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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 3 of claim 1 recites, in part, “configured to execute the instructions to;” which appears to contain a grammatical error and/or a minor informality. The Examiner suggests amending the claim to --configured to execute the instructions [[to;]] to:-- in order to improve the clarity and precision of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 10 - 11 of claim 1 recite, in part, “a third deformation occurs in a future at a position” which appears to contain a grammatical error and/or a minor informality. The Examiner suggests amending the claim to --a third deformation occurs [[in]] at a future time being after the second time at a position-- in order to improve the clarity and precision of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 2 - 3 of claim 4 recite, in part, “calculate deformation propagation velocity, based on” which appears to contain a grammatical error and/or a minor informality. The Examiner suggests amending the claim to --calculate a deformation propagation velocity, based on-- in order to improve the clarity and precision of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 1 of claim 6 recites, in part, “according to claim 3, the at least one processor” which appears to contain a grammatical error and/or a minor informality. The Examiner suggests amending the claim to --according to claim 3, wherein the at least one processor-- in order to improve the clarity and precision of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 3 of claim 8 recites, in part, “configured to execute the instructions to;” which appears to contain a grammatical error and/or a minor informality. The Examiner suggests amending the claim to --configured to execute the instructions [[to;]] to:-- in order to improve the clarity and precision of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 10 - 11 of claim 8 recite, in part, “a third deformation occurs in a future at a position” which appears to contain a grammatical error and/or a minor informality. The Examiner suggests amending the claim to --a third deformation occurs [[in]] at a future time being after the second time at a position-- in order to improve the clarity and precision of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 2 - 3 of claim 11 recite, in part, “calculate deformation propagation velocity, based on” which appears to contain a grammatical error and/or a minor informality. The Examiner suggests amending the claim to --calculate a deformation propagation velocity, based on-- in order to improve the clarity and precision of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 1 - 2 of claim 13 recite, in part, “according to claim 10, the at least one processor” which appears to contain a grammatical error and/or a minor informality. The Examiner suggests amending the claim to --according to claim 10, wherein the at least one processor-- in order to improve the clarity and precision of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 8 - 9 of claim 15 recite, in part, “a third deformation occurs in a future at a position” which appears to contain a grammatical error and/or a minor informality. The Examiner suggests amending the claim to --a third deformation occurs [[in]] at a future time being after the second time at a position-- in order to improve the clarity and precision of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 1 - 2 of claim 16 recite, in part, “according to claim 15, in the predicting, further comprises predicting” which appears to contain a grammatical error and/or a minor informality. The Examiner suggests amending the claim to --according to claim 15, comprising. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 1 - 2 of claim 17 recite, in part, “according to claim 16, in the predicting, further comprises predicting” which appears to contain a grammatical error and/or a minor informality. The Examiner suggests amending the claim to --according to claim 16, comprising. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 1 - 3 of claim 18 recite, in part, “according to claim 17, in the predicting, further comprises; calculating deformation propagation velocity, based on” which appears to contain grammatical errors and/or minor informalities. The Examiner suggests amending the claim to --according to claim 17, comprising: calculating a deformation propagation velocity, based on-- in order to improve the clarity and precision of the claim. 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.
Claim 18 is 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 18 recites the limitation "the space difference" (emphasis added) in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner suggests amending the aforementioned limitation to --the spatial difference--.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception, an abstract idea, without significantly more. The claims are directed towards predicting a future deformation, which is an abstract idea.
The claims recite, at a high level of generality, detecting, based on a plurality of pieces of the three-dimensional data, a first deformation occurring at a first time, and a second deformation occurring at a position different from an occurrence position of the first deformation at a second time being after the first time and predicting, based on a detection result, that a third deformation occurs in a future at a position different from occurrence positions of the first deformation and the second deformation.
