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.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Possible typos, for example in para. [0067], last line states “whether the image is pallet to re-position the pallet”. The meaning is unclear.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mental process (concept performed in a human mind, including as observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, organizing human activity and mathematical concepts and calculations). The claim(s) recite(s) a method, a system for pallet positioning. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the steps do not add meaningful limitations to be considered specifically applied to a particular technological problem to be solved .The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because [the steps of the claimed invention can be done mentally and no additional features in the claims would preclude them from being performed as such except for the generic computer elements at high level of generality (i.e., processor, memory)].
According to the USPTO guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claims 1, 7, 15 are directed to an abstract idea as shown below:
STEP 1: Do the claims fall within one of the statutory categories? YES. Claim(s) 1, 7, and 15 are directed to a method, i.e. process, and a system.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? YES, the claims are directed toward a mental process (i.e. abstract idea).
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The method in claims 1 and 7 (and the system in claim 15) comprise a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind (or generic computers or components configured to perform the method) and, therefore, an abstract idea.
Regarding Claim(s) 1, 7, and 15: the method recites the steps (functions) of:
defining a size parameter of a pallet (mental process including observation and evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind) OR (mathematical concepts, mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) OR (organizing of human activity);
defining a pallet feature of the pallet according to the size parameter (mental process including observation and evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind) OR (mathematical concepts, mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) OR (organizing of human activity);
defining a projection datum in the on-site image (mental process including observation and evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind) OR (mathematical concepts, mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) OR (organizing of human activity).
calculating a projection plane coordinate based on the projection datum (mental process including observation and evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind) OR (mathematical concepts, mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) OR (organizing of human activity);
transforming the on-site image to a perspective adjusted image according to the projection plane coordinate (mental process including observation and evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind) OR (mathematical concepts, mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) OR (organizing of human activity);
performing a first positioning procedure to obtain a first pallet image in the perspective adjusted image (mental process including observation and evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind) OR (mathematical concepts, mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) OR (organizing of human activity).
calculating an inclined angle of the first pallet image (mental process including observation and evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind) OR (mathematical concepts, mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) OR (organizing of human activity);
rotating the first pallet image according to the inclined angle (mental process including observation and evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind) OR (mathematical concepts, mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) OR (organizing of human activity);
obtaining a second pallet image (mental process including observation and evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind) OR (mathematical concepts, mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) OR (organizing of human activity).
obtaining a position information of the pallet based on the second pallet image (mental process including observation and evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind) OR (mathematical concepts, mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) OR (organizing of human activity);
obtaining a three dimensional information of the pallet according to the inclined angle and the position information (mental process including observation and evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind) OR (mathematical concepts, mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) OR (organizing of human activity).
These limitations, as drafted, is a simple process that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind or by a human. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 15 does/do not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. Claim(s) 1, 7, 15 recite(s) the further limitations of:
obtaining an on-site image (insignificant pre/post-solution extra activity of generating data) OR (generic computers or components configured to perform the method);
obtaining a second pallet image (insignificant pre/post-solution extra activity of generating data) OR (generic computers or components configured to perform the method);
Claim(s) 15 does/do not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. Claim(s) 1, 7, 15 recite(s) the further limitations of:
a photographing module, obtaining an on-site image (insignificant pre/post-solution extra activity of generating data) OR (generic computers or components configured to perform the method);
an on-site constructing module, electrically connected with the photographing module, configured to receive the on-site image (insignificant pre/post-solution extra activity of generating data) OR (generic computers or components configured to perform the method);
an input unit, configured to receive a size parameter of a pallet (insignificant pre/post-solution extra activity of generating data) OR (generic computers or components configured to perform the method);
a constructing unit, electrically connected with the input unit (insignificant pre/post-solution extra activity of generating data) OR (generic computers or components configured to perform the method);
a positioning computation module, electrically connected with the on-site constructing module (insignificant pre/post-solution extra activity of generating data) OR (generic computers or components configured to perform the method);
These limitations are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general action or change being taken based on the results of the acquiring step) and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, the claims are claimed generically and are operating in their ordinary capacity such that they do not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? NO, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 15 does/do not recite any additional elements that are not well-understood, routine or conventional. The use of a computer to “defining (for claim 15), obtaining (for claim 15), and calculating (for claims 1 and 7), as claimed in Claim(s) 1, 7, 15 is a routine, well-understood and conventional process that is performed by computers.
