DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. 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.
Priority
3. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The Information Disclosure Statement filed 4 November 2024 has been fully considered by Examiner. An annotated copy is included herewith.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 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.
6. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 12 is directed to a “data structure of data to be output by an information processing apparatus” and is therefore data per se, which does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention. See MPEP § 2106.03(I).
7. Claims 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claims 13-17 are directed to a “program readable by a computer apparatus, for causing the computer apparatus to execute processing” and is therefore software per se, which does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention. See MPEP § 2106.03(I).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
8. 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)(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.
9. Claims 1-3, 8, 9 and 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sato (US-2023/0237735).
Regarding claim 1: Sato discloses an information processing apparatus (fig 1 and [0024] of Sato) comprising: a point cloud generation unit configured to generate point cloud data ([0024]-[0025] of Sato) indicating a three-dimensional structure of a target area, on a basis of sensing data regarding the target area ([0034]-[0035], and [0037] of Sato); a feature evaluation unit configured to evaluate a feature of a subject within the target area on a basis of a result of analysis of a captured image in which the target area is captured (figs 4-7 and [0037]-[0045] of Sato – classifies image data into regions based on features); an associating unit configured to associate evaluation information regarding the feature with the point cloud data (figs 6-9 and [0046]-[0050] of Sato – evaluated features (classification information) used to associate features with point cloud data); and an output processing unit configured to perform processing of outputting the point cloud data and the evaluation information associated with the point cloud data to an external apparatus (figs 13-14 and [0063]-[0066] of Sato – target objects displayed after feature evaluation and point cloud data processing).
Regarding claim 2: Sato discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1 (as rejected above), wherein the output processing unit performs the processing of outputting the point cloud data and the evaluation information to the external apparatus which is an apparatus configured to perform display control of the point cloud data on a basis of the evaluation information regarding the feature and a user operation related to the evaluation information regarding the feature (fig 1(50), figs 13-14, [0026], and [0063]-[0066] of Sato – target objects displayed on output apparatus display after feature evaluation and point cloud data processing).
Regarding claim 3: Sato discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1 (as rejected above), wherein the feature evaluation unit generates a feature evaluation value by quantifying the feature of the subject (figs 6-7, figs 13-14, [0042], [0045], and [0065]-[0066] of Sato), and the associating unit associates the feature evaluation value as the evaluation information with the point cloud data (figs 6-9 and [0046]-[0050] of Sato – evaluated feature values used to associate features with point cloud data).
Regarding claim 8: Sato discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1 (as rejected above), wherein, regarding point clouds with same evaluation information regarding the feature, the associating unit associates the evaluation information regarding the feature for some points but does not associate the evaluation information regarding the feature for remaining points (figs 6-9 and [0048]-[0049] of Sato – associates with points for some regions, such as the cat region, and not the background regions).
Regarding claim 9: Sato discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1 (as rejected above), wherein the feature evaluation unit performs image recognition processing as semantic segmentation on the captured image, and the associating unit associates, as the evaluation information, information indicating a class of an object recognized in the image recognition processing with the point cloud data ([0043]-[0045] of Sato – evaluated and semantically segmented according to region labels).
Regarding claim 11: Sato discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 2 (as rejected above), wherein the output processing unit performs the processing of outputting the point cloud data and the evaluation information associated with the point cloud data to a separate external apparatus which is an external apparatus different from the external apparatus (fig 1(50), figs 13-14, [0026], and [0063]-[0066] of Sato – target objects displayed on an external output apparatus display after feature evaluation and point cloud data processing) and performs point cloud data count adjustment processing on a basis of feature indication information indicating a feature of a point cloud to be extracted ([0051]-[0052] of Sato – count adjustments based on region classification, region size, and kernel size).
Regarding claim 12: Sato discloses a data structure of data to be output by an information processing apparatus to an external apparatus (fig 1 and [0024]-[0026] of Sato), the information processing apparatus including a point cloud generation unit configured to generate point cloud data ([0024]-[0025] of Sato) indicating a three-dimensional structure of a target area, on a basis of sensing data regarding the target area ([0034]-[0035], and [0037] of Sato), a feature evaluation unit configured to evaluate a feature of a subject within the target area on a basis of a result of analysis of a captured image in which the target area is captured (figs 4-7 and [0037]-[0045] of Sato – classifies image data into regions based on features), and an associating unit configured to associate evaluation information regarding the feature with the point cloud data (figs 6-9 and [0046]-[0050] of Sato – evaluated features (classification information) used to associate features with point cloud data), the external apparatus being configured to perform display control of the point cloud data, the data structure comprising: the point cloud data; and the evaluation information associated with the point cloud data, wherein the external apparatus uses the data structure to perform display control of the point cloud data according to a user operation on a basis of the evaluation information received (figs 13-14 and [0063]-[0066] of Sato – target objects displayed after feature evaluation and point cloud data processing).
Regarding claim 13: Sato discloses a program readable by a computer apparatus, for causing the computer apparatus to execute processing (fig 1, [0024]-[0025], and [0099] of Sato) of: receiving, from an information processing apparatus including a point cloud generation unit configured to generate point cloud data ([0024]-[0025] of Sato) indicating a three-dimensional structure of a target area, on a basis of sensing data regarding the target area ([0034]-[0035], and [0037] of Sato), a feature evaluation unit configured to evaluate a feature of a subject within the target area on a basis of a result of analysis of a captured image in which the target area is captured (figs 4-7 and [0037]-[0045] of Sato – classifies image data into regions based on features), and an associating unit configured to associate evaluation information regarding the feature with the point cloud data, the point cloud data and the evaluation information associated with the point cloud data (figs 6-9 and [0046]-[0050] of Sato – evaluated features (classification information) used to associate features with point cloud data); and performing display control of the point cloud data according to a user operation on a basis of the evaluation information (figs 13-14 and [0063]-[0066] of Sato – target objects displayed after feature evaluation and point cloud data processing).
Regarding claim 14: Sato discloses the program according to claim 13 (as rejected above), wherein the computer apparatus is caused to execute processing of selecting some of multiple points included in the point cloud data on a basis of the evaluation information associated with the point cloud data and the user operation (figs 6-9 and [0046]-[0050] of Sato).
Regarding claim 15: Sato discloses the program according to claim 14 (as rejected above), wherein the computer apparatus is caused to execute processing of selecting, among the multiple points, a point satisfying a condition related to the evaluation information specified by the user operation (fig 14 and [0064]-[0066] of Sato – evaluating points satisfying conditions showing regions are occupied by certain objects, in this example dogs).
Regarding claim 16: Sato discloses the program according to claim 15 (as rejected above), wherein the evaluation information is a feature evaluation value obtained by quantifying the feature ([0043]-[0045] of Sato), and the condition is a condition determined by a threshold for the feature evaluation value (fig 10 and [0052] of Sato – feature evaluation in part according to size thresholds).
Regarding claim 17: Sato discloses the program according to claim 13 (as rejected above), wherein the computer apparatus is caused to execute processing of outputting, to an apparatus configured to perform count adjustment of the point cloud data, feature indication information which has been confirmed by the user operation and indicates a feature of a point cloud to be extracted ([0051]-[0052] of Sato – count adjustments based on region classification, region size, and kernel size).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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.
11. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (US-2023/0237735) in view of Wagner (US-2017/0277951).
Regarding claim 10: Sato discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1 (as rejected above). Sato does not disclose wherein the feature evaluation unit calculates a vegetation evaluation value on a basis of a captured image obtained by a multispectral camera, and the associating unit associates the vegetation evaluation value as the evaluation information with the point cloud data.
Wagner discloses wherein the feature evaluation unit calculates a vegetation evaluation value on a basis of a captured image obtained by a multispectral camera, and the associating unit associates the vegetation evaluation value as the evaluation information with the point cloud data ([0009], [0011], and [0029]-[0031] of Wagner – multispectral camera captures image, including vegetation region which is analyzed to improve region classification).
Sato and Wagner are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely 3D point cloud data analysis and processing. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to calculate a vegetation evaluation value on a basis of a captured image obtained by a multispectral camera, and associate the vegetation evaluation value as the evaluation information with the point cloud data, as taught by Wagner. The motivation for doing so would have been to more accurately analyze image regions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Sato according to the relied-upon teachings of Wagner to obtain the invention as specified in claim 10.
Allowable Subject Matter
12. Claims 4-7 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James A Thompson whose telephone number is (571)272-7441. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-6pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alicia Harrington can be reached at 571-272-2330. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAMES A THOMPSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2615
Prosecution Insights