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 .
This communication is responsive to the Application No. 19/076,263 filled on 03/11/2025.
Claims 1-10 are presented for examination.
Examiner comments
Claim 1 cites the element “control module” configured to control the camera device, where the control module is a generic place holder. However, claim 3 further defines that the control module comprises an embedded board. Therefore, the control module is a hardware and is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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 1-4 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.
Claim 1 cites the phrase “the mode”, where the claim cites “first mode” and “second mode” in the previous line. It is not clear whether the mode is referred to first mode, or the second mode or another mode in second mode. Further clarification and/or claim amendment is required to overcome this rejection. For examination purpose, the examiner considers as “when the camera device is operated in the second mode, the camera device is configured to transmit image information…”.
Claims 2-4 are also rejected by the virtue of their dependency on rejected base claim 1.
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: “ToF module” and “RGB camera module” in Claim 7; have has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they use a generic placeholder “means for” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function.
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.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/ columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching
all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1, 4-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lang et al. (EP 3696135A1, attached English translated NPL document is used for claim mapping) (hereinafter Lang) in view of Holz (US2018304468).
Claim 1. Lang teaches a camera device mounted on an object (See Fig. 1B “forklift 10 [i.e., object] is equipped with first Camera 12 [i.e., camera device]”, and/or second camera 14), the camera device comprising:
a body (See Fig. 3A-3C, “first camera 12 having a structure, i.e., body’); and
a control module located in the body and configured to control the camera device to be operated in one of a first mode or a second mode based on input information (See Para. [0033], “The first camera can then also capture image data of the side of the goods using the extended/folded-out mirrors [i.e., first mode]”, and/or see Para. [0037], “a first camera system with a first camera configured to detect a side of goods to be picked up facing the forklift truck; a controller configured to output a first activation signal to the first camera when the distance detected by the first sensor falls below a minimum distance; a transmission system configured to transmit the image data [i.e., second mode] of the goods captured by the first camera to a data processing system; a”), and
wherein based on the mode of the camera device being operated in the second mode, the camera device is configured to transmit image information acquired by the camera device to another device connected to the object for controlling the object (See Fig. 1B, Para. [0060], [0088], “the forklift 10 can include a transfer unit 22, which can transmit the image data captured by the first camera 12 of the forklift 10 to a data processing system 24 for identifying the goods W. Further, See Fig. 1B, “the data processing system 24 of the forklift being designed to be controlled by the first camera 12 to analyze captured image data in order to identify the goods).
Nevertheless, Lang fails to teach, wherein based on the camera device being operated in the first mode, the camera device is configured to control the object.
However, Holz teaches, wherein based on the camera device being operated in the first mode, the camera device is configured to control the object (See Figs. 3-4, Para. [0078]- [0079], discloses “the robotic device is equipped with ToF 450, RGB 452, Device sensors 338 and Drives 340, where the drives 340 an include one or more drive controllers and/or actuators that provide functionality for moving robotic device(s) 120”, and/or see Para. [0070], “onboard sensors 322 can include one or more navigation lasers, laser scanners, cameras, and/or other sensors for navigating and/or controlling onboard system 320.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified the camera of Lang with a device sensor and drives as taught by Holz in order to provide functionality in a camera to move forklift more efficiently loading/unloading goods as the camera captures surround images in order to identify the goods and empty container.
Claim 4. The teaching of Lang as modified by the teaching of Holz teaches the camera device of claim 1, but fails to teach the method further comprising: a time of flight (ToF) camera module (See Lang, Para. [0064], “the second camera can comprise a 3D camera which uses a time-of-flight (TOF)”. Additionally, see Holz, Para. [0080], “robotic device architecture 400 can include one or more cameras, including but not limited to, ToF camera 450 and RGB camera 452, where the one or more cameras can include one or more still cameras and/or one or more video cameras”); and a red, green, blue (RGB) camera module (See Holz, Para. [0078], “cameras (e.g., Time-of-Flight (ToF) cameras, Red-Green-Blue (RGB) cameras, thermal cameras)”) , wherein the image information is acquired by the ToF camera module and the RGB camera module ( See Lang, Para. [0064], “the second camera can comprise a 3D camera which uses a time-of-flight (TOF) method to determine the dimensions of the product W during its recording”, and/or see Para. [0088], “a first camera system with a first camera (12) which is configured to capture a first side (S1) of a product (W) to be recorded; a second camera system comprising a second camera (14) configured to capture a second side of the goods during or after they have been picked up by the forklift, wherein the first side differs from the second side”. Additionally, see Holz, Para. [0087], “cameras 606 may be visual cameras (e.g., RGB cameras) that can capture color images of the environment.”, Para. [0032], “Cameras or other types of sensors may measure the distance to points by the time (or phase) difference between an emitted and received light pulse (or wave).”).
Claim 5 is a method claim corresponding to the device claim 1 and having substantially the same technical features as claim 1, differing only in the category of invention. Therefore, the claim 5 is rejected for the same rationales set forth as above for claim 1.
Claim 6. The teaching of Lang as modified by the teaching of Holz teaches the method of claim 5,further comprising transmitting image information acquired by the camera device to the another device based on the determined mode being the second mode (See Lang, Patra. [0060], “transmit the image data captured by the camera to a data processing system 24”, and/or Para. [0088], “transmit the image data of the goods captured by the first camera and by the second camera respectively to a data processing system (24) for the purpose of identifying the goods.”).
Claim 7 is a method claim corresponding to the device claim 4 and having substantially the same technical features as claim 4, differing only in the category of invention. Therefore, the claim 7 is rejected for the same rationales set forth as above for claim 4.
Claim 8. The method of claim 5, further comprising providing a user interface (UI) for controlling the object based on the determined mode being the first mode (See Holz, Para. [0062]-[0063], “Logistics interface to command robotic device for moving pallet from one location to another”, Para. [0064]-[0065], “a user interface to provide access to tools for monitoring and managing system 300.”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified the teaching of Lang with an interface as taught by Holz in order issue a user command to control robotic device to perform task.
Claim 10. The teaching of Lang as modified by the teaching of Holz teaches the method of The method of wherein determining the mode of the camera device is performed by a control module of the camera device; and wherein controlling the object is performed by the control module based on the determined mode being the first mode (See Holz, Figs. 3-4, Para. [0078]- [0079], discloses “the robotic device is equipped with ToF 450, RGB 452, Device sensors 338 and Drives 340, where the drives 340 an include one or more drive controllers and/or actuators that provide functionality for moving robotic device(s) 120”, and/or see Para. [0070], “onboard sensors 322 can include one or more navigation lasers, laser scanners, cameras, and/or other sensors for navigating and/or controlling onboard system 320.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified the camera of Lang with a device sensor and drives as taught by Holz in order to provide functionality in a camera to move forklift more efficiently loading/unloading goods as the camera captures surround images in order to identify the goods and empty container.
Claims 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lang et al. (EP 3696135A1, attached English translated NPL document is used for claim mapping) (hereinafter Lang) in view of Holz (US20180304468) and further in view of Hattori et al. (US 2020158114 A, attached English translated NPL document is used for claim mapping) (hereinafter Hattori).
Claim 2. The teaching of Lang as modified by the teaching of Holz teaches the camera device of claim 1, but fails to teach the camera device that further comprising a first port and a second port, wherein the input information includes information indicating that a cable is connected to at least one of the first port or the second port.
However, Hattori teaches, the camera device that further comprising a first port and a second port, wherein the input information includes information indicating that a cable is connected to at least one of the first port or the second port (See Para. [0026], “detachable connecting cable for outputting image information captured by the wide-area camera to an external source”, and/or see Para. [0093], [0098], “the connecting cable 7 is a cable for outputting image information captured by the hemispherical camera 2 to a recording device 6, which is separately and detachably equipped. One end of the cable is equipped with a cable-side connector 7A for connecting to the imaging device-side connector 32, which is equipped on the main body 3 of the imaging device 1”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified the teaching of Lang in view of Holz with camera having port configured to connect a cable for output image information as taught by Hattori, so the cable can be easily removed and replaced when there is a break in the wire and providing peace of mind in the event of wire breakage.
Claim 9 is a method claim corresponding to the device claim 2 and having substantially the same technical features as claim 2, differing only in the category of invention. Therefore, the claim 9 is rejected for the same rationales set forth as above for claim 2.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lang et al. (EP 3696135A1, attached English translated NPL document is used for claim mapping) (hereinafter Lang) in view of Holz (US20180304468) and further in view of Lam et al. (US 2025/0371885 A1) (hereinafter Lam).
Claim 3. The teaching of Lang as modified by the teaching of Holz teaches the camera device of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the control module comprises an embedded board.
However, Lam teaches, wherein the control module comprises an embedded board (See Para. [0025], [0040], “the processor is embedded in the camera”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified the teaching of Lang in view of Holz with a camera where the controller/processor is embedded in the camera as taught by Lam for a design choice and additionally, it would be more convenient to attach the camera with forklift more conveniently.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to B M M HANNAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0237. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY-FRIDAY at 8:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Adam Mott can be reached at 5712705376. 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.
/B M M HANNAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights