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 .
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 in the form of an Abstract Idea, without significantly more:
Beginning with independent claim 1, a process claim, which recites:
A method in a computing device, the method comprising: capturing sensor data depicting a target object and an adjacent surface; detecting, from the sensor data, a first surface of the target object; identifying, from the sensor data, a material type of the adjacent surface; for a sample point on the first surface of the target object, determining a reflection intensity from the adjacent surface based on the material type determined from the sensor data; and selecting, based on the reflection intensity, a handling action from (i) determining an attribute of the target object and (ii) suppressing the determination of the attribute of the target object.
The claim recites abstract ideas:
As recited in in step “capturing” step mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity.
A process that encompass a human performing the steps mentally with or without a physical aid in the form of the “selecting” step, with the “capturing” step, “detecting” step, “identifying” step and “determining” step being pre-solution acts of processing information which could be performed visually and/or mentally; and
A method of organizing human behavior in the form of a social activity of following rules or instructions informing a person to perform the “capturing” step, “detecting” step, “identifying” step, “determining” step and the “selecting” step
These two abstract ideas will be considered together for analysis as a single abstract idea per MPEP 2106:
PNG
media_image1.png
468
1527
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no recited additional elements that amount to a practical application, such as but no limited to the following as noted in MPEP 2106:
PNG
media_image2.png
453
1451
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reason: There are not additional elements other than the abstract idea.
Independent claim 10, a device claim, which recites:
A computing device, comprising: a processor configured to: capture sensor data depicting a target object and an adjacent surface; detect, from the sensor data, a first surface of the target object; identify, from the sensor data, a material type of the adjacent surface; for a sample point on the first surface of the target object, determine a reflection intensity from the adjacent surface based on the material type determined from the sensor data; and select, based on the reflection intensity, a handling action from (i) determining an attribute of the target object and (ii) suppressing the determination of the attribute of the target object.
The claim recites abstract ideas:
“An computing device, comprising a processor to perform the “capturing” step, “detecting” step, “identifying” step, “determining” step and the “selecting” step is considered being performed by a generic computer. Therefore, If the apparatus, processor and memory are removed from the claim, the method can be easily performed by a human being without the need of any of a computer component. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As recited in in step “capturing” step mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity.
A process that encompass a human performing the steps mentally with or without a physical aid in the form of the “selecting” step, with the “capturing” step, “detecting” step, “identifying” step and “determining” step being pre-solution acts of processing information which could be performed visually and/or mentally; and
A method of organizing human behavior in the form of a social activity of following rules or instructions informing a person to perform the “capturing” step, “detecting” step, “identifying” step, “determining” step and the “selecting” step
These two abstract ideas will be considered together for analysis as a single abstract idea per MPEP 2106:
PNG
media_image1.png
468
1527
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no recited additional elements that amount to a practical application, such as but no limited to the following as noted in MPEP 2106:
PNG
media_image2.png
453
1451
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reason: There are not additional elements other than the abstract idea.
Independent claim 18, a processing claim, which recites:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-readable instructions executable by a processor of a computing device to: capture sensor data depicting a target object and an adjacent surface; detect, from the sensor data, a first surface of the target object; identify, from the sensor data, a material type of the adjacent surface; for a sample point on the first surface of the target object, determine a reflection intensity from the adjacent surface based on the material type determined from the sensor data; and select, based on the reflection intensity, a handling action from (i) determining an attribute of the target object and (ii) suppressing the determination of the attribute of the target object.
The claim recites abstract ideas:
As recited in in step “capturing” step mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity.
A process that encompass a human performing the steps mentally with or without a physical aid in the form of the “selecting” step, with the “capturing” step, “detecting” step, “identifying” step and “determining” step being pre-solution acts of processing information which could be performed visually and/or mentally; and
A method of organizing human behavior in the form of a social activity of following rules or instructions informing a person to perform the “capturing” step, “detecting” step, “identifying” step, “determining” step and the “selecting” step
These two abstract ideas will be considered together for analysis as a single abstract idea per MPEP 2106:
PNG
media_image1.png
468
1527
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no recited additional elements that amount to a practical application, such as but no limited to the following as noted in MPEP 2106:
PNG
media_image2.png
453
1451
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reason: There are not additional elements other than the abstract idea.
