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 .
Application has pending claims 1-16. Claims 7-11 are withdrawn from consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 12, and 13 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. Thus, the new reference of Moteki, in combination with RYO and Yamaguchi, disclose the newly amended limitations of claims 1, 12, and 13. As such, this action is made FINAL.
Examiner’s Comments
Claims 1, 12, and 13 recites the claim language “…is selected from the plurality of frames based on at least one of… and…”. The Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 69 USPQ2d 1865 (Fed. Cir. 2004) decision regarding the claim interpretation of “at least one of x, y, and z.” at pages 15-16 set forth the rationale for determining that the term “and” is conjunctive (i.e., at least one of x, at least one of y, and at least one of z). Therefore, the plain meaning of the current claim language “…is selected from the plurality of frames based on at least one of… and…” in light of the specification is interpreted to be “…based on at least one of a first condition… and a second condition, a third condition… and a fourth condition…”. Also see MPEP 2111.01 on the subject of Plain Meaning given to claim terms.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The claims have been interpreted under superguide, as discussed above, thus they are not further limiting because they don't add anything more than what has been recited in claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RYO WATANABE US-20200331499-A1, hereinafter RYO, in further view of Ichiro Yamaguchi JP-6044084-B2, hereinafter Yamaguchi, and Atsunori Moteki US-20160364867-A1, hereinafter Moteki.
As per claim 1, RYO discloses a position-posture estimation device (see RYO ¶76-78 and FIG. 2, wherein the device is disclosed) comprising:processing circuitry to read in data of a three-dimensional map from a database (see RYO ¶94, wherein a storage unit, i.e., circuitry, which stores, or reads in, map data of a three-dimensional map is disclosed);to execute a process of acquiring a frame to be used for calculation of a position-posture from a plurality of image frames captured from different viewpoints (see RYO ¶129-130, wherein a keyframe is acquired for a posture of the vehicle. The keyframe is acquired from a camera, wherein a plurality of cameras and images on the vehicle is disclosed in ¶122);to execute a process of acquiring a plurality of relative position-postures (see RYO ¶141-143, wherein the dead reckoning (DR) unit 30 acquires the relative location of the vehicle) regarding a plurality of frames selected (see RYO ¶128-130, wherein the reference information, or keyframes, of the vehicle are acquired, and further ¶148, wherein the matching unit estimates the location of the vehicle using the DR estimation and reference information);to execute a process of acquiring a plurality of absolute position-postures regarding the plurality of selected frames (see RYO ¶124, more specifically ¶148-151, wherein the absolute values of the location and the posture of the vehicle is calculated, or acquired, by the place recognition unit 32. The absolute values are acquired from the reference and surrounding information, which are used in the acquisition locations as disclosed in ¶129); andto acquire a final absolute position-posture by integrating the acquired relative position-postures and the acquired absolute position-postures (see RYO ¶151-155 and FIG. 3, wherein the correction process unit 33 corrects the vehicle location and posture estimation using the correction reference information and absolute values acquired from the place recognition unit 32, which calculated the absolute location and posture, and the matching processing unit 31, which calculated the relative location. The corrected estimation results are used acquire the corrected, or final absolute, locations and postures as further described in ¶222-224 and FIG. 14).
However, RYO fails to explicitly disclose where Yamaguchi discloses:to execute a process of selecting a frame to be used for calculation of a position-posture from a plurality of image frames captured from different viewpoints (see Yamaguchi page 4/31, wherein an image is selected for the position or posture estimation from either the front or rear, i.e., different viewpoints, captured images of the vehicle);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify RYO’s device by using Yamaguchi’s teaching by including a selection to the plurality of image frames in order to specifically pick the frames best used to estimate the position-posture.
However, while RYO, in combination with Yamaguchi, discloses a fourth condition that the frame has a viewpoint with a calculated variance below a fourth threshold (see RYO ¶209-211, wherein a matching rate, i.e., a viewpoint variance, between the surrounding information and pieces of reference information is calculated and determines if the matching rate exceeds a predetermined threshold. If it does exceed the threshold, it is used for correction reference information) fails to explicitly disclose where Moteki teaches:wherein the frame to be used for calculation of a position-posture is selected from the plurality of frames (see Moteki ¶55-56, wherein the keyframe table, wherein each camera contains captured images as well as its position and pose. These keyframes are selected based on the conditions described in ¶50-53) based on at least one of1) a first condition that a change in a relative position obtained by the calculation of the relative position-posture is greater than or equal to a first threshold value of a change in the position and a second condition that a change in a relative posture is greater than or equal to a second threshold value of a change in posture (see Moteki ¶66-73, wherein the camera pose, including its position and posture, is estimated by the camera pose estimation unit. It outputs information of the position and pose of the camera information to the quality determination unit. Then, the quality determination unit determines if the camera pose is high quality if it surpasses a predetermined ratio, i.e., thresholds for the position and the posture. If yes, the position and pose is stored as well as its captured image, as seen in FIG. 3), and2) a third condition that a selected frame is captured in time at a time interval greater than a third threshold from another selected frame (see Moteki ¶51 and ¶54, wherein a predetermined period of time, i.e., time interval, needs to be elapsed before a next key frame is added), and3) a fourth condition that the frame has a viewpoint with a calculated variance below a fourth threshold (see Moteki ¶45, wherein the viewpoints between camera are calculated, and gradation variation is used for matching feature points. These feature points are then used by the determination unit to determine if the camera’s optical axis has changed between keyframes, i.e., viewpoint variance, as discussed in ¶85-98).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify RYO’s, in combination with Yamaguchi, device by using Moteki’s teaching by including a position-posture condition, as well as a time interval condition, to the frame selection in order to maximize the precision of the relative position-posture using the plurality of images.
