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 .
Claims 1-8 are pending in the application. Claim 9 has been canceled.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/14/2024 and 12/06/2024 is considered and attached.
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. The following table lists the occurrences that use means and corresponding structure and associated algorithm.
Claim no.
112(f) elements
Corresponding structure
Associated algorithm
7
an imaging device configured to capture …
FIG. 8 #10; para. [0032] “a color line scan camera”
Para. [0051], [0068]-[0069]
7
a measurement device configured to measure …
Para. [0034] “The measurement device 30 is a device having: a measurement unit such as a laser distance sensor for
measuring a state of the structure; and a storage that stores the measurement result, such as a PC (Personal Computer), a workstation, or a server”.
FIG. 8 #30; Para. [0034], [0063]-[0066]
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 § 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 1-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Analysis for claim 8 is provided in the following. Claim 8 is reproduced in the following (annotation added):
8. A marker detection method executed by a computer, comprising:
(a) storing, as a registered descriptor, a feature descriptor generated from an image in which a marker is captured, the marker including a plurality of colors arranged in one direction;
(b) acquiring a one-dimensional image;
(c) detecting a feature point from the one-dimensional image;
(d) generating, as an observation descriptor, the feature descriptor that represents a luminance change of a region including the feature point; and
(e) determining whether the marker is included in the one-dimensional image, based on a matching result between the registered descriptor and the observation descriptor.
Step 1: Evaluating whether the claim belongs to one of the statutory categories.
Claim 8 recites a method. Thus, the claim is directed to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A Prong One: Evaluating whether the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon). If no exception is recited, the claim is eligible. This concludes the eligibility analysis. If the claim recites an exception, go to Step 2A Prong Two.
Claim 8 recites an abstract idea of mental processes. In claim 8 steps (c)-(e) are recited at a high level of generality such that it could be practically performed in the human mind. These concepts fall into the “mental processes” group of abstract ideas, which is observation, evaluation and/or judgment. The limitations, interpreted under their broadest reasonable interpretation and in consistent with the specification, cover performance of the limitations in the mind or by generic computer components. See MPEP 2106.04 and the 2019 PEG. (Step 2A Prong One YES)
Step 2A Prong Two: Evaluating whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. If the answer to (a) is YES and (b) is NO, go to Step 2B; if the answer to (a) and (b) is YES, go to PATHWAY B, i.e., the claim is not directed to a judicial exception and the claim is eligible.
In claim 8, step (a) and (b) can be regarded as additional elements. These elements recite data storage and data gathering, which are insignificant extra-solution activities. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. (Step 2A Prong Two NO).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
In claim 8, step (a) and (b) can be regarded as additional elements. These elements recite data storage and data gathering, which are insignificant extra-solution activities. Data storage and data gathering are also well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry. The additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05. (Step 2B: NO). Claim 8 is not eligible.
Claim 1, an independent apparatus claim, recites similar steps as recited in claim 8. Claim 1 further recites “a memory” and “circuitry”. However, the memory and circuitry is merely recited as a tool to perform the mental processes, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 is not eligible.
Claim 2 recites, The marker detection device according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is configured to detect the feature point by a SIFT algorithm. Detecting feature point using a SIFT algorithm recites mathematical calculations, which belongs to the mathematical concepts group of abstract ideas. Claim 2 is not eligible.
Claim 3 recites, The marker detection device according to claim 2, wherein the circuitry is configured to match the registered descriptor with the observation descriptor, based on a Manhattan distance between the registered descriptor and the observation descriptor. Matching two feature descriptors based on a Manhattan distance recites mathematical calculations, which belongs to the mathematical concepts group of abstract ideas. Claim 3 is not eligible.
Claim 4 recites, The marker detection device according to claim 1, wherein the feature descriptor represents a frequency of luminance change for each primary color in sub-regions that are obtained by dividing a region centered on the feature point into multiple parts. These elements describe the details of the feature descriptor. When interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation, the details could be regarded as predetermined features. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 4 is not eligible.
Claim 5 recites, The marker detection device according to claim 3, wherein the circuitry is configured to determine whether the marker is included in the one-dimensional image, based on a positional relationship of feature points between a pair of the registered descriptor and the observation descriptor that are matched. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the determination act can be practically performed in mind. Claim 5 is not eligible.
Claim 6 recites, The marker detection device according to claim 5, wherein the circuitry is configured to determine whether the marker is included in the one-dimensional image, based on a frequency of a center position of the marker that is calculated for each feature point. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the determination act can be practically performed in mind. Claim 6 is not eligible.
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 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rossetto et al. (US 20220164557 A1, hereafter Rossetto), in view of OKA et al. (US 20240185410 A1, hereafter OKA).
As per claim 1, Rossetto teaches a marker detection device (Abstract) comprising:
a memory (FIG. 1 barcode database 116; FIG. 8 barcode database 807; para. [0072]) configured to store, as a registered descriptor, a feature descriptor generated from an image in which a marker is captured, the marker including a plurality of colors arranged in one direction (FIG. 3-4; para. [0022] “A first section of the second vector corresponds to the received payload data of the target barcode and a second section of the second vector corresponds to barcode formatting data of the target barcode (e.g., a start marker, a center marker, an end marker, or a check digit)”; para. [0091] “FIG. 4 depicts illustrative pixel colors and corresponding intensity values (e.g., normalized between 0 and 1 where 0 corresponds to black and 1 corresponds to white)”); and
circuitry (FIG. 1 processing circuitry 114; para. [0074]) configured to
acquire a one-dimensional image (FIG. 3-4; para. [0002] “one-dimensional barcodes”; para. [0091] “… a horizontal line cutting through the center of the barcode is selected to form a 1D representation of the barcode”);
detect a feature point from the one-dimensional image (FIG. 3 #302, 304, 306; para. [0085] “Portions 302, 304, and 306 correspond to barcode formatting data”);
generate, as an observation descriptor, the feature descriptor that represents
determine whether the marker is included in the one-dimensional image, based on a matching result between the registered descriptor and the observation descriptor (FIG. 5 #506; para. [0110]).
Rossetto teaches every limitation recited in claim 1 except that the feature descriptor does not represent a luminance change of a region including the feature point.
OKA in an analogous field discloses a method for recognition of fiber-reinforced plastic by matching features (Abstract). Specifically, feature points are detected, dominance direction vectors unique to each feature point and 64-dimensional luminance gradient vectors are calculated from the luminance gradient information of the pixels around each feature point as the feature of each feature point. Acquired identification information (feature) in image P2 is compared with the identification information (feature) in image P1 stored in a database, and individual recognition of the fiber-reinforced plastic is performed. See para. [0107]-[0109].
It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Rossetto to incorporate the teaching of OKA to generate a feature descriptor that represents a luminance change of a region including the feature point. Doing so would allow highly accurate identification to be performed as recognized by OKA (para. [0108]).
Claim 8, an independent method claim, recites steps corresponding to the steps recited in apparatus claim 1. Therefore the recited steps of claim 8 are mapped to Rossetto in view of OKA in the same manner as corresponding steps in claim 1. Additionally the rational and motivation for combining Rossetto and OKA applied in claim 1 is also applicable to claim 8.
Claim(s) 2-3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rossetto et al. (US 20220164557 A1, hereafter Rossetto), in view of OKA et al. (US 20240185410 A1, hereafter OKA), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhong et al. (US 20230206441 A1, hereafter Zhong).
As per claim 2, Rossetto in view of OKA does not teach detecting the feature point by a SIFT algorithm.
Zhong in an analogous field discloses a method for registration of a finely segmented image and a standard image of an object. Specifically, the method comprises: a) extracting a first group of feature points corresponding a stent in the finely segmented image, and extracting a second group of feature points corresponding the stent in the standard image; b) determining feature point pairs based on a similarity degree between the first group of feature points and the second group of feature points; c) determining image space coordinate transformation parameters based on the determined feature point pairs; and d) superimposing the finely segmented image and the standard image based on the image space coordinate transformation parameters (para. [0227]). Zhong further discloses that a Scale-invariant feature transform (SIFT) algorithm can be used to detect the first group of feature points and/or the second group of feature points (para. [0230]).
It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Rossetto and OKA to incorporate the teaching of Zhong to detect the feature point by a SIFT algorithm. Applying a SIFT algorithm would allow identified features to be scale-invariant (Zhong para. [0230]).
As per claim 3, dependent upon claim 2, Rossetto in view of OKA and Zhong teaches wherein the circuitry is configured to match the registered descriptor with the observation descriptor, based on a Manhattan distance between the registered descriptor and the observation descriptor (Zhong para. [0232] “ … the similarity degree between a feature point of the first group and a feature point of the second group may be determined based on a similarity degree between the descriptors of the first feature vector of the feature point of the first group and the descriptors of the second feature vector of the feature point of the second group. Exemplary parameters for indicating the similarity degree between the respective descriptors of two feature vectors of the feature points one from each of the first group and the second group may include the Minkowski distance, the Euclidean distance, the Manhattan distance, the Pearson correlation coefficient, or the like”).