Independent claims 1, 10 and 18 are merely a generic computer implementation of the abstract ideas and likewise do not amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106:
PNG
media_image3.png
249
1434
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Likewise, the following dependent claims have been analyzed and do not recite elements that recite a practical application or significantly more and remain rejected under 35 USC 101: Claims 2-9 and 11-17.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baker’461 (US 2013/0271461), and further in view of Azam’621 (US 2024/0054621).
With respect to claim 10, Baker’461 teaches a computing device [regarding to the system shown in Fig.32], comprising:
a processor [the system shown in Fig.32 is inherent disclosed with a processor to perform its desired functions] configured to:
capture sensor data depicting a target object and an adjacent surface [the box 100 shown in Fig.1 is the target object. the surface of the wall and the surface of a floor or a table shown in Fig.1 is considered an adjacent surface (paragraph 49)];
detect, from the sensor data, a first surface of the target object [regarding to the surface of the box 100 shown in Fig.1 (paragraph 49)];
identify, from the sensor data, a material type of the adjacent surface (paragraph 41);
for a sample point on the first surface of the target object, determine a reflection intensity from the adjacent surface based on the material type determined from the sensor data [Reflective surfaces, shadows, translucent surfaces may all be determined by example embodiments of the present invention (paragraph 68)]; and
Baker’461 does not teach select, based on the reflection intensity, a handling action from (i) determining an attribute of the target object and (ii) suppressing the determination of the attribute of the target object.
Azam’621 teaches select, based on the reflection intensity, a handling action from (i) determining an attribute of the target object [clustering the candidate 3D points by intensity values or reflectance values, and selecting at least one of the 3D points as the reflection artifact (an attribute) based at least in part on a threshold associated with the intensity values or the reflectance values (paragraph 12)] and (ii) suppressing the determination of the attribute of the target object [The 3D points in a point cloud corresponding to the reflective surfaces are identified and removed, thereby resulting in a 3D point cloud free of reflection artifacts (paragraph 48)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Baker’461 according to the teaching of Azam’621 to determine the reflection artifact (an attribute) on the surfaces of an object and then to remove it because this will allow the dimensions of an object to be produced more effectively.
With respect to claim 11, which further limits claim 10, Baker’461 teaches wherein the processor is configured to determine the material type of the adjacent surface by: executing a segmentation model to determine, for each pixel of the two-dimensional image, one of a set of predetermined material types (paragraph 73); and
storing the determined material type for each pixel (paragraphs 73 and 100).
With respect to claim 12, which further limits claim 11, Baker’461 teaches wherein the processor is further configured to: store for each of the predetermined material types, a reflectivity coefficient (paragraph 73); and
determine the reflection intensity based on the stored reflectivity coefficient for the material type of the adjacent surface (paragraph 68).
With respect to claim 13, which further claim 12, Baker’461 teaches wherein the processor is further configured to: store, for each of the predetermined material types, a specular reflectivity coefficient and a diffuse reflectivity coefficient (paragraph 68); and
select, based on an angle of incidence of a ray between the sample point and the adjacent surface, between the specular reflectivity coefficient and the diffuse reflectivity coefficient (paragraphs 62 and 63); and
determine the reflection intensity based on the selected one of the specular reflectivity coefficient and the diffuse reflectivity coefficient (paragraph 73).
With respect to claim 14, which further limits claim 10, Baker’461 does not teach wherein the processor is further configured to: in response to selecting suppressing the determination of the attribute of the target object, generate a notification indicating that the point cloud likely contains multipath artifacts.
Azam’621 teaches wherein the processor is further configured to: in response to selecting suppressing the determination of the attribute of the target object, generate a notification indicating that the point cloud likely contains multipath artifacts [the reflection artifact identified is being removed (Fig.14, step 1410). Therefore, a reflection artifact removing notification is considered being generated in the system in order to instruct the system to remove the reflection artifact when the reflection artifact is needed to be removed].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Baker’461 according to the teaching of Azam’621 to determine the reflection artifact (an attribute) on the surfaces of an object and then to remove it because this will allow the dimensions of an object to be produced more effectively.
With respect to claim 15, which further limits claim 10, Baker’461 does not teach wherein the processor is further configured to: determine reflection intensities for each of a plurality of sample points on the first surface; increment a multipath score for each reflection intensity that exceeds a first threshold; and select the handling action by comparing the multipath score to a second threshold.
Azam’621 teaches wherein the processor is further configured to: determine reflection intensities for each of a plurality of sample points on the first surface [clustering the candidate 3D points by intensity values or reflectance values, and selecting at least one of the 3D points as the reflection artifact based at least in part on a threshold associated with the intensity values or the reflectance values (paragraph 12)];
increment a multipath score for each reflection intensity that exceeds a first threshold [clustering the candidate 3D points by intensity values or reflectance values (claim 12). The candidate 3D points are considered being incremented and clustered with respect to the similarity scores (thresholds)]; and
select the handling action by comparing the multipath score to a second threshold [selecting at least one of the candidate 3D points as the reflection artifact based at least in part on a threshold associated with the intensity values or the reflectance values (claim 12)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Baker’461 according to the teaching of Azam’621 to determine the reflection artifact (an attribute) on the surfaces of an object and then to remove it because this will allow the dimensions of an object to be produced more effectively.
With respect to claim 16, which further limits claim 15, Baker’461 does not teach wherein the processor is configured to select the handling action by selecting suppressing the determination of the attribute of the target object when the multipath score exceeds the second threshold.
Azam’621 teaches wherein the processor is configured to select the handling action by selecting suppressing the determination of the attribute of the target object when the multipath score exceeds the second threshold [selecting at least one of the candidate 3D points as the reflection artifact based at least in part on a threshold associated with the intensity values or the reflectance values (claim 12)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Baker’461 according to the teaching of Azam’621 to determine the reflection artifact (an attribute) on the surfaces of an object and then to remove it because this will allow the dimensions of an object to be produced more effectively.
With respect to claim 17, which further limits claim 10, Baker’461 teaches the material type of the adjacent surface is determined from the two-dimensional image (paragraphs 41 and 93).
Azam’621 teaches wherein the sensor data includes a point cloud [a point cloud that is generated by a TOF scanner, this is for example purposes and the claims should not be so limited (paragraphs 69 and 87)] and a two-dimensional image [the 2D images are stored in a memory (paragraph 78). Therefore, the 2D images are considered being obtained from a device before storing in a memory]; and
wherein the first surface of the target object is detected from the point cloud [identifying a reflection artifact encompassed by the bounding coordinates in the 3D space (abstract). Therefore, a surface of an object is considered being detected from the point cloud in order to identify the reflection artifact encompassed by the bounding coordinates in the 3D space].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Baker’461 according to the teaching of Azam’621 to determine the reflection artifact (an attribute) on the surfaces of an object and then to remove it because this will allow the dimensions of an object to be produced more effectively.
With respect to claims 1-4 and 6-9, they are method claims and they are being analyzed and rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of claims 10-13 and 16-17.
With respect to claim 5, which further limits claim 1, Baker’461 teaches in response to selecting determining the attribute of the target object: determining dimensions of the target object from the point cloud based on the first surface (paragraphs 41 and 43); and
presenting the dimensions on a display of the computing device (paragraph 65).
With respect to claim 18, it is a program claim and it is being analyzed and rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of claim 10.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUO LONG CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3759. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9am - 5pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tieu, Benny can be reached on (571) 272-7490. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HUO LONG CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682