Thus, since Claim(s) 1, 7, 15 is/are: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that Claim(s) 1, 7, 15 is/are not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding claim 8: the additional limitations do not integrate the mental process into practical application or add significantly more to the mental process. The limitation(s): performing a second positioning procedure to the first pallet image being rotated to obtain the second pallet image (mental process including observation and evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind) OR (mathematical concepts, mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) OR (organizing of human activity) OR (insignificant pre/post-solution extra activity of generating data) OR (generic computers or components configured to perform the method).
Regarding claim 2, 9, 16: the additional limitations do not integrate the mental process into practical application or add significantly more to the mental process. The limitation(s): comparing the first pallet image being rotated and the pallet feature (mental process including observation and evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind) OR (mathematical concepts, mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) OR (organizing of human activity) OR (insignificant pre/post-solution extra activity of generating data) OR (generic computers or components configured to perform the method).
Regarding claim 3, 10, 17: the additional limitations do not integrate the mental process into practical application or add significantly more to the mental process. The limitation(s): determining whether the second pallet image is corresponding to the pallet according to the size parameter and the pallet feature; and confirming that the second pallet image is obtained, if the second pallet image is determined to be corresponding to the pallet (mental process including observation and evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind) OR (mathematical concepts, mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) OR (organizing of human activity) OR (insignificant pre/post-solution extra activity of generating data) OR (generic computers or components configured to perform the method).
Regarding claim 4, 11, 18: the additional limitations do not integrate the mental process into practical application or add significantly more to the mental process. The limitation(s): [limitation 3 ] (mental process including observation and evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind) OR (mathematical concepts, mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) OR (organizing of human activity) OR (insignificant pre/post-solution extra activity of generating data) OR (generic computers or components configured to perform the method).
Regarding claim 4, 11, 18: the additional limitations do not integrate the mental process into practical application or add significantly more to the mental process. The limitation(s): comparing an edge distribution of the second pallet image and an edge distribution of the pallet feature; and aligning the edge distribution of the second pallet image and the edge distribution of the pallet feature (mental process including observation and evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind) OR (mathematical concepts, mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) OR (organizing of human activity) OR (insignificant pre/post-solution extra activity of generating data) OR (generic computers or components configured to perform the method).
Regarding claim 12: the additional limitations do not integrate the mental process into practical application or add significantly more to the mental process. The limitation(s): positioning the first pallet image in the perspective adjusted image according to the pallet feature (mental process including observation and evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind) OR (mathematical concepts, mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) OR (organizing of human activity) OR (insignificant pre/post-solution extra activity of generating data) OR (generic computers or components configured to perform the method).
Regarding claim 5, 13, 19: the additional limitations do not integrate the mental process into practical application or add significantly more to the mental process. The limitation(s): wherein the position
information is a two dimensional information (mental process including observation and evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind) OR (mathematical concepts, mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) OR (organizing of human activity) OR (insignificant pre/post-solution extra activity of generating data) OR (generic computers or components configured to perform the method).
Regarding claim 6, 14, 20: the additional limitations do not integrate the mental process into practical application or add significantly more to the mental process. The limitation(s): obtaining an inverse transformation matrix according to the inclined angle and the position information; and transforming the position information to the three dimensional information by using the inverse transformation matrix (mental process including observation and evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind) OR (mathematical concepts, mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) OR (organizing of human activity) OR (insignificant pre/post-solution extra activity of generating data) OR (generic computers or components configured to perform the method).
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-13, 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Molter (“Real-time Pallet Localization with 3D Camera Technology for Forklifts in Logistic Environments”, 2018).
Regarding claims 1, 7, 15, Molter teaches A pallet positioning method (Molter, pg 297, column 2, ¶1, reproduced below:
PNG
media_image1.png
490
1052
media_image1.png
Greyscale
. “Detecting and localizing pallets” is being interpreted as “pallet positioning”), comprising:
defining a size parameter of a pallet (Molter, pg 300, Figure 4, reproduced below:
PNG
media_image2.png
730
704
media_image2.png
Greyscale
. Examiner recommends viewing the color version. “range of valid values” is being interpreted as “size parameter of a pallet” that are defined);
defining a pallet feature of the pallet according to the size parameter (Molter, see Figure 4 image above, “geometrical conditions” are being interpreted as “pallet feature” according to the size parameter that are defined);
obtaining an on-site image (Molter, see pg 297, column 2, ¶1 image above, “3D
camera with time-of-flight principle is used” is being interpreted as being used to obtain “an on-site image”);
defining a projection datum in the on-site image (Molter, pg 299, column 1, ¶1, reproduced below:
PNG
media_image3.png
344
718
media_image3.png
Greyscale
. “For plane detection, the well-known RANSAC algorithm is used” is being interpreted to involve “projection datum”);
calculating a projection plane coordinate based on the projection datum (Molter, see pg 299, column 1 image above, “outputs of the plane detection process” are being interpreted as calculating a projection plane coordinate);
transforming the on-site image to a perspective adjusted image according to the projection plane coordinate (Molter, pg 301, Figure 6c-which shows the detected pallet have a perspective adjusted image according to the projection plane coordinate. Examiner recommends viewing the color version of the image as it shows a viewing angle looking down towards the pallet);
performing a first positioning procedure to obtain a first pallet image in the perspective adjusted image (Molter, pg 301, Figure 6c, rotating the view to have the perspective adjust image is being interpreted to use a first positioning procedure);
calculating an inclined angle of the first pallet image (Molter, pg 300, column 2, ¶1: “The yaw angle is calculated considering the two outer wooden blocks”. “Yaw angle” is being interpreted as “inclined angle”.);
rotating the first pallet image according to the inclined angle (Molter, pg 301, Figure 6d, which shows front view at ground level of the first pallet image. Which is being interpreted as requiring rotating. Examiner recommends viewing the color image.);
obtaining a second pallet image (Molter, pg 301, Figure 6d, which is being interpreted as the second pallet image);
obtaining a position information of the pallet (Molter, see pg 297, column 2, ¶1 image above, “localizing pallets” are being interpreted to involve position information) based on the second pallet image (Molter, pg 301, Figure 6d, which is being interpreted to have position information, otherwise the pallet would not be visible in the image); and
obtaining a three dimensional information of the pallet according to the inclined angle and the position information (Molter, see pg 297, column 2, ¶1 image above, “localizing pallets” are being interpreted to involve obtaining 3D information of the pallet according to the inclined angle, interpreted from yaw angle, and position information, interpreted from the geometrical conditions from Figure 4).
Regarding claim 8, Molter teaches The pallet positioning method according to claim 7, further comprising:
performing a second positioning procedure to the first pallet image being rotated to obtain the second pallet image (Molter, Figure 6, reproduced below:
PNG
media_image4.png
530
608
media_image4.png
Greyscale
. Examiner recommends viewing the full color version. The visualization shows the view change from 6c to 6d. One with ordinary skill in the art would know this view change requires at least a rotation, which involves a second positioning procedure. 6c is interpreted as an example first pallet image. 6d is interpreted as an example second pallet image).
Regarding claim 9, Molter teaches The pallet positioning method according to claim 8, wherein the second positioning procedure comprises:
comparing the first pallet image being rotated (Molter, see nearest image below, the pallet detected in the point cloud is being interpreted to involve the first pallet image. One with ordinary skill in the art would know that point cloud images are easily rotated) and the pallet feature (Molter, pg 299, Section C, ¶1, reproduced below:
PNG
media_image5.png
378
608
media_image5.png
Greyscale
. The pallet characterizations are being interpreted as involving the pallet feature. The known dimensions are compared with the pallet features and the wooden blocks detected).
Regarding claim 10, Molter teaches The pallet positioning method according to claim 7, wherein the obtaining of the second pallet image comprises:
determining whether the second pallet image (Molter, Figure 6d, which is being interpreted as the second pallet image) is corresponding to the pallet according to the size parameter (Molter, pg 300, column 1, lines 1-2: “The Euclidean distance between all remaining centroids is calculated”. “Euclidean distance” is being interpreted to involve an example “size parameter”) and the pallet feature (Molter, pg 299, column 2, last paragraph: “The idea here is to find three centroids, which represents the front side surface of the three wooden blocks.” The 3 centroids that represents the 3 wooden blocks is being interpreted to involve the pallet feature. All together, these determine if the object detected corresponds to the pallet); and
confirming that the second pallet image is obtained (Molter, pg 300, Figure 4 text, “All four geometrical conditions for pallet detection.” “Geometrical conditions for pallet detection” is being interpreted as confirming that the second pallet image is obtained), if the second pallet image is determined to be corresponding to the pallet (Molter, pg 300, Figure 4 text, “All four geometrical conditions for pallet detection.” “Geometrical conditions for pallet detection” is being interpreted as using geometrical pallet detection to determine if the object detected corresponds to the pallet).
