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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 27-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Initially, the following is noted.
“Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.” Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906, 69 USPQ2d 1801, 1807 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (discussing recent cases wherein the court expressly rejected the contention that if a patent describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent must be construed as being limited to that embodiment); E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369, 67 USPQ2d 1947, 1950 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“Interpretation of descriptive statements in a patent’s written description is a difficult task, as an inherent tension exists as to whether a statement is a clear lexicographic definition or a description of a preferred embodiment. The problem is to interpret claims ‘in view of the specification’ without unnecessarily importing limitations from the specification into the claims.”); Altiris Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1371, 65 USPQ2d 1865, 1869-70 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Although the specification discussed only a single embodiment, the court held that it was improper to read a specific order of steps into method claims where, as a matter of logic or grammar, the language of the method claims did not impose a specific order on the performance of the method steps, and the specification did not directly or implicitly require a particular order). When an element is claimed using language falling under the scope of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 6th paragraph (often broadly referred to as means- (or step-) plus- function language), the specification must be consulted to determine the structure, material, or acts corresponding to the function recited in the claim, and the claimed element is construed as limited to the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. In re Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (see MPEP § 2181- MPEP § 2186).
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (referring to “the danger” of importing claim limitations from the specification). See also Varco, L.P. v. Pason Sys. USA Corp., 436 F.3d 1368, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (stating how the Federal Circuit “will not at any time” bring in claim limitations from the specification); Comark Commc'ns, Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1186-67 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (following that limitations from the specification are not to be read into the claims).
The claims fail to clearly and distinctly define the metes and bound of the inventive subject matter. Applicant appears to be attempting to incorporate limitations from the specification into the claims, which as noted above is improper.
Regarding claim 27 and similarly claims 35 and 43, it is not clear of what encompasses and is meant by the limitation “disambiguating the multiple objects based on differences in electronic device information.” A review of the specification sets forth the term “disambiguating.” As claimed the term is excessively broad in nature and the meets and bounds of the term cannot be ascertained by one skilled in the art. The claim discloses detecting multiple objects, but does not further define a value or measure which may comprise ambiguity. As the claim does not establish an a value or measure which may comprise ambiguity, it is unclear what is explicitly being disambiguated regarding the multiple objects. It is unclear if the limitation refers to identifying the positions of the claimed “multiple targets” or reducing ambiguity in previously established distance measurements. Review of the specification reveals at paragraph [0036], that the term “disambiguating” may refer to the process of distinguishing multiple targets from one another; however the specification do not provide explicit clarification of the term. It suggested applicant amend the claims to be consistent with the disclosed “disambiguating.” For examination purposes the limitation will be interpreted to refer to reducing ambiguity in distance measurements.
Regarding claim 29 and similarly claims 37 and 45, it is not clear of what encompasses and is meant by the limitation “filtering the object from the multiple comprises focusing on data having the rhythmic movement pattern or the biometric data detected for the object.” A review of the specification sets forth the term “focusing on.” As claimed the term is excessively broad in nature and the meets and bounds of the term cannot be ascertained by one skilled in the art. It is unclear if the claimed filter removes data to isolate “rhythmic movement pattern or the biometric data” or removes the “rhythmic movement pattern or the biometric data detected for the object” data itself. Review of the specification reveals at paragraph [0062], “to filer an object can include to focus exclusively on data having the rhythmic movement patterns or biometric data detected for that object;” however, the Examiner cannot find further clarification on the aforementioned term or respective limitation. It suggested applicant amend the claims to be consistent with the disclosed filter. For examination purposes the limitation will be interpreted to refer to removing “rhythmic movement pattern or the biometric data detected for the object” objects.
Claim 27-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. Independent claims 27, 35, and 43 recite steps directed to data collection, evaluation, manipulation, and the determination of relative positions. Figure 4 step 414 and paragraph [0054] of the specification indicates that the adjustment of sensor transmit characteristics based on the previously determined relative position is regarded as an essential step. The claims do not recite the aforementioned adjustment step and do not further recite steps directed to producing a tangible end result. The claims therefore omit the essential step of utilizing the previously determined relative positions or providing a concrete result. The dependent claims do not further recite the above essential step and are therefore additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
Claims 28-34, 36-42, and 44-46 are also rejected based on their dependency of the defected parent claim(s).
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 27-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Banklnt’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216(2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we are guided by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo and Alice. Id. at 217—18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75—77 (2012)).
Step 1 – Statutory Category
Claim 27 (and its dependents) recites a method. The claim therefore recites a process.
Claim 35 (and its dependents) recites a non-transitory machine-readable medium storing instructions. The claim therefore recites a product.
Claim 43 (and its dependents) recites a system. The claim therefore recites a product.
Step 2A, Prong One — Recitation of Judicial Exception
Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, we evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception. For abstract ideas, Prong One represents a change as compared to prior guidance because we here determine whether the claim recites mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes.
Claim 27 and similarly claims 35 and 43 recites
detecting multiple objects based on the first sensor data
This limitation describes a mathematical process (see specification [0061]). Therefore, this limitation describes a mathematical calculation, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(l).
disambiguating the multiple objects based on differences in electronic device information
The claim recites the step of comparing collected information, which is an act of evaluating information that can be practically performed in the human mind, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
filtering an object from the multiple objects based on the differences in the electronic device information
This limitation describes a mathematical process (see specification [0062]). Therefore, this limitation describes a mathematical calculation, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(l).
determining relative positions of the first electronic device and a second electronic device based on filtering the object
This limitation describes a mathematical process in the form of calculating a relative location. Therefore, this limitation describes a mathematical calculation, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(l).
Claim 28 and similarly claims 36 and 44 recites
the electronic device information comprises at least one of a rhythmic movement pattern, biometric data, or wireless signals that are detected concurrently with the multiple objects.
This limitation describes a mathematical process in the form of calculating a rhythmic movement pattern. Therefore, this limitation describes a mathematical calculation, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(l).
Claim 29 and similarly claims 37 and 45 recites
filtering the object from the multiple comprises focusing on data having the rhythmic movement pattern or the biometric data detected for the object.
This limitation describes a mathematical process in the form of calculating a rhythmic movement pattern. Therefore, this limitation describes a mathematical calculation, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(l).
Claim 30 and similarly claims 38 and 46 recites
filtering the object from the multiple objects is based on differences in the rhythmic movement pattern or the biometric data
This limitation describes a mathematical process in the form of calculating differences in a rhythmic movement pattern or biometric data. Therefore, this limitation describes a mathematical calculation, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(l).
Claim 33 and similarly claims 41 recites
wherein detecting the multiple objects comprises detecting the multiple objects based on the first sensor data and the second sensor data.
This limitation describes a mathematical process (see specification [0061]). Therefore, this limitation describes a mathematical calculation, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(l).
Claim 34 and similarly claims 42 recites
calculating a second device position of the second electronic device relative to the first electronic device
This limitation describes a mathematical process the form of calculating a second device position. Therefore, this limitation describes a mathematical calculation, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(l).
Step 2A, Prong Two — Practical Application
If a claim recites a judicial exception, in Prong Two we next determine whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
Claim 27 and similarly claims 35 and 43 also recites
analyzing first sensor data gathered by a first sensor of a first electronic device
Obtaining the user first sensor data is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 31 and similarly claim 39 also recites
filtering the object from the multiple objects comprises removing data associated with the object to create filtered sensor data
This limitation merely describes manipulating gathered data, therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 32 and similarly claim 40 also recites
filtering the object from the multiple objects comprises removing data associated with the object to create filtered sensor data
This limitation merely describes manipulating gathered data, therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 33 and similarly claims 41 also recites
analyzing second sensor data gathered by a second sensor of the second electronic device
Obtaining the user first sensor data is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 34 and similarly claims 42 recites
storing the second device position of the second electronic device relative to the first electronic device.
Storing a position is mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood to be merely nominal to the claim.
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Step 2B — Inventive Concept
For Step 2B of the analysis, we determine whether the claim adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field. See Memorandum.
Claim 27 and similarly claims 35 and 43 also recites
analyzing first sensor data gathered by a first sensor of a first electronic device
Obtaining the user first sensor data is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 31 and similarly claim 39 also recites
filtering the object from the multiple objects comprises removing data associated with the object to create filtered sensor data
This limitation merely describes manipulating gathered data, therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 32 and similarly claim 40 also recites
filtering the object from the multiple objects comprises removing data associated with the object to create filtered sensor data
This limitation merely describes manipulating gathered data, therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 33 and similarly claims 41 also recites
analyzing second sensor data gathered by a second sensor of the second electronic device
Obtaining the user first sensor data is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 34 and similarly claims 42 recites
storing the second device position of the second electronic device relative to the first electronic device.
Storing a position is mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood to be merely nominal to the claim.
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 35 further recites
A non-transitory machine-readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations
Merely storing a commonplace algorithm as a computer-readable instruction on a memory is performing the above step on a computer in its ordinary capacity for tasks or merely adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 43 further recites
a memory comprising computer-executable instructions; and one or more processors configured to access the memory and execute the computer- executable instructions
Merely storing a commonplace algorithm as a computer-readable instruction on a memory is performing the above step on a computer in its ordinary capacity for tasks or merely adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Since this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim requires no more than data gathering steps that collect necessary data for estimating, analyzing, and evaluating and requires no more than a generic computer to perform operations and generic computer functions that are well- understood, routine, and conventional activities.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 27-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zweigle(US20160047914A1) in view of Haribhatt(US10290194B2)
Regarding claim 27, Zweigle discloses
A method comprising: analyzing first sensor data gathered by a first sensor of a first electronic device (“ The 2D scanner accessory 810 measures 2D coordinates in a plane. In most cases, it does this by steering light within a plane to illuminate object points in the environment” [0053]); detecting multiple objects based on the first sensor data (“It collects the reflected (scattered) light from the object points to determine 2D coordinates of the object points in the 2D plane” [0053]); disambiguating the multiple objects based on differences in electronic device information (“The 2D scanner 910 collects 2D scan data at the first registration position 1112 and more 2D scan data at the second registration position 1114” [0071] & “As it moves between the first and second registration positions, the 2D scanner obtains 2D scan data, which is then evaluated mathematically to determine a movement vector (distance in each of two directions) and an angle of rotation” [0090]);[…] and determining relative positions of the first electronic device and a second electronic device based on filtering (“these scans may suffice to determine the position and orientation of the 3D measuring device at the second registration position 1114 relative to the first registration position 1112” [0071]) […].
Zweigle does not explicitly disclose nor limit a filter configured to remove an object from data processing. Haribhatt teaches in the same field of sensor data processing. Haribhatt discloses filtering an object from the multiple objects based on the differences in the electronic device information (“ However, a variety of filtering techniques may be applied to eliminate movement by background objects, such as the swaying of trees” [Col.3, ll.47-49]).
Haribhatt teaches in the same field of sensor data processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zweigle with the teachings of Haribhatt to incorporate the features of a filter configured to remove an object from data processing a filter configured to remove an object from data processing so as to gain the advantage of reducing noise [Col.3, Par.6, Haribhatt]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 28, Zweigle discloses as modified by Haribhatt discloses all the limitations of claim 27. Zweigle discloses wherein, the electronic device information comprises at least one of a rhythmic movement pattern, biometric data, or wireless signals that are detected concurrently with the multiple objects (“a laser scanner 20 is shown for optically scanning and measuring the environment surrounding the laser scanner 20” [0033]).
Regarding claim 29, Zweigle discloses as modified by Haribhatt discloses all the limitations of claim 28. Zweigle does not explicitly disclose filtering based on rhythmic movement pattern or biometric data. Haribhatt teaches in the same field of sensor data processing. Haribhatt discloses wherein, filtering the object from the multiple comprises focusing on data having the rhythmic movement pattern or the biometric data detected for the object (“These techniques may include tracking cyclical movements and ignoring them” [Col.3, ll.49-50]).
Haribhatt teaches in the same field of sensor data processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zweigle with the teachings of Haribhatt to incorporate the features of filtering based on rhythmic movement pattern or biometric data so as to gain the advantage of reducing noise [Col.3, Par.6, Haribhatt]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 30, Zweigle discloses as modified by Haribhatt discloses all the limitations of claim 28. Zweigle does not explicitly disclose filtering based on rhythmic movement pattern or biometric data. Haribhatt teaches in the same field of sensor data processing. Haribhatt discloses wherein, filtering the object from the multiple objects is based on differences in the rhythmic movement pattern or the biometric data (“These techniques may include tracking cyclical movements and ignoring them” [Col.3, ll.49-50]).
Haribhatt teaches in the same field of sensor data processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zweigle with the teachings of Haribhatt to incorporate the features of filtering based on rhythmic movement pattern or biometric data so as to gain the advantage of reducing noise [Col.3, Par.6, Haribhatt]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 31, Zweigle discloses as modified by Haribhatt discloses all the limitations of claim 27. Zweigle does not explicitly disclose removing data associated with the object based on rhythmic movement pattern or biometric data. Haribhatt teaches in the same field of sensor data processing. Haribhatt discloses wherein, filtering the object from the multiple objects comprises removing data associated with the object to create filtered sensor data (“These techniques may include tracking cyclical movements and ignoring them” [Col.3, ll.49-50]).
Haribhatt teaches in the same field of sensor data processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zweigle with the teachings of Haribhatt to incorporate the features of removing data associated with the object based on rhythmic movement pattern or biometric data so as to gain the advantage of reducing noise [Col.3, Par.6, Haribhatt]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 32, Zweigle discloses as modified by Haribhatt discloses all the limitations of claim 27. Zweigle does not explicitly disclose removing data associated with the object based on rhythmic movement pattern or biometric data. Haribhatt teaches in the same field of sensor data processing. Haribhatt discloses wherein, filtering the object from the multiple objects comprises removing data associated with the object to create filtered sensor data (“These techniques may include tracking cyclical movements and ignoring them” [Col.3, ll.49-50]).
Haribhatt teaches in the same field of sensor data processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zweigle with the teachings of Haribhatt to incorporate the features of removing data associated with the object based on rhythmic movement pattern or biometric data so as to gain the advantage of reducing noise [Col.3, Par.6, Haribhatt]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 33, Zweigle discloses as modified by Haribhatt discloses all the limitations of claim 27. Zweigle discloses, analyzing second sensor data gathered by a second sensor of the second electronic device (“The processor system 950 includes one or more processing elements that may include a 3D scanner processor (controller)” [0052]), and wherein detecting the multiple objects comprises detecting the multiple objects based on the first sensor data (“As it moves between the first and second registration positions, the 2D scanner obtains 2D scan data, which is then evaluated mathematically to determine a movement vector (distance in each of two directions) and an angle of rotation” [0090]) and the second sensor data (“the 3D scanner configured to determine the 3D coordinates of the first collection of points by projecting a beam of light onto the object and obtaining for each point in the first collection of points a distance and two angles” [0011]).
Regarding claim 34, Zweigle discloses as modified by Haribhatt discloses all the limitations of claim 27. Zweigle discloses, wherein determining the relative positions of the first electronic device and the second electronic device comprises: calculating a second device position of the second electronic device relative to the first electronic device(“these scans may suffice to determine the position and orientation of the 3D measuring device at the second registration position 1114 relative to the first registration position 1112” [0071]).; and storing the second device position of the second electronic device relative to the first electronic device (“ In an embodiment, scan results are uploaded after each scanning session to the cloud (remote network) for storage and future use.” [0052]).
Regarding claim 35, Zweigle discloses
A non-transitory machine-readable medium storing instructions which (FIG.9, Part.940), when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: analyzing first sensor data gathered by a first sensor of a first electronic device (“ The 2D scanner accessory 810 measures 2D coordinates in a plane. In most cases, it does this by steering light within a plane to illuminate object points in the environment” [0053]); detecting multiple objects based on the first sensor data (“It collects the reflected (scattered) light from the object points to determine 2D coordinates of the object points in the 2D plane” [0053]); disambiguating the multiple objects based on differences in electronic device information (“The 2D scanner 910 collects 2D scan data at the first registration position 1112 and more 2D scan data at the second registration position 1114” [0071] & “As it moves between the first and second registration positions, the 2D scanner obtains 2D scan data, which is then evaluated mathematically to determine a movement vector (distance in each of two directions) and an angle of rotation” [0090]); […] and determining relative positions of the first electronic device and a second electronic device based on filtering (“these scans may suffice to determine the position and orientation of the 3D measuring device at the second registration
position 1114 relative to the first registration position 1112” [0071]) […].
Zweigle does not explicitly disclose nor limit a filter configured to remove an object from data processing. Haribhatt teaches in the same field of sensor data processing. Haribhatt discloses filtering an object from the multiple objects based on the differences in the electronic device information (“ However, a variety of filtering techniques may be applied to eliminate movement by background objects, such as the swaying of trees” [Col.3, ll.47-49]).
Haribhatt teaches in the same field of sensor data processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zweigle with the teachings of Haribhatt to incorporate the features of a filter configured to remove an object from data processing a filter configured to remove an object from data processing so as to gain the advantage of reducing noise [Col.3, Par.6, Haribhatt]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 36, Zweigle discloses as modified by Haribhatt discloses all the limitations of claim 35. Zweigle discloses wherein, the electronic device information comprises at least one of a rhythmic movement pattern, biometric data, or wireless signals that are detected concurrently with the multiple objects (“a laser scanner 20 is shown for optically scanning and measuring the environment surrounding the laser scanner 20” [0033]).
Regarding claim 37, Zweigle discloses as modified by Haribhatt discloses all the limitations of claim 36. Zweigle does not explicitly disclose filtering based on rhythmic movement pattern or biometric data. Haribhatt teaches in the same field of sensor data processing. Haribhatt discloses wherein, filtering the object from the multiple comprises focusing on data having the rhythmic movement pattern or the biometric data detected for the object (“These techniques may include tracking cyclical movements and ignoring them” [Col.3, ll.49-50]).
Haribhatt teaches in the same field of sensor data processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zweigle with the teachings of Haribhatt to incorporate the features of filtering based on rhythmic movement pattern or biometric data so as to gain the advantage of reducing noise [Col.3, Par.6, Haribhatt]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 38, Zweigle discloses as modified by Haribhatt discloses all the limitations of claim 36. Zweigle does not explicitly disclose filtering based on rhythmic movement pattern or biometric data. Haribhatt teaches in the same field of sensor data processing. Haribhatt discloses wherein, filtering the object from the multiple objects is based on differences in the rhythmic movement pattern or the biometric data (“These techniques may include tracking cyclical movements and ignoring them” [Col.3, ll.49-50]).
Haribhatt teaches in the same field of sensor data processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zweigle with the teachings of Haribhatt to incorporate the features of filtering based on rhythmic movement pattern or biometric data so as to gain the advantage of reducing noise [Col.3, Par.6, Haribhatt]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 39, Zweigle discloses as modified by Haribhatt discloses all the limitations of claim 35. Zweigle does not explicitly disclose removing data associated with the object based on rhythmic movement pattern or biometric data. Haribhatt teaches in the same field of sensor data processing. Haribhatt discloses wherein, filtering the object from the multiple objects comprises removing data associated with the object to create filtered sensor data (“These techniques may include tracking cyclical movements and ignoring them” [Col.3, ll.49-50]).
Haribhatt teaches in the same field of sensor data processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zweigle with the teachings of Haribhatt to incorporate the features of removing data associated with the object based on rhythmic movement pattern or biometric data so as to gain the advantage of reducing noise [Col.3, Par.6, Haribhatt]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 40, Zweigle discloses as modified by Haribhatt discloses all the limitations of claim 35. Zweigle does not explicitly disclose removing data associated with the object based on rhythmic movement pattern or biometric data. Haribhatt teaches in the same field of sensor data processing. Haribhatt discloses wherein, filtering the object from the multiple objects comprises removing data associated with the object to create filtered sensor data (“These techniques may include tracking cyclical movements and ignoring them” [Col.3, ll.49-50]).
Haribhatt teaches in the same field of sensor data processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zweigle with the teachings of Haribhatt to incorporate the features of removing data associated with the object based on rhythmic movement pattern or biometric data so as to gain the advantage of reducing noise [Col.3, Par.6, Haribhatt]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 41, Zweigle discloses as modified by Haribhatt discloses all the limitations of claim 35. Zweigle discloses, additional instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform additional operations comprising analyzing second sensor data gathered by a second sensor of the second electronic device (“The processor system 950 includes one or more processing elements that may include a 3D scanner processor (controller)” [0052]), and wherein detecting the multiple objects comprises detecting the multiple objects based on the first sensor data (“As it moves between the first and second registration positions, the 2D scanner obtains 2D scan data, which is then evaluated mathematically to determine a movement vector (distance in each of two directions) and an angle of rotation” [0090]) and the second sensor data (“the 3D scanner configured to determine the 3D coordinates of the first collection of points by projecting a beam of light onto the object and obtaining for each point in the first collection of points a distance and two angles” [0011]).
Regarding claim 42, Zweigle discloses as modified by Haribhatt discloses all the limitations of claim 25. Zweigle discloses, determining the relative positions of the first electronic device and the second electronic device comprises: calculating a second device position of the second electronic device relative to the first electronic device (“these scans may suffice to determine the position and orientation of the 3D measuring device at the second registration position 1114 relative to the first registration position 1112” [0071]); and storing the second device position of the second electronic device relative to the first electronic device (“ In an embodiment, scan results are uploaded after each scanning session to the cloud (remote network) for storage and future use.” [0052]).
Regarding claim 43, Zweigle discloses
A system, comprising: a memory comprising computer-executable instructions; and one or more processors configured to access the memory and execute the computer- executable instructions (“The one or more processors have access to memory for storing information.” [0052]) to at least: analyze first sensor data gathered by a first sensor of a first electronic device (“ The 2D scanner accessory 810 measures 2D coordinates in a plane. In most cases, it does this by steering light within a plane to illuminate object points in the environment” [0053]); detect multiple objects based on the first sensor data (“It collects the reflected (scattered) light from the object points to determine 2D coordinates of the object points in the 2D plane” [0053]); disambiguate the multiple objects based on differences in electronic device information (“The 2D scanner 910 collects 2D scan data at the first registration position 1112 and more 2D scan data at the second registration position 1114” [0071] & “As it moves between the first and second registration positions, the 2D scanner obtains 2D scan data, which is then evaluated mathematically to determine a movement vector (distance in each of two directions) and an angle of rotation” [0090]); […] and determine relative positions of the first electronic device and a second electronic device based on filtering the object (“these scans may suffice to determine the position and orientation of the 3D measuring device at the second registration position 1114 relative to the first registration position 1112” [0071]) […].
Zweigle does not explicitly disclose nor limit a filter configured to remove an object from data processing. Haribhatt teaches in the same field of sensor data processing. Haribhatt discloses filtering an object from the multiple objects based on the differences in the electronic device information (“ However, a variety of filtering techniques may be applied to eliminate movement by background objects, such as the swaying of trees” [Col.3, ll.47-49]).
Haribhatt teaches in the same field of sensor data processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zweigle with the teachings of Haribhatt to incorporate the features of a filter configured to remove an object from data processing a filter configured to remove an object from data processing so as to gain the advantage of reducing noise [Col.3, Par.6, Haribhatt]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 44, Zweigle discloses as modified by Haribhatt discloses all the limitations of claim 43. Zweigle discloses wherein, the electronic device information comprises at least one of a rhythmic movement pattern, biometric data, or wireless signals that are detected concurrently with the multiple objects (“a laser scanner 20 is shown for optically scanning and measuring the environment surrounding the laser scanner 20” [0033]).
Regarding claim 45, Zweigle discloses as modified by Haribhatt discloses all the limitations of claim 44. Zweigle does not explicitly disclose filtering based on rhythmic movement pattern or biometric data. Haribhatt teaches in the same field of sensor data processing. Haribhatt discloses wherein, filtering the object from the multiple comprises focusing on data having the rhythmic movement pattern or the biometric data detected for the object (“These techniques may include tracking cyclical movements and ignoring them” [Col.3, ll.49-50]).
Haribhatt teaches in the same field of sensor data processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zweigle with the teachings of Haribhatt to incorporate the features of filtering based on rhythmic movement pattern or biometric data so as to gain the advantage of reducing noise [Col.3, Par.6, Haribhatt]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 46, Zweigle discloses as modified by Haribhatt discloses all the limitations of claim 44. Zweigle does not explicitly disclose filtering based on rhythmic movement pattern or biometric data. Haribhatt teaches in the same field of sensor data processing. Haribhatt discloses wherein, filtering the object from the multiple objects is based on differences in the rhythmic movement pattern or the biometric data "These techniques may include tracking cyclical movements and ignoring them” [Col.3, ll.49-50]).
Haribhatt teaches in the same field of sensor data processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zweigle with the teachings of Haribhatt to incorporate the features of filtering based on rhythmic movement pattern or biometric data so as to gain the advantage of reducing noise [Col.3, Par.6, Haribhatt]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
Documents Considered but not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s Disclosure.
Dahl(US20120313900A1) is considered analogous art to the instant application as it discloses in [0079] “ determining information relating to the location of the second device relative to the first device from the received signal.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAYTON PAUL RIDDER whose telephone number is (571)272-2771. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 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, Jack Keith can be reached on (571) 272-6878. 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.
/C.P.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3646
/JACK W KEITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights