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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendment have persuasively overcome the claim objections and most of the 112 rejections. The prior art rejections are updated, but still apply Ogawa in view of Legal Precedent.
The remaining issues are addressed below.
Telephone interview
Applicant argues:
The Examiner indicated that the proposed amendments would overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C.§§ 112(b), 102, and 103
Examiner responds:
This is not what the examiner’s interview summary says.
Title
Applicant argues:
In response, Applicant has amended the Title to ensure it is descriptive.
Examiner responds:
The title needs to specify what is inventive. The examiner has not proposed a title because, as discussed with respect to the prior art, the examiner does not understand what the gist of the invention is.
Drawings
Applicant argues:
While FIG. 6 may appear similar to a figure in JP 2022-187649 A, such similarity reflects that both disclosures are directed to technology developed by the same Assignee and share common technical background, rather than indicating that FIG. 6 illustrates prior art per se. The present Application does not identify FIG. 6 as prior art, and Applicant respectfully declines to designate it as such.
Examiner responds:
JP 2022-187649 A is prior art. Applicant has not identified a difference between the figure from JP 2022-187649 A and Fig. 6, and thus Fig. 6 continues to depict the prior and must be labeled as such.
101
Applicant argues:
amended independent claim 1 recites a "first image sensor" and a "second image sensor" and specific positional relationships of the sensors relative to a "rotation center of the vehicle," including that the rotation center is positioned between the two sensors in both directions. These are concrete physical components and structural relationships of a vehicle system, and cannot be characterized as mental processes.
Examiner responds:
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) state that use of a mobile phone is encompassed by the abstract idea. Here, mobile phones (which include image sensors) are generic computers, and thus part of the abstract idea. The term “rotation center” is rejected as indefinite because it is unclear how it is a “concrete physical component.”
Applicant argues:
This is an inherently machine-performed operation, requiring coordinated processing of image data obtained from multiple image sensors and evaluation of spatial relationships relative to a rotation center of a vehicle.
Examiner responds:
The claimed process amounts to thinking about where you are walking (e.g., following directions to turn left and walk ten feet).
Applicant argues:
Accordingly, the claimed invention integrates the alleged abstract idea into a practical application and is patent-eligible under §101, as it provides specific technical solutions to problems in the field of artificial intelligence and machine learning
Examiner responds:
The examiner’s review of the claims has not identified any machine learning or artificial intelligence. Additionally, these terms do not appear in the specification.
Applicant argues:
Applicant's Specification explains that in conventional vehicle positioning systems, "the direction of the vehicle is estimated by the inertial sensor... [and] an error occurs due to ... noise in the inertial sensor."
Examiner responds:
What vehicle relies solely on an inertial sensor? The examiner believes that modern vehicles track distance by wheel rotation, GPS, radar or lidar (the examiner notes that some cars use a compass to provide a direction heading in the rearview mirror).
Prior art
Applicant argues:
The cited "duplication of parts" and "art recognized equivalence" rationales are inapplicable because amended claim 1 does not merely add a second image sensor for the same purpose. Rather, the claim recites a coordinated configuration in which the processor "distinguish[es] between a rotation of the vehicle and a translation of the vehicle based on the first angle estimated from the first image and the second angle estimated from the second image," together with a specific geometric relationship in which the rotation center is located between the two image sensors in both directions.
Examiner responds:
First, the claims are not limited to specific calculations and second, the claim language regarding these relationships is indefinite.
Applicant argues:
Distinguishing rotation from translation based on comparative angle estimation … instead reflects a different operating principle
Examiner responds:
The examiner does not understand what technology Applicant is describing. The examiner believes that the technology at issue, namely, taking a picture of the ground to determine motion, is old and well-known, such as how optical mice navigate. The examiner does not understand why a vehicle would use this technology (e.g., what type of vehicle is this?)
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Drawings
Figure 6 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g).
Here, Fig. 6 is the same as Fig. 1 of JP2022187649A (cited on 8/17/2023 IDS and apparently having a common assignee). As an alternative to labeling Fig. 6 prior art, Applicant may submit a declaration or affidavit removing Fig. 1 as prior art. Applicant is requested to comment on whether JP2022187649A is available as prior art.
Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Examiner Note
Applicant may wish to submit a translation of Ogawa equation 7 because it appears relevant for claim 5.
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 1-6, 9-13, 18, and 21 (all claims) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claims use a variety of terms that do not align with their meaning in English:
Claims 1 and 18 recite “vehicle,” but in English (i.e., the plain meaning) this is understood as “A device or structure for transporting persons or things; a conveyance.” (from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition, retrieved from https://www.wordnik.com/words/vehicle)
However, the specification states:
For example, a reference example in which a vehicle is provided with an inertial sensor and an image sensor can be considered. In this reference example, the direction of the vehicle is estimated by the inertial sensor (for example, an angular velocity sensor). Then, the movement distance (movement amount) of the vehicle is estimated from the result of the road surface imaged by the image sensor.
The examiner is unfamiliar with any vehicle that operates in this manner. While the examiner thinks this might describe certain robots, no supporting disclosure has been found.
Claims 1 and 18 recite “image sensor.” The plain meaning of “image sensor” is a camera, see, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor. However, the specification describes technology where both an image sensor and an inertial sensor are needed to determine the motion of the vehicle. In contrast, optical mice have been able to use a single image sensor to track both distance and angle since the 1980’s. Thus, it appears that the term “image sensor” likely refers to another type of optical sensor.
Claims 1 and 18 recite “rotation center.” The plain meaning of “rotation center” is the point about which the vehicle rotates, and such a point varies based on how the vehicle is rotating. See, e.g., https://www.ck12.org/flexi/math-grade-8/properties-of-rotations/what-is-the-definition-of-the-center-of-rotation-in-geometry/, “The center of rotation is the fixed point that a figure is rotated around.” (A copy is attached). However, the figures depict the rotation center as a fixed point (see, e.g., 58c in Figs. 3-5). Further, the specification describes the various rotation centers’ location as tied to particular embodiments. Lastly, Applicant’s arguments regarding the 101 rejections identify the rotation center as part of “concrete physical components and structural relationships.”
Claims 1 and 18 recite various angles, but do not specify what the angles are of (e.g., the angle between the current heading of the vehicle and the heading prior to rotating, or the angle between the road and the base section). The claims are indefinite because the angles are not defined (e.g., there is not a way to determine that the angles are or are not a given value, or used in a given calculation).
Claim 1 recites “a processor configured to,” but it is unclear whether this includes a processor coupled to an external memory that stores instructions (i.e., the claim appears to be limited to specialized hardware, such as an ASIC or where all of the instructions are within the processor, such as L1 cache). The examiner’s guess is that storing the instructions outside of the processor is excluded.
Claim 1 recites “in a vehicle,” but it is unclear if the vehicle is a required part of the claim.
Claim 18 recites “from a road surface,” but it is not clear if the road is required to be present for the claim.
Dependent claims are likewise rejected.
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 1-6, 9-13, 18, and 21 (all claims) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (mental process) without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claim 1 (and its dependents) recite a system, and machines satisfy Step 1 of the eligibility test.
Claim 13 recites a method, and processes satisfy Step 1 of the eligibility test.
Claim 18 recites a vehicle, and machines satisfy Step 1 of the eligibility test.
Step 2A, prong one: All of the elements of claims 1-20 are a mental process because a person can look at the road and determine what direction a vehicle is facing or travelling relative to the road. Further, the various models are also mental processes, see example 47, claim 2, element (d) (from the July 2024 AI subject matter eligibility examples). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) explains that use of a generic computer or in a computer environment is still a mental process. In particular, this section begins by citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 US 63 (1972). “The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea.” In Benson the Supreme Court did not separately analyze the computer hardware at issue; the specifics of what hardware was claimed is only included in an appendix to the decision.
Because there are no additional elements, no further analysis is required for Step 2A, prong two or Step 2B.
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.
Claims 1-6, 9-13, 18, and 21 (all claims) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Ogawa reference submitted in Applicant’s IDS, namely, Jumpei OGAWA et al., "A Study on Positioning Technology for AGV Based on a Floor Image Sensor," IEE Japan Papers of Technical Meeting on "Systems" ST-21-015, pp. 5-9 (2021) (“Ogawa”) in view of Legal Precedent.
Claim Interpretation
Many of the claim limitations describe hypothetical features that lack structural requirements. For example, several claims recite “rotation center,” but this is understood as a point about which an object could be rotated, and thus a rotation center can be chosen effectively arbitrarily to meet a claim. Similarly, where claims recite the existence of a plane, this plane is understood to be imaginary, and thus one can imagine the plane to be placed such that the claim is met.
A positioning system, comprising:
a sensor section provided in a vehicle, the sensor section including a first image sensor configured to image a road surface to obtain a first image of the road surface, (Ogawa, abstract “a floor image sensor which acquires images of a floor”)
the vehicle being configured to travel on the road surface; and (Ogawa, abstract “Automatic Guided Vehicle”)
a processor configured to process a first information including the first image of the road surface obtained by the first image sensor, the processor being configured to derive a direction of the vehicle based on the first information, (Ogawa, section 1 “estimating relative movement.” See also Fig. 10 showing a processor.)
wherein the direction includes a first angle and a second angle, (Ogawa, Fig. 10)
the second image sensor is configured to image the road surface to obtain a second image of the road surface, (Ogawa, abstract “a floor image sensor which acquires images of a floor.” The obviousness mapping below addresses the word “second”)
the first information includes the second image of the road surface obtained by the second image sensor, (Ogawa, section 1 “estimating relative movement.”)
the processor is configured to distinguish between a rotation of the vehicle and a translation of the vehicle based on the first angle estimated from the first image and the second angle estimated from the second image, (Ogawa, p. 11 of the NPL in the file, section (2). Ogawa’s movement states distinguish between (5) rotate in place and (1)-(4), which are translations)
a position of a rotation center of the vehicle in a first direction is between a position of the first image sensor in the first direction and a position of the second image sensor in the first direction, and (Ogawa, p. 11 of the NPL in the file, section (2), “(5) Rotate in place.” The location of the rotation center is arbitrary and can be chosen such that the claim is met.)
a position of the rotation center in a second direction is between a position of the first image sensor in the second direction and a position of the second image sensor in the second direction. (Ogawa, p. 11 of the NPL in the file, section (2), “(5) Rotate in place.” The location of the rotation center is arbitrary and can be chosen such that the claim is met.)
Ogawa alone is not relied on for the below claim language.
However, legal precedence teaches that the sensor section further includes a second image sensor, (MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B) “Duplication of Parts” This MPEP section directs “Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).” Additionally, using a second imaging sensor instead of just a first image sensor is an example of “Art Recognized Equivalence for the Same Purpose.” MPEP 2144.06(II).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply legal precedent to the teachings of Ogawa such that Ogawa has a second image sensor. Because Ogawa’s image sensor can perform the claimed functionality with just one sensor, the duplication does not result in a new or unexpected result.
Based on the above, this is an example of “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.” MPEP 2143.
Alternatively, legal precedent serves as its own modification rationale.
2. The positioning system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to derive a movement amount of the movement amount of the vehicle based on the first information. (Ogawa, section 1 “estimating relative movement.” See also Fig. 10 showing a processor.)
3. The positioning system according to claim 2, wherein the processor is configured to derive a position of the position of the vehicle based on the direction and the movement amount. (Ogawa, section 1 “estimating relative movement.” See also Fig. 10 showing a processor.)
4. The positioning system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to derive a movement amount of the vehicle based on the first information, and the processor is configured to derive the direction based on a first distance between a position of the first image sensor in the vehicle and the rotation center of the vehicle and at least a part of the movement amount. (Ogawa, section 3.2, “Regarding the moving state, the inertial sensor determines whether the vehicle is stationary or moving, and the road surface image sensor determines five types of moving states: forward movement, backward movement, right movement, left movement, and spot rotation.”)
5. The positioning system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to derive a movement amount of the vehicle based on the first information, (Ogawa, section 1 “estimating relative movement.” See also Fig. 10 showing a processor.)
the moving amount includes a first moving amount in the first direction and a second moving amount in the second direction, a plane including the first direction and the second direction crosses a third direction from the road surface to the first image sensor, the second direction is orthogonal to the first direction, the processor is configured to derive the first angle (degree) based on [{(Px12 + Py12)1/2} / (2π x r1)] x 360, the Px1 is the first moving amount, the Py1 is the second moving amount, and the r1 is a first distance between the position of the first image sensor in the vehicle and the rotation center of the vehicle. (Ogawa, Fig. 10. Here, Px1 is the arrow labeled 1, Px2 is 0 (because the forward movement does not have movement in a different direction) and r1 is also zero because there is no rotation.)
6. The positioning system according to claim 1, wherein the vehicle includes a base section away from the road surface, the base section includes a base face facing the road surface, and the first image sensor and the second image sensor are provided on the base face. (Ogawa, abstract “a floor image sensor which acquires images of a floor”)
9. The positioning system according to claim 1, wherein a moving direction of the vehicle includes a first component along the first direction and a second component along the second direction, a plane including the first direction and the second direction crosses a third direction from the road surface to the first image sensor, the second direction is orthogonal to the first direction. (Ogawa, section 3.2, “Regarding the moving state, the inertial sensor determines whether the vehicle is stationary or moving, and the road surface image sensor determines five types of moving states: forward movement, backward movement, right movement, left movement, and spot rotation.”)
10. The positioning system according to claim 1, wherein in a plane perpendicular to a direction from the road surface to the first image sensor, the rotation center of the vehicle is between at least a part of the first image sensor and at least a part of the second image sensor. (These limitations are hypothetical, and do not have structural requirements for the claimed system. Therefore, these limitations are met by the previous mapping to Ogawa.)
11. The positioning system according to claim 10, wherein a first distance between the rotation center and the first image sensor is different from a second distance between the rotation center and the second image sensor. (These limitations are hypothetical, and do not have structural requirements for the claimed system. Therefore, these limitations are met by the previous mapping to Ogawa.)
12. The positioning system according to claim 1, wherein, the first information does not include information from an inertial sensor. (Ogawa, section 1 “estimating relative movement.” Information from the inertial sensor is not considered part of the claimed first information.)
13. A positioning method, comprising: deriving the direction using the positioning system according to claim 1. (Ogawa, section 3.2, “Regarding the moving state, the inertial sensor determines whether the vehicle is stationary or moving, and the road surface image sensor determines five types of moving states: forward movement, backward movement, right movement, left movement, and spot rotation.”)
Claim 18 is rejected as per claim 1.
21. (New) The positioning system according to claim 6, wherein, a moving mechanism is provided on the base section, (Ogawa, Fig. 10)
a first distance between the rotation center and the first image sensor is longer than a distance between the rotation center and the moving mechanism. (The rotation center is arbitrary, and is thus chosen such that this is true.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US10783657B2 – abstract, “An image collecting device installed on a target vehicle is used to capture a region in front of the target vehicle at a current moment under a fixed viewing angle, to acquire a real image.”
US20240057502A1 – title, “Performing image based actions on a moving vehicle”
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID ORANGE whose telephone number is (571)270-1799. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9-5.
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, Gregory Morse can be reached at 571-272-3838. 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.
/DAVID ORANGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2663
Prosecution Insights