DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yoshigahara (U.S. Patent 6,476,812).
As to claim 1, Yoshigahara discloses an information processing apparatus comprising at least one processor, the at least one processor carrying out:
a spatial information obtaining process of obtaining spatial information that includes information related to a virtual three-dimensional space and related to an object present in the three-dimensional space (fig. 15; col. 10, line 11-col. 11, line 50; information regarding a virtual 3D space and spatial position of an object within it is obtained and evaluated); and
a position determination process of determining a position of the object present in the three-dimensional space with reference to the spatial information with use of a plurality of planes, the plurality of planes being normal to respective axes that are independent of each other in the three-dimensional space and being defined to traverse an entirety of the three-dimensional space (fig. 10; col. 10, line 11-col. 11, line 50; it is determined where an object is present based on cells defined by positions relative to x, y, and z axes; the cells would be bordered by planes normal to each axis).
As to claim 2, Yoshigahara discloses in the position determination process, the at least one processor determines a positional relationship between the object and a plane of the plurality of planes defined to traverse the entirety of the three-dimensional space, to determine the position of the object with respect to the normal of the plane (fig. 10; col. 10, line 11-col. 11, line 50; it is determined where an object is present based on cells defined by positions relative to x, y, and z axes; as an example, fig. 10 shows a determined position of the object on a plane parallel to the x, y axis, which would thus be perpendicular/normal to the z axis or a plane defined by it).
As to claim 6, Yoshigahara discloses wherein the at least one processor further carries out an output process of outputting the position determined in the position determination process (col. 10, lines 12-32; the map indicating object position is output to a collision detection system).
As to claim 7, Yoshigahara discloses wherein the at least one processor further carries out an assignment process of assigning, to each of a plurality of spaces defined by the plurality of planes, identification information for distinguishing the space from others (col. 12, lines 23-60; cells are identified and labeled 1, 2, 3, etc. up to an integer I).
As to claim 8, Yoshigahara discloses wherein the at least one processor further carries out a conversion process of converting the position of the object to the identification information, with reference to sensor information outputted from a sensor that detects the object in a real space (fig. 19; col. 10, line 49-col. 11, line 26; col. 17, lines 30-64; 3D reference coordinate information for the object from the sensor is quantized/converted to box cell identification numbers).
As to claim 9, see the rejection to claim 1.
As to claim 10, see the rejection to claim 1. Further, Yoshigahara discloses a non-transitory storage medium storing a program for causing a computer to function as an information processing apparatus (col. 20, lines 20-32).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshigahara in view of Watanabe (U.S. Publication 2022/0207883).
As to claim 3, Yoshigahara does not disclose, but Watanabe discloses, wherein the at least one processor further carries out a thinning process of reducing a frequency of a process of determining the position of the object in the position determination process, with reference to the spatial information (p. 13, sections 0250-0252; depending on spatial change information for an object or objects, frequency of position determinations are reduced/thinned; for example, a number of spatially constant/stationary objects can result in reduced/thinned update frequency). Motivation for this is to not update more than necessary. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yoshigahara to carry out a thinning process of reducing a frequency of a process of determining the position of the object in the position determination process, with reference to the spatial information in order to not update more than necessary as taught by Watanabe.
As to claim 4, Yoshigahara does not disclose, but Watanabe discloses, wherein in the thinning process, the at least one processor increases a time interval between runs of the process of determining the position in the position determination process so as to make the time interval longer than a predetermined time interval (p. 13, sections 0250-0252; frequency of position determination is lowered to less than a usual frequency, which would be pre-existing/predetermined; lower frequency corresponds to longer time intervals). Motivation for the combination is given in the rejection to claim 3.
As to claim 5, Yoshigahara discloses, wherein, with regard to the object the position of which is determined, if the at least one processor determines, in the position determination process, a position of the object again, the at least one processor causes the position of the object to be determined in the position determination process with use of a plane which is included in a predetermined area defined with respect to the previously determined position (fig. 10; col. 7, lines 23-62; col. 9, lines 23-31; col. 10, line 11-col. 11, line 50; it is determined where an object is present based on cells defined by positions relative to x, y, and z axes; the cells would be bordered by planes normal to each axis; the detection can be limited to a particular block area and defined by points a predetermined distance from a previous detection). Yoshigahara does not disclose, but Watanabe discloses after elapse of a predetermined period of time, the at least one processor causes, in the thinning process, the position of the object to be determined in the position determination process (p. 13, sections 0250-0252; frequency of position determination is lowered/thinned to less than a usual frequency, which would be pre-existing/predetermined; after the time interval corresponding to the lowered frequency is met, updated map information including the position of the object in the map is determined). Motivation for the combination is given in the rejection to claim 3.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON M RICHER whose telephone number is (571)272-7790. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, King Poon can be reached at (571)272-7440. 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.
/AARON M RICHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2617
Prosecution Insights