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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/11/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 7, and 9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takashima (JP 2019-132673, machine translation used for all citations) in view of Heinonen et al. (US 2015/0131079).
(1) regarding claims 1, 7 8, and 9:
Takashima ‘673 discloses an information processing apparatus (terminal device 200 in Fig. 1) comprising:
one or more processors (control unit 202 in Fig. 6) configured to:
acquire, based on an image captured by an imaging unit existing in a predetermined space (page 7, lines 1-8, camera unit 206 on a terminal device capturing images) and including an identifier disposed in the predetermined space (page 9, lines 5-16, where the image processing unit acquires a blinking pattern, the processing unit being in a predetermined space), a position of each vertex of a plurality of vertexes of an outline of a shape of the identifier in an image coordinate system (page 9, lines 5-16, where the positions of each vertex of the shape get acquired and stored), and
determine a position of the imaging unit, based on the plurality of positions on the outline of the shape of the identifier in the image coordinate system and positions corresponding to the plurality of vertexes on the outline of the shape of the identifier in a world coordinate system (page 9, lines 5-26, where a position of the device is being determined using the vertexes on a predetermined three dimensional space with coordinates).
Takashima ‘673 discloses all the subject matter as describe above except the identifier being an asymmetrical identifier,
a plurality of positions corresponding to the outline of the asymmetric shape of the identifier, whereby the identifier can be uniquely identified.
However, Heinonen ‘079 teaches the identifier being an asymmetrical identifier (paragraph [0018], where unique identifiers may be asymmetrical),
a plurality of positions corresponding the outline of the asymmetric shape of the identifier, whereby the identifier can be uniquely identified (paragraph [0017]-[0018], where the position of the asymmetrical identifiers is used to be uniquely identified).
Having a system of Heinonen ‘079 reference and then given the well-established teaching of Takashima ‘673 reference, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Takashima ‘673 to include the limitations as taught by Heinonen ‘079 because the feature point-based posture estimation unit 16 can improve the estimation accuracy of the position and posture of the imaging unit 3 when the marker-based posture estimation processing is shifted to the natural feature point-based posture estimation processing (page 12, lines 35-38).
(2) regarding claim 3:
Mogi ‘461 further discloses wherein the one or more processors acquire, as the positions on the outline of the shape of the identifier in the image coordinate system, either positions of vertexes of the shape of the identifier or a center position derived from the positions of the vertexes (page 7, lines 34-41, where positions of the outline of the contour are determined by using the positions of the vertexes).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
A. Claim 4 discloses the unique and distinct limitations of “wherein the one or more processors determine whether a size of the identifier in the image captured is equal to or larger than a predetermined value, and determine the position of the imaging unit based on the plurality of positions of the vertexes on the outline of the shape of the identifier in the image coordinate system, in a case where the size of the identifier is determined to be equal to or larger than the predetermined value”, either alone or in combination, the applied prior art does not teach the claimed subject matter.
B. Claim 5 discloses the unique and distinct limitations of “wherein the one or more processors determine whether a size of the identifier in the image captured is smaller than a predetermined value, and acquire the center position of the identifier and determines the position of the imaging unit based on the center position, in a case where the size of the identifier is determined to be smaller than the predetermined value”, either alone or in combination, the applied prior art does not teach the claimed subject matter.
C. Claim 6 discloses the unique and distinct limitations of “wherein the one or more processors acquire a primary position of the imaging unit, based on the positions of the vertexes on the outline of the shape of the identifier in the image coordinate system and the positions of the vertexes on the outline of the shape of the identifier in the world coordinate system, associate, based on the primary position of the imaging unit and a position of the identifier in the world coordinate system, a position of each of the vertexes of the identifier in the image coordinate system with the position of each of the vertexes of the identifier in the world coordinate system, and determine the position of the imaging unit, based on the position of the identifier in the image coordinate system and the position of the identifier in the world coordinate system associated with each other”, either alone or in combination, the applied prior art does not teach the claimed subject matter.
Claim 10 is allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
A. Claim 10 is directed to an information processing apparatus. Claim 10 identifies the uniquely distinct features of “determine whether a size of the identifier in the image is equal to or greater than a predetermined value, and, when it is determined that the size of the identifier is equal to or greater than the predetermined value, determine a position of the imaging unit based on a plurality of positions of an outline of the identifier in an image coordinate system, and when it is determined that the size of the identifier is less than the predetermined value, acquire a center position of the outline and determine the position of the imaging unit based on the center position”. The closest prior art Takashima (JP 2019-132673) teaches a terminal device capable of imaging a lighting apparatus, comprising: an imaging unit for capturing a moving-image of the lighting apparatus; an acquisition unit for acquiring, from the moving-image, identification information for specifying the lighting apparatus, shape information of the lighting apparatus, and position information about at least six points on the lighting apparatus; and a position detection unit for calculating, using a linear equation, the position of the terminal device on the basis of the identification information, the shaped information and the position information (Abstract), either singularly or in combination with other cited references, it fails to anticipate or render the above underlined limitations obvious (when used with all the claimed limitations).
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LENNIN R RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1678. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9:00am-7:00pm.
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, Abderrahim Merouan can be reached at 571-270-5254. 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.
/LENNIN R RODRIGUEZGONZALEZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2683