The limitation of “detecting, based on a plurality of pieces of the three-dimensional data, a first deformation occurring at a first time, and a second deformation occurring at a position different from an occurrence position of the first deformation at a second time being after the first time”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “at least one memory storing instructions, and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to” (see claims 1 and 8) nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the recitation of the aforementioned generic computer components, the claimed detecting a first deformation occurring at a first time and a second deformation occurring at a position different from an occurrence position of the first deformation at a second time being after the first time based on a plurality of pieces of the three-dimensional data encompasses a user observing a plurality of sets of three-dimensional data of an object and performing an evaluation by mentally identifying (detecting) deformations depicted in two or more sets of the three-dimensional data of the object. 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, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Similarly, the limitation of “predicting, based on a detection result, that a third deformation occurs in a future at a position different from occurrence positions of the first deformation and the second deformation”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “at least one memory storing instructions, and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to” (see claims 1 and 8) nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the recitation of the aforementioned generic computer components, the claimed predicting, based on a detection result, that a third deformation occurs in a future at a position different from occurrence positions of the first deformation and the second deformation encompasses a user observing and evaluating deformations identified (detected) in a plurality of sets of three-dimensional data of an object and making a judgment and/or forming an opinion about where a further deformation may occur in the future. 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, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite additional elements of: “at least one memory storing instructions, and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions” and “repeatedly acquiring three-dimensional data of a monitoring target surface on a time axis”.
The limitations of “at least one memory storing instructions, and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions” are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Furthermore, the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the concept of predicting a future deformation in a computer environment. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Further, the limitation of “repeatedly acquiring three-dimensional data of a monitoring target surface on a time axis” is mere pre-solution activity, data gathering, recited at a high level of generality, and thus is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering, and, as such, this limitation does not impose any meaningful limits on the claims. This limitation amounts to necessary data gathering. See MPEP § 2106.05.
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of: “at least one memory storing instructions, and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Furthermore, the additional element of: “repeatedly acquiring three-dimensional data of a monitoring target surface on a time axis” is mere pre-solution activity, data gathering, recited at a high level of generality, and is thus insignificant extra-solution activity. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
In addition, with regards to dependent claims 2 - 7, 9 - 14 and 16 - 20, the Examiner asserts that claims 2 - 7, 9 - 14 and 16 - 20, are also directed to the abstract idea of predicting a future deformation and merely further limit the abstract idea claimed in independent claims 1, 8 and 15, for example by further identifying information that is used to predict the third deformation and details of third deformation and/or by identifying further data gathering and/or outputting recited at a high level of generality corresponding to insignificant extra-solution activity. However, the Examiner asserts that a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea and that none of the limitations of dependent claims 2 - 7, 9 - 14 and 16 - 20 considered as an ordered combination provide eligibility because taken as a whole the claims merely instruct the practitioner to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. The claims are not eligible.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barbaresco et al. U.S. Patent No. 6,438,253 in view of Yang et al. U.S. Publication No. 2022/0205926 A1.
- With regards to claims 1, 8 and 15, Barbaresco et al. disclose a prediction system, apparatus and method (Barbaresco et al., Abstract, Fig. 2, Col. 1 Lines 3 - 41, Col. 2 Lines 1 - 7 and Lines 33 - 46, Col. 4 Lines 4 - 29 and Lines 51 - 61, Col. 5 Lines 1 - 12) comprising: repeatedly acquiring three-dimensional data of a monitoring target surface on a time axis; (Barbaresco et al., Fig. 2, Col. 1 Lines 42 - 67, Col. 2 Lines 8 - 15 and Lines 33 - 46, Col. 3 Lines 17 - 50, Col. 4 Lines 17 - 29 and Lines 62 - 67) detecting, based on a plurality of pieces of the three-dimensional data, a first deformation occurring at a first time, (Barbaresco et al., Abstract, Fig. 2, Col. 1 Lines 42 - 54, Col. 2 Lines 1 - 15 and Lines 33 - 46, Col. 3 Lines17 - 22 and Lines 32 - 64, Col. 4 Lines 17 - 38, Col. 4 Line 62 - Col. 5 Line 7) and a second deformation occurring at a position different from an occurrence position of the first deformation at a second time being after the first time; (Barbaresco et al., Abstract, Fig. 2, Col. 1 Lines 42 - 54, Col. 2 Lines 1 - 15 and Lines 33 - 46, Col. 3 Lines17 - 22 and Lines 32 - 64, Col. 4 Lines 17 - 38, Col. 4 Line 62 - Col. 5 Line 7) and predicting, based on a detection result, that a third deformation occurs in a future at a position different from occurrence positions of the first deformation and the second deformation. (Barbaresco et al., Abstract, Fig. 2, Col. 2 Lines 1 - 15 and Lines 33 - 46, Col. 4 Lines 4 - 29 and Lines 51 - 61) Barbaresco et al. fail to disclose explicitly at least one memory storing instructions, and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions. Pertaining to analogous art, Yang et al. disclose a prediction system, apparatus and method (Yang et al., Abstract, Figs. 1, 5 & 6, Pg. 1 ¶ 0015 - Pg. 2 ¶ 0019, Pg. 3 ¶ 0024 - 0025, Pg. 4 ¶ 0038 - 0041) comprising: at least one memory storing instructions, (Yang et al., Fig. 1, Pg. 1 ¶ 0015 - Pg. 2 ¶ 0017) and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions; (Yang et al., Abstract, Fig. 1, Pg. 1 ¶ 0015 - Pg. 2 ¶ 0017) repeatedly acquire three-dimensional data of a monitoring target surface on a time axis; (Yang et al., Figs. 1, 2 & 5, Pg. 1 ¶ 0015 - Pg. 2 ¶ 0016, Pg. 2 ¶ 0019, Pg. 3 ¶ 0025 - 0031, Pg. 4 ¶ 0039 - 0041) detect, based on a plurality of pieces of the three-dimensional data, a first deformation occurring at a first time, (Yang et al., Figs. 2 - 6, Pg. 2 ¶ 0016 and 0019 - 0022, Pg. 3 ¶ 0027 - 0031, Pg. 4 ¶ 0039 - 0041) and a second deformation occurring at a position different from an occurrence position of the first deformation at a second time being after the first time; (Yang et al., Figs. 2 - 6, Pg. 2 ¶ 0016 and 0019 - 0022, Pg. 3 ¶ 0027 - 0031, Pg. 4 ¶ 0039 - 0041) and predict, based on a detection result, that a third deformation occurs in a future at a position different from occurrence positions of the first deformation and the second deformation. (Yang et al., Pg. 2 ¶ 0016, Pg. 3 ¶ 0024 - 0025, Pg. 4 ¶ 0038 - 0041) Barbaresco et al. and Yang et al. are combinable because they are both directed towards processes for monitoring and predicting deformations in deformable media using image processing techniques. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Barbaresco et al. with the teachings of Yang et al. This modification would have been prompted in order to enhance the base device of Barbaresco et al. with the well-known and applicable technique Yang et al. applied to a similar device. Utilizing at least one processor configured to execute instructions stored in at least one memory to implement a method, as taught by Yang et al., would enhance the base device of Barbaresco et al. by allowing for it to be implemented accurately and efficiently at high computational speed on computer architecture and by facilitating the wide spread dissemination of the operations of the base device of Barbaresco et al. to millions of potential end users with access to a computer. This combination could be completed according to well-known techniques in the art and would likely yield predictable results, in that at least one processor configured to execute instructions stored in at least one memory would be utilized to perform the operations of the base device of Barbaresco et al. so as to ensure that its operations are carried out accurately, efficiently and at high computational speed on computer architecture. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Barbaresco et al. with Yang et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claims 1, 8 and 15.
- With regards to claims 2, 9 and 16, Barbaresco et al. in view of Yang et al. disclose the prediction system, apparatus and method according to claims 1, 8 and 15, respectively, further configured to predict that the third deformation occurs on an extension line of a line segment connecting a first occurrence position as an occurrence position of the first deformation and a second occurrence position as an occurrence position of the second deformation. (Barbaresco et al., Fig. 2, Col. 3 Line 47 - Col. 4 Line 29) Barbaresco et al. fail to disclose explicitly wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions. Pertaining to analogous art, Yang et al. disclose wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to predict. (Yang et al., Abstract, Fig. 1, Pg. 1 ¶ 0015 - Pg. 2 ¶ 0017)
- With regards to claims 3, 10 and 17, Barbaresco et al. in view of Yang et al. disclose the prediction system, apparatus and method according to claims 2, 9 and 16, respectively, further configured to predict a third time as a time at which the third deformation occurs (Barbaresco et al., Fig. 2, Col. 3 Lines 32 - 46, Col. 4 Lines 4 - 29) and a third occurrence position as a position at which the third deformation occurs, based on a time difference between the first time and the second time, and a spatial difference between the first occurrence position and the second occurrence position. (Barbaresco et al., Fig. 2, Col. 3 Line 32 - Col. 4 Line 29) Barbaresco et al. fail to disclose explicitly wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions. Pertaining to analogous art, Yang et al. disclose wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to predict. (Yang et al., Abstract, Fig. 1, Pg. 1 ¶ 0015 - Pg. 2 ¶ 0017)
- With regards to claims 4, 11 and 18, Barbaresco et al. in view of Yang et al. disclose the prediction system, apparatus and method according to claims 3, 10 and 17, respectively, further configured to calculate deformation propagation velocity, based on the time difference and the spatial difference, (Barbaresco et al., Abstract, Fig. 2, Col. 1 Line 65 - Col. 2 Line 15, Col. 3 Lines 32 - 64, Col. 4 Lines 4 - 29 and Lines 51 - 61, Col. 5 Lines 38 - 43, Col. 6 Lines 1 - 15 [The Examiner asserts that the process of Barbaresco et al. calculates a deformation propagation velocity at least because it determines displacement vectors, i.e., spatial differences, between images that are temporally separated by a known time interval, i.e., time difference. Thus, the process of Barbaresco et al. calculates how far and in what direction something moves in a given amount of time, i.e., velocity.]) predict the third time and the third occurrence position, based on the second time, the second occurrence position, and the deformation propagation velocity. (Barbaresco et al., Fig. 2, Col. 1 Line 65 - Col. 2 Line 15, Col. 3 Line 32 - Col. 4 Line 29) Barbaresco et al. fail to disclose explicitly wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions. Pertaining to analogous art, Yang et al. disclose wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to calculate and predict. (Yang et al., Abstract, Fig. 1, Pg. 1 ¶ 0015 - Pg. 2 ¶ 0017, Pg. 2 ¶ 0021 - 0022, Pg. 3 ¶ 0024 - 0025)
- With regards to claims 5, 12 and 19, Barbaresco et al. in view of Yang et al. disclose the prediction system, apparatus and method according to claims 3, 10 and 17, respectively, further configured to output the third occurrence position in an image format. (Barbaresco et al., Fig. 2, Col. 2 Lines 1 - 7, Col. 4 Lines 4 - 29 and Lines 51 - 61) Barbaresco et al. fail to disclose explicitly wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions. Pertaining to analogous art, Yang et al. disclose wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to output the third occurrence position in an image format. (Yang et al., Abstract, Figs. 1, 2 & 5, Pg. 1 ¶ 0015 - Pg. 2 ¶ 0017, Pg. 3 ¶ 0025, Pg. 4 ¶ 0040 - 0041)
- With regards to claims 6, 13 and 20, Barbaresco et al. in view of Yang et al. disclose the prediction system, apparatus and method according to claims 3, 10 and 17, respectively, further configured to output the first occurrence position, the second occurrence position, and the third occurrence position in an image format. (Barbaresco et al., Fig. 2, Col. 2 Lines 1 - 7, Col. 3 Lines 1 - 6 and Lines 32 - 64, Col. 4 Lines 4 - 29 and Lines 51 - 61) Barbaresco et al. fail to disclose explicitly wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions. Pertaining to analogous art, Yang et al. disclose the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to output the first occurrence position, the second occurrence position, and the third occurrence position in an image format. (Yang et al., Abstract, Figs. 1 - 3 & 5, Pg. 1 ¶ 0015 - Pg. 2 ¶ 0017, Pg. 3 ¶ 0025 - 0033, Pg. 4 ¶ 0040 - 0041)
- With regards to claims 7 and 14, Barbaresco et al. in view of Yang et al. disclose the prediction system and apparatus according to claims 1 and 8, respectively, wherein the three-dimensional data are data being output from a three-dimensional scanner. (Barbaresco et al., Col. 2 Lines 33 - 46, Col. 3 Lines 17 - 22, col. 4 Lines 62 - 67) Barbaresco et al. fail to disclose explicitly wherein the three-dimensional data are point cloud data being output from a three-dimensional LiDAR scanner. Pertaining to analogous art, Yang et al. disclose wherein the three-dimensional data are point cloud data being output from a three-dimensional LiDAR scanner. (Yang et al., Abstract, Figs. 1, 5 & 6, Pg. 1 ¶ 0015 - Pg. 2 ¶ 0016, Pg. 2 ¶ 0019 - 0022, Pg. 3 ¶ 0025, 0027 and 0033, Pg. 4 ¶ 0041) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined teachings of Barbaresco et al. in view of Yang et al. with additional teachings of Yang et al. This modification would have been prompted in order to substitute the three-dimensional scanner of Barbaresco et al. for the three-dimensional LiDAR scanner of Yang et al. The three-dimensional LiDAR scanner of Yang et al. could be substituted in place of the three-dimensional scanner of Barbaresco et al. utilizing well-known techniques in the art and would likely yield predictable results, in that, in the combination, a three-dimensional LiDAR scanner would be utilized to acquire the three-dimensional data of the deformable media being monitored. In addition, this modification would have been prompted in order to enhance the combined base device of Barbaresco et al. in view of Yang et al. with the well-known and applicable technique Yang et al. applied to a comparable device. Acquiring the three-dimensional point cloud data from a three-dimensional LiDAR scanner, as taught by Yang et al., would enhance the combined base device by allowing for it to be utilized in an increased number of practical applications, such as infrastructure inspection, and/or in combination with a larger variety of pre-existing systems as well as by enabling the techniques of the combined base device to be applied to a greater variety and quantity of deformable media thereby improving the overall appeal and usefulness of the combined base device to potential end-users. Furthermore, this modification would have been prompted by the teachings and suggestions of Barbaresco et al. that their teachings may be utilized to monitor and predict changes in many other types of deformable media, such as solid objects, flooding, snow cover, etc., and that data used to monitor and predict changes in a deformable medium should be obtained from at least one appropriate sensor, see at least column 2 lines 33 - 67 of Barbaresco et al. This combination could be completed according to well-known techniques in the art and would likely yield predictable results, in that the combined base device would utilize a three-dimensional LiDAR scanner to acquire the three-dimensional data as point cloud data so as to allow for the combined base device to be utilized in an increased number of practical applications and to monitor and predict changes in a greater variety and quantity of deformable media in order to improve the overall appeal and usefulness of the combined base device to potential end-users. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Barbaresco et al. in view of Yang et al. with additional teachings of Yang et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claims 7 and 14.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Costes et al. U.S. Publication No. 2011/0103693 A1; which is directed towards a method for predicting a trend of a cloud mass, wherein a future position of an object, such as a cloud, is predicted based on pairing characteristic points of the object in two successive images.
Lei et al. U.S. Publication No. 2021/0048294 A1; which is directed towards a system and method for monitoring dam slope deformation, wherein repeatedly acquired three-dimensional laser scan data of a monitoring area is analyzed to determine an area with a three-dimensional deformation exceeding threshold amount.
Yang et al. U.S. Publication No. 2022/0227498 A1; which is directed towards systems and methods for tracking and predicting motion of a wing of an aircraft, wherein LIDAR data recorded over time is analyzed to track overall deformation of an aircraft wing and to predict future overall deformation of the aircraft wing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC RUSH whose telephone number is (571) 270-3017. The examiner can normally be reached 9am - 5pm Monday - Friday.
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, Andrew Bee can be reached at (571) 270 - 5183. 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.
/ERIC RUSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2677