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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Examiner’s position is that the claims are eligible.
Regarding independent claims 1 and 12 Yes. The claims fall within statutory categories claim 1 recites a series of steps and, therefore, is process. Claim 12 recites a control system. As to prong 1, 2A Judicial exception recited, no, the claims do not recite any of the judicial exceptions enumerated in the 2019 PEG. The claims do not recite a mathematical relationship, formula, or calculation. With respect to mental processes, the claims do not recite a mental process because the steps are not practically performed in the human mind. Finally, the claims do not recite a certain method of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic concept or commercial and legal interactions. The claims are eligible because they do not recite a judicial exemption
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.
Claims 1 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (9,524,426) in view of Taguchi (11,054,802)
Regarding claims 1 and 12 Kim discloses
Disposing a plurality of three dimensional (3D) image sensors proximate to the workcell (note col. 2 lines 59-66, monitoring workspace area with plurality of sensors and col. 3 lines 13-17, describe fig. 2 as sensors are substantially spaced from each other);
Acquiring, with the plurality of 3D image sensors, a plurality of 3D images of the workcell (note col. 3 lines 1-6, capturing images of the workspace, and col. 3 lines 18-30, imaging devices provide stereo three dimensional scene analysis),
Wherein at least one of the plurality of 3D images includes at least a portion of the floor (note col. 9 lines 2-5 and lines 67- col. 10 lines 10, cites ROI represents viewable floor space);
Determining, based on a first user selection of a region of a first image of the plurality of 3D images of the workcell, a first floor point indicating a first portion of the floor in the first image (note fig. 6 block 86 and col. 10 lines 3-5, the various body-axis lines may intersect at or near a single location point in the ground plane).
computing a first floor plane representing the floor based on the first floor point (note col. 10 lines 9-15, location point may represent one estimation of the human's ground plane location within the workspace, location point (human ground plane location) may be determined through a weighted least squares approach, where each line may be individually weighted using the integrity score). Kim does not clearly disclose registering the 3D image sensors to each other and to the workcell based at least in part on the plurality of 3D images and the first floor plane. Taguchi discloses registering the 3D image sensors to each other and to the workcell based at least in part on the plurality of 3D images and the first floor plane (note col. 4 lines 52-55, 3D sensor and registered with each other using simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM) techniques). Kim and Taguchi are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include registering the 3D image sensors to each other and to the workcell based at least in part on the plurality of 3D images and the first floor plane in the system of Kim as evidenced by Taguchi. The suggestion/motivation for doing so provides relationship between the workpiece coordinate system and the machine coordinate system can be defined as, for example, a rigid-body transformation (note col. 1 lines 23-27). It would have been obvious to combine xxx with Kim to obtain the invention as specified by claims 1 and 12.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-11 and 13-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter for dependent claims 2-11 and 13-20.
Regarding claims 2 and 13, prior art could not be found for the features determining, within the first image, a region-of-interest around the first floor point, wherein the region-of-interest includes a plurality of candidate points within the region of interest in the first image; computing a fitted plane based on at least one of the plurality of candidate points of the region-of-interest; and determining whether the fitted plane is suitable to be adopted as the first floor plane to register a first 3D image sensor acquiring the first image. These features in combination with other features could not be found in the prior art. Claims 3-9 and 14-18 depend on claims 2 and 13, respectively. Therefore, are also objected.
Regarding claims 10 and 19, prior art could not be found for the features determining that the first floor plane is aligned with the second floor plane to register the 3D image sensors acquiring the first image and the second image, wherein the plurality of 3D image sensors are physically separated from each other by at least one meter and configured to acquire 3D images independently from each other. These features in combination with other features could not be found in the prior art.
Regarding claims 11 and 20 prior art could not be found for the features adjusting a vertical offset of at least one 3D image sensor of the plurality of 3D image sensors based on a user input in view of at least one image of the workcell acquired by the at least one 3D image sensor; and determining, based on the adjusting, that a floor in the at least one image has a vertical position aligned to a floor level in a global frame of the workcell. These features in combination with other features could not be found in the prior art.
Related Prior Art
Wells et al (9,251,598) Disposing a plurality of three dimensional (3D) image sensors proximate to the workcell (note fig. 2).
Ju et al (10,540,552) compute floor plane an image, a region-of-interest around the first floor point (note col 6 lines 26-38),
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY M DESIRE whose telephone number is (571)272-7449. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30am-3:00pm.
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, Henok Shiferaw can be reached at 571-272-4638. 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.
G.D.
January 6, 2026
/GREGORY M DESIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2676