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 .
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.
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.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because Claim 18 is directed to a program. A program doesn’t fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
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 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: “generation unit” in claims 1-16 and 18.
Review of Specification indicates that applicant doesn’t have a hardware structure for the generation unit. Though there are hardware support other “unit”.
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.
Claim limitation “1-16 and 18” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Specification doesn’t have hardware structure relating to claimed “generation unit”.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 4-14 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.
Claims 4 and 10 recite, “wherein among the types of the cause of the failure of the combination of the local maps”. The phrase “the types of the cause of the failure” has lack of antecedent basis. Therefore, the scope of the claim is not clear.
Dependent claims 5-9 and 11-14 are also rejected based on dependency.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 6 recites, wherein the generation unit indicates a group of the other information processing devices in which the combination of the local maps has been successfully performed and a group of the other information processing devices in which the combination of the local maps has failed and presents, as the guide information for solving the failure of the combination of the local maps, information for encouraging capturing an image having the common field of view with the other information processing devices belonging to the group in which the combination of the local maps has failed.
Claim 6 depends on claim 1. Claim 1 recites, local maps are generated in other information processing devices and combination of local map happens in the device. However, in claim 6, applicant claims the other information devices combines the local map. This contractor to claim 1 and claim 6 doesn’t limit claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ekkati et al. (WO2021/124289 A1, “Ekkati”) in view of Kim et al. ( US patent publication: 20220408026 , “Kim”).
Regarding claim 1, Ekkati teaches, An information processing device ( Fig. 7 server side )comprising
a generation unit (server) that generates a global map by combining local maps generated by a respective plurality of other information processing devices, (“[0019] The system aggregates local maps to create a one or more global maps (e.g., by linking local maps together). The aggregated maps are combined together into a singular global map on the server, which provides a digital map of the environment, or “world.” The local maps are generated by other devices such as client devices “[0017] In one embodiment, the system uses images and global positioning system (GPS) coordinates on a client device (e.g., on a handheld or worn electronic device) to generate a 3D map. The 3D map is built from camera recording modules and an inertial measurement unit (IMU), such as accelerometer or gyroscope.”)
Ekkati doesn’t expressly teach, wherein in a case where the combination of the local maps fails, the generation unit presents guide information for solving the failure of the combination of the local maps.
Kim teaches, wherein in a case where the combination of the local maps fails, the generation unit presents guide information for solving the failure of the combination of the local maps. (“0145] As one embodiment disclosed in the present specification, when an image is captured, the processor 260 may display a capturing image being captured on the display part 231 and display a clear zone on the capturing image at the same time.
[0146] The clear zone is a zone displayed on an edge portion of an image which may become a target of image combination, and an interface having a meaning of guiding the user not to position a subject in the clear zone is displayed on the clear zone. Since a portion on which the clear zone is displayed may correspond to the above-described common portion—or at least a portion of the above-described common portion—which becomes a reference of the image combination, accuracy of the image combination can be improved, and failure of a composite image can be prevented by removing the subject in the clear zone.”)
Ekkati and Kim are analogous as they are from eth field of image combination.
Therefore it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ekkati to have included wherein in a case where the combination of the local maps fails, the generation unit presents guide information for solving the failure of the combination of the local maps as taught by Kim.
The motivation to include the modification is to have more correct combined map.
Claim 17 is directed to a method and its steps are similar in scope and functions of the elements of the device claim 1 and therefore claim 17 is rejected with same rationales as specified in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 18 is directed to a program and its steps are similar in scope and functions of the elements of the device claim 1 and therefore claim 17 is rejected with same rationales as specified in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Ekkati as modified by Kim teaches, wherein in a case where the combination of the local maps fails, the generation unit presents the guide information for solving the failure according to a type of cause of the failure of the combination of the local maps. (Kim , Here the cause of the failure is incorrect position of object in an image “0145] As one embodiment disclosed in the present specification, when an image is captured, the processor 260 may display a capturing image being captured on the display part 231 and display a clear zone on the capturing image at the same time.
[0146] The clear zone is a zone displayed on an edge portion of an image which may become a target of image combination, and an interface having a meaning of guiding the user not to position a subject in the clear zone is displayed on the clear zone. Since a portion on which the clear zone is displayed may correspond to the above-described common portion—or at least a portion of the above-described common portion—which becomes a reference of the image combination, accuracy of the image combination can be improved, and failure of a composite image can be prevented by removing the subject in the clear zone.”)
Regarding claim 15, Ekkati as modified by Kim teaches, wherein the generation unit combines the local maps by performing conversion into a common coordinate system on a basis of three-dimensional coordinates of a common landmark between key frames forming the local maps generated by the other information processing devices different from each other. (Ekatti, “[0006]…..The system analyzes the first and second 3D maps to identify a common feature and links the first and second 3D maps into a singular 3D map based on the common feature. [0007] The singular 3D map may be a graph of nodes, each representing a 3D map generated by image data captured at a client device. Each node may be associated with a different coordinate space based on the client device that captured the image data, and the graph may include edges between the nodes that represent a transformation between the coordinate spaces”)
Regarding claim 16, Ekkati as modified by Kim teaches, wherein the local map is generated by simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM) executed in the other information processing devices.(Ekkati, “ 0030] The simultaneous localization and mapping (e.g., SLAM) module 112 maps an environment around the client device 102 based on image data and GPS data captured by the client device 102. In particular, the SLAM module 112 creates one or more local maps each representing portions of the real world as viewed in data captured by the client device 102.”)
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ekkati as modified by Kim and further in view of Brandt et al. ( US patent publication: 20200184601 , “Brandt).
Regarding claim 3, Ekkati as modified by Kim teaches, wherein the type of the cause of the failure of the combination of the local maps includes a cause occurring at the time of combining the local maps (. (Kim , Here the cause of the failure is incorrect position of object in an image “0145] As one embodiment disclosed in the present specification, when an image is captured, the processor 260 may display a capturing image being captured on the display part 231 and display a clear zone on the capturing image at the same time.
[0146] The clear zone is a zone displayed on an edge portion of an image which may become a target of image combination, and an interface having a meaning of guiding the user not to position a subject in the clear zone is displayed on the clear zone. Since a portion on which the clear zone is displayed may correspond to the above-described common portion—or at least a portion of the above-described common portion—which becomes a reference of the image combination, accuracy of the image combination can be improved, and failure of a composite image can be prevented by removing the subject in the clear zone.”)
Ekkati as modified by Kim doesn’t expressly teach, a cause occurring at the time of generating the local maps.
However, Brandt teaches, a cause occurring at the time of generating the local maps. [0160] At block 408, it is determined that the initial virtual reality render has stitching errors. In some embodiments, the virtual reality application 104 may analyze the initial virtual reality render to detect the stitching errors. For example, the correction module 212 may determine the stitching errors. In some other embodiments, a separate application or an editing tool within the cloud may perform the analyzing of the initial virtual reality render to detect errors.”)
Ekkati as modified by Kim and Brandt are analogous as they are from the field of merging images.
Therefore it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ekkati as modified by Kim to have included a cause occurring at the time of generating the local maps as taught by Brandt.
The motivation is to provide feedback to get a better corrected merged map.
.Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tapas Mazumder whose telephone number is (571)270-7466. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 PM PST.
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, Alicia Harrington can be reached at 571-272-2330. 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.
/TAPAS MAZUMDER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2615