DETAILED ACTION
[1] Remarks
I. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
II. Claims 1-7 are pending and have been examined, where claims 7 is/are rejected, claim 1-6 is/are objected to. Explanations will be provided below.
III. Inventor and/or assignee search were performed and determined no double patenting rejection(s) is/are necessary.
IV. Patent eligibility (updated in 2019) shown by the following: Claims 1-7 pass patent eligibility test because there is/are no limitation or a combination of limitations amounting to an abstract idea. Also, the following limitation or the combinations of the limitations: “a clustering unit configured to perform clustering on the point cloud based on the shape of the point cloud; and a determiner configured to determine unevenness of the clustered point cloud, wherein the cloth simulation unit is configured to determine the shape of the point cloud based on a distance between a first cloth lattice point when the virtual cloth is put on the point cloud data from a first direction and a second cloth lattice point when the virtual cloth is put on the point cloud data from a second direction opposite to the first direction, the clustering unit is configured to perform clustering on the point cloud other than a point determined to be the road surface” effects a transformation or a reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing / adds a specific limitation(s) other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application and providing improvements to the technical field of cloud point generation, which recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and amounting significant more.
[2] 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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim(s) 1-5 are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA U.S.C. 112 6th paragraph because of the following reason(s): the claim limitations uses the term “means” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder; the term “means” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically linked by the transition word “for” or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; the term “means” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure or material for performing the claimed function;
Claim(s) 6 is/are not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA U.S.C. 112 6th paragraph because of the following reason(s): limitations are modified by sufficient structure or material for performing the claimed function.
Claim(s) 7 do not require 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA U.S.C. 112 6th paragraph interpretation because they are method claims and / or they are CRM claims.
Upon examination of the specification and claims, the examiner has determined, under the best understanding of the scope of the claim(s), rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)/(b) is not necessitated because of the following reasons: sufficient support are provided in the written description / drawings of the invention.
[3] Grounds of Rejection
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.
35 U.S.C. 101 requires that a claimed invention must fall within one of the four eligible categories of invention (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) and must not be directed to subject matter encompassing a judicially recognized exception as interpreted by the courts. MPEP 2106. The four eligible categories of invention include: (1) process which is an act, or a series of acts or steps, (2) machine which is an concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices, (3) manufacture which is an article produced from raw or prepared materials by giving to these materials new forms, qualities, properties, or combinations, whether by hand labor or by machinery, and (4) composition of matter which is all compositions of two or more substances and all composite articles, whether they be the results of chemical union, or of mechanical mixture, or whether they be gases, fluids, powders or solids. MPEP 2106(I).
Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as not falling within one of the four statutory categories of invention because the claimed invention is directed to computer program per se. See MPEP 2106(I). A claim directed toward a non-transitory computer-readable medium having the program encoded thereon establishes a sufficient functional relationship between the program and a computer so as to remove it from the realm of “program per se”. MPEP 2111.05(III). Hence, adding the limitation of “stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium” would resolve this issue.
[4] Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6 are allowable / patentable. Claim 7 is allowable if it overcomes U.S.C. 101 rejection. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance by comparing claims to closest found references. The references are divided into primary and secondary, where primary would have been utilized in a USC 102 or main USC 103 reference and secondary would had been utilized a secondary USC 103 reference, but these references do not cover enough of the claim’s scope to warrant a rejection.
Primary reference, Takiguchi (US 20100034426) discloses an electronic device comprising:
an acquiring unit configured to acquire point cloud data corresponding to points on a road surface (see paragraph 69, a camera 230 an imaging unit, a laser radar 240, an optical scanning unit, a laser scanner, and a LRF (Laser Range Finder));
a cloth simulation unit configured to output a shape of a point cloud indicated by the point cloud data determined based on a shape of a virtual cloth (see figure 3, S104, also see figure 14)
PNG
media_image1.png
251
691
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a clustering unit configured to perform clustering on the point cloud based on the shape of the point cloud (see figure 21, each group is clustered together,); and
PNG
media_image2.png
247
661
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a determiner configured to determine unevenness of the clustered point cloud, wherein the cloth simulation unit is configured to determine the shape of the point cloud (see figure 21, first group B is uneven)
PNG
media_image3.png
193
650
media_image3.png
Greyscale
the clustering unit is configured
Secondary reference, KOSAKA (US 20200167940) discloses performing principal component analysis is performed on the three-dimensional point cloud data to determine a provisional gravity direction, and a side surface point cloud is extracted by excluding points with normal vectors that are along the provisional gravity direction, where points with small inter-point distances are grouped to separate point clouds on a building basis (see paragraph 3),
a cloth simulation unit configured to output a shape of a point cloud indicated by the point cloud data determined based on a shape of a virtual cloth when the virtual cloth having a predetermined tensile force is put on the point cloud data with a predetermined gravity;
Secondary reference, Askan (US 20140313527) discloses a determiner configured to determine unevenness of the clustered point cloud (see figure 4, the cloud point density is uneven), wherein the cloth simulation unit is configured to determine
Takiguchi, KOSAKA, and Askan, taken alone or in combination with each other, are silent in disclosing all limitations of claims 1, 6 and 7.
CONTACT INFORMATION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX LIEW (duty station is located in New York City) whose telephone number is (571)272-8623 (FAX 571-273-8623), cell (917)763-1192 or email alexa.liew@uspto.gov. Please note the examiner cannot reply through email unless an internet communication authorization is provided by the applicant. The examiner can be reached anytime.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, MISTRY ONEAL R, can be reached on (313)446-4912. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEX KOK S LIEW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2674 Telephone: 571-272-8623
Date: 8/1/26
Prosecution Insights