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 1-18 are present for examination.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-18 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims recite “three-dimensional position” and “position” in various limitations. It seems the “three-dimensional position” is of a “feature” of a “subject” and the “position” is of the “imaging device”. To avoid confusion, the examiner suggests Applicant to amend the claims to chang “position” to “position of the imaging device”. Appropriate correction is required.
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: “input unit”, “holding unit”, “derivation unit”, “evaluation unit”, “preparation unit”, and “setting unit” in claim 15.
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 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) abstract ideas.
MPEP 2106 III provides a flowchart for the subject matter eligibility test for product and processes. The claim analysis following the flowchart is as follows:
Regarding claim 15, it recites:
An information processing device comprising:
an input unit configured to input a captured image of a subject from an imaging device of which a position/orientation is variable;
a holding unit configured to hold a three-dimensional map including information indicating a three-dimensional position and a reliability of a feature of the subject;
a derivation unit configured to derive a position of the imaging device using the captured image and the three-dimensional map;
an evaluation unit configured to evaluate a stability of the position on the basis of information used for the derivation unit to derive the position;
a preparation unit configured to prepare the three-dimensional map on the basis of the captured image and the position; and
a setting unit configured to set information indicating reliabilities of information indicating the three-dimensional position of the feature of the subject and information indicating a three-dimensional position of the feature included in a predetermined area in the three-dimensional map, which are acquired on the basis of the captured image in an extended area of a predetermined area in the three-dimensional map held by the holding unit, on the basis of a result of evaluation from the evaluation unit.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes. It recites an information processing device, which is a machine or manufacture.
Step 2A, Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or nature phenomenon?
Yes.
The limitation “to derive a position of the imaging device using the captured image and the three-dimensional map” can be an abstract idea of mental process because a person can look at the captured image and the three-dimensional map to determine a position of the imaging device in his/her mind.
The limitation “evaluate a stability of the position on the basis of information used for the derivation unit to derive the position” can be an abstract idea of mental process because a person can mentally evaluate a stability of the position based on the information used to derive the position.
The limitation “to prepare the three-dimensional map on the basis of the captured image and the position” can be an abstract idea of mental process because a person can mentally prepare the three-dimensional map based on the captured image and the position because claim 15 merely recites “to prepare the three-dimensional map” without any details that cannot be mentally performed.
The limitation “to set information indicating reliabilities of information indicating the three-dimensional position of the feature of the subject and information indicating a three-dimensional position of the feature included in a predetermined area in the three-dimensional map, which are acquired on the basis of the captured image in an extended area of a predetermined area in the three-dimensional map held by the holding unit, on the basis of a result of evaluation from the evaluation unit” can be an abstract idea of mental process because a person can mentally set reliabilities of information based on the evaluation result.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
As stated in the Claim Interpretation section, claim 15 has invoked 35 USC 112(f) for the units recited in the claim. Accordingly to Specification, para. [0006], at least one processor or circuit configured to function as these units. Therefore, such units recited in claim 15 can be interpreted as generic computer components such as processors that cannot integrate the abstract ideas into practical application. The limitations “to input a captured image of a subject from an imaging device of which a position/orientation is variable” and “to hold a three-dimensional map including information indicating a three-dimensional position and a reliability of a feature of the subject” can be interpreted as mere data gathering because they merely provide data for a person to perform the mental process discussed above.
Therefore, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements recited in claim 15 are either generic computer components or mere data gathering as insignificant extra solutions.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A prong two, the additional elements recited in claim 15 are either generic computer components or mere data gathering as insignificant extra solutions.
Therefore, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because generic computer components and/or mere data gathering as insignificant extra solutions cannot amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas recited in the claim.
Therefore, claim 15 is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Claim 17 recites a method claim with similar limitations discussed above with respect to claim 15. Therefore, claim 17 is not eligible under 35 USC 101.
Note claims, 1, 16, and 18 respectively recite limitations that can correct the three-dimensional map on the basis of the information indicating the reliabilities. Such limitations can be considered as additional element that can improve the three-dimensional map and provide improvement to the technology field of generating three-dimensional maps. Therefore, they are eligible under 35 USC 101. Claims 2-14 depend from claim 1 and are also eligible accordingly.
