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 .
Response to Remark(s)
Applicant's amendment filed March 04th, 2026 have been fully entered and considered. Applicant’s amendment to the claims have overcome each and every claim objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on January 15th, 2026. Regarding the 112a and 112b rejection, the examiner finds the arguments to be non-persuasive, regarding the arguments to the previous prior art rejections, the examiner respectfully finds the arguments to be non-persuasive, see response to remarks section below. Accordingly, this action is made final.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-5 and 7-8 are pending, claims 1, 4-5 and 7-8 have been amended, claims 6 and 9 have been canceled. Claims 1-5 and 7-8 remains rejected.
Response to Argument(s)
Claim objections:
The amendment has made the corresponding suggestion in the previously stated claim objections in the Non-final Office Action hence, the claim objections have been overcome and currently withdrawn.
112f interpretation and its corresponding 112(a) and 112(b) rejections:
In page 5 of the remarks, the Applicants assert that claims stand allegedly unclear as to whether 112(f) applies, Applicants indicates that they do not intend to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and state that if the Examiner believes further amendment is required, Applicants would consider such amendment.
Examiner’s reply:
The examiner finds the amendment to still have 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretations, the features of the independent claim 1 includes terms that are generic place-holder recited to perform some function appear to be “means-plus-function,” therefore, for these specific functions each of them recited to perform, there must be sufficient written support from the disclosure of a structure, material and/or act for these recited means to perform the recited. Particularly, the recited units of “an acquisition unit configured to acquire….,” “an evaluation value calculation unit configured to calculate…,” “a threshold value setting unit configured to set a threshold…,” “a noise determination unit configured to determine…..” in claim 1 and “a statistic calculation unit configured to calculate” (included in the previously presented claim 6, now has been amended to be included in claim 1), all are interpreted under 112(f); however, as stated in the 112f interpretation of the Non-Final Office Action, the instant disclosure filed on March 05th, 2024 has no written support for these units hence, also brought about the 112(a) lack of written description, and 112(b) indefiniteness issues.
Therefore, the examiner suggests the Applicants to amend the independent claim 1 to follow the Applicants’ desire to not invoke the 112(f) and have 112(f), 112(a) and 112(b) issues by amending to remove all the “an acquisition unit configured to,” “an evaluation value calculation unit configured to,” “a threshold value setting unit configured to,” “a noise determination unit configured to,” and “a statistic calculation unit configured to” in claim 1.
102 rejection:
In page 6 of the remarks, the Applicants argue that the proposed Shi does not teach or suggest the feature of the claim (previously included in the now canceled 6 and its analogous claim 9, now has been moved to the independent claims 1 and 7-8):
“…..calculate the statistic based on point cloud information generated when there is no object in a measurement range of the measurement device”
In support of the above argument, the Applicants state that Shi merely disclose removing outliers (non-surface objects) from the scanned data of existing objects, Shi fails to disclose or suggest a spatial condition where there is no object in the measurement range, nor does it teach calculating statistics under such an empty condition.
Examiner’s reply:
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicants’ argument, moreover, the Applicants are respectfully reminded that the claims are construed based on BRI (broadest reasonable interpretation) in light of the specification, and that the Examiner finds the claims to fall within the scope of the proposed prior art Shi.
The limitation as indicated above, was previously included in the now canceled claim 6 and its analogous claim 9, which was previously mapped to Shi to teach the claimed limitation. Moreover, the limitation includes a step of “calculating the statistic based on the point cloud information generated” which was mapped to Shi’s column 14, lines 1-10 (1st 2 paragraphs), wherein there is a statistical outliers removal sub-unit which is used to remove the outliers in the down-sampled point cloud data hence is analogous to the recited “calculating a statistic on the point cloud information generated,“ the limitation further includes the calculating happens “when there is no object in a measurement range of the measurement device,” which was mapped to Shi’s column 13, lines 57-67 (last 2 paragraphs) and column 14, lines 1-10 (1st 2 paragraphs), where it teaches the statistical outlier removal is based on the returned laser pulse, and when there is outliers found, the processing would remove these outliers, in other words, when there is no outliers found, the processing does not need to remove them.
To further explain the mapping, it’s important to understand the BRI scope of the limitation, the examiner specifically found Shi’s “returned laser pulse” to fall under the BRI scope of “a measurement range” because a pulse is a measurement, and a laser pulse indicating a range (a certain value of the measurement) hence, a measurement range is understood here, in its BRI scope, to be a certain value of measurement, therefore, captures the scope of Shi’s “returned laser pulse,” and furthermore, Shi teaches to remove the outliers (or noise, in other words, wrongly detected objects from the point cloud data), therefore, these outliers are not presented as actually detected objects but noise in the point cloud data, hence, should be removed. In other words, the processing would determine the statistical outliers according to the returned laser pulse and remove them, or when there is no actual objects in the returned laser pulse (in a measurement range), the processing would determine the statistical outliers and remove them (calculating the statistic when there is no object in the measurement range, based on BRI).
Which is further supported in column 8, lines 1-19, in its related processing, wherein the processing of the removal of outliers is based on region growth which is to determine if the plane being processed is treated as a false plane (there is no object in the measurement range) to remove the corresponding outliers.
PNG
media_image1.png
542
634
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Shi’s column 8, lines 1-19.
Shi’s column 8, lines 1-9, describing the removal of outliers process result in the determination there the plan is treated as a false plane hence, there is no plane (in other words no objects in the corresponding range).
Hence, the 102 rejection remains. See 102 rejections below for more details.
103 rejection:
In page 5 of the remarks, the Applicants argue that the proposed combination of Shi in view of Satoshi and Alexiou does not teach or suggest the features of the dependent claim 3:
“…difference in measurement distance, direction, and time”
In support of the above argument, the Applicants state that Alexiou (previously used in the rejection of claim 3), relates to “Quality Assessment” to evaluate the correlation between subjective visual quality and objective metrics, which is non-analogous art to the noise determination system of Shi and Satoshi. There is no motivation to incorporate human visual quality metrics into a noise removal algorithm. More importantly, Alexiou fails to teach or suggest all these three elements of the claimed features above simultaneously within a single evaluation function to output an evaluation value, as strictly required by claim 3.
Examiner’s reply:
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicants’ argument, the Applicants are respectfully reminded that the claims are construed based on BRI in light of the specification, the examiner finds the BRI scope of the claimed features is covered by the teaching of the prior art on these features. moreover, the claimed features of the discussed portion of the claim includes that the evaluation is based on a difference in the measurement distance, a difference in a measurement direction and a difference in a measurement time between the each point of the point cloud data. Therefore, what is being particular in this portion of the claim is that the evaluation process alone is based on a difference in measurement distance, a different in a measurement direction and a difference in a measurement time between each point of the point cloud data. Therefore, Alexiou has been brought in to teach this particular evaluation process, which the examiner, as previously indicated that the same field of evaluating point cloud data is being shared between Shi, Satoshi and Alexiou to teach the claimed limitations all together.
Importantly, in response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, as discussed above.
Moreover, Alexiou teaches that the evaluation of point cloud data can be done through an evaluation function which is based on relative differences such as geometrical distances, simultaneously the differences in geometrical distances would also include differences in angles (direction) as taught in Alexiou’s section 3.4, 3rd paragraph, furthermore, the evaluation function is also based on the difference in measurement time as taught in section 3.2.1.
Therefore, the 103 rejection remain. See 103 rejection below for more details.
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 do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
1) “an acquisition unit configured to acquire point cloud data….” as recited in line 1 of claim 1 and mentioned in line 4 of claim 4;
furthermore, additional claim limitations evoke 112(f) are:
2) “an evaluation value calculation unit configured to calculate an evaluation value…” as recited in line 5 of claim 1 and mentioned in line 2 of claim 4;
3) “a threshold value setting unit configured to set a threshold value….” as recited in line 9 of claim 1;
4) “a noise determination unit configured to determine the noise point included…..” as recited in line 11 of claim 1;
5) “a statistic calculation unit configured to calculate….” as recited in line 12 of claim 1;
The specification does not disclose sufficient structure, material and/or act support for the recited acquisition unit, evaluation value calculation unit, threshold value setting unit, noise determination unit and statistic calculation unit to perform the recited functions. The closest disclosure can be found in paragraph [0033] and figure 10, however, the disclosure mentions these units without giving structure, material and/or act for these units to sufficiently perform these recited functions.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are not being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, the features of “an acquisition unit configured to acquire point cloud data….” as recited in line 1 of claim 1 and mentioned in line 4 of claim 4 and mentioned in claim 4; “an evaluation value calculation unit configured to calculate an evaluation value…” as recited in line 5 of claim 1 and mentioned in line 2 of claim 4; “a threshold value setting unit configured to set a threshold value….” as recited in line 9 of claim 1; “a noise determination unit configured to determine the noise point included…..” as recited in line 11 of claim 1, and “a statistic calculation unit configured to calculate….” as recited in line 12 of claim 1; as being analyzed above in the 112f section to have lack of written support of a structure, material and/or act, from the instant specification for the recited units/features to perform the recited functions.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 112(a) for introducing new matter into the claim, particularly in the independent claim 1, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The amended claim 1 is now reciting features of “a processor coupled to a memory storing instructions for the processor to execute:….” the whole processing steps of the claim. However, the specification filed on March 05th, 2024, does not have support for such claimed invention of the processor, the closest support from the instant specification can be found in paragraph [0027] wherein, it discloses that the controller includes various processors to execute a program stored in the memory to execute the predetermined process, however, doesn’t indicate the predetermined process to be the whole steps of claim 1. Therefore, the examiner finds the claim with these amended features to introduce new matter into the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 112(b). Claim limitation “an acquisition unit configured to acquire point cloud data….” as recited in line 1 of claim 1 and mentioned in line 4 of claim 4 and mentioned in claim 4; “an evaluation value calculation unit configured to calculate an evaluation value…” as recited in line 5 of claim 1 and mentioned in line 2 of claim 4; “a threshold value setting unit configured to set a threshold value….” as recited in line 9 of claim 1; “a noise determination unit configured to determine the noise point included…..” as recited in line 11 of claim 1, and “a statistic calculation unit configured to calculate….” as recited in line 12 of claim 1, each invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. as being analyzed above in the 112f section to have lack of written support of a structure, material and/or act, from the instant specification for the recited units/features to perform the recited functions. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wenzhong Shi et. al. (“US 10,692,280 B2” hereinafter as “Shi”).
Regarding claim 1, Shi discloses an information processing device comprising: a processor coupled to a memory storing instructions for the processor to execute (Figure 2 includes a system with a processor, memory used to execute the instructions of the invention): an acquisition unit configured to acquire point cloud data which is a set of data for each point measured by a measurement device (Column 4, lines 65-67, discloses pre-processing of point cloud data which indicates an acquisition of the point cloud data, the processor programed [such as illustrated in Fig. 2] to perform this step is analogous to the recited acquisition unit, obtained from a laser scanning device according to column 4, lines 44-51 [analogous to the recited measurement device]); an evaluation value calculation unit configured to calculate an evaluation value for each data of the point cloud data (column 11, lines 64-67, discloses assigning tags to objects or non-surface objects [outliers according to column 14, lines 11-16], the tagging is based on an energy function according to equation 9 and column 10, lines 59-67 and column 11, lines 1-11, which is analogous to the recited evaluation value calculation as claimed, since the energy function is used to smooth the data point [for each data of the point cloud data according to column 10,lines 59-67], and the result of equation 9 is analogous to the evaluation value as claimed, wherein each point cloud data has the result of the energy calculated; the programmed circuit performing this step is analogous to the recited “evaluation value calculation unit”), based on an evaluation function for evaluating whether the each data is an object point (The tagging of the object as object surface or non-surface object as disclosed in col. 11, lines 64-67, which is analogous to using the evaluation function to evaluate whether the data of the point cloud data is an object data/point), which is a measured point of an object, or a noise point, which is generated by noise (“or” indicates a selection, only one option is the instant scope of the claim, the examiner selects “which is a measured point of an object” which is disclosed in column 11, which is a 3D data point of the object according to column 11, lines 57-67); a threshold value setting unit configured to set a threshold value for the evaluation value, based on a statistic of a probability density function of the evaluation function (The energy function as discussed previously, is further based on setting of a threshold value according to column 11, lines 57-67, and col. 10, lines 34-67, which is based on a probability density function of the energy function with the normal distribution [analogous to statistic, by BRI/broadest reasonable interpretation]; the programmed processor performing this step is analogous to the recited “threshold value setting unit”); a noise determination unit configured to determine the noise point included in the point cloud data, based on the evaluation value and the threshold value (As discussed previously, the non-surface object data point being tagged based on the energy function and the thresholding results as disclosed in col. 11, lines 34-67); a statistic calculation unit configured to calculate the statistic based on the point cloud information generated (Column 14, lines 1-9, discloses statistical outlier removal indicating a calculation of statistic is being perfumed on the point cloud information generated) when there is no object in a measurement range of the measurement device (Column 13, lines 60-67 to column 14, lines 1-9, discloses the statistical outlier removal is based on the returned laser pulse [the range of the measurement device] when there is outlier needs to be removed, therefore, it can be understood as that within the retuned laser pulse the outliers are being removed and calculated a statistical outlier removal, in other words, when there is no object [when there is outliers] in the measurement range [within the retuned laser pulse]; In other words, the processing would determine the statistical outliers according to the returned laser pulse and remove them, or when there is no actual objects in the returned laser pulse (in a measurement range), the processing would determine the statistical outliers and remove them (calculating the statistic when there is no object in the measurement range; which is further supported in column 8, lines 1-19, in its related processing, wherein the processing of the removal of outliers is based on region growth which is to determine if the plane being processed is treated as a false plane (there is no object in the measurement range) to remove the corresponding outliers).
Regarding claim 2, Shi discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the threshold setting unit is configured to set the threshold value based on an average and variance of the probability density function (Col. 10, lines 43-67, discloses the threshold is based on the normal distribution of the probability density function which is a mean value [an average] and further based on a covariance according to column 6, lines 1-4, which is part of the processing).
Regarding claim 5, Shi discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, further comprising a memory configured to store the statistic (Col. 4, lines 1-4, discloses a storage medium storing the information being processed, hence it can be understood that the discussed statistic is being stored in addition), wherein the threshold setting unit is configured to set the threshold value based on the statistic stored in the memory (The processing analogous to the threshold setting unit as discussed, as disclosed in column 11, lines 64-67., and col. 10, lines 34-67, to be analogous to setting the threshold value which is based on the normal distribution the statistic as claimed).
Regarding claim 7, Shi discloses a control method executed by an information processing device, the control method comprising (Col. 13, lines 9-22, discloses the processing is part of a computer system [processing device, control method]): acquiring point cloud data which is a set of data for each point measured by a measurement device (Column 4, lines 65-67, discloses pre-processing of point cloud data which indicates an acquisition of the point cloud data, the processor programed [such as illustrated in Fig. 2] to perform this step is analogous to the recited acquisition unit, obtained from a laser scanning device according to column 4, lines 44-51, [analogous to the recited measurement device]); calculating an evaluation value for each data of the point cloud data (Column 11, lines 64-67, discloses assigning tags to objects or non-surface objects [outliers according to column 14, lines 11-16], the tagging is based on an energy function according to equation 9 and column 10, lines 59-67 and column 11, lines 1-11, which is analogous to the recited evaluation value calculation as claimed, since the energy function is used to smooth the data point [for each data of the point cloud data according to column 10, lines 59-67], and the result of equation 9 is analogous to the evaluation value as claimed, wherein each point cloud data has the result of the energy calculated; the programmed circuit performing this step is analogous to the recited “evaluation value calculation unit”), based on an evaluation function for evaluating whether the each data is an object point (The tagging of the object as object surface or non-surface object as disclosed in col. 11, lines 64-67, which is analogous to using the evaluation function to evaluate whether the data of the point cloud data is an object data/point), which is a measured point of an object, or a noise point, which is generated by noise (“or” indicates a selection, only one option is the instant scope of the claim, the examiner selects “which is a measured point of an object” which is disclosed in column 11, which is a 3D data point of the object according to column 11, lines 57-67); setting a threshold value for the evaluation value, based on a statistic of a probability density function of the evaluation function (The energy function as discussed previously, is further based on setting of a threshold value according to column 11, lines 57-67, and col. 10, lines 34-67, which is based on a probability density function of the energy function with the normal distribution [analogous to statistic, by BRI/broadest reasonable interpretation]; the programmed processor performing this step is analogous to the recited “threshold value setting unit”); determining the noise point included in the point cloud data, based on the evaluation value and the threshold value (As discussed previously, the non-surface object data point being tagged based on the energy function and the thresholding results as disclosed in col. 11, lines 49-67); and calculating the statistic based on the point cloud information generated (Column 14, lines 1-9, discloses statistical outlier removal indicating a calculation of statistic is being perfumed on the point cloud information generated) when there is no object in a measurement range of the measurement device (Column 13, lines 60-67, to column 14, lines 1-9, discloses the statistical outlier removal is based on the returned laser pulse [the range of the measurement device] when there is outlier needs to be removed, therefore, it can be understood as that within the retuned laser pulse the outliers are being removed and calculated a statistical outlier removal, in other words, when there is no object [when there is outliers] in the measurement range [within the retuned laser pulse] Column 13, lines 60-67 to column 14, lines 1-9, discloses the statistical outlier removal is based on the returned laser pulse [the range of the measurement device] when there is outlier needs to be removed, therefore, it can be understood as that within the retuned laser pulse the outliers are being removed and calculated a statistical outlier removal, in other words, when there is no object [when there is outliers] in the measurement range [within the retuned laser pulse]; In other words, the processing would determine the statistical outliers according to the returned laser pulse and remove them, or when there is no actual objects in the returned laser pulse (in a measurement range), the processing would determine the statistical outliers and remove them (calculating the statistic when there is no object in the measurement range; which is further supported in column 8, lines 1-19, in its related processing, wherein the processing of the removal of outliers is based on region growth which is to determine if the plane being processed is treated as a false plane (there is no object in the measurement range) to remove the corresponding outliers).
Regarding claim 8, Shi discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program causing a computer to (Col. 13, lines 9-22, discloses the processing is part of a computer system [processing device, control method] which indicates the use of a RAM or ROM [non-transitory computer readable medium]): acquire point cloud data which is a set of data for each point measured by a measurement device (Column 4, lines 65-67, discloses pre-processing of point cloud data which indicates an acquisition of the point cloud data, the processor programed [such as illustrated in Fig. 2] to perform this step is analogous to the recited acquisition unit, obtained from a laser scanning device according to column 4, lines 44-52, [analogous to the recited measurement device]); calculate an evaluation value for each data of the point cloud data (Column 11, lines 64-67, discloses assigning tags to objects or non-surface objects [outliers according to column 14, lines 11-16], the tagging is based on an energy function according to equation 9 and column 10, lines 59-67 and column 11, lines 1-11, which is analogous to the recited evaluation value calculation as claimed, since the energy function is used to smooth the data point [for each data of the point cloud data according to column 10, lines 59-67], and the result of equation 9 is analogous to the evaluation value as claimed, wherein each point cloud data has the result of the energy calculated; the programmed circuit performing this step is analogous to the recited “evaluation value calculation unit”), based on an evaluation function for evaluating whether the each point is an object point (The tagging of the object as object surface or non-surface object as disclosed in col. 11, lines 64-67, which is analogous to using the evaluation function to evaluate whether the data of the point cloud data is an object data/point), which is a measured point of an object, or a noise point, which is generated by noise (“or” indicates a selection, only one option is the instant scope of the claim, the examiner selects “which is a measured point of an object” which is disclosed in column 11, which is a 3D data point of the object according to column 11, lines 34-67); set a threshold value for the evaluation value, based on a statistic of a probability density function of the evaluation function (The energy function as discussed previously, is further based on setting of a threshold value according to col. 10, lines 34-67 to column 11, lines 34-67, which is based on a probability density function of the energy function with the normal distribution [analogous to statistic, by BRI/broadest reasonable interpretation]; the programmed processor performing this step is analogous to the recited “threshold value setting unit”); determine the noise point included in the point cloud data, based on the evaluation value and the threshold value (As discussed previously, the non-surface object data point being tagged based on the energy function and the thresholding results as disclosed in column 11, lines 34-67); and calculate the statistic based on the point cloud information generated (Column 14, lines 1-9, discloses statistical outlier removal indicating a calculation of statistic is being perfumed on the point cloud information generated) when there is no object in a measurement range of the measurement device (Column 13, lines 60-67 to column 14, lines 1-9, discloses the statistical outlier removal is based on the returned laser pulse [the range of the measurement device] when there is outlier needs to be removed, therefore, it can be understood as that within the retuned laser pulse the outliers are being removed and calculated a statistical outlier removal, in other words, when there is no object [when there is outliers] in the measurement range [within the retuned laser pulse]; Column 13, lines 60-67 to column 14, lines 1-9, discloses the statistical outlier removal is based on the returned laser pulse [the range of the measurement device] when there is outlier needs to be removed, therefore, it can be understood as that within the retuned laser pulse the outliers are being removed and calculated a statistical outlier removal, in other words, when there is no object [when there is outliers] in the measurement range [within the retuned laser pulse]; In other words, the processing would determine the statistical outliers according to the returned laser pulse and remove them, or when there is no actual objects in the returned laser pulse (in a measurement range), the processing would determine the statistical outliers and remove them (calculating the statistic when there is no object in the measurement range; which is further supported in column 8, lines 1-19, in its related processing, wherein the processing of the removal of outliers is based on region growth which is to determine if the plane being processed is treated as a false plane (there is no object in the measurement range) to remove the corresponding outliers).
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.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wenzhong Shi et. al. (“US 10,692,280 B2” hereinafter as “Shi”) in view of Hisanaga Satoshi (Foreign Patent Document “JP 2010-54315 A” hereinafter as “Satoshi”) and Evangelos Alexiou et. al. (“On the Performance of Metrics to Predict Quality in Point Cloud Representations, 2017, Applications of Digital Image Processing XL, Proc. Of SPIE, Vol. 10396” hereinafter as “Alexiou”).
Regarding claim 3, Shi discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the point cloud data is a set of data representing a measurement distance for the each point (Col. 4, lines 5-24, discloses the processed point cloud data include measurement distance for each point for the object).
However, Shi does not explicitly disclose wherein the evaluation function is a function which outputs the evaluation value based on a difference in the measurement distance, a difference in a measurement direction, and a difference in a measurement time between the each point of the point cloud data for calculating the evaluation value and a point of the point cloud data other than the each point.
In the same field of lidar point cloud data processing (Paragraphs [0002-0003], Satoshi), Satoshi discloses wherein the evaluation function is a function which outputs the evaluation value (Par. [0057] discloses the evaluation value being calculated based on an evaluation function) for calculating the evaluation value and a point of the point cloud data other than the each point (Which is to calculate the evaluation value for the point of the cloud data for each point which include all the points including the other than the each point as claimed, according to paragraphs [0056-0058]).
Thus, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Shi to perform an evaluation process on point cloud data.
Wherein, Shi’s evaluation process on point cloud data can be modified to include calculating an evaluation value using an evaluation function to calculating the evaluation value for the point cloud data as taught by Satoshi to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. Such a modification is the result of combing prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been to evaluate the point cloud data point more accurately (abstract, Satoshi).
However, Shi in view of Satoshi does not explicitly disclose the evaluation function is based on a difference in the measurement distance, a difference in a measurement direction, and a difference in a measurement time between the each point of the point cloud data.
In the same field of evaluating point cloud data (Title and abstract, Alexiou) Alexiou discloses the evaluation function is based on a difference in the measurement distance, a difference in a measurement direction (Section 6 discloses the evaluation function is based on relative differences such as geometrical distances which includes difference in angles [direction] according to section 3.4, 3rd par.), and a difference in a measurement time between the each point of the point cloud data (The evaluation function is also based on the difference in measurement time according to section 3.2.1, since the processing is performed in real-time for scene of the same scene taken from different viewpoints hence, indicates difference in measurement time for the frame).
Thus, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Shi in view of Satoshi to perform an evaluation process on point cloud data.
Wherein Shi’s evaluation process on point cloud data can be modified to include performing a process of calculating an evaluation value using an evaluation function to calculating the evaluation value for the point cloud data, wherein the evaluation function is based on a difference in the measurement distance, a difference in a measurement direction, and a difference in a measurement time between the each point of the point cloud data as taught by Alexiou to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. Such a modification is the result of combing prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
The motivation for the proposed modification would have been to evaluate the point cloud data point more accurately based on an evaluation process based on taking into account difference in data information such as discussed (abstract and section 6, Alexiou).
Regarding claim 4, Shi discloses the information processing device according to claim 1.
However, Shi does not explicitly disclose wherein the evaluation value calculation unit is configured to calculate the evaluation value based on a current frame which is the point cloud information acquired by the acquisition unit at a current processing time, a past frame which is the point cloud information acquired by the acquisition unit at a time before the current processing time and the evaluation function.
In the same field of lidar point cloud data processing (Paragraphs [0002]-[0003], Satoshi), Satoshi discloses wherein the evaluation value calculation unit is configured to calculate the evaluation value based on a current frame which is the point cloud information acquired by the acquisition unit at a current processing time (Par. [0057] discloses the evaluation value being calculated based on an evaluation function which is performed on the current frame acquired at the current time of the processing) and the evaluation function (As based on the evaluation function as discussed and disclosed in paragraphs [0056]-[0058]).
Thus, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Shi to perform an evaluation process on point cloud data.
Wherein, Shi’s evaluation process on point cloud data can be modified to include calculating an evaluation value using an evaluation function to calculating the evaluation value for the point cloud data as taught by Satoshi to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above.
Such a modification is the result of combing prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been to evaluate the point cloud data point more accurately (abstract, Satoshi).
However, Shi in view of Satoshi does not explicitly disclose the evaluation value based on a past frame which is the point cloud information acquired by the acquisition unit at a time before the current processing time.
In the same field of evaluating point cloud data (title and abstract, Alexiou) Alexiou discloses the evaluation value based on a past frame which is the point cloud information acquired by the acquisition unit at a time before the current processing time (the evaluation function is also based on the difference in measurement time according to section 3.2.1, since the processing is performed in real-time for scene of the same scene taken from different viewpoints hence, indicates difference in measurement time for the frame including the past frame prior to the current frame taken in time-series).
Thus, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Shi in view of Satoshi to perform an evaluation process on point cloud data.
Wherein Shi’s evaluation process on point cloud data can be modified to include performing a process of calculating an evaluation value using an evaluation function to calculating the evaluation value for the point cloud data, wherein the evaluation function is based on a difference in the measurement distance, a difference in a measurement direction, and a difference in a measurement time between the each point of the point cloud data as taught by Alexiou to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. Such a modification is the result of combing prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
The motivation for the proposed modification would have been to evaluate the point cloud data point more accurately based on an evaluation process based on taking into account difference in data information such as discussed (abstract and section 6, Alexiou).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHUONG HAU CAI whose telephone number is (571)272-9424. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 5:00pm.
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, Chineyere Wills-Burns can be reached at (571) 272-9752. 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.
/PHUONG HAU CAI/Examiner, Art Unit 2673
/CHINEYERE WILLS-BURNS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2673
Prosecution Insights