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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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:
An image generation unit in claim 1 (and dependent claims).
A first point cloud data creation unit in claim 1, 8 (and dependent claims).
A second point cloud data creation unit in claim 1, 8 (and dependent claims).
Mask data creation unit in claim 1, 8 (and dependent claims).
An analysis unit unit in claim 2 (and dependent claims).
A determination unit in claims 4-5.
An image acquisition unit in claim 8.
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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (Automated Algorithm for Removing Clutter Objects in MMS Point Cloud for 3D Road Mapping https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/20/15/4076) in view of Ge U.S. Patent/PG Publication 20200167931.
Regarding claim 1 (independent):
A sensor comprising:
an image generation unit configured to generate a distance image and a luminance image of a predetermined region; a first point cloud data creation unit configured to create, on the basis of the distance image, first point cloud data that is three-dimensional point cloud data of the predetermined region (Lee Materials and Methods The camera acquires the images of the surroundings for identification of the objects, and LiDAR acquires the depth information of the surroundings to capture the object position accurately. And the RGB data acquired from the camera can be given to the point cloud to facilitate object identification.).
a mask data creation unit configured to create, when a (Lee Mask R-CNN for Instance Segmentation To locate and remove the clutter objects, Mask R-CNN, a technique for instance segmentation is applied to the RGB images acquired from the camera. Mask R-CNN combines semantic segmentation and object detection to produce an effect of instance segmentation [16].).
and a second point cloud data creation unit configured to create second point cloud data by excluding point cloud data of a mobile body provided with the (Lee Results Looking at dataset No. 56 (2011_09_26_drive_0056_sync) as shown in Figure 7, the figure on the left shows the point cloud data created as a map, and the point clouds shown in red represent clutter objects to be removed, which have been manually selected for reference. The figure on the right shows the cleared point cloud map after applying the proposed method, and the red points were effectively removed. The results for the remaining nine datasets can be found in the appendix.).
Lee does not teach a tag. In a related field of endeavor, Ge teaches:
when a tag is detected from the luminance image, (Ge [0052] In some examples, the edge processing system 100 can track a servicer and a vehicle associated with the servicer separately. For example, the edge processing system can determine when the vehicle arrives to and departs from the site 201. The edge processing system 100 can identify a vehicle, for example, by an indicium on the vehicle such as a logo/sign, a license plate, a barcode, a radio frequency identifier (RFID) tag, a QR code, or another indicator. Similarly, the edge processing system 100 can track a servicer around the site 201 by tracking an indicium associated with the servicer, by using facial recognition of the servicer, etc. In this way, the edge processing system 100 can segment both temporally and spatially.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use tags as taught by Ge. The motivation for doing so would have been faster object recognition by using identifiers. Further, the rationale for doing so would have been that it is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results where Lee is identifying vehicles in an image and Ge is identifying vehicles in the image but using tags, where the end result is predictable since they are both identifying vehicles. Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Ge with Lee to obtain the invention.
Regarding claim 6 (independent):
The claim is a/an parallel version of claim 1. As such it is rejected under the same teachings.
Regarding claim 7 (independent):
The claim is a/an parallel version of claim 1. As such it is rejected under the same teachings.
Regarding claim 8 (independent):
The claim is a/an parallel version of claim 1. As such it is rejected under the same teachings.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (Automated Algorithm for Removing Clutter Objects in MMS Point Cloud for 3D Road Mapping https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/20/15/4076) in view of Ge U.S. Patent/PG Publication 20200167931 and Luo U.S. Patent/PG Publication 20190145765.
Regarding claim 4:
The sensor according to claim 1, has all of its limitations taught by Lee in view of Ge. Lee in view of Ge does not teach hazards. In a related field of endeavor, Luo teaches:
comprising a determination unit configured to determine a positional relationship between a worker and a hazard in the predetermined region on the basis of the second point cloud data (Luo [0083] The one or more sensors 128 can also, or alternatively, include sensors associated with one or more mechanical and/or electrical components of the vehicle 104. For example, the one or more sensors 128 can be configured to detect whether a vehicle door, trunk, and/or gas cap, is in an open or closed position. In some implementations, the data acquired by the one or more sensors 128 can help detect other vehicles and/or objects, road conditions (e.g., curves, potholes, dips, bumps, and/or changes in grade), measure a distance between the vehicle 104 and other vehicles and/or objects.)(Luo [0104] In this example, an overview of the operation of a three-dimensional object detection system is depicted. For example, the three-dimensional object detection system can receive LIDAR point cloud data from one or more sensors (e.g., one or more autonomous vehicle sensors). As shown, the sensor data 402 (e.g., LIDAR point cloud data) includes a plurality of three-dimensional points associated with one or more objects in an environment (e.g., one or more objects detected by one or more sensors of the vehicle 104).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to detect hazards as taught by Luo . The motivation for doing so would have been to prevent injury. Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Luo with Lee in view of Ge to obtain the invention.
Regarding claim 5:
The sensor according to claim 1, has all of its limitations taught by Lee in view of Ge. Lee further teaches comprising a determination unit configured to determine, when the tag is not detected from the luminance image (Lee Accuracy assessment was performed using overall accuracy, and error of omission and commission indicators. Figure 8 shows the original point cloud map, the reference point cloud map, reference point cloud of clutter objects, classified (cleared) point cloud map, and classified (removed) point cloud of clutter objects, respectively. This is a representative visualization of dataset No. 56.) where objects can be missed, or there can be no clutter in an area, and the resulting point cloud will be used.
Lee in view of Ge does not teach hazards. In a related field of endeavor, Luo teaches:
comprising a determination unit configured to determine, when the tag is not detected from the luminance image, a positional relationship between a worker and a hazard in the predetermined region on the basis of the first point cloud data (Luo [0083] The one or more sensors 128 can also, or alternatively, include sensors associated with one or more mechanical and/or electrical components of the vehicle 104. For example, the one or more sensors 128 can be configured to detect whether a vehicle door, trunk, and/or gas cap, is in an open or closed position. In some implementations, the data acquired by the one or more sensors 128 can help detect other vehicles and/or objects, road conditions (e.g., curves, potholes, dips, bumps, and/or changes in grade), measure a distance between the vehicle 104 and other vehicles and/or objects.)(Luo [0104] In this example, an overview of the operation of a three-dimensional object detection system is depicted. For example, the three-dimensional object detection system can receive LIDAR point cloud data from one or more sensors (e.g., one or more autonomous vehicle sensors). As shown, the sensor data 402 (e.g., LIDAR point cloud data) includes a plurality of three-dimensional points associated with one or more objects in an environment (e.g., one or more objects detected by one or more sensors of the vehicle 104).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to detect hazards as taught by Luo . The motivation for doing so would have been to prevent injury. Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Luo with Lee in view of Ge to obtain the invention.
Conclusion
For the prior art referenced and the prior art considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure but not relied upon, see PTO-892 “Notice of References Cited”.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON PRINGLE-PARKER whose telephone number is (571) 272-5690 and e-mail is jason.pringle-parker@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30am-5:00pm est Monday-Friday. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, King Poon can be reached on (571) 270-0728. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, seehttp://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JASON A PRINGLE-PARKER/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2617
Prosecution Insights