et al. (US 20150114103 hereinafter Montes (‘103)) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Thomas et al. (US 20070057840 hereinafter Thomas (‘840)).
Regarding claim 3, the prior art teaches The method of claim 1,
The combination does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Thomas (‘840) teaches wherein capturing the position of the object in local sensor coordinates includes determining an elevation and an azimuth with respect to a reference direction of the local sensor coordinate system (0020 “To provide more accurate targeting, the mechanization of system 10 is changed to determine a relative direction to a target (e.g., relative to the direction to a fixed reference target) and further to utilize knowledge of the reference target position and the direction to it to compute an actual position of the target. The utilization of a more accurate relative direction (e.g., in azimuth and elevation) for the sensor mechanization results in improved azimuth and elevation accuracies for the target.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Thomas (‘840) with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve system accuracy (Thomas (‘840) 0005). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Thomas (‘840) merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular elevation and azimuthal features. Since both the cited prior art and Thomas (‘840) similar measurement/position systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 3. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 3.
Claim(s) 6, 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hidetoshi Furukawa (JP 6702562 hereinafter Furukawa (‘562)) in view of Montes et al. (US 20150114103 hereinafter Montes (‘103)) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Kleman (US 20170356786 hereinafter Kleman (‘786)).
Regarding claim 6, the prior art teaches The method according to claim 1,
The combination does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Kleman (‘786) teaches wherein a transformation parameter of the transformation parameters is an inclination about a first axis of the local coordinate system, an inclination about a second axis of the local coordinate system, and/or a torsion angle indicating torsion in a sensor plane with respect to a reference direction (fig 3c; Abstract “an inclination output corresponding to the inclination relative the surface normal; a second processing circuitry for generating, based on the inclination output, an angular output when there is an angular difference between the first axis and the surface normal”),
and the inclination about the first axis and/or the inclination about the second axis is obtained by one or more of following methods: detection of the inclination about the first and/or second axis by a protractor or by an additional sensor of a smartphone measuring the inclination about the first and/or second axis; detection of the inclination about the first and/or second axis by an inclination and/or acceleration sensor in the sensor; detection of a direction of fall of bulk material during a filling process as a direction of gravity by an additional sensor and determination of the inclination about the first and/or second axis based on the direction of gravity; and detection of a direction of a surface of a container wall as a direction of gravity and determining tilt about the first and/or second axis based on the direction of gravity (0096 “inclination sensor 120 attached to the hatch or support 100, and adapted to generate an inclination output 121 corresponding to the inclination of said sensor 120 relative at least one of a horizontal axis, a vertical axis, a horizontal plane and a vertical plane.”; 0076 “if the transmitter has a non-vertical orientation and this leads to a miscalculation of the fill level of the tank, the output from the inclination sensor may be used to correct the calculated fill level. In yet other words, the determined distance may be corrected using the inclination output to e.g. compensate for a longer traveling path when the direction of the radar beam deviates from the normal to the surface to be measured.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Kleman (‘786) with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve system accuracy (Kleman (‘786) 0095). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Kleman (‘786) merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular adjustability for sensor measurements. Since both the cited prior art and Kleman (‘786) similar measurement/position systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art teaches The method according to claim 1,
The combination does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Kleman (‘786) teaches wherein the coordinates in the target coordinate system are further transformed to a user-defined coordinate system by user-defined translation parameters (claim 12 “the radar level gauge system being arranged to initiate an action based on the angular output to automatically compensate for a non-ideal installation of the phased array antenna through electrically adjusting a phase of the measuring signals to adjust an orientation of the first axis toward alignment with the normal to the surface or with the vertical axis.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Kleman (‘786) with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve system accuracy (Kleman (‘786) 0095). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Kleman (‘786) merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular adjustability for sensor measurements. Since both the cited prior art and Kleman (‘786) similar measurement/position systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art teaches The method of claim 9, wherein an origin of the user-defined coordinate system is at a bottom of a container (Montes (‘103) fig 2).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Montes (‘103) with the teachings of Furukawa (‘562). One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve system accuracy (Montes (‘103) 0010). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Montes (‘103) merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular local/global coordinate system for sensor measurements. Since both Furukawa (‘562) and Montes (‘103) disclose similar measurement/position systems using local/global coordinates, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hidetoshi Furukawa (JP 6702562 hereinafter Furukawa (‘562)) in view of Montes et al. (US 20150114103 hereinafter Montes (‘103)) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Falco (US 20160068383 hereinafter Falco (‘383)).
Regarding claim 7, the prior art teaches The method according to claim 1,
The combination does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Falco (‘383) teaches wherein a transformation parameter of the transformation parameters is a twist angle, and wherein at least one of the transformation parameters tilt about a first axis, a second axis, and/or twist angle is obtained by one or more of the following methods: capturing an image of the sensor and a mark of the sensor with a smartphone and determining a reference direction based thereon, determining a cardinal direction by measuring the earth's magnetic field with a smartphone compass, and determining a torsion angle based on the cardinal direction and the reference direction; alignment of the smartphone via a corresponding marker attached to the sensor and detection of tilt about the first axis, the second axis, and/or the tilt angle by additional sensors of the smartphone; and detecting a container shape by scanning a container and determining the tilt about the first and/or second axis using a layout plan that shows the container orientation and container shape (0101 “In one embodiment, the second IR sensor 22 includes a second detection field 36 of a second size and a second orientation 36 including a second “downward” facing detection orientation on the apparatus 12 to detect a condiment container 43 of a pre-determined color, size and/or shape used to store the dispensed condiment 41.” [corresponds to determining the shape of a container by scanning]).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Falco with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve detection (Falco (‘383) 0103). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Falco (‘383) merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular adjustability for sensor measurements. Since both the cited prior art and Falco (‘383) similar sensing systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hidetoshi Furukawa (JP 6702562 hereinafter Furukawa (‘562)) in view of Montes et al. (US 20150114103 hereinafter Montes (‘103)) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Hadaschik et al. (US 20150360080 hereinafter Hadaschik).
Regarding claim 21, the prior art teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein the determined transformation parameters include
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Hadaschik teaches elevation as a transformation parameter and the elevation is determined by at least one of: external angle meter sensor, smartphone, inclination/acceleration sensor, gravity direction when filling with bulk material, and wall surface as gravitational direction (0058 “in order to determine two degrees of rotational freedom (e.g. azimuth and elevation). That is to say, the multidimensional accelerometer 302 attached to the object 304 may comprise three 3-axis-accelerometers spatially distributed at the translatory and/or rotatably movable object 304. In this case, determining the at least one correction quantity 314 may comprise, based on the acceleration data of the three spatially distributed 3-axis-accelerometers, determining the rotation of the object's 304 local coordinate system 306 relative to the global coordinate system 300 during the object's 304 movement in order to computationally compensate for the rotation by a corresponding coordinate transformation of the local coordinate system 306.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Hadaschik with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously reduce system complexity (Hadaschik 0017). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Hadaschik merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the transformation parameters. Since both the cited prior art and Hadaschik similar coordinate system processing, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to application’s disclosure:
HAGEN et al. (US 20120234074) discloses “The invention relates to a measurement device (12) for determining a fluid fill level (14) in a fuel tank (10) for a vehicle. The position of a float (18) in relation to a signal generating unit (22) which can be attached on the fuel tank (10) can hereby be converted into a signal that is correlated with the fill level (See abstract)”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISMAAEEL A SIDDIQUEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3896. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, William Kelleher can be reached on (571) 272-7753. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/ISMAAEEL A. SIDDIQUEE/
Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/William Kelleher/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648