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 1-18 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.
Regarding claim 1, it recites “…a holding unit configured to hold a three-dimensional map including information indicating a three-dimensional position of a feature of the subject … a setting unit configured to set information indicating reliabilities of information indicating the three-dimensional position of the feature of the subject and information indicating a three-dimensional position of the feature included in a predetermined area in the three-dimensional map, which are acquired on the basis of the captured image in an extended area of a predetermined area in the three-dimensional map held by the holding unit, on the basis of a result of evaluation from the evaluation unit…” (Emphasis added.)
It is not clear whether the “three-dimensional position of a feature of the subject” recited in the limitation regarding the “holding unit” is the same as or different than the “three-dimensional position of the feature included in a predetermined area in the three-dimensional map” recited in the limitation regarding the “setting unit”. Also, claims 1 recites two instances of “a predetermined area”. It is not clear whether these two predetermined areas are different or the same.
Therefore, claim 1 is indefinite. Claims 2-14 depend from claim 1 but fail to cure the deficiencies of claim 1. Claims 15-18 respectively recite similar limitations discussed above with respect to claim 1. Therefore, claims 2-18 are indefinite.
In addition, the following claims have their respective additional indefinite issues:
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the number of feature points" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the feature points" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the feature points" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites “the setting unit sets a reliability based on information of the auxiliary indicator in the information indicating the three-dimensional position of the feature of the subject.” (Emphasis added.) However, claim 1, from which claim 8 depends, recites “a setting unit configured to set information indicating reliabilities …” (Emphasis added.) It is not clear whether the “reliability” recited in claim 8 is included in the “reliabilities” recited in claim 1.
Claim 9 recites “wherein a feature included in a previously prepared map of the three-dimensional map is defined as a first feature, wherein a feature added to the three-dimensional map by the preparation unit is defined as a second feature, and wherein the correction unit does not update information indicating a three-dimensional position of the first feature and updates information indicating a three-dimensional position of the second feature with a reliability lower than that of the first feature.” (Emphasis added.) However, claim 1, from which claim 9 depends, recites “a holding unit configured to hold a three-dimensional map including information indicating a three-dimensional position of a feature of the subject” and “a preparation unit configured to prepare the three-dimensional map on the basis of the captured image and the position.” It is not clear whether each of the features recited in claim 9 is the same as or different than the feature recited claim 1. Also, claim 1 only recites the preparation unit to prepare the three-dimensional map, but does not recite adding features to the three-dimensional map. Therefore, it is not clear how the second feature is obtained. It is also not clear whether the “reliability” recited in claim 9 is included in the “reliabilities” recited in claim 1 or not.
Regarding claim 10, it recites “a three-dimensional position of the feature such that an error between an observation result observed at a viewpoint when the feature is located at the three-dimensional position and an observation result actually observed at the viewpoint decreases.” It is not clear whether the “three-dimensional position of the feature” is the same as or different than the “three-dimensional position of a feature of the subject”. Also, the term ‘error” is indefinite because it is not clear how an error “between an observation result observed at a viewpoint when the feature is located at the three-dimensional position and an observation result actually observed at the viewpoint” is obtained.
Claim 11 recites “an error between color information of the feature and color information observed at the three-dimensional position at a viewpoint”. the term ‘error” is indefinite because it is not clear how an error “between color information of the feature and color information observed at the three-dimensional position at a viewpoint” is obtained.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the number of feature points" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In addition, “a reliability” recited in claim 12 is indefinite because it is not clear whether the “reliability” recited in claim 12 is included in the “reliabilities” recited in claim 1 or now.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the number of feature points" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Moreover, the terms “low” and “high” in claims 6 and 7, the terms “small” and “large” in claim 12, and the term “low” in claims 13 and 14 are relative terms which render the claims indefinite. These terms are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-18 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and 35 USC 101 set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, the closest prior art references the examiner could find are US Patent Publication No. 20200012877 A1 to Kotake et al. and US Patent Publication No. 20180150971 A1 to Adachi et al., which disclose An information processing device comprising at least one processor or circuit configured to function as (Kotake, Abstract, para. [0024]): an input unit configured to input a captured image of a subject from an imaging device of which a position/orientation is variable (Kotake, para. [0004], disclosing an obtaining unit configured to obtain, from an image capturing apparatus which can move, a captured image of an object, para. [0025], disclosing obtaining an image from an image capturing apparatus that is not fixed and can move, and can obtain a captured image of an object tin the scene where the image capturing apparatus moves around, para. [0033], disclosing the input unit obtains a captured image captured by the image capturing apparatus); a holding unit configured to hold a three-dimensional map including information indicating a three-dimensional position of a feature of the subject (Kotake, para. [0004], disclosing a holding unit configured to hold a three-dimensional map containing information indicating a three-dimensional position of a feature of the object, para. [0028], disclosing the holding unit holds a three-dimensional map of a scene which is used by the deriving unit to derive the position and orientation of the image capturing apparatus, para. [0031], disclosing the holding unit can obtain a three-dimensional map generated in advance including a pre-map with pre-generated information indicating the three-dimensional position of a feature); a derivation unit configured to derive a position of the imaging device using the captured image and the three-dimensional map (Kotake, para. [0034], disclosing the deriving unit derives the position and orientation of the image capturing apparatus using the input image and the three-dimensional map); an evaluation unit configured to evaluate a stability of the position on the basis of information used for the derivation unit to derive the position (Adachi, para. [0033], disclosing the map obtaining unit obtains map data indicating the feature points in the physical space, the map data includes information about feature points such as the three-dimensional coordinates of the feature points, images of a camera, the position and orientation of the camera, para. [0118], disclosing the stability obtaining unit calculates the stability of estimation of the position and orientation of the camera of an image capturing unit based on the distribution of feature points outside the marker selected in step S3009 using the feature points obtained by the map obtaining unit); a preparation unit configured to prepare the three-dimensional map on the basis of the captured image and the position (Kotake, para. [0035], disclosing the generation unit adds, to the three-dimensional map, information indicating the three-dimensional position of other features of the object, which are obtained based on the input image and the position and orientation of the image capturing apparatus, indicating adding information to the three-dimensional map can correspond to prepare the three-dimensional map on the basis of the captured image and the position of the image capturing apparatus); a setting unit configured to set information indicating reliabilities of information indicating the three-dimensional position of the feature of the subject and information indicating a three-dimensional position of the feature included in a predetermined area in the three-dimensional, which are acquired on the basis of the captured image in an extended area of a predetermined area in the three-dimensional map held by the holding unit map (Kotake, para. [0009], disclosing information indicating a reliability of information indicating the three-dimensional position of the feature included in a predefined area in the three-dimensional map, information indicating a three-dimensional position of another feature of the object, the information obtained based on the captured image from an expanded area of the predefined area in the three-dimensional map, para. [0036], disclosing the setting unit sets a reliability degree to the information indicating the three-dimensional position of a feature, information indicating the three-dimensional position of a feature (first feature) included in the pre-map is given higher reliability degree than information indicating the three-dimensional position of a feature (second feature) added by the generation unit); and a correction unit configured to correct the three-dimensional map on the basis of the information indicating the reliabilities set by the setting unit (Kotake, para. [0037], disclosing the correction unit corrects the information indicating the three-dimensional position of the feature included in the three-dimensional map based on the reliability degree of the information).
However, none of the prior art references on the record, alone or in combination, discloses to set information indicating reliabilities of information indicating the three-dimensional position of the feature of the subject and information indicating a three-dimensional position of the feature included in a predetermined area in the three-dimensional map on the basis of a result of evaluation from the evaluation unit.
Claims 2-14 depend from claim 1 with respective additional limitations.
Claims 16 and 18 respectively recite similar limitations discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, the closest prior art references the examiner could find are Kotake and Adachi, which disclose An information processing device (Kotake, Abstract, para. [0024]) comprising: an input unit configured to input a captured image of a subject from an imaging device of which a position/orientation is variable (Kotake, para. [0004], disclosing an obtaining unit configured to obtain, from an image capturing apparatus which can move, a captured image of an object, para. [0025], disclosing obtaining an image from an image capturing apparatus that is not fixed and can move, and can obtain a captured image of an object tin the scene where the image capturing apparatus moves around, para. [0033], disclosing the input unit obtains a captured image captured by the image capturing apparatus); a holding unit configured to hold a three-dimensional map including information indicating a three-dimensional position and a reliability of a feature of the subject (Kotake, para. [0004], disclosing a holding unit configured to hold a three-dimensional map containing information indicating a three-dimensional position of a feature of the object, para. [0009], disclosing information indicating a reliability of information indicating the three-dimensional position of the feature included in a predefined area in the three-dimensional map, information indicating a three-dimensional position of another feature of the object, the information obtained based on the captured image from an expanded area of the predefined area in the three-dimensional map, para. [0028], disclosing the holding unit holds a three-dimensional map of a scene which is used by the deriving unit to derive the position and orientation of the image capturing apparatus, para. [0031], disclosing the holding unit can obtain a three-dimensional map generated in advance including a pre-map with pre-generated information indicating the three-dimensional position of a feature, ); a derivation unit configured to derive a position of the imaging device using the captured image and the three-dimensional map (Kotake, para. [0034], disclosing the deriving unit derives the position and orientation of the image capturing apparatus using the input image and the three-dimensional map); an evaluation unit configured to evaluate a stability of the position on the basis of information used for the derivation unit to derive the position (Adachi, para. [0033], disclosing the map obtaining unit obtains map data indicating the feature points in the physical space, the map data includes information about feature points such as the three-dimensional coordinates of the feature points, images of a camera, the position and orientation of the camera, para. [0118], disclosing the stability obtaining unit calculates the stability of estimation of the position and orientation of the camera of an image capturing unit based on the distribution of feature points outside the marker selected in step S3009 using the feature points obtained by the map obtaining unit); a preparation unit configured to prepare the three-dimensional map on the basis of the captured image and the position (Kotake, para. [0035], disclosing the generation unit adds, to the three-dimensional map, information indicating the three-dimensional position of other features of the object, which are obtained based on the input image and the position and orientation of the image capturing apparatus, indicating adding information to the three-dimensional map can correspond to prepare the three-dimensional map on the basis of the captured image and the position of the image capturing apparatus); and a setting unit configured to set information indicating reliabilities of information indicating the three-dimensional position of the feature of the subject and information indicating a three-dimensional position of the feature included in a predetermined area in the three-dimensional map, which are acquired on the basis of the captured image in an extended area of a predetermined area in the three-dimensional map held by the holding unit (Kotake, para. [0009], disclosing information indicating a reliability of information indicating the three-dimensional position of the feature included in a predefined area in the three-dimensional map, information indicating a three-dimensional position of another feature of the object, the information obtained based on the captured image from an expanded area of the predefined area in the three-dimensional map, para. [0036], disclosing the setting unit sets a reliability degree to the information indicating the three-dimensional position of a feature, information indicating the three-dimensional position of a feature (first feature) included in the pre-map is given higher reliability degree than information indicating the three-dimensional position of a feature (second feature) added by the generation unit), on the basis of a result of evaluation from the evaluation unit.
However, none of the prior art references on the record, alone or in combination, discloses to set information indicating reliabilities of information indicating the three-dimensional position of the feature of the subject and information indicating a three-dimensional position of the feature included in a predetermined area in the three-dimensional map on the basis of a result of evaluation from the evaluation unit.
Claim 17 recites similar limitations discussed above with respect to claim 15.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent Publication No. 20200143603 A1 to Kotake et al., which discloses deriving a position and orientation of the image capturing apparatus at the time of capturing an image based on a three-dimensional map in which three-dimensional information of a scene captured by the image capturing apparatus and a position and orientation of the apparatus are associated with each other and an image captured by the apparatus.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAIXIA DU whose telephone number is (571)270-5646. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am-4:00 pm.
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, Kee Tung can be reached at 571-272-7794. 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.
/HAIXIA DU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Prosecution Insights