As per claims 12-13, the rationale provided in claim 1 is incorporated herein. In addition, the method of claim 12 and the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 13 (see RYO ¶94, wherein a non-transitory computer readable medium, such as an HDD, is disclosed) correspond to the device of claim 1.
As per claims 14-16, the rationale provided in claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RYO, in combination with Yamaguchi and Moteki, in further view of AOTO HIDEKAZU JP-2005180957-A, hereinafter AOTO.
As per claim 2, RYO, in combination with Yamaguchi and Moteki, discloses the position-posture estimation device according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry detects a key frame in a camera image captured by a camera (see RYO ¶129-130, wherein a keyframe and the acquisition location of the keyframe is acquired from a camera);calculates a position and posture of the camera that captured the key frame (see RYO ¶135 and FIG. 11B, wherein a position and orientation of the vehicle is acquired. The camera is installed on the vehicle and its acquisition direction is disclosed in ¶129-130);executes a process of calculating variance of the position-posture in regard to each key frame (see RYO ¶137-140, wherein an error covariance matrix is calculated for each time over a quantity of time n. See further RYO ¶240, wherein keyframes are acquired at times).
However, RYO, in combination with Yamaguchi and Moteki, fails to explicitly disclose where AOTO teaches:executes a process of generating registration data by positioning the three-dimensional map in register with a floor map (see AOTO page 4/18, wherein a various mark generation unit generates landmark information, i.e., registration data, after the map matching process using the floor setting information, i.e., floor map, and the map data read into the map buffer. The map matching process is done by the map matching control unit which inputs three-dimensional GPS information, as disclosed in page 3/18); andexecutes a process of storing the registration data in the database (see AOTO page 5/18, wherein the landmark and floor information are added to the facility database).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify RYO’s, in combination with Yamaguchi and Moteki, device by using AOTO’s teaching by including the processes of generating and storing registration data to the processing circuitry in order to create a further detailed map of the floor, or area.
As per claim 3, RYO, in combination with Yamaguchi, Moteki, and AOTO, discloses the position-posture estimation device according to claim 2, wherein the processing circuitry integrates the plurality of absolute position-postures based on the variance of the position-posture calculated in regard to each key frame (see RYO ¶152-153, ¶169, and FIG. 7, wherein the error covariance matrices are calculated for each repetition of the state quantities (location and posture). These calculations are performed after the absolute values of the location and posture are calculated in ¶151).
As per claim 4, RYO, in combination with Yamaguchi, Moteki, and AOTO, discloses the position-posture estimation device according to claim 3, wherein the processing circuitry employs the position-posture estimated in a key frame whose variance is smallest among the key frames as the final absolute position-posture (see RYO ¶141-142 and ¶145, wherein the DR process calculates a degree of confidence, on the basis of the error variance matrix, which is used to calculate the location and posture of the vehicle).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RYO, in combination with Yamaguchi, Moteki, and AOTO, in further view of Ishai Elijarat US-20180252804-A1, hereinafter Ishai.
As per claim 5, RYO, in combination with Yamaguchi, Moteki, and AOTO, fails to explicitly disclose where Ishai teaches:The position-posture estimation device according to claim 3, wherein the processing circuitry calculates a weight based on the variance in regard to each key frame and integrates the plurality of absolute position-postures based on a weighted linear sum using the weights (see Ishai ¶32-33, wherein a covariance matrix Q is a weighted linear combination of covariance matrices is used for the real target position, i.e., absolute position-posture, in the radar frames. See equations EQ. 6-9, which discloses the weights w in the covariance matrix Q. Further, Ishai ¶23 discloses that the platform of the radar is an automobile, the tracking movement (used to acquire the target position) can facilitate target avoidance, such as maneuvering around other vehicles).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify RYO’s, in combination with Yamaguchi, Moteki, and AOTO, device by using Ishai’s teaching by including a weighted linear sum to the variance on an automobile radar system in order to more precisely calculate the real target position to avoid obstacles around the vehicle.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RYO, in combination with Yamaguchi, Moteki, and AOTO, in further view of Yanchen ZHU WO-2020113423-A1, hereinafter ZHU.
As per claim 6, RYO, in combination with Yamaguchi, Moteki, and AOTO, fails to explicitly disclose where ZHU teaches:The position-posture estimation device according to claim 2, wherein the processing circuitry integrates the plurality of absolute position-postures by using nonlinear optimization (see ZHU page 10/90, wherein non-linear optimization to optimize pose information of the key frame and the position of the three-dimensional point cloud is disclosed. See prior bottom of page 8/90 and top of page 9/90, wherein the three-dimensional information, which is used in the point cloud, is used to obtain absolute positioning information of key frames).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify RYO’s, in combination with Yamaguchi, Moteki, and AOTO, device by using ZHU’s teaching by including non-linear optimization to the plurality of position-postures in order to further enhance the position estimation.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bradley Obas Felix whose telephone number is (703)756-1314. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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, Vincent Rudolph can be reached at 5712728243. 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.
/BRADLEY O FELIX/Examiner, Art Unit 2671
/VINCENT RUDOLPH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2671
Prosecution Insights