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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: a point cloud data acquisition unit and a position acquisition unit in Claim 1, therefore the dependent Claims 2-5 are also impacted.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are 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 § 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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite an apparatus that receives and processes position data. With respect to analysis of independent method Claim 1:
Step 2A, Prong One:
With regard to 2A, Prong One, the limitation {“acquiring at least one of a position and a direction of the mobile body by comparing the acquired three-dimensional point cloud data with reference point cloud data including a point cloud corresponding to the target region"} as drafted, recites an abstract idea, such as a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations by an observer who determines a position and a direction of an unassembled vehicle, with the observer comparing acquired data with reference data to obtain this information. Additionally, the position information acquisition unit stated in the limitation is simply regarded as a generic computing component. Therefore, this is the concept that falls under the grouping of abstract idea mental processes for observation and evaluation.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
MPEP 2106.04 (d) section II requires the evaluation of additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception. Therefore, additional elements, or a combination of additional elements in the claim, are required to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception. In the instant case, in this instance, the additional limitations are “a point cloud data acquisition unit that acquires three-dimensional point cloud data including a point cloud of a target region having a region in which a component is not assembled in a plurality of predetermined processes, of an outer shape of a mobile body"}, which are essentially considered insignificant extra-solution activities of acquiring data input points of a target region. In addition, the point cloud data acquisition unit in independent Claim 1 is simply regarded as a generic computing component. Therefore, overall, the additional limitations do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception as an indication of integration of the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, Claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Because the claim fails under Step 2A, the claim is further evaluated under Step 2B. The claim herein does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into practical application, the additional element in the claim is merely insignificant extra-solution activities and a generic computing component, which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, Claim 1 is not patent eligible.
In addition, with regard to dependent claims 2-5 viewed individually, these additional elements, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations as an abstract idea (mental processes), and do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Regarding Claim 2:
Step 1:
With regard to Step 1, the claim is an apparatus; and therefore, the claim is directed to one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One:
With regard to 2A, Prong One recites the abstract ideas of Claim 1. Therefore, the limitation recites a mental process.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
In this instance, the additional limitations "the target region is a region with a predetermined reference height or less, of an outer shape of a vehicle as the mobile body; and the reference height in a first process is higher than the reference height in a second process as a post process of the first process." do not add significantly more to the abstract idea, as it that doesn’t preclude the target region from being determined mentally. Therefore, overall, the additional limitations do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception as an indication of integration of the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
The claim herein does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into practical application, the additional elements in the claim are merely insignificant extra-solution activities and generic computing components, which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, Claim 2 is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 3:
Step 1:
With regard to Step 1, the claim is an apparatus; and therefore, the claim is directed to one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One:
With regard to 2A, Prong One recites the abstract ideas of Claim 1. Therefore, the limitation recites a metal process.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
In this instance, the additional limitations “wherein the three-dimensional point cloud data is point cloud data of the target region" do not add significantly more to the abstract idea beyond further describing the point cloud data and doesn’t preclude the target region from being determined mentally. Therefore, overall, the additional limitations do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception as an indication of integration of the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
The claim herein does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into practical application, the additional elements in the claim are merely insignificant extra-solution activities and generic computing components, which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, Claim 3 is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 4:
Step 1:
With regard to Step 1, the claim is an apparatus; and therefore, the claim is directed to one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One:
With regard to 2A, Prong One recites the abstract ideas of Claim 1. Therefore, the limitation recites a metal process.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
In this instance, the additional limitations “wherein the three-dimensional point cloud data is point cloud data obtained by removing a part of measurement point cloud data measured by a distance measurement device" do not add significantly more to the abstract idea beyond further describing the point cloud data and doesn’t preclude the target region from being determined mentally. Therefore, overall, the additional limitations do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception as an indication of integration of the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
The claim herein does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into practical application, the additional elements in the claim are merely insignificant extra-solution activities and generic computing components, which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, Claim 4 is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 5:
Step 1:
With regard to Step 1, the claim is an apparatus; and therefore, the claim is directed to one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One:
With regard to 2A, Prong One recites the abstract ideas of Claim 1. Therefore, the limitation recites a metal process.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
In this instance, the additional limitations “wherein the reference point cloud data is point cloud data corresponding to the target region" do not add significantly more to the abstract idea beyond further describing the point cloud data and doesn’t preclude the target region from being determined mentally. Therefore, overall, the additional limitations do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception as an indication of integration of the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
The claim herein does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into practical application, the additional elements in the claim are merely insignificant extra-solution activities and generic computing components, which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, Claim 5 is not patent eligible.
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.
Claims 1-3, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN114228871B (herein referred to as Liu).
Regarding Claim 1, Liu teaches an apparatus comprising: a point cloud data acquisition unit [see paragraph 0120 which teaches a data model acquisition module that utilizes blue light scanning to obtain the point cloud, Blue light scanning is an equivalent to the Applicant’s disclosed sensor 300 embodiments]
PNG
media_image1.png
252
749
media_image1.png
Greyscale
that acquires three-dimensional point cloud data including a point cloud of a target region having a region in which a component is not assembled in a plurality of predetermined processes, of an outer shape of a mobile body [See paragraph n0007 and n0039 of Liu which teaches that the point cloud is three dimensional, and depicts a target region of a vehicle body, where the point cloud model captures the shape. The invention refers to a process of manufacturing automobiles, therefore the powertrain components is not fully assembled into the vehicle as discussed in paragraph n0001;
PNG
media_image2.png
96
760
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
183
808
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
81
790
media_image4.png
Greyscale
and a position information acquisition unit [See paragraph n0120 above where the data including position information is determined via blue light scanning] that acquires at least one of a position and a direction of the mobile body by comparing the acquired three-dimensional point cloud data with reference point cloud data including a point cloud corresponding to the target region [See paragraph 0009 where there is a theoretical data model that the point cloud data model is compared with that acquires a positional error, therefore it acquires a position. Additionally see n0063 which discusses that the attitude is also used to determine the position. In this case the attitude refers to the angle at which the mobile body is, which therefore represents the direction];
PNG
media_image5.png
258
827
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
85
1182
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2 Liu teaches that the target region is a region with a predetermined reference height or less, of an outer shape of a vehicle as the mobile body [See paragraph 0099 where a positional error is calculated between the theoretical reference plane and the point cloud model which includes the target region. This indicates that the target region must be within this threshold, therefore the height associated with the outer body within the target region is as well. Additionally see figure 3 where the theoretic height A’ is higher than the actual height A. The height of the wheels impacts the height of the entire vehicle body];
PNG
media_image7.png
421
728
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
378
898
media_image8.png
Greyscale
and the reference height in a first process is higher than the reference height in a second process as a post process of the first process [see paragraph 0072 where another height is calculated once a load is applied. The Load being applied indicates a post process where the weight causes the height to decrease].
PNG
media_image9.png
209
1075
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3 Liu teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the three-dimensional point cloud data is point cloud data of the target region [See paragraph 0007 above where a point cloud of the vehicle body and powertrain is obtained].
Regarding Claim 5 Liu teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the reference point cloud data is point cloud data corresponding to the target region [See paragraph 0007 where the theoretic data points correspond to the vehicle body region].
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of US20170309010 (hereinafter referred to as Jurdeczka).
Regarding claim 4, Liu teaches the apparatus according to claim 3 and the three-dimensional point cloud data [see paragraph 0007 above which discusses the point cloud data of the vehicle].
Liu does not teach that the three-dimensional point cloud data is point cloud data obtained by removing a part of measurement point cloud data measured by a distance measurement device.
Jurdeczka does teach that the three-dimensional point cloud data is point cloud data obtained by removing a part of measurement point cloud data measured by a distance measurement device [See paragraphs 0019-0021 of Jurdeczka where the point cloud data is processed by removing part of the previously collected point cloud data. Additionally see paragraph 0012 where the data was collected using LIDAR therefore the measurement point cloud data was collected by a distance measurement device]
PNG
media_image10.png
167
529
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
34
493
media_image11.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to combine the two inventions before the effective filing date to include both the target point cloud and removing part of the measured point cloud since they are in the same field of invention of imaging during the manufacturing of a mobile body. The motivation to combine would be to reduce the storage space needed for the 3D picture [see paragraph 0021 above].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANUSHA KASHYAPA whose telephone number is (571)272-8766. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Chan Park can be reached at (571) 272-7409. 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.
/Anusha Kashyapa/Examiner, Art Unit 2669
/IAN L LEMIEUX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2669
Prosecution Insights