Detailed Action
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: “to output output information”. The examiner will interpret it to mean --to output information--. Appropriate correction is required.
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 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent Claim 11, 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; detecting, from the three-dimensional map, a target surface for which determination of whether or not the target surface is an obstacle region is performed; and detecting, among the detected target surfaces, the target surface that satisfies a predetermined obstacle condition as the obstacle region, wherein the obstacle condition includes an essential condition satisfied in a case where an angle formed by the target surface and a horizontal plane is equal to or larger than a first threshold.
Step 1: Independent claims 1, 11, and 21 are directed to a statutory category of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The recited limitations 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 21), 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, 11, and 21 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 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 21), 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 …”, 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 21), 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 …”, 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, 11, and 21 are not patent eligible.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-15 and 21-25 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9-15, and 19-22 of copending Application No. 18/710,239. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
The table(s) below shows a sample of how each of these claims are mapped to the claims of the related application.
Instant Application: 18/713,242
Copending Application: 18/710,239
Exemplary Claim 1: An obstacle detection apparatus comprising: at least one memory that is configured to store instructions; and at least one processor that is configured to execute the instructions to: an acquisition unit configured to acquire a three-dimensional map representing a three-dimensional position of each of a plurality of points of a facility; a surface detection unit configured to detect, from the three-dimensional map, a target surface for which determination of whether or not the target surface is an obstacle region is performed; and an obstacle detection unit configured to detect, among the detected target surfaces, the target surface that satisfies a predetermined obstacle condition as the obstacle region, wherein the obstacle condition includes an essential condition satisfied in a case where an angle formed by the target surface and a horizontal plane is equal to or larger than a first threshold.
Claim 1. An obstacle detection apparatus comprising: at least one memory that is configured to store instructions; and at least one processor that is configured to execute the instructions to: acquire a three-dimensional map representing a three-dimensional position of each of a plurality of points of a facility, position information representing a position of a user, and a measurement three-dimensional data representing a plurality of three-dimensional positions measured by a sensor installed on a user terminal; 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; and detect the obstacle region from within the detection range, wherein the detection of the obstacle region includes: detecting, from regions represented by the three-dimensional map, as a first obstacle region, a region that is included in the detection range and that satisfies an obstacle condition that is a condition for being treated as an obstacle; generating a temporary three-dimensional data representing a difference between the three-dimensional map and the measurement three-dimensional data; detecting, from regions represented by the temporary three-dimensional data, as a second obstacle region, a region that is included in the detection range and that satisfies the obstacle condition, and wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions further to output output information that indicates the first obstacle region and the second obstacle region in a distinguishable manner.
Claim 6: The obstacle detection apparatus according to claim 1, 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3, 8, 9, 11, 13, 21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meister et al., (Meister), US PGPUB 20170318407 A1 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 1, 11 and 21, Meister discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Meister discloses an obstacle detection apparatus comprising: at least one memory that is configured to store instructions; and at least one processor (see Meister, abstract) that is configured to execute the instructions (see Meister, Para. 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…”): to acquire a three-dimensional map representing a three-dimensional position of each of a plurality of points of a facility (see Meister, Para. 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”); detect, from the three-dimensional map, a target surface for which determination of whether or not the target surface is an obstacle region is performed (see Meister, Para. 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, among the detected target surfaces, the target surface that satisfies a predetermined obstacle condition as the obstacle region ( ). However, Meister does not explicitly disclose and detect, among the detected target surfaces, the target surface that satisfies a predetermined obstacle condition as the obstacle region wherein the obstacle condition includes an essential condition satisfied in a case where an angle formed by the target surface and a horizontal plane is equal to or larger than a first threshold.
But in the same field of endeavor, Tanaka discloses wearable step detection system (see at least para. 0011). Tanaka discloses and detect, among the detected target surfaces, the target surface that satisfies a predetermined obstacle condition as the obstacle region (see Tanaka, para. 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) wherein the obstacle condition includes an essential condition satisfied in a case where an angle formed by the target surface and a horizontal plane is equal to or larger than a first threshold (see Tanaka, para. 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”); Para. 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”).
