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 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.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites a device comprising: “acquisition means configured to acquire” data… “a detection means configured to detect” data; and “a processing means configured to” determine data”.
The specification states that the means are merely “a controller”, paragraph [0084] of the application’s publication, US 2025/0110240 A1, which perform both math and mental steps, which can be done with the aid of pen and a paper, see MPEP 2106.04(a).
Claim 9 recites a method executed by a processing device comprising: “acquiring” data; “detecting” data; and “determining” data”.
Claim 10 recites a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program causing a computer to: “acquire” data; “detect” data; and “determine” data.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed invention is to generate data and perform mathematical analysis on said data. As a result of the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations amount to a mental process that could be practically performed in the human mind. Such a process is considered an abstract idea in view of, for example, CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ 2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011), as 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.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there is no direct application of a judicial exception in a meaningful way. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no positively recited steps are to how the data is measured; instead, the claim only requires acquiring and analyzing data. Without any meaningfully claimed limitation as to how the data is measured, it is not possible for the claimed abstract idea to be integrated into a judicial exception.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for similar reasons as set forth above as to why the claim is not integrated into a practical application. There does not appear to be any additional limitation in the claim other than the abstract idea of acquiring data and analyzing data. Since there are no additional limitations, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
While claims 1-10 are interpreted as comprising computer processors performing the method, this is not sufficient to provide significantly more than the abstract idea. A claim can still recite a mental process even if the limitations found in the claim are claimed as being performed on a computer, particularly when the mental process is performed on a generic computer. The courts have held that a mental process that is performed on a generic computer is considered to be an abstract idea as per Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Systems & Software, LLC, 887 F.3d 1376, 1385, 126 USPQ2d 1498, 1504 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Additionally, even if the claimed abstract idea was performed on a special purpose computer, it has also been held that using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process is not significantly more than the judicial exception when the steps of the process are recited at a high level of generality and merely use computers as a tool to perform the process. See Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
See also Example 47, claim 2, in the July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples. Available here: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2024-AI-SMEUpdateExamples47-49.pdf
Regarding claims 2 and 4-7, the claim recites the abstract step of processing data. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)
Regarding claims 3 and 8, the claims merely further define the data.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1),(a)(2) as being anticipated by McWhirter et al. (US 2018/0284780 A1), hereinafter “McWhirter”.
Regarding claim 1, McWhirter discloses an information processing device (abstract, Figs. 1, 2, 10) comprising:
an acquisition means configured to acquire point cloud information, which is a set of data representing a point measured for each measurement direction by a measurement device (paragraph [0065]);
a detection means configured to detect a predetermined degree or more of fluctuation in the measurement device (paragraph [0069]); and
a processing means configured to determine, based on whether the fluctuation is detected or not, a search range for searching for a point of second point cloud information which corresponds to each point of first point cloud information, wherein the first point cloud information is the point cloud information obtained at a current processing time and the second point cloud information is the point cloud information obtained at a preceding processing time (paragraphs [0096]-[0097]).
Regarding claim 2, McWhirter discloses wherein, upon detecting the fluctuation, the processing means is configured to expand the search range in a direction in which the fluctuation occurred (paragraph [0096]).
Regarding claim 3, McWhirter discloses wherein the detection means is configured to detect the fluctuation in at least one of a pitch direction, a yaw direction and/or a roll direction of the measurement device (paragraph [0097]).
Regarding claim 4, McWhirter discloses wherein the processing means is configured to detect the direction of the fluctuation among positive directions or negative directions of the pitch direction, the yaw direction, or the roll direction, and expand the search range in a direction opposite to the detected direction (paragraph [0097]).
Regarding claim 8, McWhirter discloses wherein the detection means is configured to detect the fluctuation based on a detection signal outputted by a sensor, which is provided in the measurement device or a moving object in which the measurement device is provided (paragraph [0096]).
Regarding claim 9, McWhirter discloses a control method executed by an information processing device (abstract, Figs. 1, 2, 10), the control method comprising:
acquiring point cloud information, which is a set of data representing a point measured for each measurement direction by a measurement device (paragraph [0065]);
detecting a predetermined degree or more of fluctuation in the measurement device (paragraph [0069]); and
determining, based on whether the fluctuation is detected or not, a search range for searching for a point of second point cloud information which corresponds to each point of first point cloud information, wherein the first point cloud information is the point cloud information obtained at a current processing time and the second point cloud information is the point cloud information obtained at a preceding processing time (paragraphs [0096]-[0097]).
Regarding claim 10, McWhirter discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program (abstract, Figs. 1, 2, 10) causing a computer to:
acquire point cloud information, which is a set of data representing a point measured for each measurement direction by a measurement device (paragraph [0065]);
detect a predetermined degree or more of fluctuation in the measurement device (paragraph [0069]); and
determine, based on whether the fluctuation is detected or not, a search range for searching for a point of second point cloud information which corresponds to each point of first point cloud information, wherein the first point cloud information is the point cloud information obtained at a current processing time and the second point cloud information is the point cloud information obtained at a preceding processing time (paragraphs [0096]-[0097]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McWhirter as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mori et al. (JP2021131280A), references to English machine translation, hereinafter “Mori”.
Regarding claim 5, McWhirter is silent regarding wherein the detection means is configured to detect the fluctuation based on the first point cloud information and the second point cloud information.
However, Mori teaches an object detection device (abstract) including wherein the detection means is configured to detect the fluctuation based on the first point cloud information and the second point cloud information (paragraph [0106]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of McWhirter with the teaching of Mori by including wherein the detection means is configured to detect the fluctuation based on the first point cloud information and the second point cloud information in order to compensate for the corresponding errors in a point cloud acquisition device, paragraph [0024].
Regarding claim 6, McWhirter is silent regarding wherein the detection means is configured to detect the fluctuation based on a matching result between the first point cloud information and the second point cloud information based on ground points which are the points representing a ground.
However, Mori teaches an object detection device (abstract) including wherein the detection means is configured to detect the fluctuation based on a matching result between the first point cloud information and the second point cloud information based on ground points which are the points representing a ground (paragraph [0107]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of McWhirter with the teaching of Mori by including wherein the detection means is configured to detect the fluctuation based on a matching result between the first point cloud information and the second point cloud information based on ground points which are the points representing a ground in order to compensate for the corresponding errors in a point cloud acquisition device, paragraph [0024].
Regarding claim 7, McWhirter is silent regarding wherein the detection means is configured to detect the fluctuation based on a matching result between the first point cloud information and the second point cloud information based on the points representing measurement distances equal to or longer than a predetermined distance.
However, Mori teaches an object detection device (abstract) including wherein the detection means is configured to detect the fluctuation based on a matching result between the first point cloud information and the second point cloud information based on the points representing measurement distances equal to or longer than a predetermined distance (paragraph [0107]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of McWhirter with the teaching of Mori by including wherein the detection means is configured to detect the fluctuation based on a matching result between the first point cloud information and the second point cloud information based on the points representing measurement distances equal to or longer than a predetermined distance in order to compensate for the corresponding errors in a point cloud acquisition device, paragraph [0024].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gassend (US 2019/0018416 A1) teaches a method for sensor adjustment from vehicle motion and appears to render obvious at least the independent claims.
Coddington (US 2017/0123066 A1) teaches a device for point cloud generation and tracking position including pitch, roll, and yaw and appears to be able to be combined with prior art of record to render obvious at least the independent claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOMINIC J BOLOGNA whose telephone number is (571)272-9282. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am-3:30pm.
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, Kara E Geisel can be reached at (571) 272-2416. 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.
/DOMINIC J BOLOGNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights