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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a processing unit in claims 1 and 13-18 with corresponding structure found in paragraph [0145] of applicant’s filed specification.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim 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 14-16 and 18 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.
With respect to claims 14 and 18, in line 2 the recited “the processing unit assumes” is unclear. How does a processing unit make assumptions? A processing unit is a general term for a computer chip that processes data by carrying out instructions from programs. The examiner is unsure how a processor, without further defined functionality, is capable of making assumptions. What models, algorithms, statistics are used by the processor to make such assumptions? Therefore, the examiner is unable to apply art to these claims, as the scope of the invention is unclear. Clarification is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3, line 1 recites “the user’s head” which lacks proper antecedent basis and should read --a user’s head--. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites calculates a distance and a direction of a measurement point with respect to a first position in a first coordinate system based on a relative distance and direction in the first coordinate system or a second coordinate system between the first position whose coordinates in the first coordinate system are determined and a second position whose coordinates in the second coordinate system are determined which has been identified as an abstract idea falling into the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts. Applicant’s filed specification at para. [0034] which details the mathematical approach provides the support for the conclusion as to why the identified abstract idea falls into the abstract grouping of mathematical concepts.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the recited processor, as generically claimed, merely acts as a tool for performing the abstract idea; as neither the performance or result of the abstract idea improves the operation of the generically claimed processor. MPEP 2106.05(a)
The recited “the second position being separated from the first position, a relative attitude between the first coordinate system and the second coordinate system, and a distance to the measurement point present in a predetermined measurement direction in the second coordinate system, measured from the second position” defines additional elements that generically link the abstract idea to a field of use; as the neither the performance or result of the abstract has any impact to these generically claimed positions, attitudes, coordinate systems, distances, or measurement direction. MPEP 2106.05(h)
Lastly, the claim recites “generates a notification signal to be presented to a user based on at least one of the distances and the direction of the measurement point with respect to the first position” which reads as an additional element amounting to no more than a mere instruction to apply the exception. The limitation has a broad applicability across many fields of endeavor, thereby failing to provide a meaningful limitation that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(f)
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element of a processor is only acting as a tool for performing the abstract idea, while the positions, attitudes, coordinate systems, distances, measurement direction, alone or in combination, generically link the abstract idea to a field of use. Lastly, the notification merely amounts to adding the words “to apply” the exception, as it does not recite a solution to a technical problem. MPEP 2106.05(f)
Note: claims 19 and 20 are rejected similarly to claim 1. As the additional element information processing device, computer and programs merely define generically claimed computer components acting as tools for performing the abstract idea; as neither the performance or result of the abstract improves these generically claimed computer elements. MPEP 2106.05(a)
Claim 2 further defines the additional element of “position(s)” by defining them as objects. The further defined additional element positions as objects merely link the abstract idea to a field of use without providing significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application; as these objects are neither improved or bettered by the performance or result of the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(h)
Claims 3 and 4 further define the additional element of “position(s)” by defining them as the user’ head. The further defined additional element position being the user’s head merely link the abstract idea to a field of use without providing significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application; as the user’s head is neither improved or bettered by the performance or result of the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(h)
Claim 5 further defines the additional element of “first coordinate system” by defining it as being a coordinate system in a first device on the user’s head. The further defined additional element coordinate systems and a first device merely link the abstract idea to a field of use without providing significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application; as the neither the first device or the coordinate system are improved or bettered by the performance or result of the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(h)
Claim 6 further defines the additional element of “position(s)” by defining them as a position of the first device. The further defined additional element positions relative to the device merely link the abstract idea to a field of use without providing significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application; as neither the device and its position are improved or bettered by the performance or result of the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(h)
Claim 7 further defines the additional element of the second coordinate system to be a coordinate system set in a second device arranged at a position other than the user head. The further defined additional elements merely link the abstract idea to a field of use without providing significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application; as neither the coordinate system of the second device are improved or bettered by the performance or result of the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(h)
Claim 8 further defines an additional element of a second device not being at a determined position. However, the second device and its position merely link the abstract idea to a field of use without providing significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application; as neither the result or performance of the abstract idea improves the device or its position. MPEP 2106.05(h).
Claim 9 further defines the second device and its position without providing significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. The further defined additional element merely links the abstract idea to field of use. MPEP 2105.05(h)
Claim 10 further defines a ranging sensor used to measure the distance to the measurement point. The ranging sensor reads as an additional element tasked to perform the insignificantly activity of mere data gathering; as the sensor merely feeds the needed data to the abstract idea without providing significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. The sensor is neither improved or bettered by the performance or result of the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(g)
Claim 11 further defined the notification signal as being a sound signal for presenting a notification sound to a user; however the claim does not recite any structure for the sound signal to create sound. The claim contains no real-world action based on the result of the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation amounts to merely an instruction to apply the exception and fails to providing significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(f)
Claim 12 further defined the notification signal as being a stereo sound signal composed of left and right sound signals; however the claim does not recite any structure for the sound signal to create sound. The claim contains no real-world action based on the result of the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitation amounts to merely an instruction to apply the exception and fails to providing significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(f)
Claim 13 further defines the processing unit by reciting how it generates the notification signal that allows the user to perceive the position of the measurement point as a position of a sound image; however the limitation reads as a mere instruction to apply the exception, as there is no actual structure recited that allows the user to perceive anything. The limitation merely invokes generically claimed computer elements as tools for performing the abstract idea without providing significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(a) and (f)
Claim 14 further defines the processing unit by reciting how it assumes that an original sound that is a source of the notification sound is emitted or reflected at the position of the measurement point, and generates a sound signal indicating a sound when the original sound reaches the user's head as the notification signal; however the limitation reads as a mere instruction to apply the exception, as there is no actual structure that emits sound. The limitation merely invokes generically claimed computer elements as tools for performing the abstract idea without providing significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(a) and (f)
Claim 15 further defines the processing unit by reciting how it generates sound signals representing sounds when the original sound reaches the user's right ear and left ear, respectively, as the notification signal for the right ear and the notification signal for the left ear; however the limitation reads as a mere instruction to apply the exception, as there is no actual structure recited that allows the user to perceive anything. The limitation merely invokes generically claimed computer elements as tools for performing the abstract idea without providing significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(a) and (f)
Claim 16 defines the processing unit by reciting how it generates the notification signal by performing at least one of processing of convolving the original sound with a head-related transfer function according to a propagation path until the original sound reaches the head, processing of delaying the original sound according to a length of the propagation path, and processing of attenuating a volume according to the length of the propagation path. The limitations further define the abstract idea falling into the abstract grouping of mathematical concepts, as convolving signals, processing delays and attenuating a volume all involve math. The claim fails to provide significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 17 further defines the measurement points without providing significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application; as the measurement points merely link the abstract idea to a field of use. MEPE 2106.05(h)
Claim 18 further defines the processing unit by reciting how assumes that an original sound that is a source of the notification signal that presents a sound to the user is emitted or reflected at positions of the plurality of measurement points, and generates a sound signal indicating a sound when the original sound reaches the user's head as the notification signal; however the limitation reads as a mere instruction to apply the exception, as there is no actual structure that emits sound. The limitation merely invokes generically claimed computer elements as tools for performing the abstract idea without providing significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(a) and (f)
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Regarding claim 20, the claimed “program” covers non-statutory subjection matter propagating signals per se in view of ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See in re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed Cir. 2007). A claim drawn to such a program that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 101 by adding the limitation "non-transitory" to the claim.
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) 1-13, 17, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida et al. (JP 2007098555A) in view of Kondo (JP 201878444).
With respect to claim 1, Yoshida et al. teaches an information processing device comprising: a processing unit (1) that calculates a distance and a direction (i.e. a distance to a per robot PR and direction defined by the angle, as seen in Fig. 6) of a measurement point (defined by a QR code on a pet robot; Fig. 1) with respect to a first position (defined a user holding a mobile terminal MS; Fig. 3) in a first coordinate system (defined by the mobile terminal MS; Fig. 3) with respect to a first position (defined by the user’s own position) based on a relative distance and direction in the first coordinate system (defined by the mobile terminal MS) or a second coordinate system (of the pet robot PR defined by the QR code on PR) between the first position (of the user) whose coordinates in the first coordinate system are determined (as the user is holding the mobile device and is used to align the user the mobile device together; [0037]) and a second position (defined by the position of the pet robot, PR) whose coordinates in the second coordinate system are determined (as in para. [0034], Yoshida et al. teaches the relative position of PR is determined), the second position (defined by the position of PR) being separated from the first position (as seen in Fig 1, where the first position is defined by the user holding MS), a relative attitude between the first coordinate system and the second coordinate system (as Yoshida et al. teaches in [0034] the relative attitude between MS and PR is determined and stored), and a distance to the measurement point (defined by the QR code on PR) present in a predetermined measurement direction (defined by ø; Fig. 6) in the second coordinate system (of the PR robot), measured from the second position (defined by PR).
Yoshida et al. remains silent regarding the processing unit that generates a notification signal to be presented to a user based on at least one of the distance and the direction of the measurement point with respect to the first position.
