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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 11th, 2024 was reviewed and the listed references were noted.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 100, 1100. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 1000.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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.
The drawings are objected to because of the following informalities:
For Figure 11:
reference numbers 1146 (Video Adaptor) and 1156 (Network Adaptor) should say “Video Adapter” and “Network Adapter” to match what is present in the specification;
please provide a label in the drawing as seen in the other components for System Bus 1108;
For Paragraph [0126], reference number 1156 is referred to as “adapter 1156” and “wireless adapter 1156”; all instances should read “network adapter 1156” to match Figure 11
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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.
Specification
The title of the invention (Volume Management System) is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The following title is suggested: Volume Measurement System.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Paragraph [0038], ““on” or “on”” is unclear as on is repeated twice. Please differentiate one or the other for clarity.
In Paragraphs [0055] and [0057], “calibration depth mage” should read “calibration depth image”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 objected to because of the following informalities: “… buy using the…” should read “… by using the …”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: "... the control unit acquires a target ..." in claim 13.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 102158316 B1) in view of Tanaka (JP 2023029181 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Lee discloses “A method performed by a computing device, the method comprising” (Lee, Paragraph [0013], discloses: “A point cloud information processing method according to an embodiment includes the steps of: obtaining three-dimensional point cloud information for a three-dimensional space; obtaining one or more additional images photographing at least a part of the three dimensional space and direction information indicating a gravity direction on a coordinate system in which the one or more additional images are photographed; converting one axis of the coordinate system of the three-dimensional point cloud information to match the gravity direction based on the one or more additional images and the direction information; and indicating the three-dimensional point cloud information using the converted coordinate system of the three-dimensional point cloud information.”); “acquiring, by a 3D sensing unit, a target depth image for a target object positioned on a reference surface” (Lee, Abstract, discloses: “the processing unit which converts based on at least one addition image taking a picture of the point group (point cloud) information about three dimensional space); wherein “the 3D sensing unit has a sensing direction” (Lee, Abstract, discloses: “an additional information acquisition unit for acquiring one or more additional images obtained by photographing at least a part of the three-dimensional space and direction information indicating a direction of gravity on a coordinate system in which the one or more additional images are photographed”; Paragraph [0010] also discloses: “The additional information acquisition unit may acquire sensing information in which the gravity direction is detected, and acquire the direction information by reflecting the sensing information in a coordinate system in which the one or more additional images are captured.”)(Lee, Paragraph [0010], discloses, “a point cloud information acquisition unit for acquiring three-dimensional point cloud information for a three-dimensional space”); and acquiring point cloud data for a reference surface coordinate system by using transformation relationship information between the sensing coordinate system and the reference surface coordinate system for the sensing direction (Lee, Paragraph [0011], discloses, “The processor may extract a plurality of feature points from the one or more additional images, map each of the plurality of feature points and each point in the three-dimensional point cloud information, calculate conversion relationship information between a coordinate system in which the one or more additional images are captured and a coordinate system of the three-dimensional point cloud information from the mapping result, and convert one axis of the coordinate system of the three-dimensional point cloud information to coincide with the gravity direction based on the conversion relationship information.”). Although Lee does not explicitly describe a sensing direction, it uses the gravity direction to develop the sensing information in a coordinate system (i.e., the “sensing coordinate system”, for example, see Lee Paragraph [0010]). Lee does not explicitly disclose “which is an acute angle with respect to the reference surface”. However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Tanaka discloses “the three dimensional camera 20 is disposed downward (specifically, so as to face a direction slightly inclined with respect to the vertical direction in the YZ plane (see FIG. 4)) at a position spaced further upward from the upper surface of the measurement object 80” (Tanaka, Paragraph [0041]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the point cloud data acquisition techniques found in Lee with the inclined 3D camera seen in Tanaka to achieve the same method described in Claim 1. By using the simple substitution of the gravity direction described in Lee with the sensing direction, one of ordinary skill in the art could enhance the function of the 3D sensing unit to acquire point cloud data of objects placed on the reference surface. Additionally, the sensing direction can be enhanced through an incline (or acute angle) with respect to the reference surface as seen in Tanaka with the 3D sensing unit to obtain an accurate depth image that corresponds to the shape of the object. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine both Lee and Tanaka to achieve the method described in Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Lee and Tanaka discloses “the method of claim 1” (Lee, Paragraph [0013], please refer to the above-described analysis for Claim 1), wherein “the transformation relationship information between the sensing coordinate system and the reference surface coordinate system includes a rotation transformation matrix and a translation transformation matrix” (Lee, Paragraph [0012] and [0016], disclose: “The conversion relationship information may include a rotation relationship between a coordinate system in which the one or more additional images are captured and a coordinate system of the 3d point cloud information. The rotation relationship may be expressed as a three-dimensional rotation matrix, a quaternion, an euler angle, an axis angle, or other methods.”). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the conversion relationship described in the combination of Lee and Tanaka to improve the acquisition of point cloud data using the 3D sensing unit in the same way. By using the conversion relationship found in the combination of Lee and Tanaka, one of ordinary skill in the art could effectively create a rotation transformation matrix within the 3D sensing unit to be used to measure the volume of the object. Thus, it would be obvious to have used the conversion relationship to obtain the same rotation transformation matrix described in Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Lee and Tanaka discloses: “The method of claim 1, further comprising:” (Lee, Paragraph [0013], please refer to the above-described analysis for Claim 1); and “determining the transformation relationship information between the sensing coordinate system and the reference surface coordinate system for the sensing direction” (Lee, Paragraph [0053], discloses: “the processing unit 106 may rotate the coordinate system of the 3d point cloud information based on the rotation relationship to match one axis of the coordinate system of the 3d point cloud information with the gravitational direction of the coordinate system in which the additional image is captured.”; Paragraph [0066] also discloses “the processor 106 may calculate transformation relationship information between a coordinate system in which the one or more additional images are captured and a coordinate system of 3d point cloud information from the mapping result”; Paragraph [0054], discloses “after the transformation is performed, the processing unit 106 may indicate the 3d point cloud information using the coordinate system of the transformed 3d point cloud information to clarify which position the coordinates of each point in the 3d point cloud information indicate in the real space.”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the transformation relationship seen in the combination of Lee and Tanaka to obtain predictable results for the sensing coordinate system and reference coordinate system.
Claim 12 recites a computer-readable storage medium storing a program with instructions corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 1. Therefore, the recited programming instructions of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Lee and Tanaka references, presented in rejection of Claim 1, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of Lee and Tanaka discloses a computer readable storage medium (for example, see Lee, Paragraph [0073], where it discloses: “The computer-readable storage medium 16 is configured to store computer-executable instructions or program code, program data, and/or other suitable form of information. The program 20 stored in the computer-readable storage medium 16 includes a set of instructions executable by the processor 14. In one embodiment, the computer-readable storage medium 16 may be a memory (volatile memory, such as random access memory, nonvolatile memory, or any suitable combination thereof), one or more magnetic disk storage devices, optical disk storage devices, flash memory devices, other forms of storage media accessible by the computing device 12 and capable of storing the desired information, or any suitable combination thereof.”).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Tanaka, and in further view of Curtis (US 2022/0121852).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Lee and Tanaka discloses “the method of claim 2” (Lee, Paragraph [0012] and [0016], please refer to the above-described analysis for Claim 2), wherein “the rotation transformation matrix is a unit vector matrix of the reference surface according to the sensing coordinate system” (Lee, Paragraph [0037], discloses: “the sensor may form a coordinate system such that the detected gravitational direction coincides with the direction of one axis, or may form an arbitrary coordinate system including a unit vector in the detected gravitational direction in the coordinate space.”; Lee, Paragraph [0039], discloses: “The sensing information generated through the method (1) or (2) is a coordinate system in which one axis coincides with the direction of gravity or an arbitrary coordinate system including a unit vector in the direction of gravity in the coordinate space. Let this coordinate system be referred to as a 'sensed coordinate system'”). Paragraphs [0088], [0089], and [0090]:
PNG
media_image1.png
679
412
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Curtis describes earlier about O, which is explained in Paragraph [0078]:
PNG
media_image2.png
135
412
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the unit vector for the sensed coordinate system seen in the combination of Lee and Tanaka and the centroid matrix using point cloud data found in Curtis to adequately define the rotation transformation matrix. One of ordinary skill in the art could use the unit vector seen in Lee to define a transformation relationship to effectively use the point cloud data to find the volume of an object. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art could use the methods used to define the centroid matrix in Curtis to center the point cloud data and provide a baseline for initial and subsequent volume measurements. Therefore, it would be obvious to have combined both Lee, Tanaka, and Curtis to achieve the same limitation described in Claim 3.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Tanaka and Curtis, and in further view of Smith (US 9,536,322).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Lee, Tanaka, and Curtis discloses “the method of claim 3” (Lee, Paragraphs [0053], [0063], and [0054], please refer to the above-described analysis for Claim 3); and “the transformation relationship information between the sensing coordinate system and the reference surface coordinate system” (Lee, Paragraphs [0053], [0066], and [0054], please refer to the above-described analysis for Claim 5). The combination of Lee, Tanaka, and Curtis does not explicitly disclose the equation of the transformation relationship that “is based on pp = RTpc – RTt, where, pc represents the sensing coordinate system, pp represents the reference surface coordinate system, RT represents a transposed matrix of the rotation transformation matrix, and t represents the translation transformation matrix”. However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Smith discloses “a “primed” coordinate system that has been translated and rotated relative to an “unprimed” coordinate system. A point represented in the unprimed coordinate system has coordinate values R(x, y, z). The same point has coordinate values R′(x′, y′, z′) relative to the unprimed coordinate system.” (Smith, Col. 44, lines 39-46). Smith recites afterward in Col 44, lines 46-53, the following equation and explanation for the primed coordinate system:
PNG
media_image3.png
166
458
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the primed coordinate system for the reference surface coordinate system, unprimed coordinate system for the sensing coordinate system, and position vector for the translation transformation matrix in the linear transformation equation for Smith in combination with Lee, Tanaka, and Curtis to obtain the same equation described in the current claim. By using this substitution, one of ordinary skill in the art can implement an effective transformation relationship between the two coordinate systems that can enable the point cloud data from object to be utilized to measure their volume. Thus, it would be obvious to use the linear transformation equation in Smith in combination with Lee, Tanaka, and Curtis to yield predictable results.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Tanaka, and further in view of Park (KR 20110084028 A).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Lee and Tanaka discloses “the method of claim 5, wherein the determining of the transformation relationship information between the sensing coordinate system and the reference surface coordinate system for the sensing direction” (Lee, Paragraphs [0053], [0066], and [0054], please refer to the above-described analysis for Claim 5); “acquiring, by the 3D sensing unit, a calibration depth image for the reference surface based on the sensing direction,” (Lee, Paragraph [0014], discloses: “The acquiring of the additional image and the direction information may include acquiring sensing information in which the gravity direction is detected, and acquiring the direction information by reflecting the sensing information in a coordinate system in which the one or more additional images are captured.”); “acquiring point cloud data corresponding to the reference surface based on the calibration depth image” (Lee, Paragraph [0013], discloses “obtaining three-dimensional point cloud information for a three-dimensional space; obtaining one or more additional images photographing at least a part of the three dimensional space and direction information indicating a gravity direction on a coordinate system in which the one or more additional images are photographed”); (Lee, Paragraphs [0053], [0066], and [0054], please refer to the above-described analysis for Claim 5) (Park, Paragraph [0005]). Therefore, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the acquisition of point cloud data and transformation relationship seen in the combination of Lee and Tanaka with the plane equation calculation unit seen in Park to determine the equation of the plane for the reference surface. By combining these elements, the 3D sensing unit will have the improved ability to calibrate via the reference surface through being able to determine the plane equation. Thus, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Lee, Tanaka, and Park to obtain the same method shown in Claim 6.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Tanaka and Park, and in further view of S. Jung (KR 20170100718 A).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Lee, Tanaka, and Park discloses “The method of claim 6, wherein the determining of the equation of the plane for the reference surface based on the point cloud data corresponding to the reference surface includes:” (Park, Paragraph [0014], please see above-described analysis for Claim 6); “determining the equation of the plane” (Park, Paragraph [0014], please see above-described analysis for Claim 6); converting points of the remaining point groups into a coordinate system of the reference point group by applying the conversion matrix to the point group” (S. Jung, Paragraph [0017]). With this considered, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the plane equation acquisition unit seen in the combination of Lee, Tanaka, and Park and the mathematical model generating unit that uses singular value decomposition to yield predictable results for determining the plane equation for a reference surface. By using singular value decomposition, one of ordinary skill in the art could transform the point cloud data from the reference surface coordinate system to develop a plane equation as described in the claimed invention to perform an accurate calibration before assessing the volume of an object. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the singular value decomposition found in the mathematical model generating unit in S. Jung in combination with Lee, Tanaka, and Park to achieve the same method described in Claim 7.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Tanaka, and further in view of Iwakoshi (JP 2010025836 A).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Lee and Tanaka teaches “The method of claim 1, wherein the point cloud data for the reference surface coordinate system” (Lee, Abstract & Paragraphs [0010], [0011], [0013], please see the above-described analysis for Claim 1); of inspecting a three-dimensional structure by nondestructive inspection will be described as a third embodiment. In the third embodiment, as shown in FIG. 12, a bird' s-eye view is obtained by observing the surface of the object to be inspected from an oblique direction” (Iwakoshi, Paragraph [0062] and Figure 12 (see below)).
PNG
media_image4.png
643
694
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the method for obtaining a bird’s eye view image seen in Iwakoshi with the method described in Claim 1 from the combination of Lee and Tanaka to achieve an easily inspectable form of point cloud data to observe what has been captured by the 3D sensing unit. Thus, it would be obvious to have used the method for acquiring a bird’s eye view image with the method described in the combination of Lee and Tanaka to achieve the same limitation seen in Claim 8.
Claims 9, 10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Tanaka, and further in view of Kono (JP 2013196355 A).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Lee and Tanaka teaches “The method of claim 1, further comprising:” (Lee, Abstract & Paragraphs [0010], [0011], [0013], please see the above-described analysis for Claim 1) (Kono, Paragraph [0042]), where “the shape data is point cloud data representing a three dimensional shape of an object by a set of points having coordinate values in a three dimensional space corresponding to a surface of the object” (Kono, Paragraph [0016]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the volume measurement method seen in Kono with the point cloud acquisition method described in the combination of Lee and Tanaka to achieve an appropriate method for calculating the volume of object placed on the volume measurement apparatus, as seen in Claim 9.
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Lee, Tanaka, and Kono teaches “the method of claim 9, wherein the determining of the volume of the target object based on the point cloud data for the reference surface coordinate system includes:” (Lee, Abstract & Paragraphs [0010], [0011], [0012], and [0013]; Kono, Paragraphs [0042] and [0016], please refer to the above-described analysis for Claim 9); and “identifying a top surface of the target object in order to determine a height of the target object when the target object has a rectangular parallelepiped shape” (Kono, Paragraph [0036], discloses: “the measurement unit 114 detects the floor surface on which the target object is placed as the maximum plane based on the shape data arranged with the position angle adjusted. The measurement unit 114 removes the detected floor surface, and extracts the object from the background as a mass of point cloud data close to the photographed center. Note that adjacency information of mesh data may be used to extract a cluster of point cloud data. In addition, a clustering method such as a k-means method may be used. The measurement unit 114 extracts a minimum value and a maximum value for each coordinate axis of the three-dimensional space from the extracted point cloud data. The measurement unit 114 detects a surface including each of the extracted minimum and maximum values as a surface of the circumscribed rectangular parallelepiped.”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the technique described in the combination of Lee, Tanaka and Kono to improve the function of the volume measurement method by identifying the top surface of a rectangular parallelepiped as it is shown in Claim 10.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Kono, and further in view of Tanaka.
Regarding Claim 13, Lee teaches (Lee, Abstract, discloses: “The processing unit which converts based on at least one addition image taking a picture of the point group (point cloud) information about three dimensional space”); (Lee, Paragraph [0009], discloses: “a point cloud information acquisition unit for acquiring three-dimensional point cloud information for a three-dimensional space”); and “acquires point cloud data for a reference surface coordinate system by using transformation relationship information between the sensing coordinate system and the reference surface coordinate system for the sensing direction” (Lee, Paragraph [0011], discloses: “The processor may extract a plurality of feature points from the one or more additional images, map each of the plurality of feature points and each point in the three-dimensional point cloud information, calculate conversion relationship information between a coordinate system in which the one or more additional images are captured and a coordinate system of the three-dimensional point cloud information from the mapping result, and convert one axis of the coordinate system of the three-dimensional point cloud information to coincide with the gravity direction based on the conversion relationship information.”) (Kono, Paragraph [0106]), whereas “The image acquisition unit 120 acquires a distance image of a target object. The image obtaining unit 120 inputs the obtained range image to the control unit 110” (Kono, Paragraph [0112]). Regarding the volume measurement limitation that is not disclosed in Lee, Kono teaches that its “object measuring apparatus 100 can calculate the length, area, or volume of the measurement target on the target object based on the arranged shape data” (Kono, Paragraph [0042]), whereas “the shape data is point cloud data representing a three dimensional shape of an object by a set of points having coordinate values in a three dimensional space corresponding to a surface of the object.” (Kono, Paragraph [0016]). Therefore, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the point cloud acquisition methods from Lee as well as the control unit and volume measurement method from Kono to allow the apparatus to measure the volume of objects via the 3D sensing unit.
The combination of Lee and Kono does not disclose “A volume measurement apparatus, comprising”, “which is an acute angle with respect to a reference surface”, or “a body structure forming an exterior of the volume measurement apparatus, and arranging a stand having an upper plane on which a target object may be placed and the 3D sensing unit to face the upper plane”. However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Tanaka teaches of a package reception system that “includes a measurement unit configured to measure a size that is a total value of lengths in three different directions of a package” (Tanaka, [0021]), which indicates finding the length, width, and height of a package placed on the system (or apparatus) which can determine the size (i.e. volume). Later on, Tanaka also teaches how within this system, “The three-dimensional camera 20 can capture a captured image of the object to be measured 80 as viewed from above in a state where the object to be measured 80 is held by the holding unit 50 (a state where the object to be measured 80 is placed on the 51a (placement surface) of the transparent member 51 of the holding unit 50). Specifically, the three-dimensional camera 20 is disposed downward (specifically, so as to face a direction slightly inclined with respect to the vertical direction in the YZ plane (see FIG. 4)) at a position spaced further upward from the upper surface of the measurement object 80. The three-dimensional camera 20 is fixed by a camera fixing member 27,28. The camera fixing member 27 is a column member that is fixed to the floor surface 90 and extends in the vertical direction, and the camera fixing member 28 is a beam member that extends in the horizontal direction from the vicinity of the uppermost portion of the column member 27 toward a position above the measurement object 80 (see FIG. 2). The three-dimensional camera 20 is fixed downward (obliquely downward) in the vicinity of the distal end portion of the camera fixing member 28 (and above the measurement object 80)” (Tanaka, Paragraph [0041], Figure 2 (see first picture below), and Figure 4 (see second picture below)).
PNG
media_image5.png
655
446
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 (Tanaka). Apparatus for measuring size of object
PNG
media_image6.png
550
392
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Figure 4 (Tanaka). Apparatus for measuring size of object with three-dimensional camera at an incline.
Therefore, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the measurement unit and apparatus found in the package reception system seen in Tanaka in combination with Lee and Kono to obtain a complete volume measurement apparatus, as described in Claim 13.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Tanaka and Kono, and in further view of Y. Jung (KR 20030062774 A).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Lee, Tanaka and Kono teach “The method of claim 9, wherein the determining of the volume of the target object based on the point cloud data for the reference surface coordinate system includes:” (Lee, Abstract & Paragraphs [0010], [0011], [0012], and [0013]; Kono, Paragraphs [0042] and [0016], please refer to the above-described analysis for Claim 9); (Y. Jung, Abstract). Y. Jung also teaches that “the minimum circumscribed rectangle is acquired with respect to the object area on the image plane to measure the dimension of the object, thereby effectively measuring the dimension even in the case of an object having an arbitrary shape, calculating the information on the length and width of the object using the spatial geometric characteristics of the four corner points acquired by the minimum circumscribed rectangle, thereby calculating the dimension at high speed, and using the height sensor and the ccd camera” (Y. Jung, Paragraph [0060], Drawing 1 (See below)), whereas each of the dimensions found can be utilized to measure the volume of an object. Therefore, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method for determining a cube box surrounding an object described in Y. Jung with the volume measurement method seen in the combination of Lee and Kono in order to obtain the same limitation found in Claim 11.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Liu (CN 117,928,372 A) discloses a method, device, and storage medium for measuring the volume of an object package by obtaining the height of the object and acquiring point cloud data to measure its maximum length and width.
Feng (US 11,983,820) discloses an information processing method that obtains 3D point cloud data and generates a 2D image that are both used for developing a reference coordinate system of a reference plane graph.
Gong (CN 115359111 A) discloses a volume measuring method, device, and computer-readable medium that uses a depth camera to obtain multiple depth images while calculating the volume via an irregular object calculation method.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SORIE I KOROMA JR whose telephone number is (571)272-9259. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8AM-6:00PM; Alternate Fridays Off.
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, Amandeep Saini can be reached at 571-272-3382. 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.
/SORIE I KOROMA JR/Examiner, Art Unit 2662
/Siamak Harandi/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2662