It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Rossetto and OKA to incorporate the teaching of Zhong to match the registered descriptor with the observation descriptor, based on a Manhattan distance between the registered descriptor and the observation descriptor. Applying a Manhattan distance provides an alternative to Euclidean distance (Zhong para. [0232]).
As per claim 5, dependent upon claim 3, Rossetto in view of OKA and Zhong teaches wherein the circuitry is configured to determine whether the marker is included in the one-dimensional image, based on a positional relationship of feature points between a pair of the registered descriptor and the observation descriptor that are matched (OKA para. [0108] “After correcting the influence of the rotation of the image, the illuminance, and the change in scale using the features, the positional relationship between the feature points is compared, and the degree of matching of the images is calculated”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 6 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.
As per claims 4 and 6, the closest prior art includes Rossetto et al. (US 20220164557 A1, hereafter Rossetto), OKA et al. (US 20240185410 A1, hereafter OKA), and Zhong et al. (US 20230206441 A1, hereafter Zhong). Prior art, either applied alone or in combination with, fails to discloses the limitations recited in claims 4 and 6, in combination with other features in the parent claims.
Claim 7 is allowed.
In claim 7, the elements of “an imaging device configured to capture …” and “a measurement device configured to measure …” are interpreted as invoking 112(f) claim interpretation. The imaging device corresponds to “a color line scan camera” (para. [0032]). The corresponding algorithm is disclosed in para. [0051] and [0068]-[0069]. The measurement device is a device having a measurement unit such as a laser distance sensor for measuring a state of the structure and a storage that stores the measurement result. The measurement device could be a PC (Personal Computer), a workstation, or a server” (para. [0034]). The corresponding algorithm is disclosed in FIG. 8 #30, para. [0034] and [0063]-[0066]. When considering allowability, the above algorithms are considered.
As per claim 7, Rossetto in view of OKA teaches a monitoring system (Rossetto FIG. 1),
130 may be any mobile robot such as ground based robots and aerial robots. Drones 130 may include one or more sensors such as a camera that are used to capture images of locations in the warehouse”);
a marker detection device configured to detect the marker from the one-dimensional image (Rossetto FIG. 3 #302, 304, 306; para. [0022] “… a second section of the second vector corresponds to barcode formatting data of the target barcode (e.g., a start marker, a center marker, an end marker, or a check digit)”); and
wherein the marker detection device includes:
a memory (FIG. 1 barcode database 116; FIG. 8 barcode database 807; para. [0072]) configured to store, as a registered descriptor, a feature descriptor generated from the image in which the marker is captured (FIG. 3-4; para. [0022] “A first section of the second vector corresponds to the received payload data of the target barcode and a second section of the second vector corresponds to barcode formatting data of the target barcode (e.g., a start marker, a center marker, an end marker, or a check digit)”); and
circuitry (Rossetto FIG. 1 processing circuitry 114; para. [0074]) configured to
detect a feature point from the one-dimensional image (Rossetto FIG. 3 #302, 304, 306; para. [0085] “Portions 302, 304, and 306 correspond to barcode formatting data”);
generate, as an observation descriptor, the feature descriptor that represents a luminance change of a region including the feature point (Rossetto FIG. 4; FIG. 5 #502-504; para. [0022] “The first vector comprises a first section corresponding to encoded payload data and a second section corresponding to barcode formatting data”; para. [0109]; para. [0127] “… the formatting portions may include formatting data such as a start marker, end marker, center marker, and barcode checksum data”; OKA para. [0107]-[0109]);
determine whether the marker is included in the one-dimensional image, based on a matching result between the registered descriptor and the observation descriptor (Rossetto FIG. 5 #506; para. [0110]); and
transmit a control signal to instruct
Additional prior art MIZUTANI (US 20200230949 A1) disclose an imaging unit 26 includes a line sensor 265 with a plurality of imaging elements arrayed in the X direction (FIG. 3). The imaging unit 26 obtains one-dimensional captured image data, which is composed of imaging pixel data (including RGB pixel values of individual imaging pixels) of imaging pixels that are one-dimensionally arrayed in the X direction in an imaging area covering the above-described recordable width (para. [0063]).
Prior art, either applied alone or in combination with, fails to discloses the limitations recited in claim 7 in view of the 112(f) claim interpretation identified above.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XUEMEI G CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3480. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-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, John M Villecco can be reached at (571) 272-7319. 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.
/XUEMEI G CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2661
/XUEMEI G CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2661
Prosecution Insights