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 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 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), 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), 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), 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), 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), 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 limitations are:
In claim 1: “an acquisition unit configured to…;” and
“a processing unit configured to…”
In claim 11: “a measurement apparatus configured to…;” and
“the information apparatus being configured to…”
In claim 12: “an information processing apparatus including…”
“an acquisition unit configured to…;” and
“a processing unit configured to…”
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows the following structure corresponding to the claim limitations:
The acquisition unit may comprise a circuit that transmits and receives the data (paragraph 49);
The processing unit may comprise a processor, ASIC, or the like (paragraph 46);
The measurement apparatus may comprise a sensor, such as an RBG, depth, IR sensor, or the like (paragraph 33); and
The information processing apparatus may comprise a processor, storage, display, and other components (paragraph 45 and associated paragraphs).
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claim 14, this claim is drawn to a computer program, and recites the algorithmic steps the comprise the program. The claim states that the program is configured to cause a computer to execute processing; however, this is not sufficient to render the claim statutory.
First, this statement is made in the preamble, but the claim recites only steps defining the programmatic functions, and does not positively integrate any structural components; thus, the computer in the preamble does not receive patentable weight, and there is no structure recited in the body of the claim. Second, even if the computer received patentable weight, the preamble states that the program is “configured to” cause processing, not that it actually does cause processing; thus the claim is referring only to the data that comprises the program. Third, even if the program definitively caused processing, the claim is still directed to the program itself – not the computer or any structural component. This is contrast, for example, to claims 1 and 12, which are directed to an apparatus and system, respectively, that incorporate structural components that execute the steps. And finally, the specification states that all of the functions may be implemented in software. (See, for example, Specification, paragraph 46, the last 4 lines.)
Thus, all elements of claim 14 may be comprised of software or data structures, per se, and claim 14 is therefore directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The Examiner suggests, for example, amending this claim such that it is directed to “A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program that causes a processor to execute processing of…”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Glaser et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0035342), referred herein as Glaser.
Regarding claim 1, Glaser teaches an information processing apparatus comprising (figs 1 and 17; paragraph 53; paragraphs 194 and 197):
an acquisition unit configured to acquire target space data obtained by measuring an inside of a target space (figs 1 and 17, acquisition unit 110/1101; paragraph 54, lines 1-9; paragraph 58, lines 1-7 and the last 7 lines; paragraphs 59 and 69; target space data is acquired by measuring an inside of a target space); and
a processing unit configured to (figs 1 and 17, processing unit 120/1010 and 1103; paragraph 70, lines 1-7; paragraph 71; paragraph 194)
recognize an attribute and a position of a concealing target object based on the target space data acquired by the acquisition unit (figs 2, 3, 5, 6, 8; paragraph 64; paragraphs 72 and 73; paragraph 105; paragraph 139; paragraph 146, lines 1-9; attributes and positions of objects to be concealed are recognized based on the acquired target space data),
output the target space data and the attribute and the position of the concealing target object in association with each other, and process concealed information of the concealing target object (figs 2, 3, 5, 6, 8; paragraphs 70 and 73; paragraphs 75 and 76; paragraphs 109 and 112; paragraph 159; the target object information is output and the target objects are concealed).
Regarding claim 2, Glaser teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein a three dimensional space model of the target space reflecting the attribute and the position of the concealing target object with respect to an environment of the target space is generated based on the target space data acquired by the acquisition unit and the attribute and the position of the concealing target object in the target space, and the concealed information of the concealing target object in the three dimensional space model is processed (figs 2, 4, 5, 6, 8; paragraphs 72 and 73; paragraphs 75 and 76; paragraphs 135 and 138; paragraphs 146 and 155).
Regarding claim 3, Glaser teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the concealing target object includes at least one of a display device, a person, an industrial machine, a document, a destination display board, a bulletin object, a whiteboard, a blackboard, a tag, and a postal item (figs 2, 5, 8; paragraphs 35 and 36; paragraph 66; paragraphs 127 and 139; paragraph 164).
Regarding claim 4, Glaser teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processing unit is configured to acquire thermographic data of the target space (paragraph 58; paragraph 84).
Regarding claim 5, Glaser teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processing unit is configured to generate a three dimensional space model including a heat generation condition of the concealing target object based on acquired thermographic data (figs 2, 4, 5, 6, 8; paragraph 58; paragraphs 72 and 73; paragraphs 75 and 76; paragraph 84; paragraphs 138 and 155).
Regarding claim 6, Glaser teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processing unit is configured to acquire from a storage unit (figs 1 and 17, storage unit 130/1104/1003-1005) storing the attribute of the concealing target object and impact defining data defining an impact of the concealing target object on an environment of the target space in association with each other, the impact defining data of the concealing target object (figs 2, 3, 5, 6, 8; paragraph 64; paragraphs 72 and 73; paragraphs 75 and 76; paragraph 146, lines 1-9; paragraph 171), and generate a the three dimensional space model based on the target space data and the impact defining data acquired (paragraph 58; paragraph 84).
Regarding claim 7, Glaser teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the impact defining data includes a thermal boundary condition (paragraph 58; paragraph 84; infrared imaging identifies thermal boundaries).
Regarding claim 8, Glaser teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processing unit is configured to determine whether the target space data redundantly includes the concealing target object (paragraph 61; paragraphs 64 and 65; paragraph 110; paragraph 152).
Regarding claim 9, Glaser teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein upon redundantly recognizing the concealing target object included in the target space, the processing unit is configured to remove the redundant concealing target object (paragraph 103; paragraph 152; paragraphs 163 and 166).
Regarding claim 10, Glaser teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processing unit is configured to generate a three dimensional space model by replacing the concealing target object with a model object including no concealed information (paragraphs 70 and 109; paragraphs 163 and 166).
Regarding claim 11, Glaser teaches an information processing system including the information processing apparatus according to claim 1 (figs 1 and 17), the information processing system further comprising: a measurement apparatus configured to measure a physical quantity related to a shape in the target space, the information processing apparatus being configured to acquire the target space data from the measurement apparatus (figs 4, 5, 6, 8; paragraph 48; paragraphs 54 and 59; paragraphs 68 and 79; paragraph 118; paragraphs 154 and 155).
Regarding claims 12-14, the limitations of each of these claims substantially correspond to the limitations of claim 1; thus they are rejected on similar grounds.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Derenne (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0109442); Video monitoring system.
Wolf (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0300757); Image capture with privacy protection.
Chen (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0045207); Context-aware image compression.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID T WELCH whose telephone number is (571)270-5364. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday, 8:30-5:30 EST, and alternate Fridays, 9:00-2:30 EST.
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, Xiao Wu can be reached on 571-272-7761. 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.
DAVID T. WELCH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2613
/DAVID T WELCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2613
Prosecution Insights