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 .
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.
Claim Objections
The below claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “in the roar,” but this should be “on the road.”
The equation of claim five recites 0.5 instead of square root.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 (all claims) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “the processor being configured to derive a direction information regarding a direction of the vehicle based on the first information,” but this is unlimited functional claiming because of the wide variety of ways to accomplish this. Claiming a specific technique, such as the Lucas-Kanade method, is expected to overcome this rejection.
Claim 13 recites corresponding language and is likewise rejected.
Dependent claims are likewise rejected.
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 1-20 (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.
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 20 recites “the processor being 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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 13-17, and 20 recite “regarding,” but this is subjective because there is not objective guidance defining the relationship. MPEP 2173.05(b)(IV). Specifying the relationship, such as “of” or “is” is expected to overcome this rejection.
Claim 1 recites “obtained by the first image sensor,” but it is unclear whether this is a prohibited method step in a system claim (MPEP 2173.05(p)(II)) or if the claim should instead be interpreted as a product-by-process. However, even as a product-by-process, it is unclear what the defining structural limitations would be (in other words, how can one determine which sensor took the photo?).
Claims 1-5, 7, 8, 12-17 and 20 recite various types of “information” (such as direction information or image information), but the scope of these are unclear because there is not guidance to determine whether the information is sufficiently related to the adjective to be “<adjective> information.” Removing the word “information,” is expected to overcome these rejections because then specific concepts are recited.
Claim 5 recites “the moving amount,” but this lacks sufficient antecedent basis. MPEP 2173.05(e).
Claim 5 recites “is expressed by,” but this is a method step in an apparatus claim. MPEP 2173.05(p)(II).
Claim 18 recites a “base section,” but this is a relative term without sufficient guidance. MPEP 2173.05(b).
Claim 18 recites “away,” but this is a relative term without sufficient guidance. MPEP 2173.05(b).
Claim 18 recites “from a road surface,” but it is not clear if the road is required to be present for the claim.
Claim 18 recites a “moving direction,” but this is a method step in an apparatus claim. MPEP 2173.05(p)(II).
Claim 18 recites “the rotation center,” but this lacks sufficient antecedent basis. MPEP 2173.05(e).
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 1-20 (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 (and its dependents) recite a method, and processes satisfy Step 1 of the eligibility test.
Claim 18 (and its dependents) recite 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.
Neither the claims nor the specification demonstrate a technological improvement over the art, rather the underlying concept appears to be using the well-known but not claimed Lucas-Kanade method (specification, p. 4, line 32) to image a surface instead of the inventor’s earlier sensor fusion approach. However, the abstract idea’s technological improvement test is relative to the state of the art, not the inventor’s prior work.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-6 and 12-16 (the remaining claims are rejected under 103) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by 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”).
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, (Ogawa, abstract “a floor image sensor which acquires images of a floor”)
the vehicle being configured to travel in the roar surface; and (Ogawa, abstract “Automatic Guided Vehicle”)
a processor configured to process a first information including a first image information regarding the road surface obtained by the first image sensor, the processor being configured to derive a direction information regarding a direction of the vehicle based on the first information. (Ogawa, section 1 “estimating relative movement.” See also Fig. 10 showing a processor.)
2. The positioning system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to derive a movement amount information regarding 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 information regarding the position of the vehicle based on the direction information and the movement amount information. (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 information regarding the movement amount of the vehicle based on the first information, and the processor is configured to derive the direction information based on a first distance between a position of the first image sensor in the vehicle and a rotation center of the vehicle and at least a part of the moving 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 information regarding the 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 a first direction and a second moving amount in a 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 direction information includes information regarding a first angle, and the first angle (degree) is expressed by [{(Px12 + Py12) 1/2} / (2π x r1)] x 360, the Px1 is the first direction moving amount, the Py1 is the second direction moving amount, and the r1 is a first distance between the position of the first image sensor in the vehicle and a rotation center of the vehicle. (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.)
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 is provided on the base face. (Ogawa, abstract “a floor image sensor which acquires images of a floor”)
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 a direction information regarding a direction of a vehicle based on a first information including a first image information regarding a road surface on which the vehicle travels, the first image information being obtained by a first image sensor included in a sensor section provided in the vehicle. (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.”)
14. The positioning method according to claim 13, further comprising: deriving a moving amount information regarding a moving amount of the vehicle based on the first information.
15. The positioning method according to claim 14, further comprising: deriving a position information regarding a position of the vehicle based on the direction information and the movement amount information.
16. The positioning method according to claim 13, further comprising: deriving a movement amount information regarding the movement amount of the vehicle; and
deriving the direction information based on at least a part of the moving amount and a first distance between a position of the first image sensor in the vehicle and a rotation center of the vehicle. (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 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 7-11 and 17-20 (the other claims are rejected under 102) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa (see the 102, above) in view of legal precedent.
7. Ogawa teaches the positioning system according to claim 1, wherein the sensor section further includes a (Ogawa, abstract “a floor image sensor which acquires images of a floor”)
Ogawa is not relied on for the below claim language.
However, Legal Precedent teaches that the image sensor is a second image sensor. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B), titled “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.
Based on the above, this is an example of “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.” MPEP 2143.
8. The positioning system according to claim 7, wherein the processor is configured to distinguish a rotation of the vehicle and a translation of the vehicle based on the first image information and the second image information. (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.”)
9. The positioning system according to claim 7, wherein the moving direction of the vehicle includes a first component along a first direction and a second component along a 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, a position of a rotation center of the vehicle in the 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 a position of the rotation center in the 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, 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 7, wherein in a plane perpendicular to a direction from the road surface to the first image sensor, a 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.)
Claims 17-20 are rejected as per claim 7.
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”
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