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 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.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 16 recites in the preamble “a program that causes a mobile body device to perform….”; therefore claim 24 is non-statutory because it is directed towards software, per se, lacking storage on a medium, which enables any underlying functionality to occur. It is not clear whether instructions are in executable form and therefore there is no practical application. Appropriate correction is required by the applicant.
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 limitation(s) is/are: “verification unit that verifies…; attitude calculation unit..; movement control unit…” in claims 1, 10 and 12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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 § 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)(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) 1-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Li et al., US Pg. Pub. No. (2025/0172687) referred to hereinafter as Li.
As per claim 1, Li teaches a mobile body control device comprising: a keyframe database that associates, and registers, a feature of a keyframe selected from images of a movement space shot by a camera and a position and attitude of the keyframe in a coordinate system defining the movement space (see at least Abstract, Para 2, 6, 26, 34, 67, 79, claim 11, 18); an image feature verification unit that verifies a feature of an image captured by a camera of a mobile body against the feature of the keyframe registered in the keyframe database (see at least Abstract, Para 2, 6, 26, 34, 67, 79, claim 11, 18, obtaining image and matching to obtain optimal position is considered verification); a mobile body position and attitude calculation unit that calculates a position and attitude of the mobile body based on the position and attitude of the keyframe in the coordinate system defining the movement space, registered in the keyframe database in association with a keyframe for which the verification is successful (see at least Abstract, Para 2, 6, 26, 33, 34, 74, storage unit ~database); and a movement control unit that controls movement of the mobile body based on the position and attitude calculated by the mobile body position and attitude calculation unit (see at least Abstract, Para 2, 6, 26, 34, 60-61,67, 79, figs. 5-6, claim 11, 18).
As per claim 2, Li teaches a mobile body control device according to claim 1, wherein the coordinate system defining the movement space is a CAD coordinate system defining a three-dimensional CG model of the movement space (see at least Abstract, Para 2, 6, 26, 34, 67, 79, claim 11, 18).
As per claim 3, Li teaches a mobile body control device according to claim 1, wherein the keyframe database is a database that registers, in relation to each keyframe, a position and attitude of the keyframe in a CAD coordinate system defining a three-dimensional CG model of the movement space (see at least Abstract, Para 2, 6, 26, 34, 67, 79, claim 11, 18).
As per claim 4, Li teaches a mobile body control device according to claim 1, wherein the keyframe database is a database that registers, in relation to each keyframe, a coordinate transformation matrix for transformation from a keyframe coordinate system defining the position and attitude of the keyframe into a CAD coordinate system defining a three-dimensional CG model of the movement space (see at least Abstract, Para 2, 6, 26, 34, 67, 79, claim 11, 18).
As per claim 5, Li teaches a mobile body control device according to claim 1, wherein the keyframe database is a database that registers, in relation to each keyframe, information related to a marker or a marker substitution object included as an object in the keyframe (see at least Abstract, Para 2, 6, 26, 34, 67, 79, claim 11, 18).
As per claim 6, Li teaches a mobile body control device according to claim 5, wherein the marker substitution object is an object that fixed in the movement space (see at least Abstract, Para 2, 6, 26, 34, 67, 79, claim 11, 18).
As per claim 7, Li teaches a mobile body control device according to claim 5, wherein the keyframe database is a database that registers, as the information related to the marker or the marker substitution object, a position and attitude of the marker or the marker substitution object in a keyframe coordinate system defining the position and attitude of the keyframe (see at least Abstract, Para 2, 6, 26, 34, 67, 79, claim 11, 18).
As per claim 8, Li teaches a mobile body control device according to claim 5, wherein the marker or the marker substitution object is a marker or a marker substitution object that registered in an object database, and the object database is a database that registers, for each marker or each marker substitution object, a position and attitude in a CAD coordinate system defining a three-dimensional CG model of the movement space (see at least Abstract, Para 2, 6, 26, 34, 67, 79, claim 11, 18).
As per claim 9, Li teaches a mobile body control device according to claim 1, wherein the keyframe database is a database that registers, in relation to each keyframe, a position and attitude of the keyframe in a SLAM coordinate system calculated when generating the keyframe database (see at least Abstract, Para 2, 6, 26, 34, 67, 79, claim 11, 18).
As per claim 10, Li teaches a mobile body control device according to claim 1, comprising: a SLAM coordinate system position and attitude calculation unit that performs self position and attitude calculation processing through SLAM processing using an image captured by the camera of the mobile body (see at least Abstract, Para 2, 6, 26, 34, 67, 79, claim 11, 18); and a CAD coordinate system position calculation unit that obtains a position and attitude of the keyframe in a CAD coordinate system defining the movement space, registered in the keyframe database in association with the keyframe for which the verification is successful (see at least Abstract, Para 2, 6, 26, 34, 67, 79, claim 11, 18).
As per claim 11, Li teaches a mobile body control device according to claim 10, wherein when at least one of a SLAM coordinate system position and attitude calculated by the SLAM coordinate system position and attitude calculation unit or a CAD coordinate system position and attitude calculated by the CAD coordinate system position and attitude calculation unit is taken as an input (see at least Abstract, Para 2, 6, 26, 34, 67, 79, claim 11, 18), and the CAD coordinate system position and attitude calculated by the CAD coordinate system position and attitude calculation unit is input, the mobile body position and attitude calculation unit calculates the CAD coordinate system position and attitude input as the position and attitude of the mobile body (see at least Abstract, Para 2, 6, 26, 34, 67, 79, claim 11, 18).
As per claim 12, Li teaches a mobile body control device according to claim 1, comprising: a mobile body path difference calculation unit that calculates a difference between the position of the mobile body calculated by the mobile body position and attitude calculation unit and a predefined movement path, wherein the movement control unit controls movement of the mobile body to reduce the difference calculated by the mobile body path difference calculation unit (see at least Abstract, Para 2, 6, 26, 34, 67, 79, claim 11, 18).
As per claim 13, Li teaches a mobile body control device according to claim 12, wherein the mobile body path difference calculation unit calculates the difference between the position of the mobile body calculated by the mobile body position and attitude calculation unit and the predefined movement path while referring to movement path registration data in which the predefined movement path is registered (see at least Abstract, Para 2, 6, 26, 34, 67, 79, claim 11, 18).
As per claim 14, Li teaches a mobile body control device according to claim 1, wherein the mobile body is a drone, and the movement control unit controls flight of the drone (see at least Abstract, Para 2, 6, 26, 34, 67, 79, claim 11, 18).
As per claims 15-16, the limitations of claims 15-16 are similar to the limitations of claims 1-14, therefore they are rejected based on the same rationale.
Conclusion
Please refer to form 892 for cited references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUSSA A SHAAWAT whose telephone number is (313)446-6592. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-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, Erin Piateski can be reached at 571-270-7429. 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.
/MUSSA A SHAAWAT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669