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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendments to the Claims and Specification filed 06/12/2024 have been entered. Claims 1 and 3-27 are pending in the application. Claim 2 has been canceled and claim 27 is new.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 7-8, 10, 17, 19, and 26 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 19, and 26: “A system for monitoring the processes performed by at least one machine and the process environment” should be corrected to “A system for monitoring [[the]] processes performed by at least one machine and [[the]]a process environment”.
Claim 7, line 2: “to determine the state of” should be corrected to “to determine [[the]]a state of”.
Claim 8, lines 3-4: “at least the type and/or and at least one characteristic of the material processed or handled” should be corrected to “at least [[the]]a type and/or and at least one characteristic of [[the]]a material processed or handled”.
Claim 10, line 3: “image data generated by it” should be corrected to “image data generated by [[it]]the at least one camera”.
Claim 17, line 3: “to render them unrecognizable” should be corrected to “to render [[them]]the persons unrecognizable”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 and 3-18 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a process profile for the at least one machine based on the information determined by the at least one sensor unit and the image data generated by the at least one camera at least for monitoring the processes carried out by the at least one machine and the process environment" in lines 15-18. It is unclear from the language of the claim if the recited “at least for monitoring the processes” is modifying the “at least on camera” or the “process profile”. The claims are indefinite because it is unclear what is required by the claims. For the purposes of examination the recited “at least for monitoring the processes” shall be interpreted as referring to either the camera or the process profile. This rejection could be overcome by amending the claim language to clarify what is being used for monitoring.
Claims that depend on the above rejected claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), Second paragraph.
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 and 3-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an Abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to claim 1 the limitation(s):
at least one sensor unit, the at least one sensor unit being configured to determine information relating to the at least one machine, the information determined by the at least one sensor unit comprising at least one selected from the group consisting of position information of the machine, at least one speed value in at least one direction, and at least one acceleration value in at least one direction;
at least one camera generating image data comprising at least one selected from the group consisting of at least a portion of the at least one machine and at least a section of the process environment of the at least one machine; and
at least one evaluation unit, the at least one evaluation unit comprises a processing device and a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising code causing the evaluation unit to generate a process profile for the at least one machine based on the information determined by the at least one sensor unit and the image data generated by the at least one camera at least for monitoring the processes carried out by the at least one machine and the process environment.
These limitation(s) highlighted in (bold) is/are directed to an abstract idea and would fall within the “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas. The above portion(s) of the claim(s) constitute(s) an abstract idea because:
The limitation(s) regarding “at least one evaluation unit, the at least one evaluation unit comprises a processing device and a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising code causing the evaluation unit to generate a process profile for the at least one machine based on the information determined by the at least one sensor unit and the image data generated by the at least one camera at least for monitoring the processes carried out by the at least one machine and the process environment”, as drafted, is an act of observation and evaluation that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind. That is, other than reciting “a processing device,” nothing in the claim language precludes the Step(s) from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “a processing device” language, “generate” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually generate a profile using sensor and image data.
Further, referring to the MPEP 2106.04, the claim limitations are analogous to a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the non- abstract additional elements of the claims do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea(s) recited in the preceding claim(s). In particular, the claims recited the additional elements of:
The limitation(s) regarding “at least one machine” does/do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, because it is recited at such a high-level of generality that it is viewed as generally linking the use of the judicial exception to machines. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, fails to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, because the claim does not specify what practical application the claim is directed to.
The limitation(s) regarding “at least one sensor unit, the at least one sensor unit being configured to determine information relating to the at least one machine, the information determined by the at least one sensor unit comprising at least one selected from the group consisting of position information of the machine, at least one speed value in at least one direction, and at least one acceleration value in at least one direction” and “at least one camera generating image data comprising at least one selected from the group consisting of at least a portion of the at least one machine and at least a section of the process environment of the at least one machine” does/do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim does not specify what practical application the claim is directed to. Rather the limitation is recited at such a high-level of generality that it amounts to no more than adding insignificant extra- solution activity to the judicial exception, i.e. data gathering. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are regarded as data gathering steps necessary or routine to implement the abstract idea.
The limitation(s) regarding “a processing device” and “a non-transitory computer-readable medium” does/do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim limitation is a generic computer component performing the generic computer function of receiving, storing, and comparing data such that it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
As such Examiner does NOT view that the claims:
-Improve the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field;
-Apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b);
-Effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c); or
-Apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception – see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, or are well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) data gathering functions.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “at least one machine” is/are seen as generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Linking a judicial exception to a technological environment cannot provide an inventive concept. Similarly, with regards to the additional element(s) of “at least one sensor unit” and “at least one camera” is/are viewed as insignificant extra-solution activity, such as mere data gathering in a conventional way and, therefore, does not provide an inventive concept. Similarly, with regards to the additional element(s) of “a processing device” and “a non-transitory computer-readable medium” is/are view as a generic computer component performing the generic computer function of receiving, storing, and comparing data such that it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Examiner further notes that such additional elements are viewed to be well- understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) as evidenced by: Aizawa et al. (US 20210363726 A1); Kean (US 20190073762 A1); Wei (US 20210124359 A1); Ghadyali et al. (US 20210019528 A1).
Considering the claim as a whole, one of ordinary skill in the art would not know the practical application of the present invention since the claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in some meaningful way. As currently claimed, Examiner views that the additional elements do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, because the claims fails to recite clearly how the judicial exception is applied in a manner that does not monopolize the exception because the limitation regarding “at least one machine,” “at least one sensor unit,” “at least one camera,” “a processing device,” and “a non-transitory computer-readable medium” can be viewed as a field of use, necessary data gathering, and any device and do not impose a meaningful limitation describing what problem is being remedied or solved.
Independent claims 19 and 26 are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additionally recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an Abstract idea. Claims 19 and 26 recite the additional elements of:
The limitation(s) regarding “at least one further sensor” does/do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim does not specify what practical application the claim is directed to. Rather the limitation is recited at such a high-level of generality that it amounts to no more than adding insignificant extra- solution activity to the judicial exception, i.e. data gathering. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are regarded as data gathering steps necessary or routine to implement the abstract idea.
The limitation(s) regarding “at least one control module” does/do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim does not specify what practical application the claim is directed to. Rather the limitation is recited at such a high-level of generality that it amounts to a generic computer component performing the generic computer function of receiving, storing, and comparing data such that it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 3-18, 20-25, and 27 when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additionally recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea, as detailed below: there are no additional element(s) in the dependent claims that adds a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea to make the claims significantly more than the judicial exception (abstract idea).
Claims 10-12, 14-15, 21, and 24 recite limitations regarding data gathering steps and insignificant application necessary or routine to implement the abstract idea and thus are not significantly more than the abstract idea and viewed to be well known routine and conventional as evidenced by the prior art shown above.
Claims 3-9, 13, 15-18, 20, 22-23, and 27 further limit the abstract idea with an abstract idea, such as an “Mental Processes” and “Mathematical Concepts”, and thus the claims are still directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 15 and 25 recite limitations regarding generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a field of use or technological environment. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, fails to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, because the claim does not specify what practical application the claim is directed to.
Claim 23 recites generic computer components performing the generic computer function of receiving, storing, and comparing data such that it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7, 10-16, 18-19, 21-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Aizawa et al. (US 20210363726 A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 19, and 26. Aizawa teaches:
A system for monitoring the processes performed by at least one machine and the process environment, the system comprising:
at least one sensor unit, the at least one sensor unit being configured to determine information relating to the at least one machine, the information determined by the at least one sensor unit comprising at least one selected from the group consisting of position information of the machine, at least one speed value in at least one direction, and at least one acceleration value in at least one direction (See Fig. 3 and para[0046]: The work machine 1 includes a position sensor 33, work implement sensors 34a to 34c, and a rotation angle sensor 39. The position sensor 33 detects the position of the work machine 1 and outputs position data indicative of the position of the work machine 1. The position sensor 33 includes a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) receiver and an inertial measurement unit (IMU).);
at least one camera generating image data comprising at least one selected from the group consisting of at least a portion of the at least one machine and at least a section of the process environment of the at least one machine (See Fig. 3 and para[0050]: The work machine 1 includes a first camera 36 and a plurality of second cameras 37. The first camera 36 faces forward from the rotating body 13 and is attached to the rotating body 13.); and
at least one evaluation unit, the at least one evaluation unit comprises a processing device and a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising code causing the evaluation unit to generate a process profile for the at least one machine based on the information determined by the at least one sensor unit and the image data generated by the at least one camera at least for monitoring the processes carried out by the at least one machine and the process environment (See Fig. 6, Fig. 7, Fig. 8, para[0097], and para[0123] – para[0124]: When the work machine 1 is stopped in step S301, the controller 27 determines a state of the conveyance vehicle 2 based on the image processing 3 and the position data of the conveyance vehicle 2 in step S304. The controller 27 uses both the first image data and the position data of the conveyance vehicle 2 to determine the approach and the withdrawal of the conveyance vehicle 2.).
Regarding Claim 19, Aizawa teaches the additional limitations:
at least one further sensor for detecting information relating to the machine (See Fig. 3 and para[0045]: The work machine 1 includes load sensors 32a to 32c. The load sensors 32a to 32c detect a load applied to the work implement 12 and output load data indicative of the load.) and
at least one control module which is configured at least for controlling the at least one camera (See Fig. 3 and para[0051]: The controller 27 is communicably connected to the first camera 36 and the second cameras 37 by wire or wirelessly.).
Regarding Claim 3. Aizawa teaches:
The system according to claim 1,
wherein the at least one evaluation unit is configured to determine information about the process environment of the at least one machine based on the information determined by the at least one sensor unit and the image data generated by the at least one camera (See Fig. 6, Fig. 7, Fig. 8, para[0097], para[0111], and para[0123] – para[0124]: The controller 27 uses both the first image data and the position data of the conveyance vehicle 2 to determine the approach and the withdrawal of the conveyance vehicle 2. The controller 27 may determine that the conveyance vehicle 2 has withdrawn from the loading position L2 when both the distance calculated from the first image data and the distance calculated from the position data are equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold.).
Regarding Claim 7. Aizawa teaches:
The system according to claim 1,
wherein the at least one evaluation unit is configured to determine the state of at least one section of the machine at least on the basis of the image data generated by the at least one camera (See para[0097]: When the work machine 1 is stopped in step S301, the controller 27 determines a state of the conveyance vehicle 2 based on the image processing 3 and the position data of the conveyance vehicle 2 in step S304. Therefore, the first camera 36 and the position sensor 33 correspond to a detection device that detects the operation of the conveyance vehicle 2.).
Regarding Claims 10 and 21. Aizawa teaches:
The system according to claim 1 or the sensor arrangement according to claim 19,
wherein the at least one camera transmits the image data generated by it to the at least one sensor unit and/or to the at least one evaluation unit (See Fig. 3 and para[0051]: The controller 27 is communicably connected to the first camera 36 and the second cameras 37 by wire or wirelessly. The controller 27 receives the first image data from the first camera 36. The controller 27 receives the second image data from the second cameras 37.).
Regarding Claim 11. Aizawa teaches:
The system according to claim 1,
wherein at least one selected from the group consisting of the at least one camera and/or and the at least one sensor unit, can be or are arranged on the at least one machine (See Fig. 2, Fig. 3, para[0046], and para[0050]: The work machine 1 includes a position sensor 33, work implement sensors 34a to 34c, and a rotation angle sensor 39. The work machine 1 includes a first camera 36 and a plurality of second cameras 37.).
Regarding Claim 12. Aizawa teaches:
The system according to claim 1,
wherein at least one selected from the group consisting of the at least one camera and the at least one sensor unit, are arranged stationary at a predetermined location (See para[0046] and para[0050]: The first camera 36 faces forward from the rotating body 13 and is attached to the rotating body 13. The work machine 1 includes a position sensor 33, work implement sensors 34a to 34c, and a rotation angle sensor 39.).
Regarding Claims 13 and 23. Aizawa teaches:
The system according to claim 1 or the sensor arrangement according to claim 19,
wherein the at least one evaluation unit comprises at least one artificial intelligence unit (See para[0069]: The controller 27 detects the presence of a person in the images indicated by the first image data and the second image data by using, for example, image recognition technology that uses artificial intelligence (AI).).
Regarding Claim 14. Aizawa teaches:
The system according to claim 1,
wherein the system comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of (1) a plurality of sensor units, wherein at least some of the sensor units are arrangeable or arranged on a machine and (2) a plurality of cameras, wherein at least some of the cameras are arrangeable or arranged on a machine (See Fig. 2, Fig. 3, para[0046], and para[0050]: The work machine 1 includes a position sensor 33, work implement sensors 34a to 34c, and a rotation angle sensor 39. The work machine 1 includes a first camera 36 and a plurality of second cameras 37.).
Regarding Claim 15. Aizawa teaches:
The system according to claim 1,
wherein the at least one evaluation unit is configured to determine two or more interacting machines on the basis of the information determined by the plurality of sensor units and the image data generated by the at least one camera (See Fig. 11, para[0111]: the controller 27 calculates the distance between the work machine 1 and the conveyance vehicle 2 based on the first image data. The controller 27 calculates the distance between the work machine 1 and the conveyance vehicle 2 based on the position data. The controller 27 may determine that the conveyance vehicle 2 has withdrawn from the loading position L2 when both the distance calculated from the first image data and the distance calculated from the position data are equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold.).
Regarding Claim 16. Aizawa teaches:
The system according to claim 1,
wherein the at least one evaluation unit is configured to recognize objects in the image data generated by the at least one camera (See Fig. 6 and para[0068]: The image processing 1 detects the presence of a person in the periphery of the work machine 1 with image recognition technology based on the first image data and the second image data.).
Regarding Claim 18. Aizawa teaches:
The system according to claim 16,
wherein the at least one evaluation unit is configured to recognize machines in the image data generated by the at least one camera and to distinguish the machines according to their respective machine type (See Fig. 6 and para[0070]: In the image processing 2, the controller 27 detects the presence of the conveyance vehicle 2 with the image recognition technology based on the first image data. Therefore, the first camera 36 corresponds to a vehicle detection device that detects an approach of the conveyance vehicle 2 toward the work machine 1.).
Regarding Claim 22. Aizawa teaches:
The sensor arrangement according to claim 19,
wherein at least one selected from the group consisting of (1) the at least one control module is configured to analyse at least one selected from the group consisting of (a) the position information (See para[0046]: The position sensor 33 detects the position of the work machine 1 and outputs position data indicative of the position of the work machine 1.) and
(b) the further information (See para[0045]: The load sensors 32a to 32c detect a load applied to the work implement 12 and output load data indicative of the load.), and
(2) wherein the at least one control module is adapted to analyse the image data generated by the at least one camera (See para[0051]: The controller 27 receives the first image data from the first camera 36. The controller 27 receives the second image data from the second cameras 37.).
Regarding Claim 24. Aizawa teaches:
The sensor arrangement according to claim 19,
wherein the at least one further sensor is at least one selected from the group consisting of a gyroscope, accelerometer (See para[0046]: an inertial measurement unit (IMU).), magnetometer, barometer, humidity sensor, temperature sensor, microphone, ambient light sensors, proximity sensor, ultrasonic sensor sensors, and time-of-flight sensor sensors (See para[0049]: a laser imaging detection and ranging (LIDAR) device.).
Regarding Claim 25. Aizawa teaches:
The sensor arrangement according to claim 19,
wherein at least one selected from the group consisting of (1) the at least one sensor unit and (2) the at least one camera, comprise at least one encapsulation (See Fig. 2:
PNG
media_image1.png
562
854
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.).
Regarding Claim 27. Aizawa teaches:
The method according to claim 26,
further comprising monitoring at least the processes performed by the at least one machine and the process environment by the at least one evaluation unit (See Fig. 6, Fig. 7, Fig. 8, para[0097], and para[0123] – para[0124]: When the work machine 1 is stopped in step S301, the controller 27 determines a state of the conveyance vehicle 2 based on the image processing 3 and the position data of the conveyance vehicle 2 in step S304. The controller 27 uses both the first image data and the position data of the conveyance vehicle 2 to determine the approach and the withdrawal of the conveyance vehicle 2.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 4-6, 9, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aizawa et al. (US 20210363726 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 19 above, and further in view of Kean (US 20190073762 A1).
Regarding Claims 4 and 20. Aizawa is silent as to the language of:
The system according to claim 1 or the sensor arrangement according to claim 19,
wherein the at least one sensor unit is configured to control the at least one camera.
Nevertheless Kean teaches:
wherein the at least one sensor unit is configured to control the at least one camera (See para[0007] and para[0036]: The control system 300 of FIG. 3 uses the IMU 302 and camera 304 to perform a site scanning process. In some instances, a predefined path may be set forth for the machine to follow. In a fourth example, the method includes controlling the work machine to return to the first location and taking another image to replace the first image after the rejecting step. In a fifth example, the method includes controlling the work machine to a second location of the surface; taking a second image of the surface with the camera at the second location.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Aizawa wherein the at least one sensor unit is configured to control the at least one camera such as that of Kean. Kean teaches, “In some instances, a predefined path may be set forth for the machine to follow. In some instances, the machine is an autonomous robot that is controlled to survey or scan portions of infrastructure such as a road or bridge. Sensors, including the IMU 302, are used to determine the path in some instances” (See para[0036]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Aizawa, because using a sensor unit to control a camera would have helped to determine a path for a machine to survey or scan, as recognized by Kean.
Regarding Claim 5. Aizawa is silent as to the language of:
The system according to claim 4,
wherein the at least one sensor unit is configured to control the at least one camera in dependence on at least one event detected by the sensor unit.
Nevertheless Kean teaches:
wherein the at least one sensor unit is configured to control the at least one camera in dependence on at least one event detected by the sensor unit (See para[0007] and para[0036]: The control system 300 of FIG. 3 uses the IMU 302 and camera 304 to perform a site scanning process. In some instances, a predefined path may be set forth for the machine to follow. In a fourth example, the method includes controlling the work machine to return to the first location and taking another image to replace the first image after the rejecting step. In a fifth example, the method includes controlling the work machine to a second location of the surface; taking a second image of the surface with the camera at the second location.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Aizawa wherein the at least one sensor unit is configured to control the at least one camera in dependence on at least one event detected by the sensor unit such as that of Kean. Kean teaches, “In some instances, a predefined path may be set forth for the machine to follow. In some instances, the machine is an autonomous robot that is controlled to survey or scan portions of infrastructure such as a road or bridge. Sensors, including the IMU 302, are used to determine the path in some instances” (See para[0036]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Aizawa, because using a sensor unit to control a camera would have helped to determine a path for a machine to survey or scan, as recognized by Kean.
Regarding Claim 6. Aizawa is silent as to the language of:
The system according to claim 1,
wherein the at least one evaluation unit is configured to assign an image or an image sequence of the image data generated by the at least one camera with at least one item of information determined by the at least one sensor unit.
Nevertheless Kean teaches:
wherein the at least one evaluation unit is configured to assign an image or an image sequence of the image data generated by the at least one camera with at least one item of information determined by the at least one sensor unit (See Fig. 4 and para[0035]: The camera 304 may take images which are then linked by the controller to the measurement data detected by the IMU and other sensors.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Aizawa wherein the at least one evaluation unit is configured to assign an image or an image sequence of the image data generated by the at least one camera with at least one item of information determined by the at least one sensor unit such as that of Kean. Kean teaches, “The control system 300 of FIG. 3 uses the IMU 302 and camera 304 to perform a site scanning process” (See para[0036]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Aizawa, because assign an image with information from a sensor would have helped to scan a site, as recognized by Kean.
