DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to claims filed 12/22/2024.
Claims 1-18 are pending.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/22/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The amendments to the drawings filed 12/22/2024 have been entered by the examiner.
Specification
The amendments to the specification filed 12/22/2024 have been entered by the examiner.
Examiner’s Note
To enhance clarity, claim language is underlined throughout this Office Action.
Citations to the prior art are provided in parentheses following each claim limitation, along with any necessary supplemental explanations.
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:
a communication unit in claims 1 and 18,
an LED feature point detection unit in claims 1 and 18,
a self-position and posture estimation unit in claims 1 and 18, and
a control unit in claim 7.
The units described supra are being interpreted consistent with the Applicant’s specification filed 12/22/2024 at paragraphs [0039] through [0040], with respect to Figure 2, regarding the “communication unit,” paragraph [0049], with respect to Figure 3, regarding the “LED feature point detection unit” and “self-position and posture estimation unit,” and paragraph [0184], regarding the “control unit,” where paragraphs [0172] through [0176] describe the hardware used to perform the claimed functions.
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.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claimed invention does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) because (1) in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of “program,” a program encompasses forms of non-transitory tangible media as well as transitory propagating signals, which are non-statutory per se (In re Nuijten), and (2) Applicant’s specification fails to limit the term “program” to only non-transitory tangible media. Per MPEP 2106.03(I), “[p]roducts that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as information (often referred to as "data per se") or a computer program per se (often referred to as "software per se") when claimed as a product without any structural recitation” are not directed to any of the statutory categories. Therefore, the claim as a whole is non-statutory.
The examiner suggests amending the claimed “program” to recite "a non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising a program" which would serve to exclude non-statutory subject matter from the claim's scope.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-17 are allowed. Claim 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
The closest prior art of record, Chen et al. (US 2023/0236280 A1), hereinafter Chen, taken alone or in combination, does not teach the claimed signal processing method and signal processing device comprising:
a communication unit configured to receive distance measurement information between a first ultra wide band (UWB) device arranged in a predetermined space and a second UWB device provided in a mobile object, through UWB communication via the second UWB device;
an LED feature point detection unit configured to detect a feature point based on a light source from an image obtained from an imaging unit and perform tracking between frames, the light source being arranged in the predetermined space and having a lighting timing controlled by a server on a basis of a time lag between the imaging unit provided in the mobile object and the server that controls the first UWB device; and
a self-position and posture estimation unit configured to estimate a self-position and posture on a basis of a feature point of the light source, and correct the self-position and posture on a basis of the distance measurement information.
Specifically, Chen teaches a similar signal processing device (see Figure 1, depicting the system, where the determined positioning data is stored on an industrial control computer of the autonomous mobile robot, as described in ¶0037-0038) comprising a communication unit configured to receive distance measurement information between a first ultra wide band (UWB) device arranged in a predetermined space and a second UWB device provided in a mobile object, through UWB communication via the second UWB device (see ¶0025-0027, regarding that a distance from the UWB location tag provided on the autonomous mobile robot to the UWB anchor is obtained, and the second position information of the UWB location tag is calculated and obtained by the UWB locator, where UWB anchors are arranged in a “predetermined space,” as depicted in Figure 3 and described in ¶0077), a feature point detection unit configured to detect a feature point based on an image obtained from an imaging unit and perform tracking between frames (see ¶0017-0024, regarding that common key points from images of two consecutive frames are extracted by a visual locator using a vision sensor on the autonomous mobile robot), and a self-position and posture estimation unit configured to estimate a self-position and posture on a basis of a feature point, and correct the self-position and posture on a basis of the distance measurement information (see ¶0047, regarding that the first position determined from the UWB locator and the second position determined from the visual locator are fused by the adaptive Kalman filter to obtain the final positioning information, where the UWB locator corrects the accumulated error caused by visual positioning). The final positioning information of Chen may reasonably include a posture, in light of the separate methods described in ¶0005 and ¶0008.
However, Chen does not teach the “feature point detection unit” as an LED feature point detection unit configured to detect a feature point based on a light source from an image obtained from an imaging unit and perform tracking between frames, the light source being arranged in the predetermined space and having a lighting timing controlled by a server on a basis of a time lag between the imaging unit provided in the mobile object, and Chen does not teach that the server that controls the first UWB device.
The following is an assessment of additional pertinent prior art:
Nguyen et al. (“Range-Focused Fusion of Camera-IMU-UWB for Accurate and Drift-Reduced Localization,” 2021, IEEE) teaches a similar technique of estimating a position based on an image obtained from an imaging unit and correcting the position based on distance measurement information from a UWB device (see section III(A), regarding the camera is used to provide accurate short-term odometry, and subsequent range measurements provided from the UWB anchor position are fused with visual data). However, Nguyen et al. relies on natural visual landmarks (see Figure 1) and thus does not detect a feature point based on a light source from an image obtained from the imaging unit, where the light source has a lighting timing controlled by a server based on a time lag between the imaging unit, such that the server also controls the UWB device, as claimed.
Liu et al. (“An UWB/Vision Fusion Scheme for Determining Pedestrians’ Indoor Location,” 2020, MDPI) teaches a similar technique of estimating a position based on an image obtained from an imaging unit and correcting the position based on distance measurement information from a UWB device (see section 2, regarding that a pedestrian position is acquired by using UWB to quickly restore visual positioning when visual positioning fails; Figure 1, depicting the overall method). However, Liu et al. relies on natural environmental textures and features as the source of visual positioning (see abstract) and thus does not detect a feature point based on a light source from an image obtained from the imaging unit, where the light source has a lighting timing controlled by a server based on a time lag between the imaging unit, such that the server also controls the UWB device, as claimed.
Prior art is known to teach LED positioning, e.g., see abstract of Salehi et al. (US 2018/0087910 A1) and abstract of Shen et al. (US 9,879,980 B2). However, no reasonable combination of these systems can be made to teach the overall claimed invention.
No reasonable combination of prior art can be made to teach the claimed invention. The claimed invention would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date. This allowable subject matter is consistent with the Incoming Written Opinion of the ISA filed 12/22/2024.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Specifically, Jian (translation of CN 109541535A) teaches UWB and visual SLAM-based AGV indoor positioning (see abstract), and Tsuru et al. (translation of JP 2020-88822 A) teaches synchronizing exposure time of an imaging apparatus with light emission performed in a predetermined on/off pattern (see abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sara J Lewandroski whose telephone number is (571)270-7766. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 am-5 pm ET.
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, Ramya P Burgess can be reached at (571)272-6011. 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.
/SARA J LEWANDROSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights