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 § 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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim recites:
(exemplary claim) A position measurement system, comprising a processor that
obtains, from an image obtained by an image capturer having a known image-capturing direction and a known installation position in a space, a position of a direct image resulting from directly receiving light from a light emitter that is movable in the space and a position of a reflection image by reflected light resulting from light emitted by the light emitter being reflected by a predetermined plane within the space, - data gathering
and
obtains a three-dimensional position of the light emitter in the space based on the position of the reflection image and the position of the direct image in the image. – data gathering
Step Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a process.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim recites the limitations of obtain[ing] a position of a direct image, a position of a reflection image and a there dimensional position. The limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a processor,” nothing in the claim precludes the determining step from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, but for the “by a processor” language, the claim encompasses the user manually gathering the positions. This limitation is a mental process.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim recites one additional element:
that a processor is used to perform steps. The processor in both steps is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data. This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
The claim is ineligible.
Also, claims 4 and 5 are ineligible for the same reasons as set forth in claim 1.
The dependent claims 2 and 3 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and therefore, they are ineligible too.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-5 as best understood are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikuchi (US Pub. 2021/0295539) in view of Nagata et al (US Pub. 2017/0208237).
With respect to claim 1, Kikuchi discloses A position measurement system, comprising a processor that obtains, from an image obtained by an image capturer having a known image-capturing direction and a known installation position in a space, a position of a direct image resulting from directly receiving light from a light emitter that is movable in the space and
However, Kikuchi fails to explicitly disclose a position of a reflection image by reflected light resulting from light emitted by the light emitter being reflected by a predetermined plane within the space, and obtains a three-dimensional position of the light emitter in the space based on the position of the reflection image and the position of the direct image in the image (emphasis added), as claimed.
Nagata teaches a position of a reflection image by reflected light resulting from light emitted by the light emitter being reflected by a predetermined plane within the space, and obtains a three-dimensional position of the light emitter in the space based on the position of the reflection image and the position of the direct image in the image (emphasis added, see paragraph 0221, wherein ... the imaging device 10 estimates a position... of the subject in a depth direction according to a light intensity of auxiliary light that is emitted toward the subject...; and paragraph 0137, wherein ...the imaging device 10 analyzes the shadows “reflection” v11a to v11c of the subject u11 captured in the image of the imaging region ... light emitting units...), as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art at the effective date of invention to combine the two references as they are analogous because they are solving similar problem of three-dimensional position determining of an object using image analysis. Teachings of Nagata to estimate the position of the object using the reflection lights can be incorporated in to Kikuchi as suggested (see figure 5 numerical S102, two values of height), for suggestion, and modifying the system yields a control device (see Nagata Abstract), for motivation.
With respect to claim 3, combination of Kikuchi and Nagata further discloses the light emitter conveys identification information of the light emitter by modulating light in a visible light region, and the processor obtains, from the image, the position of the reflection image and the position of the direct image corresponding to the same identification information, (see Kikuchi paragraph 0093, wherein ...although the aforementioned embodiments describe the use of communication by red, green, and blue visible light, visible light of another color may be used. Moreover, visible light communication by modulation of information, by time-wise change in just brightness, can be used appropriating in the present disclosure), as claimed.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejections for claim 1, because claims 4 and 5 are claiming subject matter of similar scope as claimed in claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIKKRAM BALI whose telephone number is (571)272-7415. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00AM-3:00PM.
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, Gregory Morse can be reached at 571-272-3838. 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.
/VIKKRAM BALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2663
Prosecution Insights