Kondo teaches a similar processing unit (16) that generates a notification signal (as control unit 16 generates a sound signal to be presented to a user via sounding emitting unit 14) to be presented to a user (as seen in Fig 1, where the sound signal is sent to the user wearing the sound emitting unit 14) based on at least one of a distance and a direction of a measurement point with respect to a first position (as based on a distance and direction, the control unit 16 sends a sound signal to the sound emitting unit 14; [0020] [0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant invention to modify the control unit of the processing unit 1 of Yoshida et al. to include the control logic of Kondo such that based on distance and directional data, a sound signal is sent to a user wearable device, as taught in Kondo. Such a modification allows for someone visually impaired to gain a sense where objects are relative to themselves [0005-0006], thereby improving the versatility of Yoshida et al.
With respect to claim 19, the recited method steps are performed during the operation of the rejected structure of claim 1.
With respect to claim 20, Yoshida et al. as modified teaches a program for causing a computer (1 as modified by Konda) to function as a processing unit (1) that performs the method steps of claim 19 during the operation of the rejected structure of claim 1.
With respect to claim 2, Yoshida et al. as modified teaches the information processing device wherein the first position and the second position are positions set on individual objects (as the first position defines the position of the mobile terminal MS and the second position is the QR code found on the pet robot PR).
With respect to claim 3, Yoshida et al. as modified teaches the information processing device wherein the first position is a position of the user's head (as the device includes data regarding the user’s head as it relates to the position to the MS [0036-0037] such that the two are aligned; Fig. 5).
With respect to claim 4, Yoshida et al. as modified teaches the information processing device wherein the second position is a position other than the user's head (as the second position is taught to be the position of the pet robot PR; Fig. 1 of Yoshida et al.).
With respect to claim 5, Yoshida et al. as modified teaches the information processing device wherein the first coordinate system is (capable of being) a coordinate system set in a first device (MS) arranged on the user's head (depending on how the user interacts with mobile terminal; Note: a first device arranged on the user’s head does not further define the information processing device, as the first device arranged on the user’s head does not further define the processing device; further, insofar as what is structurally defined, the processing device 1 of Yoshida et al. is capable of determining distance and directional data whether the device is located in the user’s hands or on their head).
With respect to claim 6, Yoshida et al. as modified teaches the information processing device wherein the first position is a position of the first device (as Yoshida et al. teaches the first position if defined by the position of the first device MS).
With respect to claim 7, Yoshida et al. as modified teaches the information processing device wherein the second coordinate system is a coordinate system set in a second device (i.e. the pet robot) arranged at a position other than the user's head (as seen in Fig. 1, the PR is not on the user’s head).
With respect to claim 8, Yoshida et al. as modified teaches the information processing device wherein the second device (PR) is a device whose arrangement position is not determined to be a fixed position (as the pet robot is capable of being moved considered not to be a fixed position).
With respect to claim 9, Yoshida et al. as modified teaches the information processing device wherein the second position is a position of the second device (PR, as seen in Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 10, Yoshida et al. as modified teaches the information processing device wherein the second device (PR which is capable of having) a ranging sensor that measures the distance to the measurement point (as the second device and ranging sensor are not part of the claimed combination of the information processing device; and insofar as how the information processing device is structurally recited, the information processing device 1 taught by Yoshida et al. is capable of receiving measured distance information from the PR via a ranging sensor).
With respect to claim 11, Yoshida et al. as modified teaches the information processing device wherein the notification signal (as taught by Kondo) is a sound signal for presenting a notification sound to the user (via the sounding emitting device 14 of Kondo; Fig. 1 of Kondo).
With respect to claim 12, Yoshida et al. as modified teaches the information processing device wherein the sound signal is a stereo sound signal composed of a right sound signal and a left sound signal (as the generated sound signal is a stereo sound signal sent to both left and right speakers of the sound emitting device 14 of Kondo; see [0010] of Kondo).
With respect to claim 13, Yoshida et al. as modified teaches the information processing device wherein the processing unit generates the notification signal that allows the user to perceive the position of the measurement point as a position of a sound image (as the combination as a whole teaches the generated notification signal allows the user to perceive the user’s environment, see [0011] of Kondo, which includes the pet robot of Yoshida et al. and its relative position to the user).
With respect to claims 14-16 and 18, based on the above 112 rejections, the examiner was unable to apply art to these claimed. The examiner is unsure how a processor makes assumption without the specifics of how or what the processor is using to make the assumption; see the above 112(b) rejection above.
With respect to claim 17, Yoshida et al. as modified teaches the information processing device wherein there are a plurality of measurement points (i.e. as PR and TG are plurality of measurement points) with different measurement directions (as seen in Fig. 1, these different measurement points have different directions relative to one another).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Geisner et al. (9,268,406) teaches a similar device for notifying a user about their environment.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW G MARINI whose telephone number is (571)272-2676. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Stephen Meier can be reached at 571-272-2149. 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.
/MATTHEW G MARINI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853