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.
Claim 1-2, 13-15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without reciting significantly more. Independent claims recite “a comparison circuit that determines whether the first position is correct by comparing the first information with the second information” which falls under the grouping of Mental Processes because a person can mentally compare the results. Alternatively, the comparison falls under the grouping of Mathematical operation because the comparison is a difference operation.
The independent claims further recite “an obtaining circuit that obtains first information indicating a first position of an object and second information indicating a second position of the object, the first position having been calculated based on a detection result of a range sensor according to a first calculation method, the second position having been calculated through simulation according to a second calculation method different from the first calculation method” which appears to be a data gathering step (obtaining information) which is an insignificant extra solution activity. Alternatively, the limitation can be said to fall under the grouping of Mathematical operations because they recite a first calculation and a second calculation which are clearly mathematical operations.
Dependent claim 2 recites “a coordinate calculation circuit that generates the first information by calculating the first position based on the detection result according to the first calculation method” which falls under the grouping of Mathematical operations because it recites a calculation step.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 3-12 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 3 recites “a simulation circuit that generates the second information by calculating the second position through the simulation according to the second calculation method, using object information indicating a third position of the object and a shape of the object as well as vehicle information regarding a vehicle in/to which the range sensor is provided”. It is not clear what the “third position” of the object refers to nor how it is obtained. Dependent claims fail to clarify the issue.
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 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 1-2, 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1.1
With regard to claim 1, D1 teach an obtaining circuit that obtains first information indicating a first position of an object and second information indicating a second position of the object, the first position having been calculated based on a detection result of a range sensor according to a first calculation method, the second position having been calculated through simulation according to a second calculation method different from the first calculation method (see abstract, ¶¶ 45, 58, fig. 7: first position based on the depth camera measurement and second depth information based on estimation); and a comparison circuit see fig. 7, ¶ 126-127: comparing the first position with the second position to determine a difference and whether the difference exceeds a threshold).
D1 teach comparing the first depth information with a second depth information and determining a difference and determining whether the difference exceeds a threshold. This teaching suggests that either one of the first or second or both are wrong when the difference exceeds a threshold. One skilled in the art would have found it obvious to use the comparison and the determination of the difference exceeding a threshold to determine that one of the first or second depth information is wrong yielding predictable and enhanced results. Alternatively, Examiner takes Official Notice to the fact that it is extremely well known in the art before the effective filing date to verify the correctness of a measurement by comparing the result with a result obtained using a different method or modality and it would have been particularly obvious to incorporate known teachings into the configuration of D1 yielding predictable results and to improve the confidence in the measurements.
With regard to claim 2, D1 teach a coordinate calculation circuit that generates the first information by calculating the first position based on the detection result according to the first calculation method (see abstract, ¶ 45).
With regard to claim 13, D1 teach wherein the range sensor is any one of an ultrasonic sensor, a radar, or a lidar (see ¶ 45: depth camera, depth camera using a time of flight (TOF) scheme, a depth camera using a structured light scheme, and a depth camera based on normal acquisition).
With regard to claims 14-15, see discussion of claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AVINASH YENTRAPATI whose telephone number is (571)270-7982. The examiner can normally be reached on 8AM-5PM.
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, Sumati Lefkowitz can be reached on (571) 272-3638. 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.
/AVINASH YENTRAPATI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2672
1 US Publication No. 2013/0301907.