Therefore, 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.
Regarding claim 8, Meister-Tanaka discloses the obstacle detection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions further to: acquire position information indicating a position of a user (see Meister, para. 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 the 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 (see Meister, para. 0091): and the detection of the target surface from the three- dimensional map includes detecting the target surface from the detection range (see Meister, 0120-0123).
Regarding claim 9, Meister-Tanaka discloses the obstacle detection apparatus according to claim 1, the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions further to output output information indicating information regarding the detected obstacle region (see Meister, para. 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
Claims 2, 12 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meister view of Tanaka and Novich et al., (Novich), (US PGPUB20180303702 A1.
Regarding claim 2, 12, and 22, Meister-Tanaka discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Meister-Tanaka does not explicitly disclose the obstacle detection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the obstacle condition further includes a condition that a height of the target surface from a floor surface is equal to or less than a second threshold.
But, in the same field of endeavor, Novich discloses a wearable device for detecting obstacles (see Novich, para, 0015-0016). Novich discloses the obstacle detection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the obstacle condition further includes a condition that a height of the target surface from a floor surface is equal to or less than a second threshold (see Novich, Para. 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”).
Therefore, 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 (see Meister, Para. 0121) to include an object height threshold, as taught by Novich, for the benefit of detecting low-lying objects (see Novich, Para. 0081) thereby improving safety of the user.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 3, 13, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meister in view of Tanaka and in further view of Steinberg et al., (Steinberg), US PBPUB 20260140259 A1.
Regarding claim 3, 13, and 23, Meister-Tanaka discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Meister-Tanaka the obstacle detection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the three-dimensional map includes, for each of the plurality of points of the facility, point data indicating a three-dimensional position of the point, and the detection of the target surface from the three-dimensional map includes: clustering the point data to generate a plurality of clusters; and detecting, for each cluster, the target surface including the point data included in the cluster.
But, in the same field of endeavor, Steinberg discloses systems and methods that use LIDAR technology to detect objects in the surrounding environment. Steinberg discloses the obstacle detection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the three-dimensional map includes, for each of the plurality of points of the facility, point data indicating a three-dimensional position of the point, and the detection of the target surface from the three-dimensional map (see Steinberg, para. 0108, 0117, As used herein, the term “detecting an object” may broadly refer to determining an existence of the object (e.g., an object may exist in a certain direction with respect to the LIDAR system and/or to another reference location, or an object may exist in a certain spatial volume). Additionally, or alternatively, the term “detecting an object” may refer to determining a distance between the object and another location (e.g. a location of the LIDAR system, a location on earth, or a location of another object). Additionally, or alternatively, the term “detecting an object” may refer to identifying the object (e.g. classifying a type of object such as car, plant, tree, road; recognizing a specific object (e.g., the Washington Monument); determining a license plate number; determining a composition of an object (e.g., solid, liquid, transparent, semitransparent); determining a kinematic parameter of an object (e.g., whether it is moving, its velocity, its movement direction, expansion of the object). Additionally, or alternatively, the term “detecting an object” may refer to generating a point cloud map in which every point of one or more points of the point cloud map correspond to a location in the object or a location on a face thereof. In one embodiment, the data resolution associated with the point cloud map representation of the field of view may be associated with 0.1°×0.1° or 0.3°×0.3° of the field of view) includes: clustering the point data to generate a plurality of clusters; and detecting, for each cluster, the target surface including the point data included in the cluster (see Steinberg, paras. 0227, 0367, 0521).
Therefore, 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 (see 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”) systems and methods for using LIDAR technology to detect objects in the surrounding environment (see Steinberg, para. 0006).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meister-Tanaka in view of Adamuz et al., (Adamuz), US PGPUB 20230296405 A1, foreign priority to July 7, 2020.
Regarding claim 10, Meister-Tanaka discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Even though, Meister-Tanaka discloses features for annotating objects (see Meister, Para. 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). However, Meister-Tanaka does not explicitly disclose the obstacle detection apparatus according to claim 9, 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.
But, in the same field of endeavor, Adamuz discloses a wearable device for detecting obstacles (see abstract). Adamuz discloses 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 signaling corresponding to each type of obstacle and/or position or distance to the user. The signaling, 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 signaling 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”).
Therefore, 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).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7, 14, 15, 24, and 25 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 4-7, 14, 15, 24 and 25 are allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance.
Claim 4, the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to tech or suggest, “The obstacle detection apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the detection of the target surface from the three-dimensional map includes: calculating a normal direction for each of a plurality of pieces of the point data; and including a plurality of pieces of the point data whose differences among each other in normal direction are equal to or less than a threshold and whose distances among each other are equal to or less than a third threshold into the same cluster”. These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
Claim 5, the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to tech or suggest, “The obstacle detection apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the detection of the target surface from the three-dimensional map includes: detecting a plurality of pieces of the point data representing a cylindrical region by applying cylindrical fitting to the point data included in the three-dimensional map; and detecting a side surface of a cylinder represented by the region as the target surface.” These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
Claim 6, the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to tech or suggest, “The obstacle detection apparatus according to claim 3any one of claims 3 to 5, wherein the detection of the target surface from the three-dimensional map includes: the surface detection unit applying semantic segmentation to a plurality of pieces of the point data included in the three-dimensional map to divide into the clusters for each piece of the point data representing the same object; and detecting, for each of the clusters representing the same object, one or more target surfaces from the cluster”. These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
Claim 7, the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to tech or suggest, “The obstacle detection apparatus according to claim 6, wherein cylindrical fitting is performed on a plurality of pieces of the point data that is included into the cluster of a cylindrical object to detect a cylindrical region including the plurality of pieces of point data included in the cluster, and to detect a side surface of a cylinder represented by that region as the target surface”. These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
Claim 14, the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to tech or suggest, “The obstacle detection method according to claim 13, wherein, the detection of the target surface includes calculating a normal direction for each of a plurality of pieces of the point data, and including a plurality of pieces of the point data whose differences among each other in normal direction are equal to or less than a threshold and whose distances among each other are equal to or less than a third threshold into the same cluster”. These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
Claim 15, the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to tech or suggest, “The obstacle detection method according to claim 13, wherein the detection of the target surface from the three-dimensional map includes: detecting a plurality of pieces of the point data representing a cylindrical region by applying cylindrical fitting to the point data included in the three-dimensional map; and detecting a side surface of a cylinder represented by the region as the target surface”. These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
Claim 24, the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to tech or suggest, “The computer-readable medium according to claim 23, wherein in the surface detection step, the detection of the target surface from the three-dimensional map includes calculating a normal direction for each of a plurality of pieces of the point data, and including a plurality of pieces of the point data whose differences among each other in normal direction are equal to or less than a threshold and whose distances among each other are equal to or less than a third threshold into the same cluster”. These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
Claim 25, the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to tech or suggest, “The computer-readable medium according to claim 23, wherein, the detection of the target surface from the three-dimensional map includes: detecting a plurality of pieces of the point data representing a cylindrical region by applying cylindrical fitting to the point data included in the three-dimensional map; and detecting a side surface of a cylinder represented by the region as the target surface”. These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
The closest prior art of record Meister et al., (Meister), (US PGPUB 20170318407 A1) for claims 4, 5, 6, 7, 14, 15, 24, and 25 does not teach all of the elements in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim. Meister only discloses a processor for determining a location and orientation of a user within a three dimensional (3D) spatial model using acquired sensor data. The processor generates an audio clip containing vocalized information describing a feature generated using the audio label of the 3D object, outputs a spatial sound describing the identified feature by modifying the audio clip based upon the position of the 3D object relative to the location and orientation of the user to encode audio cues as to the location of the feature in the surrounding real-world environment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM C VAUGHN JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3922. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-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, Colleen Fauz can be reached at571-272-1667. 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.
/WILLIAM C VAUGHN JR/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2481
Prosecution Insights