Regarding claim 11, Molter teaches The pallet positioning method according to claim 10, wherein the obtaining of the second pallet image further comprises:
comparing an edge distribution (Molter, see nearest image below, “Each cluster represents one found surface”, which is being interpreted as an “edge distribution”) of the second pallet image (Molter, Figure 6d, which shows the second pallet image with centroids shown) and an edge distribution of the pallet feature (Molter, pg 299, column 2, ¶1, reproduced below:
PNG
media_image6.png
266
608
media_image6.png
Greyscale
. “Surface normal” is being interpreted to involve “the pallet feature” as it is used to determine if the point cloud clusters are the surfaces, or edge distribution, or the 3 wooden blocks. Calculating the angle phi between is being interpreted as comparing); and
aligning the edge distribution of the second pallet image (Molter, see nearest image above, the point cloud cluster of the found surface is being interpreted as the edge distribution of the second pallet image) and the edge distribution of the pallet feature (Molter, see nearest image above, surface normal is being interpreted as involving the edge distribution of the pallet. “Perpendicular” surface normal are being interpreted as an example aligning).
Regarding claim 12, Molter teaches The pallet positioning method according to claim 7, wherein the first positioning procedure comprises:
positioning the first pallet image in the perspective adjusted image according to the pallet feature (Molter, Figure 6, reproduced below:
PNG
media_image4.png
530
608
media_image4.png
Greyscale
. Examiner recommends viewing the full color version. 6c is being interpreted as the first pallet image. The visualized centroids are the red line, which is being interpreted as involving a pallet feature. The position of the pallet view is being interpreted to involve a perspective adjusted image).
Regarding claim 13, Molter teaches The pallet positioning method according to claim 7, wherein the position information (Molter, see pg 297, column 2, ¶1 image above, “localizing pallets” are being interpreted to involve position information) is a two dimensional information (Molter, pg 297, column 1, ¶1: “localization as ‘what is the spatial orientation in relation to the sensor?’.” Which is being interpreted to involve two dimensional information.).
Claims 2 and 16 is rejected using the same rationale as applied to claim 9 discussed above.
Claims 3 and 17 is rejected using the same rationale as applied to claim 10 discussed above.
Claims 4 and 18 is rejected using the same rationale as applied to claim 11 discussed above.
Claims 5 and 19 is rejected using the same rationale as applied to claim 13 discussed above.
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) 6, 14, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Molter, in view of Holeva (US 2013/0101230 A1, 2012).
Regarding claim 14, Molter teaches The pallet positioning method according to claim 7, wherein the obtaining of the three dimensional information of the pallet according to the inclined angle and the position information comprises:
However, Molter does not appear to explicitly teach inverse transformation matrix. Although, one with ordinary skill in the art would know inverse transformation matrix is used in robotic navigation with an image sensor, or used in changing the frame of reference for different coordinate systems.
Pertaining to the same field of endeavor, Holeva teaches
obtaining an inverse transformation matrix (Holeva, [0708], reproduced below:
PNG
media_image7.png
354
822
media_image7.png
Greyscale
. “wherein the noted inverse matrix”, which is being interpreted as involving an inverse transformation matrix) according to the inclined angle (Holeva, see [0708] image above, the theta is being interpreted as involving the inclined angle) and the position information (Holeva, [0707], reproduced below:
PNG
media_image8.png
386
890
media_image8.png
Greyscale
. The X, Y, and Z is being interpreted as position information); and
transforming the position information to the three dimensional information (Holeva, see [0707] image above, the X, Y, Z values are being interpreted to be transformed into 3D information) by using the inverse transformation matrix (Holeva, see [0708] image above, which is the inverse transformation matrix used).
Molter and Holeva are considered to be analogous art because they are directed to forklift operation with pallet detection. 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 method and system for forklift operation with pallet detection (as taught by Molter) to include inverse transformation matrix (as taught by Holeva) because the combination provides an improvement to forklift operation (Holeva, [0004]).
Claims 6 and 20 is rejected using the same rationale as applied to claim 13 discussed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Xiao et al (“Pallet recognition and localization using an RGB-D camera”, 2017) discloses a pallet positioning (interpreted from localization) device that defines pallet features and parameters (see Figure 5) with similarity matching (interpreted from templated matching), first and second pallet image (segmentation and Figures 7d to 7f), and inclined angle (example could be yaw angle).
Knitt et al (“Estimating the Pose of a Euro Pallet with an RGB Camera based on Synthetic Training Data”, 2022) discloses pallet pose estimation (which uses pallet feature and size parameters) with inclined angle (pg 6, column 1, first paragraph).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHNNY B DUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-1358. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 10a-9p (ET).
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, Matthew Bella can be reached at (571)272-7778. 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.
/J.B.D./Examiner, Art Unit 2667
/MATTHEW C BELLA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2667
Prosecution Insights