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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/25/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Regarding claims 4 and 13, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 9-11, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al (US20200333789) in view of Cho (US20170252925).
Regarding claim 1, Suzuki teaches a method of locating a vehicle in an environment via a plurality of surveillance cameras installed in said environment (para. [0030]), wherein said vehicle comprises a plurality of sensors configured to acquire data identifying a displacement of said vehicle (para. [0043], The movement control sensor information includes odometry information provided by an odometry sensor, angular velocity information provided by an angular velocity sensor, and acceleration information provided by an acceleration sensor), and wherein said vehicle is configured to estimate a position of an odometry centre of said vehicle via odometry as a function of said data identifying a displacement of said vehicle (para. [0043], [0055]), wherein a plurality of visual patterns are applied to said vehicle (para. [0041], [0064], marker), and wherein the method comprises the steps of:
during a learning phase:
receiving a map of said environment (para. [0044]-[0045]);
receiving for each camera an image acquired by the respective camera (para. [0045]);
during a localization phase (para. [0045], SLAM), repeating the following steps for at least one of said surveillance cameras:
receiving an image from the camera, and verifying whether said image shows one or more of said visual patterns applied to said vehicle (para. [0064], For example, in order for the monitoring camera 15 to detect the mobile object 11 as an object displayed in an image, a feature point (a key point) of the marker attached to the mobile object 11 is extracted from frames acquired at certain fixed intervals); and
in case said image shows one or more of said visual patterns applied to said vehicle (para. [0041]):
calculating the position of an odometry centre in said image as a function of the positions and optionally the dimensions of said visual patterns shown in said image (para. [0064], estimates the position and the orientation of the mobile object from the feature points of the marker by a geometric transformation; para. [0071]),
determining a position of said odometry centre in said map by mapping said position of said odometry centre (OC) in said image in coordinates in said map (para. [0047], [0051], [0072]), and
sending said position of said odometry centre in said map to said vehicle (para. [0049], the second estimation information and the monitoring camera information are once stored in the mobile object management system 13 and then transferred therefrom to the mobile object 11), wherein said vehicle is configured to set the estimated position of said odometry centre to said position received (para. [0079], [0117]).
Suzuki fails to teach generating data permitting to associate a pixel of a ground in said image to respective coordinates in said map; and
receiving an obfuscated image from the camera.
However Cho teaches generating data permitting to associate a pixel of a ground in said image to respective coordinates in a map (para. [0014], [0091]-[0091]) and receiving an obfuscated image from the camera (para. [0014], an image before shadows are removed).
Therefore taking the combined teachings of Suzuki and Cho as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the steps of Cho into the method of Suzuki. The motivation to combine Suzuki and Cho would be to avoid obstacles (para. [0009] of Cho).
Regarding claim 2, the modified method of Suzuki teaches a method wherein a plurality of said vehicles move in said environment (para. [0033] of Suzuki), wherein each vehicle of said plurality of vehicles comprises a combination of univocal patterns (para. [0064] of Suzuki, markers attached to the respective mobile objects), wherein the method comprises the steps of:
storing data associating each combination of univocal patterns with a respective vehicle identified via a respective univocal vehicle code (para. [0063] of Suzuki, it would be necessary to store mobile object IDs to determine a recognition result by a comparison process); and
in case said obfuscated image (para. [0014] of Cho) shows one or more of said visual patterns (para. [0041], [0064] of Suzuki), determining the univocal vehicle code associated with the respective pattern combination (para. [0064] of Suzuki, recognizing IDs from the markers attached to the respective mobile objects ), and sending said position of said odometry centre in said map to the vehicle identified via said univocal vehicle code (para. [0049] of Suzuki).
Regarding claim 9, the modified method of Suzuki teaches a method wherein said vehicle is a personal mobility vehicle, an automated guided vehicle (para. [0029] of Suzuki) or an autonomous mobile robot.
Regarding claim 10, the claim recited similar subject matter as claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons as stated above.
Regarding claim 11, the claim recited similar subject matter as claim 2 and is rejected for the same reasons as stated above.
Regarding claim 18, the claim recited similar subject matter as claim 8 and is rejected for the same reasons as stated above.
Claim(s) 3, 4, 12, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al (US20200333789) and Cho (US20170252925) in view of Howard et al (US20200019827).
Regarding claim 3, the modified method of Suzuki fails to teach a method wherein each combination of univocal patterns comprises patterns with different shapes and/or colors.
However Howard teaches combinations of univocal patterns comprising patterns with different shapes and/or colors (para. [0036], [0038], [0050]).
Therefore taking the combined teachings of Suzuki and Cho with Howard as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the steps of Howard into the method of Suzuki and Cho. The motivation to combine Suzuki, Howard and Cho would be to provide accurate detection (para. [0153] of Howard).
Regarding claim 4, the modified method of Suzuki teaches a method wherein said patterns include a bi-dimensional barcode (para. [0039] of Howard) wherein said bi-dimensional barcode identifies the respective univocal vehicle code (para. [0003]-[0004] of Howard).
Regarding claim 12, the claim recited similar subject matter as claim 3 and is rejected for the same reasons as stated above.
Regarding claim 13, the claim recited similar subject matter as claim 4 and is rejected for the same reasons as stated above.
Claim(s) 6 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al (US20200333789) and Cho (US20170252925) in view of Zhang et al (US20080025565).
Regarding claim 6, the modified method of Suzuki fails to teach a method wherein said generating data permitting to associate a pixel of a ground in said image to respective coordinates in said map comprises:
pre-process said image by means of an edge detection/extraction algorithm; and
identify a floor in said image by using said pre-processed image.
However Zhang teaches pre-processing an image by means of an edge detection/extraction algorithm (58-64 in fig. 2B); and
identifying a floor in said image by using said pre-processed image (para. [0004]).
Therefore taking the combined teachings of Suzuki and Cho with Zhang as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the steps of Zhang into the method of Suzuki and Cho. The motivation to combine Suzuki, Zhang and Cho would be to reliably and efficiently determine the empty vs. non-empty status of a cargo container (para. [0019] of Zhang).
Regarding claim 15, the claim recited similar subject matter as claim 6 and is rejected for the same reasons as stated above.
Claim(s) 7 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al (US20200333789) and Cho (US20170252925) in view of Lee (US20170213351).
Regarding claim 7, the modified method of Suzuki fails to teach a method wherein said patterns have one or more predetermined colors and wherein said obfuscated image is obtained by means of a filtering operation that maintains only said one or more predetermined colors.
However Lee teaches wherein patterns have one or more predetermined colors (para. [0048]) and wherein an obfuscated image is obtained by means of a filtering operation (para. [0042]) that maintains only said one or more predetermined colors (para. [0043]).
Therefore taking the combined teachings of Suzuki and Cho with Lee as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the steps of Lee into the method of Suzuki and Cho. The motivation to combine Suzuki, Lee and Cho would be to efficiently determine the movement of a striking or blocking device (para. [0009] of Lee).
Regarding claim 16, the claim recited similar subject matter as claim 7 and is rejected for the same reasons as stated above.
Claim(s) 8 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al (US20200333789) and Cho (US20170252925) in view of Millar et al (US20120169882).
Regarding claim 8, the modified method of Suzuki fails to teach a method wherein the method comprises the stages of:
receiving for each camera respective coordinates in said map;
during said localization phase, receiving the estimated position of said vehicle, select a subset of cameras according to said estimated position of said vehicle and the coordinates of said cameras, and receiving the obfuscated images of the cameras of said sub-set of cameras.
However Millar teaches receiving for each camera respective coordinates in a map (para. [0040]);
during a localization phase, receiving the estimated position of a vehicle (para. [0039], [0051]), select a subset of cameras according to said estimated position of said vehicle and the coordinates of said cameras (para. [0054]), and receiving obfuscated images of the cameras of said sub-set of cameras (para. [0054]. It would be obvious to apply the steps to receive the obfuscated images of Cho as described in claim 1).
Therefore taking the combined teachings of Suzuki and Cho with Millar as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the steps of Millar into the method of Suzuki and Cho. The motivation to combine Suzuki, Millar and Cho would be to view of different cameras without having to manually select which camera's video feed to use (para. [0016] of Millar).
Regarding claim 17, the claim recited similar subject matter as claim 8 and is rejected for the same reasons as stated above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Related Art
Foxlin et al (US20070081695) – see figs. 4A-4B, para. [0057]-[0060]
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEON VIET Q NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1185. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 11AM-7PM.
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, Gregory Morse can be reached at 571-272-3838. 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.
/LEON VIET Q NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2663
Prosecution Insights