DETAILED ACTION
EXAMINER NOTE
Examiner notes that this office action replaces the first office action mailed on December 16, 2025. This office action has added a 101 rejection (“Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101” on Pages 7-10). See office action summary for new period for reply.
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 .
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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-15 and 19-23 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “at least one processor that is configured execute the instructions to…”. This appears to be a typographical error, and should read as “at least one processor that is configured to execute the instructions to…”. 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:
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;
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
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) include:
Output unit (“configured to…”) in claim 8
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.
Support for the limitation(s) are as follows:
Paragraph 0031: Each functional configuration unit of the obstacle detection apparatus 2000 may be implemented by hardware that implements each functional configuration unit (for example, a hard-wired electronic circuit) or may be implemented by a combination of hardware and software (for example, a combination of an electronic circuit and a program that controls the electronic circuit or the like). Hereinafter, a case where each functional configuration unit of the obstacle detection apparatus 2000 is implemented by a combination of hardware and software is further described.
Paragraphs 0111-0113: In this case, the output unit 2080 superimposes the various indicators illustrated in FIG. 10 on the video obtained from the user camera…Specifically, the output unit 2080 determines a region corresponding to the obstacle region in a region of the lens, and displays an image (for example, an image of a specific color covering the obstacle region) indicating the obstacle region for the region. Further, the output unit 2080 displays the message 110 and the arrow 120 on the lens…. The output information 80 is not limited to visual information. For example, the output information 80 may be auditory information. That is, the output unit 2080 may output a message indicating a warning or a message indicating the position of an obstacle as a voice message. In this case, the user 20 can grasp the obstacle by listening to the voice message output from a speaker provided in the user terminal or the facility 10.
Thus, the Examiner is interpreting the claim limitation as follows:
A processor, microprocessor, circuit, glasses, lens, display, speaker, and/or the like.
If the 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 5, 6, 7, 14, 15, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claims 5, 14, and 23, the claims recite the obstacle region as being “…a region representing the target surface that satisfies an obstacle condition that is a condition for being treated as an obstacle or a region representing an object including the target surface”. The bolded statement is not clear to the examiner as to whether the obstacle region is, alternative to a target surface that met the obstacle condition, representing a detected object, an area of the target surface when an object is detected or something else entirely. According to the examiner’s best knowledge, the obstacle region is being treated as the target surface that satisfies an obstacle condition.
Claims 6, 7, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on a previously rejected independent claim, and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-15 and 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent Claim 10, which comprises substantially similar subject matter as Claims 1 and 19, recites:
An obstacle detection method executed by a computer, the obstacle detection method comprising:
acquiring a three-dimensional map representing a three- dimensional position of each of a plurality of points of a facility and position information representing a position of a user;
determining a detection range as a detection target for an obstacle region from a region around the position of the user on the three-dimensional map by using the three-dimensional map and the position information; and
detecting the obstacle region from the detection range.
Step 1: Independent claims 1, 10, and 19 are directed to a statutory category of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The recited limitations (represented by bolded font) constitute a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a computer”, “at least one memory…” (Claim 1), “at least one processor…” (Claim 1), and “a non-transitory computer-readable medium…” (Claim 19), nothing in the claim elements preclude the process from being practically performed in the mind. For example, the bolded limitations in the context of claims 1, 10, and 19 under broadest reasonable interpretation may encompass a person observing whether a user is within a predetermined distance of an obstacle. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the independent claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The independent claims recite additional elements (represented by underlined font) that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “a computer”, “at least one memory…” (Claim 1), “at least one processor…” (Claim 1), and “a non-transitory computer-readable medium…” (Claim 19), the examiner submits that these elements are recited at a high-level of generality (e.g. a general computer performing generic processing) such that the elements are considered mere generic computer components which allow the abstract idea to be applied (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2)).
Regarding the additional limitations of “acquiring a three-dimensional map representing a three- dimensional position of each of a plurality of points of a facility and position information representing a position of a user …”, the examiner submits that this limitation is an insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the step of receiving three-dimensional data is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering, which is considered a form of insignificant extra-solution activity by the office (MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) do not add anything that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The independent claims do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “a computer”, “at least one memory…” (Claim 1), “at least one processor…” (Claim 1), and “a non-transitory computer-readable medium…” (Claim 19), are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the specification does not provide any indication that the components are anything other than generic computers, processors, memory, etc.
Regarding the additional limitation of “acquiring a three-dimensional map representing a three- dimensional position of each of a plurality of points of a facility and position information representing a position of a user …”, this is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because receiving data over a network (e.g. map data) is a recognized element considered to be a well-understood, routine, and conventional function (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)).
Therefore, independent claims 1, 10, and 19 are not patent eligible.
With respect to dependent claims 2-9, 11-15, and 20-23, the claims do not recite any further limitations that cause the corresponding independent claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well‐understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
Claims 2, 11, and 20 describe determining user position and a predetermined detection range, and is directed to the previously discussed mental process from claims 1/10/19 (e.g. the person may determine where a user is and will warn the user if they are within a meter of an obstacle).
Claims 3, 4, 12, 13, 21, and 22 further describes the detection range, and is directed to the previously discussed mental process from claims 1/10/19 (e.g. the person may decide to warn the user only they are walking towards an obstacle).
Claims 5, 6, 14, 15, and 23 describe determining if surfaces are angled, and is directed to the previously discussed mental process from claims 1/10/19 (e.g. the person may decide to warn the user if they are near an angled surface).
Claim 7 describe determining if there are low-height obstacles, and is directed to the previously discussed mental process from claims 1/10/19 (e.g. the person may decide to warn the user if they are near a low-height obstacle).
Claims 8 and 9 describe how obstacles are indicated, and is considered a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g. post-solution display; see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Therefore, dependent claims 2-9, 11-15, and 20-23 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided in the rejection of independent claims 1, 10, and 19.
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 1-4, 8, 10-13, and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Meister et al. (US20170318407A1; hereinafter Meister).
Regarding Claims 1, 10, and 19, which recite substantially similar subject matter, Meister discloses a wearable device for detecting obstacles (see at least Paragraphs 0078) comprising:
an obstacle detection apparatus comprising: at least one memory that is configured to store instructions; and at least one processor that is configured execute the instructions to (Paragraphs 0010, “…the invention includes: a sensor system; a speaker system comprising at least a left output channel, and a right output channel; a processor; and memory containing a spatial exploration application…”):
acquire a three-dimensional map representing a three-dimensional position of each of a plurality of points of a facility and position information representing a position of a user (Paragraph 0079, “…the spatial exploration system utilizes a process to enable exploration of the environment surrounding a user that commences by obtaining a 3D spatial model of the surroundings”; Paragraph 0091, “…any of a variety of sensors can be utilized to perform localization and to determine pose of a user (e.g. determine head position and orientation) as appropriate to the requirements of a given application”));
determine a detection range as a detection target for an obstacle region from a region around the position of the user on the three-dimensional map by using the three-dimensional map and the position information (Paragraph 0121 describes setting a detection range (“collision perimeter” as shown in Figures 11 A-C) using the three-dimensional map (“3D spatial model of the surroundings”) and position information representing the user (“The process 1000 includes initializing and updating 1002 the location of collision perimeter within the 3D spatial model. The collision perimeter can be defined by instantiating a 3D object within the 3D spatial model...The location of the collision perimeter 3D object within the 3D spatial model can be determined (1002) based upon the location within the 3D spatial model corresponding to the estimated real world location of the user”)) and
detect the obstacle region from the detection range (Paragraph 0104 describes features for obstacle detection (“When the process determines (608) that the user is proximate to an object and/or structure that is represented within the 3D spatial model, the process can provide (610) an obstacle warning”); Paragraph 0121 describes the obstacle detection as being based on detecting obstacles within the collision perimeter (“When the process 1000 determines (1004) that the collision perimeter is contacting a surface within the spatial model, a spatial sound is encoded so that the spatial sound is localized at the contact between the surface of the collision perimeter 3D object and a surface within the 3D spatial model of the surrounding environment”)).
Regarding Claims 2, 11, and 20, Meister discloses claims 1, 10 and 19. Meister further discloses:
the determination of the detection range includes: determining the position of the user on the three-dimensional map (Paragraph 0091, “…any of a variety of sensors can be utilized to perform localization and to determine pose of a user (e.g. determine head position and orientation) as appropriate to the requirements of a given application”)), and
determining, as the detection range, a range having a predetermined size and including the determined position (Paragraph 0121 describes the detection range (“collision perimeter”) having a predetermined size (e.g. the collision perimeter is represented by a 3D object, which has a predetermined size) and includes user position (“The location of the collision perimeter 3D object within the 3D spatial model can be determined (1002) based upon the location within the 3D spatial model corresponding to the estimated real world location of the user”)).
Regarding Claims 3, 12, and 21, Meister discloses claims 1, 10 and 19. Meister further discloses:
the determination of the detection range includes: determining the position of the user and a movement direction or line-of-sight direction of the user on the three-dimensional map (Paragraph 0091, “…any of a variety of sensors can be utilized to perform localization and to determine pose of a user (e.g. determine head position and orientation) as appropriate to the requirements of a given application”); Examiner notes that orientation of user is indicative of movement direction or line-of-sight direction).
determining, as the detection range, a range of a predetermined angle including the movement direction or line-of-sight direction of the user (Paragraphs 0120-0123 describes defining the collision perimeter with a shape (“In a number of embodiments, collision avoidance processes are utilized that implement a dynamic collision perimeter within the 3D spatial model that follows the user in real time. The collision perimeter can expand and contract based upon factors including (but not limited to) the speed of the user and/or proximity of surfaces within the 3D spatial model… In other embodiments, a collision perimeter can be defined using a 3D object having any of a variety of appropriate shapes including but not limited to rectangular prisms”); Examiner notes that assigning a shape as the collision perimeter necessarily indicates setting a range of a predefined angle (e.g. setting the collision perimeter as an elliptical cylinder requires a range of 360 degrees including the movement or line-of-sight direction of the user as further shown in Figures 11A-C)).
Regarding Claims 4, 13, and 22, Meister discloses claims 1, 10 and 19. Meister further discloses:
the determination of the detection range includes: determining the position of the user and a movement direction or line-of-sight direction of the user on the three-dimensional map (Paragraph 0091, “…any of a variety of sensors can be utilized to perform localization and to determine pose of a user (e.g. determine head position and orientation) as appropriate to the requirements of a given application”); Examiner notes that orientation of user is indicative of movement direction or line-of-sight direction).
determining the detection range in such a way that a size in the movement direction or line-of-sight direction of the user is larger than sizes in other directions (Figure 11A-C and Paragraph 0123 describes the collision perimeter as being shaped as an elliptical cylinder (“An elliptic cylinder collision perimeter 3D object is conceptually illustrated in FIG. 11A. The elliptic cylinder provides increased front and back detection range”); Examiner notes that increased front detection range (which comprises user’s forward orientation) is at least larger than sizes in other directions (e.g. left, right)).
Regarding Claim 8, Meister discloses claim 1. Meister further discloses:
an output unit configured to output output information indicating information regarding the detected obstacle region (Paragraph 0086 describes various ways of outputting information (“Spatial exploration systems in accordance with a number of embodiments of the invention can also include a variety of output modalities in addition to audio outputs including (but not limited to) virtual reality displays and/or mixed reality displays”); Paragraph 0120 describes outputs for obstacle detection (“In many embodiments and particularly in embodiments utilized by visually impaired users, collision avoidance processes are utilized to provide audible warnings notifying users of the presence of surfaces and/or objects prior to collision”)).
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 5, 6, 14, 15, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meister in view of Tanaka et al. (JP2013117766A, previously cited on IDS filed May 15, 2024, citations refer to English translation attached by examiner; hereinafter Tanaka).
Regarding Claims 5, 14, and 23, Meister discloses claims 1, 10 and 19. While Meister further discloses: wherein the detection of the obstacle region includes detecting, from target surfaces that are surfaces included in the detection range on the three-dimensional map, as the obstacle region (Meister, Paragraph 0121 describes treating a surface in contact with the detection range (“collision perimeter”) as an obstacle (“In many embodiments, the game engine generates collision events when the collision perimeter 3D object contacts surfaces within the 3D spatial model. When the process 1000 determines (1004) that the collision perimeter is contacting a surface within the spatial model, a spatial sound is encoded so that the spatial sound is localized at the contact between the surface of the collision perimeter 3D object and a surface within the 3D spatial model of the surrounding environment”)), Meister does not explicitly recite a condition for how the surface should be treated, comprising: a region representing the target surface that satisfies an obstacle condition that is a condition for being treated as an obstacle or a region representing an object including the target surface.
Nevertheless, Tanaka teaches a wearable step detection system (see at least Paragraph 0011) comprising:
a region representing the target surface that satisfies an obstacle condition that is a condition for being treated as an obstacle or a region representing an object including the target surface (Paragraph 0069 describes a condition for treating a surface as an obstacle region (“Furthermore, in the processing unit 1, an angle threshold is set in the storage unit 13…At this time, if the inclination θ of the walkway exceeds the angle threshold, the processing unit 1 determines that it is difficult to climb the walkway, and notifies the user 600 via the notification unit 3 that climbing is difficult”)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Meister invention to expand the surface detection features (Meister, Paragraph 0121) to include comparison of surface features with predefined thresholds, as taught by Tanaka, for the benefit of notifying a user of areas that are difficult to traverse (Tanaka, Paragraph 0069) thereby improving safety of the user.
Regarding Claims 6 and 15, Meister as currently modified teaches claims 5 and 14. Meister does not explicitly disclose: wherein the obstacle condition includes a condition that an angle formed by the target surface and a horizontal direction is equal to or larger than a first threshold.
Nevertheless, Tanaka further teaches:
wherein the obstacle condition includes a condition that an angle formed by the target surface and a horizontal direction is equal to or larger than a first threshold (Paragraph 0036 describes obtaining an inclination angle formed by a target surface and a horizontal plane (“The step detection unit 11 also obtains the inclination θ (inclination angle with respect to the plane) of the walkway with respect to a two-dimensional plane formed by the x-axis and y-axis in the measurement coordinate system from the line z=αy”); Paragraph 0069 describes comparing the inclination angle with a threshold to determine if the surface is considered an obstacle region (“Furthermore, in the processing unit 1, an angle threshold is set in the storage unit 13…At this time, if the inclination θ of the walkway exceeds the angle threshold, the processing unit 1 determines that it is difficult to climb the walkway, and notifies the user 600 via the notification unit 3 that climbing is difficult”)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Meister invention to expand the surface detection features (Meister, Paragraph 0121) to include an angle threshold, as taught by Tanaka, for the benefit of notifying a user of areas that are difficult to traverse due to a steep inclination (Tanaka, Paragraph 0069) thereby improving safety of the user.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meister view of Tanaka and Novich et al. (US20180303702A1; hereinafter Novich).
Regarding Claim 7, Meister as currently modified teaches claim 5. Meister does not explicitly disclose: wherein the obstacle condition includes a condition that a height of the target surface from a floor surface is equal to or less than a second threshold.
Nevertheless, Novich teaches a wearable device for detecting obstacles (see at least Paragraphs 0015-0016) comprising:
wherein the obstacle condition includes a condition that a height of the target surface from a floor surface is equal to or less than a second threshold (Paragraph 0081 describes features for setting an obstacle condition based on whether a height of the object is below a threshold (“In a first example, the user may opt to receive information related to objects below knee height, given a tendency for injuries related to objects below a threshold height”)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Meister invention to expand the surface detection features (Meister, Paragraph 0121) to include an object height threshold, as taught by Novich, for the benefit of detecting low-lying objects (Novich, Paragraph 0081) thereby improving safety of the user.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meister view of Adamuz et al. (US20230296405A1, foreign priority to July 7, 2020; hereinafter Adamuz).
Regarding Claim 9, Meister discloses claim 8. While Meister further discloses features for annotating objects (Paragraph 0074, “In certain embodiments, the 3D objects annotate real world objects within in a scene (e.g. they occupy corresponding locations but have different shapes) and include audio labels that can be used to generate spatial audio information describing the annotated real world object”) which reasonably describe features for indicating obstacles, Meister does not explicitly recite: wherein the output information includes a screen that includes: an indicator that highlights the obstacle region; an indicator that indicates a position or a direction of the obstacle region; an indicator that indicates a type of an obstacle represented by the obstacle region; or two or more of the indicators.
Nevertheless, Adamuz teaches a wearable device for detecting obstacles (see at least Abstract) comprising:
wherein the output information includes a screen that includes: an indicator that highlights the obstacle region; an indicator that indicates a position or a direction of the obstacle region; an indicator that indicates a type of an obstacle represented by the obstacle region; or two or more of the indicators (Paragraph 0191 describes features for highlighting and displaying a type and position of an obstacle onto a screen (“…a signaling module 24 is used in order to superimpose the stored 2D projection with all its relevant obstacles (as seen in FIG. 4D) with signalling corresponding to each type of obstacle and/or position or distance to the user. The signalling, in this case, may be, for example, different types of colors for each type of obstacle, or signs such as lines, arrows, flashing lights, etc. This may be configurable depending on the users preferences or needs. Furthermore, the 2D projection and the superimposed signalling may also be superimposed to an RGB image corresponding to the detection of all the obstacles, to be further sent to a display module, in order to be sent to the display, which in this case is a set of eye glasses”)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Meister invention to expand features for outputting information (Meister, Paragraph 0086, “Spatial exploration systems in accordance with a number of embodiments of the invention can also include a variety of output modalities in addition to audio outputs including (but not limited to) virtual reality displays and/or mixed reality displays”) to include indicators for type of obstacle and position of obstacle, as taught by Adamuz, for the benefit of emphasizing detected obstacles to a user in need of visual aid (Adamuz, Paragraph 0191).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EISEN YIM whose telephone number is (703)756-5976. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at (571) 270-7429. 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.
/EISEN YIM/Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669