DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final office action on the merits. Claims 1-8 are pending and addressed below.
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 3/7/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Non-English documents have been considered in as much as the drawings and translated portions provided therein (See MPEP 609).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: acronyms and/or abbreviations, such as 3D, are required to be spelled out at first use in the claims . 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 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 limitation(s) is/are:
tracking manager, obstacle manager, movement manager in claim 1;
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are 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 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 avoid it/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 limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/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 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 1-8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
For example, Claim 1 recites the limitation "an electronic processing system" in line 3 and the limitation “an electronic processing system” in line 10. It is not clear if these two instances are the same or not.
For example, Claim 1 recites the limitation “transform said indoor environment into a 3D space”. It is not known how an indoor environment, which a tangible real space that is already three dimensional, is to be transformed into 3D space.
For example, Claim 1 recites the limitation "the direction and sense of motion". It is not clear what direction and sense of motion this is referring to. In addition, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-8 depend on this claim and suffer from the same issues.
For example, Claim 2 recites the limitation "the physical environment "and “said physical environment”. It is not clear if this is referring to the previously introduced indoor environment, virtual environment, or some other environment. In addition there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For example, Claim 2 recites:
- creating an overlay between the physical environment and the virtual environment, via co-operation of three robotic entities:
shape of said robot moving in said physical environment,
shape of a robot avatar and a robot clone of said robot, moving in a virtual environment equivalent to said physical environment,
said robot avatar being a digital representation of said robot in said 3D space, and being adapted to move synchronously with said robot,
said robot clone being a copy of said robot avatar, adapted to move in advance with respect to the robot avatar;
As written, it is not clear what the three robotic entities are, such as the various shapes, the various processes, or the avatar, clone, etc.
For example, Claim 2 recites the limitation "said robot"”. It is not clear if this is referring to the previously introduced “one or more robots” or not. In addition there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For example, Claim 2 recites the limitation "the path"”. It is not clear what path this is referring to. In addition there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For example, Claim 2 recites the limitation "the last known position"”. It is not clear what last known position this is referring to. In addition there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For example, Claim 2 recites the limitation "said anticipated movement"”. It is not clear what anticipated movement this is referring to. In addition there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For example, Claim 3 recites the limitation "the images"”. It is not clear images this is referring to. In addition there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For example, Claim 3 recites the limitation "the warp image"”. It is not clear if this is referring to the limitation “performing a warp operation that allows acquiring an orthographic image” because as written there is no indication that the orthographic image is being warped. In addition there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For example, Claim 3 recites the limitation " the obstacle”. As claim 2 previously introduced “an obstacle”, it is not known if these two instances are the same or not. In addition, any subsequent recitation of “the obstacle” or “said obstacle” is indefinite because it is not known which instance it is referring to.
For example, Claim 4 recites the limitation " said orthogonally elongated distorted images”. It is not clear if this is referring to the limitation “taking a distorted and elongated image of an obstacle from the perspective of each one of the orthogonal video cameras” because as written there is no indication that the distorted and elongated image is distorted and elongated orthogonally. In addition there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For example, Claim 4 recites the limitation " said two cameras”. It is not clear if this is referring to the previously introduced “at least two optical-signal video cameras”. In addition there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For example, Claims 5-8 are “use” claims. See MPEP 2173.05(q).
All dependent claims of these claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, by virtue of their dependency.
It has been shown that the claims are excessively replete with 112b issues. Applicant is required to identify all issues and put all claims in a state that conforms with current U.S. practice and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAKASE et al. (WO-0223297-A1, a reference in IDS 3/7/2024, provided translation being cited) in view of KOMADA et al. (EP-3067770-A1, a reference in IDS 3/7/2024, provided translation being cited).
Regarding claims 1 and 5, as best understood, TAKASE et al. teaches:
An electronic navigation control system for controlling the navigation of one or more robots in an indoor environment, each one of said robots comprising an electronic processing system, a drive system, microcontrollers, at least one tracker, (at least figs. 1-10 [0073]-[0096]);
said electronic control system comprising:
- a tracking system operating at infrared frequencies, positioned in and facing towards said indoor environment, adapted to co-operate with said tracker of each one of said robots (at least figs. 1-10 [0073]-[ 0096]; in particular [0074]-[0079]);
- at least two optical-signal video cameras, (at least figs. 1-10 [0073]-[0096]; in particular [0074]-[0079]),
- an electronic processing system comprising:
- a tracking manager, adapted to transform said indoor environment into a 3D space and adapted to receive signals from said tracking system, thereby determining the position and orientation of each one of said robots,
- an obstacle manager, adapted to process the optical signal received from said at least two video cameras and to identify or track obstacles that are present in said indoor environment,
- a movement manager adapted to receive information from said tracking manager and obstacle manager, and adapted to map said indoor environment to an equivalent virtual environment, and to produce signals controlling the direction and sense of motion of said one or more robots by communicating with said electronic processing system of said one or more robots.
(at least figs. 1-10 [0073]-[0096]; in particular [0074]-[0079] [0096] [0114]-[0128] [0132]-[0135])
` TAKASE et al. does not explicitly teach:
at least two optical-signal video cameras, in mutually orthogonal positions in said indoor environment;
However, KOMADA et al. teaches:
at least two optical-signal video cameras, in mutually orthogonal positions in said indoor environment;
also teaches, an obstacle manager, adapted to process the optical signal received from said at least two video cameras and to identify or track obstacles that are present in said indoor environment,
(figs. 2-3, 7-9 [0011]-[0012] [0021]-[0027]) to cover substantially the entire region, and to move and avoid obstacles ([0011]-[0012] [0021]-[0027]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing and at the time of the invention to modify the system and method of TAKASE et al. with at least two optical-signal video cameras, in mutually orthogonal positions in said indoor environment; an obstacle manager, adapted to process the optical signal received from said at least two video cameras and to identify or track obstacles that are present in said indoor environment, as taught by TAKASE et al. to cover substantially the entire region, and to move and avoid obstacles.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAO LONG T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7768. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30.
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, Khoi Tran can be reached at (571) 272-6919. 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.
BAO LONG T. NGUYEN
Examiner
Art Unit 3664
/BAO LONG T NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656