Regarding Claim 9. Aizawa is silent as to the language of:
The system according to claim 1,
wherein the at least one evaluation unit is configured to determine information patterns in the information determined by the at least one sensor unit,
wherein the at least one evaluation unit is configured to assign the image data generated by the at least one camera to one or more determined information patterns.
Nevertheless Kean teaches:
wherein the at least one evaluation unit is configured to determine information patterns in the information determined by the at least one sensor unit (See para[0036]: Sensors, including the IMU 302, are used to determine the path in some instances.),
wherein the at least one evaluation unit is configured to assign the image data generated by the at least one camera to one or more determined information patterns (See para[0010]: Storing the first image and the information collected at the first location in the database. Producing a path of travel to achieve desired compaction of the surface at and between the first and second locations.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Aizawa wherein the at least one evaluation unit is configured to determine information patterns in the information determined by the at least one sensor unit, wherein the at least one evaluation unit is configured to assign the image data generated by the at least one camera to one or more determined information patterns such as that of Kean. Kean teaches, “producing a path of travel to achieve desired compaction of the surface at and between the first and second locations” (See para[0010]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Aizawa, because assigning information patterns to images would have helped to produce a path of travel, as recognized by Kean.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aizawa et al. (US 20210363726 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wei (US 20210124359 A1).
Regarding Claim 8. Aizawa is silent as to the language of:
The system according to claim 1,
wherein the at least one evaluation unit is configured to determine at least one selected from the group consisting of at least the type and at least one characteristic of the material processed or handled by the at least one machine based on the image data generated by the at least one camera and the information determined by the at least one sensor unit.
Nevertheless Wei teaches:
wherein the at least one evaluation unit is configured to determine at least one selected from the group consisting of at least the type and at least one characteristic of the material processed or handled by the at least one machine based on the image data generated by the at least one camera and the information determined by the at least one sensor unit (See Fig. 2 and para[0026]: In one example, the perception sensor 134 may be configured to sense, detect, observe, and/or otherwise determine various characteristic of the pile 118 of material 119 that is to be distributed throughout the worksite 112. The perception sensor 134 may include at least one of a position sensor, an imaging device, or other sensing device.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Aizawa wherein the at least one evaluation unit is configured to determine at least one selected from the group consisting of at least the type and at least one characteristic of the material processed or handled by the at least one machine based on the image data generated by the at least one camera and the information determined by the at least one sensor unit such as that of Wei. Wei teaches, “This allows the system controller 122 and/or a controller 136 of the loading machine 104 to more effectively and expeditiously determine a most effective travel path of the loading machine, and cut-in points and loading directions for the travel path” (See para[0028]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Aizawa, because determining a characteristic or type of material would have helped to determine a most effective travel path for a loading machine, as recognized by Wei.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aizawa et al. (US 20210363726 A1) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Ghadyali et al. (US 20210019528 A1).
Regarding Claim 17. Aizawa teaches:
The system according to claim 16,
wherein the at least one evaluation unit is configured to recognize persons in the image data generated by the at least one camera (See Fig. 6 and para[0068]: The image processing 1 detects the presence of a person in the periphery of the work machine 1 with image recognition technology based on the first image data and the second image data.).
Aizawa is silent as to the language of:
render them unrecognizable.
Nevertheless Ghadyali teaches:
render them unrecognizable (See para[0332]: If these images are consumed and stored without further alternation, they pose a customer privacy risk. To mitigate and protect captured object privacy, an Object Masking module 3514 can be used. In this example, the Object Masking module 3514 takes each image from Image Transformation module 3508 and classifies each pixel in an image to be either people or not people.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Aizawa to render them unrecognizable such as that of Ghadyali. Ghadyali teaches, “object masking is also used to enhance customer privacy and identity protection through visual pixel masking, blurring, and/or concealing” (See para[0327]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Aizawa, because rendering people unrecognizable would have helped to enhance customer privacy and identify protection, as recognized by Ghadyali.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARTER W FERRELL whose telephone number is (571)272-0551. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10 am - 8 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 T. 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.
/CARTER W FERRELL/ Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/Catherine T. Rastovski/ Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights