FINAL OFFICE ACTION
This Final Office action addresses U.S. Patent Application No. 18/198,223, filed May 16, 2023, which is a continuation-in-part of U.S. Reissue Application Serial No. 16/654,084, filed October 15, 2019 (hereinafter the “084 Reissue Application”).
The status of the claims is as follows:
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. CLAIM AND APPLICATION STATUS 3
II. FILING DATE 3
III. EFFECTIVE FILING DATE OF CLAIMS 4
IV. CLAIM REJECTIONS – 35 U.S.C. §112 5
IV.A. Indefiniteness Rejections 5
V. CLAIM INTERPRETATION 7
V.A. Lexicographic Definitions 7
V.B. Claim Interpretation Under 35 U.S.C. §112(f) 8
V.C. Conclusion of Claim Interpretation 23
VI. COMPACT PROSECUTION 23
VII. CLAIM REJECTIONS – 35 U.S.C. §102 24
VII.A. Anticipation Rejections Applying 915 Publication 24
VIII. CLAIM REJECTIONS – 35 U.S.C. §103 28
VIII.A. Rejections of Claims 1, 2, 4-12 and 14-20 Over 915 Publication and Li 28
VIII.B. Rejections of Claims 3 and 13 Over 915 Publication, Li and 549 Publication 42
VIII.C. Rejections of Claims 1, 2, 4-12 and 14-20 Over Yu, 915 Publication and Li 44
VIII.D. Rejections of Claims 3 and 13 Over Yu, 915 Publication, Li and 549 Publication 59
IX. EXAMINERS’ RESPONSES TO APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS 61
X. INFORMATION MATERIAL TO PATENTABILITY 63
XI. CONCLUSION 63
I. CLAIM AND APPLICATION STATUS
Applicant filed an amendment on April 6, 2026 (hereinafter the “Apr 2026 Amendment”) in response to the non-final Office action mailed October 6, 2026 (hereinafter the “Oct 2026 NF Rejection”). In the Apr 2026 Amendment, claims 1 and 11 were amended with respect to the previous versions of these claims. Claims 2-10 and 12-20 were not amended. Therefore, claims 1-20 are pending and will be examined.
In view of the substantial amendments to the claims provided in the Apr 2026 Amendment, new claim interpretations and rejections are provided below.
II. FILING DATE
Examiners find that the present application claims priority as a continuation-in-part of the 084 Reissue Application. As stated by Applicant, the “Present application is a Bauman-type continuation application and is entitled to the priority date of the ‘084 Application, namely October 15, 2019.” See Amendment filed March 28, 2024, page 8. Examiners agree that the present application is a Bauman-type application.1 Furthermore, since this application is also a continuation-in-part, Examiners will refer to this application as “the present Bauman CIP application.” Accordingly, Examiners find agreement by the Patent Owner that the earliest filing date of the present application is October 15, 2019.
III. EFFECTIVE FILING DATE OF CLAIMS
Following a careful review of claims 1-20 pending and examined herein, Examiners find the subject matter recited in the claims has support only in the present Bauman CIP application and NOT in the 084 Application and therefore the claims are only entitled to a priority date to the filing of the present Bauman CIP application.
First, Examiners find the subject matter related to the processor implementing executable instructions for receiving the light data and the relative motion data and providing a pose estimate at application request time was added via new FIGS. 31-35C and pages 113-136 to the specification in the present Bauman CIP application. Specifically, Examiners do not find support for this claim language in combination with the other features of the claims in the 084 Application.
Additionally, Examiners find that the subject matter reciting with said absolute pose estimate as an initial condition was added in various places in the specification of the present Bauman CIP application that was not present in the 084 Application. Specifically, Examiners find no support or discussion of the absolute pose estimate being an “initial condition” or any discussion of such initial condition in the disclosure of the 084 Application in combination with the other features of the claims.
Accordingly, based on these findings, because Examiners are only able to find support for these claim features in the present Bauman CIP application and not the 084 Application, Examiners conclude that claims 1-20 only have an earliest effective filing date as of the filing date of the present Bauman CIP application, i.e., May 16, 2023, for prior art purposes.
IV. CLAIM REJECTIONS – 35 U.S.C. §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.
IV.A. Indefiniteness Rejections
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites “c) a processor connected to said photodetector and to said auxiliary motion detection component, said processor implementing executable instructions for: 1) receiving said light data…; 2) receiving said relative motion data…; 3) providing upon request …”
Examiners first submit that apparatus claims “cover what a device is, not what a device does.” See MPEP 2114(II). Furthermore, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See id.
Applying this guidance and case law, Examiners find claims 1-10 are apparatus claims, i.e., “A system …” Thus, Examiners find these system claims are limited by what they are and not what they are doing or intended to be doing. Regarding the quoted limitation above, Examiners find this limitation recites a processor, which is a known structure.
However, the quoted limitation also recites what the processor “does” or “is doing,” i.e., implementing instructions for performing functions. Specifically, Examiners find this “implementing” requires the processor to be performing an operation, i.e., a method step, within the context of an apparatus claim. Therefore, Examiners find claims 1-10 are written as hybrid claims, i.e., a combination of structures and required method actions, which is thus not clear as to scope. For example, Examiners find this limitation is not clear as to whether Examiners need only find a processor in the art, or whether Examiners need to find a processor in the art only while it is positively implementing instructions.
Thus, Examiners find based on the case law and guidance and the Applicant’s chosen language, Examiners find claims 1-10 are capable of two plausible interpretations. First, based on the case law and the fact that claims 1-10 are apparatus (system) claims, a first interpretation is that claims 1-10 include only a photodetector, an auxiliary motion detection component and a processor without regard to what the processor is doing or any instructions. Such an interpretation is consistent in the case law. Second, Examiners find a second interpretation is that claims 1-10 as written require a photodetector, an auxiliary motion detection component and a processor and further require the processor to be specifically performing a method step of implementing instructions as written. Where the elements of a claim have two or more plausible constructions such that the examiner cannot readily ascertain positional relationship of the elements, the claim may be rendered indefinite. See MPEP §2173(II). See also MPEP §2173.05(p).. Since Examiners find claims 1-10 have two plausible interpretations, Examiners conclude they are indefinite.
V. CLAIM INTERPRETATION
During examination, claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP §2111, MPEP §2111.01 and In re Yamamoto et al., 222 USPQ 934 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP §2111.01(I). It is further noted it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, i.e., a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See MPEP §2111.01(II). Therefore, unless one of the exceptions applies below, Examiners will interpret the limitations of the pending and examined claims using the broadest reasonable interpretation.
V.A. Lexicographic Definitions
A first exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the Applicant for patent has provided a lexicographic definition for the term. See MPEP §2111.01(IV). Following an independent review of the claims in view of the specification herein, Examiners find that Applicant has not provided any lexicographic definitions related to claim terms with any reasonable clarity, deliberateness and precision.
V.B. Claim Interpretation Under 35 U.S.C. §112(f)
A second exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the claimed feature is written as a means-plus-function or a step-plus-function. See 35 U.S.C. §112(f) and MPEP §2181-2183.
As noted in Williamson v. Citrix Online, L.L.C., 115 USPQ2d 1105, 1112 (Fed. Cir. 2015), there is a presumption that claim terms with the word “means” invoke §112(f) and that claim terms without the word “means” do not. Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1348. This presumption is rebuttable if a challenger demonstrates that a claim term either fails to “recite sufficiently definite structure” (WIT1) or else recites “function without reciting sufficient structure for performing that function” (WIT2). See Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1348. WIT1 and WIT2 are in the alternative and thus a challenger need only demonstrate one of WIT1 or WIT2 for the claims to invoke §112(f). WIT1 and WIT2 are in the alternative and thus a challenger, i.e., the Examiners herein, need only demonstrate one of WIT1 or WIT2 for the particular claim language to invoke §112(f). The presumption against means-plus-function claiming is not “strong” and that a challenger need not show that the limitation is essentially devoid of anything that can be construed as structure; rather a challenger need only show that the structure is not sufficient for performing the claimed function. See Id. Sufficient structure exists when the claim language specifies the exact structure that performs the function in question without need to resort to other portions of the specification or extrinsic evidence for an adequate understanding of the structure. See TriMed, Inc. v. Stryker Corp. 4514 F.3d 1256, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
After a claimed phrase has been shown to invoke 35 U.S.C. §112(f), the next step is to determine the corresponding structure or material as described in the specification for performing the recited function. See MPEP §2181(II) and Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1351.
Examiners find herein that claims 1-20 include 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 limitations use 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. Each such limitation will be discussed in turn as follows.
B1. FL #1: “instructions for…” (Claims 1-10)
A first means-plus-function phrase is recited in claim 1 (and included in each of dependent claims 2-10), which recites “instructions for…” or hereinafter FL #1. Examiners determine herein that FL #1 meets the test of Williamson as discussed above and thus will be interpreted as a means-plus-function limitation under 35 U.S.C. §112(f).
The Examiners find that FL #1 in claim 1 recites:
…executable instructions for:
1) receiving said light data and determining therefrom at time t1 an absolute pose estimate of said pose by an absolute pose recovery technique selected from among geometric invariance, triangulation, ranging, path integration and motion analysis;
2) receiving said relative motion data and determining therefrom a relative pose change using inertial navigation equations;
3) providing upon a request at application request time tr said pose estimate with respect to world coordinates describing said real three-dimensional environment where said pose estimate is obtained by a combining technique that uses said absolute pose estimate for orientation of said manipulated object and for absolute position of a reference point on said manipulated object and numerical integration of said relative pose change with said absolute pose estimate as an initial condition…
(B1)(a) Claim Phrase FL #1 Predominately Functional
Examiners find the function associated with FL #1 recites a executable instructions in association with several functions (1) “receiving said light data and determining therefrom at time t1 an absolute pose estimate of said pose by an absolute pose recovery technique selected from among geometric invariance, triangulation, ranging, path integration and motion analysis;” (2) “receiving said relative motion data and determining therefrom a relative pose change using inertial navigation equations;” and (3) “providing upon a request at application request time tr said pose estimate with respect to world coordinates describing said real three-dimensional environment where said pose estimate is obtained by a combining technique that uses said absolute pose estimate for orientation of said manipulated object and for absolute position of a reference point on said manipulated object and numerical integration of said relative pose change with said absolute pose estimate as an initial condition.” Further, while Examiners do recognize that instructions merely implies some generic structures, i.e., generic computer code, Examiners nevertheless, find that FL #1 is predominately functional with respect to the functions of these instructions, rather than directed to the underlying structures thereof.
Examiners further note that because nothing in the written description contradicts the plain language describing this function, the functions within FL #1 will have their ordinary and accustomed meaning.
(B1)(b) Claim Phrase FL #1 Invokes
FL #1 invokes 35 U.S.C. §112(f) because "means ... for" type language is recited. Examiners first find that “instructions” is a generic placeholder or nonce term equivalent to “means” because while the term “instructions” does imply some structure, i.e., some generic computer code, it is not alone a sufficient structure for performing the functions of FL #1. Examiners further note that the specification of the present specification does not define “instructions” and thus the specification of the present specification does not impart or require any specific structure for the phrase. Furthermore, Examiners are unable to find in the specification use of the term “instructions” in association with the functions of FL #1. Thus, Examiners do not find that FL #1 recites sufficient structures for performing the functions of FL #1. Specifically herein, Examiners are relying on WIT2 that FL #1 recites “function without reciting sufficient structure for performing that functions.”
Instructions are definable as [a] statement or expression consisting of an operation and its operands(if any), which can be interpreted by a computer in order to perform some function or operation. See IEEE 100 The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms, 7th Ed. 2000. Accordingly, Examiners find that “instructions” as defined and known in the art a recited in FL #1 is merely some statement or expression to perform “some” undefined operation or function.
Furthermore, there is no disclosure or suggestion from the prior art that any “instructions" as interpreted above is a sufficient structure to perform the functions recited in FL #1. For example, Examiners find the relevant art and other arts are repleted with claims directed to “instructions” for performing a variety of different functions and operations. Accordingly, while “instructions” are used in the relevant and other arts, the use of this term generically in association with a special function to imply a special instructions based on the functions, not the term itself.
Finally, Examiners find this analysis is consistent with the Federal Circuit in Egenera, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 72 F.3d 1367, 2020 USPQ2d 10997 (Fed. Cir. 2020) wherein the court held that “logic to modify” in association with various functions invoked interpretation under 35 U.S.C. §112(f). Examiners find “instructions” as used in FL #1 is consistent with the manner to which “logic to modify” was considered in Egenera and would similarly invoke §112(f).
In view of the forgoing findings, Examiners find that while instructions imply some generic structure, such as a generic computer expressions/statements, Examiners find nothing in the specification, prosecution history or the prior art to construe “instructions…” in FL #1 as the name of a sufficiently definite structure for performing the functions recited in FL #1 so as to take the overall claim limitation out of the ambit of §112(f). See Williamson v. Citrix Online, L.L.C., 115 USPQ2d 1105, 1112 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Rather Examiners find that instructions or executable instructions is merely used in a generic sense as a nonce term equivalent to means as a generic base structure which has a special configuration or programming to perform the special functions recited in FL #1. Examiners do not find a sufficient algorithm implicit in FL #1 to perform the special functions recited in FL #1. Accordingly, Examiners do not find that the simple use of instructions alone is a sufficient for performing the claimed functions recited in FL #1 and thus conclude FL #1 invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. §112(f).
(B1)(c) Corresponding Structure
After a claimed phrase has been shown to invoke 35 U.S.C. §112(f), as found above, the next step is to determine the corresponding structure or material as described in the specification for performing the recited function. See MPEP §2181(II).
Based on a review of the common definitions of instructions as discussed above and the specific functions recited in FL #1, Examiners find that the instructions would be statements or expressions consisting of an operation and its operands which can be interpreted by a computer in order to perform the functions of FL #1.
Additionally, the functional aspects of the instructions of FL #1 are shown in the specification in FIG. 32, processor 1224 which according to programming instructions, would perform functions (1), (2) and (3). For example, as shown in FIG. 32, for function (1), processor receives the light data 1230 and generates an absolute pose estimate 1236 using a pose recovery technique, such as “including geometric invariance (among the geometric invariance approaches the ones using a collineation or a homography matrix are especially suitable for this task), triangulation, ranging, path integration and motion analysis.” See specification pages 117-118.
Further, as shown in FIG. 32, for function (2), processor receives the relative motion data 1242/1244 and generates a relative pose change 1250, which involves using “pre-processing and processing steps can include removal of the signal associated with the gravitational field ag (also previously referred to as just g) of Earth 1204 using sensor fusion techniques such as indirect Kalman filter methods fusing accelerometer and gyroscope data to estimate device orientation and linear acceleration.” See specification pages 121-122. “Relative orientation changes 1252 are reported as changes in terms of (Δφ,Δθ,Δψ) angles reported in auxiliary coordinates 1218. Similarly, relative position changes 1254 are reported as changes in terms of (Δ2x, Δ2y, Δ2z) with the second-order displacements being reported in auxiliary coordinates 1218. Furthermore, as noted at page 79-80 of the specification, the determination of the relative pose change uses inertial navigation equation as is well known in the art via the Woodman paper.
Third, as shown in FIG. 32, for function (3), processor 1224 receives the relative motion change 1250 and the absolute pose estimate 1236 and generates a pose estimate 1240. Furthermore, at stated in the specification at page 125, “[t]he next step in combining absolute and relative data involves a filling in, interpolation or other manner of combining absolute and relative data expressed in the same reference or coordinate system” which “integrates relative orientation changes (Δφj,Δθj,Δψj,tj)ro and relative second-order position changes (Δ2xk,Δ2yk,Δ2zk,tk)rp from time ti to time ti+1.” Further, the specification on page 127 states “FIG. 33 is a diagram that illustrates the process of obtaining and delivering a current pose estimate. Application 1228 issues a request 1256 for a pose estimate that is current to processor 1224 at an application request time tr. In other words, the current time is application request time tr and in this example it is between times ti and ti+1. Request 1256 can be one of many continuous requests or a standing request.”
As provided above, claim limitations invoking interpretation under 35 U.S.C. §112(f) are limited to those corresponding structures disclosed in the specification. Thus, Examiners find the specification links FL #1 to the corresponding structures of computer expressions and statements that embody the algorithm discussed above for receiving the light data and the relative motion data to generate an absolute pose estimate and relative pose change and for combining the data by filling in, interpolating the absolute pose estimate and the relative pose change to generate the pose estimate in the manner as discussed above. Accordingly, Examiners find FL #1 will be limited to these corresponding structures and equivalents thereof as required by 35 U.S.C. §112(f).
Regarding claim 3, Examiners find this claim further limits the function of FL #1 and invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. §112(f) for the same reason as for claim 1 above. Furthermore, FL #1 in claim 3 further specifically recites the pose technique uses “homography” and further the inertial navigation are “strapdown inertial navigation equations.” Thus, the corresponding structures of FL #1 in claim 3 will be narrowed with these features.
B2. FL #2: accepting/providing by a processor … (Claims 11-20)
A further means-plus-function type phrase is recited in claim 11 (and included in each of dependent claims 12-20), which recites the “providing by said processor to said application said pose estimate…” or hereinafter FL #2. Examiners determine herein that FL #2 meets the test provided by Williamson as discussed above and thus will be interpreted as a means-plus-function limitation under 35 U.S.C. §112(f). Specifically, Examiners find that the processor phrase recited in FL #2 is a means-plus-function limitation nested within method claims 11-20.
The Examiners find that FL #2 in claim 11 recites:
c) accepting by a processor connected to said photodetector and to said auxiliary motion detection component said light data and said relative motion data indicative of said change in said pose;
…
e) implementing executable instructions on said processor to provide to said application said pose estimate by:
1) determining an absolute pose estimate of said pose from said light data at time ti by an absolute pose recovery technique selected from among geometric invariance, triangulation, ranging, path integration and motion analysis;
2) determining from said relative motion data a relative pose change using inertial navigation equations;
3) expressing said pose estimate with respect to world coordinates describing said real three-dimensional environment where said pose estimate is obtained by a combining technique that uses said absolute pose estimate for orientation of said manipulated object and for absolute position of a reference point on said manipulated object and numerical integration of said relative pose change with said absolute pose estimate as an initial condition….
(B2)(a) Claim Phrase FL #2 Predominately Functional
Examiners find the function associated with FL #2 recites a processor in association, i.e., “for performing” several functions: “accepting … said light data and said relative motion data indicative of said change in said pose;” “determining an absolute pose estimate of said pose from said light data at time ti by an absolute pose recovery technique selected from among geometric invariance, triangulation, ranging, path integration and motion analysis;” “determining from said relative motion data a relative pose change using inertial navigation equations;” “expressing said pose estimate with respect to world coordinates describing said real three-dimensional environment where said pose estimate is obtained by a combining technique that uses said absolute pose estimate for orientation of said manipulated object and for absolute position of a reference point on said manipulated object and numerical integration of said relative pose change with said absolute pose estimate as an initial condition.” Further, while Examiners do recognize that processor implies some generic structures, Examiners nevertheless, find that FL #2 is predominately functional with respect to the functions of this processor, rather than directed to the underlying structures thereof. Furthermore, while Examiners recognize FL #2 recites the processor is “connected” to other structures, Examiners nevertheless find these connections do not imply any particular structures for the processor itself.
Examiners further note that because nothing in the written description contradicts the plain language describing this function, the functions within FL #2 will have their ordinary and accustomed meaning.
(B2)(b) Claim Phrase FL #2 Invokes
FL #2 invokes 35 U.S.C. §112(f) because "means ... for" type language is recited. Examiners first find that “processor” is a generic placeholder or nonce term equivalent to “means” because while the term “processor” does imply some structure, it is not alone a sufficient structure for performing the functions of FL #2. Examiners further note that the specification of the present specification does not define “processor” and thus the specification of the present specification does not impart or require any specific structure for the phrase. Thus, Examiners do not find that FL #2 recites sufficient structures for performing the functions of FL #2. Specifically herein, Examiners are relying on WIT2 that FL #2 recites “function without reciting sufficient structure for performing that functions.”
Processor is definable as (1) a data processor, (2) a system or mechanism that accepts a program as input, prepares it for execution and executes the process so defined with data to produce results or (3) a computer program. See IEEE 100 The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms, 7th Ed. 2000. Processor is also definable as (1) a computer, (2) a central processing unit or (3) a program that translates another program into a form acceptable by the computer being used. See American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 4th Ed., 2006. Accordingly, Examiners find processor in general can be defined or interpretable as either the entire computer, a processing portion of a computer or simply a computer program. However, because FL #2 requires a connection of the processor to the photodetector and the auxiliary motion sensor, FL #2 excludes the interpretation that processor is software only. Accordingly, Examiners find that “processor” as recited in FL #2 is interpretable as either a generic computer or a processing portion of a generic computer.
Furthermore, there is no disclosure or suggestion from the prior art that any “processor" as interpreted above is a sufficient structure to perform the functions recited in FL #2. For example, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0202114, claim 16 recites “a processor executing a game presentation module…,” U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0168437, claim 16 recites “a processor for preparing pose data corresponding to said pose and identifying a subset of said pose data…” and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0073508 recites “a processor that processes signals from the light sensors to determine a sequence of positions of the writing instrument.” Examiners find that each of these prior art references use processor in association with distinct functions from each other and that of FL #2 which would require either distinct hardware and/or software to perform these distinct functions. Thus, Examiners find that each of these processors are distinct special purpose processors to perform their associated distinct functions. Accordingly, while each of these prior art references use the term “processor,” including the claims herein, they use this term generically in association with a special function to imply a special purpose processor.
Similarly, the present specification discusses processor in association with distinct functions. For example, the embodiment shown in FIG. 1 shows a processor 26 that determines a pose estimate based only on light data, whereas FIG. 19 shows a processor 805 that determines pose based on light data and relative motion data. Examiners find that clearly these would be different processors, having distinct hardware and/or software to perform these distinct functions. Accordingly, while the present specification uses the term “processor” it uses this term generically in association with different special functions to imply a different special purpose processor for each embodiment.
In view of the forgoing findings, Examiners find that while processor implies some generic structure, such as a generic computer or a processing portion of a computer, Examiners find nothing in the specification, prosecution history or the prior art to construe “processor…” in FL #2 as the name of a sufficiently definite structure for performing the functions recited in FL #2 so as to take the overall claim limitation out of the ambit of §112(f). See Williamson v. Citrix Online, L.L.C., 115 USPQ2d 1105, 1112 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Rather Examiners find that processor is merely used in a generic sense as a nonce term equivalent to means as a generic base structure which has a special configuration or programming to perform the special functions recited in FL #2. Examiners do not find a sufficient algorithm implicit in FL #2 to perform the special functions recited in FL #2. Accordingly, Examiners do not find that the simple use of processor alone is a sufficient for performing the claimed functions recited in FL #2 and thus conclude FL #2 invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. §112(f).
(B2)(b) Corresponding Structure
After a claimed phrase has been shown to invoke 35 U.S.C. §112(f), as found above, the next step is to determine the corresponding structure or material as described in the specification for performing the recited function. See MPEP §2181(II).
Based on a review of the common definitions of processor as discussed above and the specific functions recited in FL #2, Examiners find that a special purpose processor would be required to perform the recited functions, i.e., a specifical purpose computer or a special processing portion of a computer. Based upon a review of the specification, the Examiners find that one example for the processor of FL #2 would be the computer 940 shown in FIG. 22, which would comprise a memory and a central processing unit. Furthermore, specification at page 36 states the processor may be combination of units on a computing device. Furthermore, Examiners find the steps of accepting data are ordinary functions of any processor, CPU or GPU.
Additionally, the functional aspects of the processor of FL #2 are shown in the specification in FIG. 32, processor 1224, which illustrates the general processor that performs functions noted above. For example, as shown in FIG. 32, for the first function, processor receives the light data 1230 and generates an absolute pose estimate 1236 using a pose recovery technique, such as “including geometric invariance (among the geometric invariance approaches the ones using a collineation or a homography matrix are especially suitable for this task), triangulation, ranging, path integration and motion analysis.” See specification pages 117-118.
Further, as shown in FIG. 32, for the next function, processor receives the relative motion data 1242/1244 and generates a relative pose change 1250, which involves using “pre-processing and processing steps can include removal of the signal associated with the gravitational field ag (also previously referred to as just g) of Earth 1204 using sensor fusion techniques such as indirect Kalman filter methods fusing accelerometer and gyroscope data to estimate device orientation and linear acceleration.” See specification pages 121-122. “Relative orientation changes 1252 are reported as changes in terms of (Δφ,Δθ,Δψ) angles reported in auxiliary coordinates 1218. Similarly, relative position changes 1254 are reported as changes in terms of (Δ2x, Δ2y, Δ2z) with the second-order displacements being reported in auxiliary coordinates 1218. Furthermore, as noted at page 79-80 of the specification, the determination of the relative pose change uses inertial navigation equation as is well known in the art via the Woodman paper.
Third, as shown in FIG. 32, for the third function, processor 1224 receives the relative motion change 1250 and the absolute pose estimate 1236 and generates a pose estimate 1240. Furthermore, at stated in the specification at page 125, “[t]he next step in combining absolute and relative data involves a filling in, interpolation or other manner of combining absolute and relative data expressed in the same reference or coordinate system” which “integrates relative orientation changes (Δφj,Δθj,Δψj,tj)ro and relative second-order position changes (Δ2xk,Δ2yk,Δ2zk,tk)rp from time ti to time ti+1.” Further, the specification on page 127 states “FIG. 33 is a diagram that illustrates the process of obtaining and delivering a current pose estimate. Application 1228 issues a request 1256 for a pose estimate that is current to processor 1224 at an application request time tr. In other words, the current time is application request time tr and in this example it is between times ti and ti+1. Request 1256 can be one of many continuous requests or a standing request.”
As provided above, claim limitations invoking interpretation under 35 U.S.C. §112(f) are limited to those corresponding structures disclosed in the specification. Thus, Examiners find the specification links FL #2 to the corresponding structures of a computer comprising a central processing unit and a memory with software instruction or a specially programmed processing unit with software instructions wherein the computer and the programmed processor embody the algorithm discussed above for receiving the light data and the relative motion data to generate an absolute pose estimate and relative pose change and for combining the data by filling in, interpolating the absolute pose estimate and the relative pose change to generate the pose estimate in the manner as discussed above. Accordingly, Examiners find FL #2 will be limited to these corresponding structures and equivalents thereof as required by 35 U.S.C. §112(f).
Regarding claim 13, Examiners find this claim further limits the function of FL #2 and invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. §112(f) for the same reason as for claim 1 above. Furthermore, FL #2 in claim 13 further specifically recites the pose technique uses “homography” and further the inertial navigation are “strapdown inertial navigation equations.” Thus, the corresponding structures of FL #2 in claim 3 will be narrowed with these features.
V.C. Conclusion of Claim Interpretation
In view of the forgoing, Examiners will interpret FL #1 and FL #2 in the manner as provided above. Because no remaining limitations invoke interpretation under 35 U.S.C. §112(f) and are not lexicographically defined, the remaining limitations will be interpreted using the broadest reasonable interpretation.
VI. COMPACT PROSECUTION
The Examiners find that because claims 1-10 are indefinite under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) as outlined above, it is impossible to properly construe claim scope at this time. See Honeywell International Inc. v. ITC, 68 USPQ2d 1023, 1030 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“Because the claims are indefinite, the claims, by definition, cannot be construed.”). However, in accordance with MPEP §2173.06 and the USPTO’s policy of trying to advance prosecution by providing art rejections even though these claims are indefinite, the claims are construed and the art is applied as much as practically possible in the following art rejections.
For example, as noted in the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) above, Examiners find two plausible interpretations of claims 1-10, i.e., a first interpretation wherein claims 1-10 include only a photodetector, an auxiliary motion detection component and a processor without regard to what the processor is doing or any instructions, and a second interpretation interpreting claims 1-10 as explicitly written requiring a photodetector, an auxiliary motion detection component and a processor and further require the processor to be specifically performing a method step of implementing instructions. Nevertheless, Examiners find the art cited in this reissue application read on both interpretations and thus Examiners will provide alternate rejections of claims 1-10 applying each of the first and second interpretations.
VII. CLAIM REJECTIONS – 35 U.S.C. §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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
VII.A. Anticipation Rejections Applying 915 Publication
Claims 1, 2, 4 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0227915 to Michael Mandella et al. (hereinafter the “915 Publication”). Examiners note this rejection is applying the first interpretation discussed above wherein claims 1-10 include only a photodetector, an auxiliary motion detection component and a processor without regard to what the processor is doing or any instructions.
Regarding claim 1, the embodiment of FIG. 25A of the 915 Publication discloses:
1. A system for generating input data from a pose estimate of a pose assumed by a manipulated object in a real three-dimensional environment that has optical features, said system comprising:
See 915 Publication FIG. 25A reprinted below, and disclosure related thereto.
PNG
media_image1.png
568
530
media_image1.png
Greyscale
915 Publication FIG. 25A
a) a photodetector on-board said manipulated object for accepting light from said optical features and generating light data corresponding to said optical features;
See 915 Publication FIG. 25A above, photodetector 1026 on manipulated object 1012.
b) an auxiliary motion detection component on-board said manipulated object for generating relative motion data indicative of a change in said pose;
See 915 Publication FIG. 25A above, relative motion sensor 1014 on manipulated object 1012.
c) a processor connected to said photodetector and with said auxiliary motion detection component,
See 915 Publication ¶¶0264-0273 wherein the controller 1032 embodied as a television box, game console or computing device having programming and receives the light data and the relative motion data and determines a pose estimate which is sent to an application running on circuitry 1034 within the controller. The computing device being a processor.
said processor implementing executable instructions for:
1) receiving said light data and determining therefrom at time t1 an absolute pose estimate of said pose by an absolute pose recovery technique selected from among geometric invariance, triangulation, ranging, path integration and motion analysis;
2) receiving said relative motion data and determining therefrom a relative pose change using inertial navigation equations;
3) providing upon a request at application request time tr said pose estimate with respect to world coordinates describing said real three-dimensional environment where said pose estimate is obtained by a combining technique that uses said absolute pose estimate for orientation of said manipulated object and for absolute position of a reference point on said manipulated object and numerical integration of said relative pose change with said absolute pose estimate as an initial condition;
Examiners note this limitation merely recites what the processor is doing and does not limit the process, i.e., an apparatus claim covers what a device is, not what a device does. Thus, the processor/computing device of the 915 Publication reads on what the claimed processor is, regardless of what it is doing.
d) an application in communication with said processor for receiving said pose estimate from said processor and using said pose estimate for generating said input data.
See 915 Publication ¶¶0264-0284, particularly ¶0274 wherein the application running on circuitry in controller 1032 creates an input for a visual display 1044 with cursor movement based on pose of manipulated object 1012. See further ¶0284 wherein “other subsets of absolute and relative orientation and position data can be used to produce useful input for the application of system 1010.”
Regarding claim 2, the 915 Publication discloses the system of claim 1 and further teaches:
said auxiliary motion detection component comprises at least one relative motion sensor selected from the group consisting of accelerometers, gyroscopes, optical flow measuring units, electronic magnetic sensing components and wherein said change in said pose comprises at least one of a change in an orientation and a change in a position.
See 915 Publication ¶0258 wherein the auxiliary motion detection component comprises an accelerometer and a gyroscope.
Regarding claim 4, the 915 Publication and Li teach the system of claim 1 and further wherein:
said manipulated object is selected from the group consisting of wands, remote controls, three-dimensional mice, game controls, gaming objects, jotting implements, surgical implements, three dimensional digitizers, digitizing styli, hand-held tools, smart phones, tablets, wearable articles and utensils.
See 915 Publication ¶0259 and FIG. 25A above, manipulated object 1012 is a wand.
Regarding claim 7, the 915 Publication and Li teach the system of claim 1 and further wherein:
said optical features are selected from the group consisting of active optical features and passive optical features.
See 915 Publication FIG. 25A above, active optical features, i.e., light sources 1022.
Regarding claim 8, the 915 Publication and Li teach the system of claim 7 and further wherein:
said active optical features are modulated to produce an emission pattern that is temporally varied.
See 915 Publication FIG. 25A above and ¶¶0260-0261 and 0271-0272 wherein the light sources 1022 are modulated.
Regarding claim 9, the 915 Publication teaches the system of claim 7 and further wherein:
said active optical features are disposed in a predetermined pattern at known locations in world coordinates.
See 915 Publication FIG. 25A above, note positions of the light sources 1022.
VIII. CLAIM REJECTIONS – 35 U.S.C. §103
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.
VIII.A. Rejections of Claims 1, 2, 4-12 and 14-20 Over 915 Publication and Li
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over distinct embodiments of the 915 Publication in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0196851 to Rongsheng Li (hereinafter “Li”). Examiners note this rejection applying the second interpretation interpreting claims 1-10 as explicitly written requiring a photodetector, an auxiliary motion detection component and a processor and further require the processor to be specifically performing a method step of implementing instructions.
Regarding claim 1, the embodiment of FIG. 25A of the 915 Publication and Li teaches:
1. A system for generating input data from a pose estimate of a pose assumed by a manipulated object in a real three-dimensional environment that has optical features, said system comprising:
See 915 Publication FIG. 25A reprinted below, and disclosure related thereto.
PNG
media_image1.png
568
530
media_image1.png
Greyscale
915 Publication FIG. 25A
a) a photodetector on-board said manipulated object for accepting light from said optical features and generating light data corresponding to said optical features;
See 915 Publication FIG. 25A above, photodetector 1026 on manipulated object 1012.
b) an auxiliary motion detection component on-board said manipulated object for generating relative motion data indicative of a change in said pose;
See 915 Publication FIG. 25A above, relative motion sensor 1014 on manipulated object 1012.
c) a processor connected to said photodetector and with said auxiliary motion detection component, said processor implementing instructions for:
1) receiving said light data and determining therefrom at time t1 an absolute pose estimate of said pose by an absolute pose recovery technique selected from among geometric invariance, triangulation, ranging, path integration and motion analysis;
2) receiving said relative motion data and determining therefrom a relative pose change using inertial navigation equations;
3) providing upon a request at application request time tr said pose estimate with respect to world coordinates describing said real three-dimensional environment where said pose estimate is obtained by a combining technique that uses said absolute pose estimate for orientation of said manipulated object and for absolute position of a reference point on said manipulated object and numerical integration of said relative pose change with said absolute pose estimate as an initial condition;
First see 915 Publication ¶¶0264-0273 wherein the controller 1032 embodied as a television box, game console or computing device having programming and receives the light data and the relative motion data and determines a pose estimate which is sent to an application running on circuitry 1034 within the controller. The computing device being a processor.
Next, note claim interpretation section above regarding FL #1 wherein this functional limitation is limited to the corresponding structures of computer expressions and statements that embody the algorithm discussed above for receiving the light data and the relative motion data to generate an absolute pose estimate and relative pose change and for combining the data by filling in, interpolating the absolute pose estimate and the relative pose change to generate the pose estimate in the manner as discussed above.
Thus, see 915 Publication ¶¶0264-0273 wherein the controller 1032 embodied as a television box, game console or computing device having programming and receives the light data and the relative motion data and determines a pose estimate which is sent to an application running on circuitry 1034 within the controller and further “the use of relative motion data for interpolation has been described above (see, e.g., FIG. 21 and associated description) and will not be repeated here.” This computing device would be implementing the instructions for the cited operations.
Further see the 915 Publication at ¶¶0270-0272 wherein absolute pose estimate/data is inferred from the light data. See also 915 Publication ¶0075 wherein pose data is obtained “with any well-known absolute pose recovery technique including geometric invariance, triangulation, ranging, path integration and motion analysis.”
Further see the 915 Publication at ¶0217 and ¶0223 wherein the relative motion devices detect relative motion data which is integrated to “relative changes in pose.” However, while there is impliedly an algorithm or equations for this integration, the 915 Publication does not explicitly disclose the use of inertial navigation equations or inertial strapdown equations. Nevertheless, Li teaches “[t]he inertial navigation module 26 is software that implements the classical “strapdown inertial navigation equations” (widely known in the art) which integrate the gyro data (rotation rate or delta angle) into attitude and transforms the accelerometer data (specific source or delta velocity) into a reference frame such as ECI, ECEF or local level frame. The transformed acceleration is then integrated into velocity and then integrated into position.” See Li ¶0051. It would have been obvious at the time the invention was filed to use strapdown equations when formulating the relative motion changes in the system of the 915 Publication as taught by Li. One having ordinary skill in the art would do so because as noted in Li, such strapdown equations are “widely known in the art” for transforming the relative motion data, i.e., acceleration and velocity data, into position data. See Li as quoted above. Thus, the proposed use of such strapdown inertial navigation equations would be obvious and predictable.
Finally see the 915 Publication at ¶¶0273-0274 and ¶¶0213-218 wherein the pose estimate comprising the orientation and absolute position of the object and relative motion data are combined using sensor fusion wherein the light data is used at times ti and the relative motions data is used between these times in association with the light data to determine absolute pose. Further, the present application states “the absolute pose inferred from the light data at time ti is used as the required initial condition.” See present specification page 126. Thus, the 915 Publication disclosed wherein the light data and relative motion data are integrated using fusion with the absolute pose estimates at time ti from the light data as an initial condition between the times ti and ti+1.
However, while the embodiment of FIG. 25A of the 915 Publication teaches the processor sending the pose estimate to the application to create the visual image 1044, this embodiment does not disclose providing such information upon a request. Nevertheless, earlier embodiments teach a system wherein the processor sends pose data or subsets thereof to the application at the request of the application. For example, the embodiment of FIG. 1 at ¶0101 teaches wherein the “application 28 passes information to processor 26 to change the selection criteria for subset 48” and “application 28 requests subset 48A to be transmitted and uses subset 48A as input data for data file 70” and “[a]t other times, application 28 requests subset 48C to be transmitted and uses subset 48C as command data for executable command 66.” It would have been obvious at the time the invention was filed to provide the pose estimate from the processor at the request of the application in the embodiment of FIG. 25A of the 915 Publication. One having ordinary skill in the art would do because as quoted above, it allows for the application to change the criteria for the pose estimate input therein.
d) an application in communication with said processor for receiving said pose estimate from said processor and using said pose estimate for generating said input data.
See 915 Publication ¶¶0264-0284, particularly ¶0274 wherein the application running on circuitry in controller 1032 creates an input for a visual display 1044 with cursor movement based on pose of manipulated object 1012. See further ¶0284 wherein “other subsets of absolute and relative orientation and position data can be used to produce useful input for the application of system 1010.”
Regarding claim 2, the 915 Publication and Li teach the system of claim 1 and further teaches:
said auxiliary motion detection component comprises at least one relative motion sensor selected from the group consisting of accelerometers, gyroscopes, optical flow measuring units, electronic magnetic sensing components and wherein said change in said pose comprises at least one of a change in an orientation and a change in a position.
See 915 Publication ¶0258 wherein the auxiliary motion detection component comprises an accelerometer and a gyroscope.
Regarding claim 4, the 915 Publication and Li teach the system of claim 1 and further wherein:
said manipulated object is selected from the group consisting of wands, remote controls, three-dimensional mice, game controls, gaming objects, jotting implements, surgical implements, three dimensional digitizers, digitizing styli, hand-held tools, smart phones, tablets, wearable articles and utensils.
See 915 Publication ¶0259 and FIG. 25A above, manipulated object 1012 is a wand.
Regarding claim 7, the 915 Publication and Li teach the system of claim 1 and further wherein:
said optical features are selected from the group consisting of active optical features and passive optical features.
See 915 Publication FIG. 25A above, active optical features, i.e., light sources 1022.
Regarding claim 8, the 915 Publication and Li teach the system of claim 7 and further wherein:
said active optical features are modulated to produce an emission pattern that is temporally varied.
See 915 Publication FIG. 25A above and ¶¶0260-0261 and 0271-0272 wherein the light sources 1022 are modulated.
Regarding claim 9, the 915 Publication and Li teach the system of claim 7 and further wherein:
said active optical features are disposed in a predetermined pattern at known locations in world coordinates.
See 915 Publication FIG. 25A above, note positions of the light sources 1022.
Regarding claim 11, the embodiment of FIGS. 25A and 1 of the 915 Publication and Li teaches:
11. A method for generating input data from a pose estimate of a pose assumed by a manipulated object in a real three- dimensional environment that has optical features, said method comprising:
See FIG. 25A above and ¶¶0258-0284.
a) detecting by a photodetector mounted on-board said manipulated object light from said optical features and generating light data corresponding to said optical features;
See 915 Publication FIG. 25A above, photodetector 1026 on manipulated object which detects light from optical features.
b) generating by an auxiliary motion detection component mounted on-board said manipulated object relative motion data indicative of a change in said pose;
See 915 Publication FIG. 25A above, relative motion sensor 1014 on manipulated object 1012 for measuring relative motion.
c) accepting by a processor connect to said photodetector and to said auxiliary motion detection component said light data and said relative motion data indicative of said change in said pose;
Note claim interpretation section above regarding FL #1 wherein this functional limitation is limited to a central processing unit, a memory for holding software instructions and those software instructions embodying the algorithm discussed above for receiving the light data and the relative motion data to generate an absolute pose estimate and relative pose change and for combining the data by filling in, interpolating the absolute pose estimate and the relative pose change to generate the pose estimate in the manner as discussed above.
Thus, see 915 Publication ¶¶0264-0273 wherein the controller 1032 embodied as a television box, game console or computing device having programming and receives the light data and the relative motion data and determines a pose estimate which is sent to an application running on circuitry 1034 within the controller and further “the use of relative motion data for interpolation has been described above (see, e.g., FIG. 21 and associated description) and will not be repeated here.”
d) issuing a request from an application to said processor for said pose estimate at an application request time tr;
The embodiment of FIG. 25A of the 915 Publication teaches the processor sending the pose estimate to the application to create the visual image 1044; however, this embodiment does not disclose providing such information upon a request. Nevertheless, earlier embodiments teach a system wherein the processor sends pose data or subsets thereof to the application at the request of the application. For example, the embodiment of FIG. 1 at ¶0101 teaches wherein the “application 28 passes information to processor 26 to change the selection criteria for subset 48” and “application 28 requests subset 48A to be transmitted and uses subset 48A as input data for data file 70” and “[a]t other times, application 28 requests subset 48C to be transmitted and uses subset 48C as command data for executable command 66.” It would have been obvious at the time the invention was filed to provide the pose estimate from the processor at the request of the application in the embodiment of FIG. 25A of the 915 Publication. One having ordinary skill in the art would do because as quoted above, it allows for the application to change the criteria for the pose estimate input therein.
e) implementing executable instructions on said processor to said application to provide said pose estimate by:
1) determining an absolute pose estimate of said pose from said light data at time ti by an absolute pose recovery technique selected from among geometric invariance, triangulation, ranging, path integration and motion analysis;
2) determining from said relative motion data a relative pose change using inertial navigation equations;
3) expressing said pose estimate with respect to world coordinates describing said real three-dimensional environment where said pose estimate is obtained by a combining technique that uses said absolute pose estimate for orientation of said manipulated object and for absolute position of a reference point on said manipulated object and numerical integration of said relative pose change with said absolute pose estimate as an initial condition;
Note claim interpretation section above regarding FL #2 wherein this functional limitation is limited to a central processing unit, a memory for holding software instructions and those software instructions embodying the algorithm discussed above for receiving the light data and the relative motion data to generate an absolute pose estimate and relative pose change and for combining the data by filling in, interpolating the absolute pose estimate and the relative pose change to generate the pose estimate in the manner as discussed above.
Thus, see 915 Publication ¶¶0264-0273 wherein the controller 1032 embodied as a television box, game console or computing device having programming and receives the light data and the relative motion data and determines a pose estimate which is sent to an application running on circuitry 1034 within the controller and further “the use of relative motion data for interpolation has been described above (see, e.g., FIG. 21 and associated description) and will not be repeated here.”
Further see the 915 Publication at ¶¶0270-0272 wherein absolute pose estimate/data is inferred from the light data. See also 915 Publication ¶0075 wherein pose data is obtained “with any well-known absolute pose recovery technique including geometric invariance, triangulation, ranging, path integration and motion analysis.”
Further see the 915 Publication at ¶0217 and ¶0223 wherein the relative motion devices detect relative motion data which is integrated to “relative changes in pose.” However, while there is impliedly an algorithm or equations for this integration, the 915 Publication does not explicitly disclose the use of inertial navigation equations or inertial strapdown equations. Nevertheless, Li teaches “[t]he inertial navigation module 26 is software that implements the classical “strapdown inertial navigation equations” (widely known in the art) which integrate the gyro data (rotation rate or delta angle) into attitude and transforms the accelerometer data (specific source or delta velocity) into a reference frame such as ECI, ECEF or local level frame. The transformed acceleration is then integrated into velocity and then integrated into position.” See Li ¶0051. It would have been obvious at the time the invention was filed to use strapdown equations when formulating the relative motion changes in the system of the 915 Publication as taught by Li. One having ordinary skill in the art would do so because as noted in Li, such strapdown equations are “widely known in the art” for transforming the relative motion data, i.e., acceleration and velocity data, into position data. See Li as quoted above. Thus, the proposed use of such strapdown inertial navigation equations would be obvious and predictable.
Finally see the 915 Publication at ¶¶0273-0274 and ¶¶0213-218 wherein the pose estimate comprising the orientation and absolute position of the object and relative motion data are combined using sensor fusion wherein the light data is used at times ti and the relative motions data is used between these times in association with the light data to determine absolute pose. Further, the present application states “the absolute pose inferred from the light data at time ti is used as the required initial condition.” See present specification page 126. Thus, the 915 Publication disclosed wherein the light data and relative motion data are integrated using fusion with the absolute pose estimates at time ti from the light data as an initial condition between the times ti and ti+1.
Regarding claim 12, the 915 Publication and Li teach the method of claim 11 and further wherein:
said auxiliary motion detection component comprises at least one relative motion sensor selected from the group consisting of accelerometers, gyroscopes, optical flow measuring units, electronic magnetic sensing components and wherein said change in said pose comprises at least one of a change in an orientation and a change in a position.
See 915 Publication ¶0258 wherein the auxiliary motion detection component comprises an accelerometer and a gyroscope.
Regarding claim 14, the 915 Publication and Li teach the method of claim 11 and further wherein:
said manipulated object is selected from the group consisting of wands, remote controls, three-dimensional mice, game controls, gaming objects, jotting implements, surgical implements, three dimensional digitizers, digitizing styli, hand-held tools, smart phones, tablets, wearable articles and utensils.
See 915 Publication ¶0259 and FIG. 25A above, manipulated object 1012 is a wand.
Regarding claim 17, the 915 Publication and Li teach the method of claim 11 and further wherein:
said optical features are selected from the group consisting of active optical features and passive optical features.
See 915 Publication FIG. 25A above, active optical features, i.e., light sources 1022.
Regarding claim 18, the 915 Publication and Li teach the method of claim 17 and further wherein:
said active optical features are modulated to produce an emission pattern that is temporally varied.
See 915 Publication FIG. 25A above and ¶¶0260-0261 and 0271-0272 wherein the light sources 1022 are modulated.
Regarding claim 19, the 915 Publication and Li teach the method of claim 17 and further wherein:
said active optical features are disposed in a predetermined pattern at known locations in world coordinates.
See 915 Publication FIG. 25A above, note positions of the light sources 1022.
Regarding claims 5, 6 and 10 and 15, 16 and 20, Examiners note that the proposed combination of embodiments of FIGS. 25A and 1 of the 915 Publication in view of Li teaches the features of claims 1, 4, 10 and 14 as discussed above, and further the use of a wand as the manipulated object for screen inputs, but not wherein the manipulated object is part of virtual reality glasses for input into a virtual reality application. Nevertheless, another embodiment of the 915 Publication, the embodiment shown FIG. 23, reprinted below, teaches another embodiment of the pose generating system, but used in a virtual reality simulation application. See 915 Publication ¶0247.
PNG
media_image2.png
577
576
media_image2.png
Greyscale
915 Publication FIG. 23
Furthermore, as stated in ¶0243 and ¶0249, the glasses 952B are provided with arrangements to infer the pose of the glasses, which is then sent to the virtual reality application 970 running on computer 964. Furthermore, as stated in ¶0248, the glasses 952B themselves can be equipped with an integrated “virtual retinal display.”
It would have been obvious at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the pose determination arrangement of the manipulated object in the wand of the proposed combination of embodiments FIGS. 25A and 1 and Li into the glasses of embodiment of FIG. 23, wherein the processor and sensors are mounted on the manipulated object, i.e., glasses 952B, for operation with the virtual reality game application 970. Thus, this modification teaches that the application is a virtual reality application, the manipulated object is virtual reality glasses and the processor is located on-board said manipulated object which reads on the features recited in claims 5, 6, 10, 15, 16 and 20. One having ordinary skill in the art would combine the embodiments as proposed because as stated in ¶0250 of the 915 Publication:
A person skilled in the art will realize that the application will be important in dictating the appropriate selection of manipulated object or objects. In principle, however, there is no limitation on what kind of object can be outfitted with an on-board optical arrangement for inferring its absolute pose with respect to a reference location in global coordinates parametrizing any given real three-dimensional environment. Of course, many applications that simulate the real world and many gaming applications, virtual reality simulations and augmented reality in particular, may request subsets that include all absolute pose data (ϕ,Ф,ψ,x,y,z). This request may be necessary to perform one-to-one mapping between space and the cyberspace or virtual space employed by the application. [emphasis added by Examiners]
Furthermore, as stated in the ¶0076 of the 915 Publication, “processor 26 can be located on pointer 14 or it can be remote, e.g., located in a remote host device, as is the case in this embodiment.”
VIII.B. Rejections of Claims 3 and 13 Over 915 Publication, Li and 549 Publication
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over the 915 Publication in view Li as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0038549 to Michael Mandella et al. (hereinafter the “549 Publication”).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, the 915 Publication and Li teaches the system of claim 1 and the method of claim 11 and further teaches:
said absolute pose recovery technique uses a motion analysis,
said combining technique includes interpolation of said absolute pose estimate between times ti and ti+1, and said numerical integration of said relative pose change is performed between times ti and ti+1, where said inertial navigation equations are using strapdown inertial navigation equations.
See discussion above for claims 1 and 11 wherein the 915 Publication discloses various techniques for determining the absolute pose. Further see discussion above for claims 1 and 11 wherein the combination of the 915 Publication and Li discloses using interpolation of the absolute pose estimate and the relative pose change, and the inertial navigation equations are strapdown inertial navigation equations.
However, the 915 Publication does not explicitly teach using homography in its absolute pose determination. Nevertheless, the 549 Publication teaches using homography in its determination of pose. See 549 Publication ¶0231 wherein “it employs a type of algorithm generally referred to in the art as pose estimation through comparison,” “[i]n this approach a database of screen images 128' obtained at different rotations and translations is compared to the complete image description provided by unit 202” and “such comparison preferably employs a homography.” It would thus have been obvious at the time the invention was filed to use homography in the pose estimate as taught by the 549 Publication in the pose estimate of the 915 Publication. One having ordinary skill in the art would do so because as noted in the 549 Publication, using homography adds “efficiency” to the comparison for mapping images to determine the pose estimate. See 549 Publication ¶0231.
VIII.C. Rejections of Claims 1, 2, 4-12 and 14-20 Over Yu, 915 Publication and Li
Claims 1, 2, 4-12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being obvious over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0082420 to Yu et al. (hereinafter “Yu”) in view of the 915 Publication and Li.
Regarding claim 1, the Yu, 915 Publication and Li teaches:
1. A system for generating input data from a pose estimate of a pose assumed by a manipulated object in a real three-dimensional environment that has optical features, said system comprising:
See Yu FIG. 1, reprinted below, and ¶0139 wherein the extended reality (XR) system of FIG. 1 can be included in head mounted display/manipulated object shown in FIG. 8A, also reprinted below).
PNG
media_image3.png
480
667
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Yu FIG. 1
PNG
media_image4.png
241
463
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Yu FIG. 8A
a) a photodetector on-board said manipulated object for accepting light from said optical features and generating light data corresponding to said optical features;
See Yu FIG. 1 above, image sensor 102 on manipulated object.
b) an auxiliary motion detection component on-board said manipulated object for generating relative motion data indicative of a change in said pose;
See Yu FIG. 1 above, relative motion sensors 104 and 106.
c) a processor connected to said photodetector and with said auxiliary motion detection component, said processor implementing instructions for:
1) receiving said light data and determining therefrom at time t1 an absolute pose estimate of said pose by an absolute pose recovery technique selected from among geometric invariance, triangulation, ranging, path integration and motion analysis;
2) receiving said relative motion data and determining therefrom a relative pose change using inertial navigation equations;
3) providing upon a request at application request time tr said pose estimate with respect to world coordinates describing said real three-dimensional environment where said pose estimate is obtained by a combining technique that uses said absolute pose estimate for orientation of said manipulated object and for absolute position of a reference point on said manipulated object and numerical integration of said relative pose change with said absolute pose estimate as an initial condition;
See Yu FIG. 1 above, computing components 110 comprising CPU, GPU, DSP and ISP and/or XR engine 120. Further see ¶0072-0080 wherein this processor/computing components 110 and/or XR engine 120 performs pose estimation based on the light data and relative motion data and thus discloses combining the data in an “other manner of combining such data.” Thus, Yu discloses the processor that receives the light and relative motion data and implements instructions.
Next, note claim interpretation section above regarding FL #1 wherein this functional limitation is limited to the corresponding structures of computer expressions and statements that embody the algorithm discussed above for receiving the light data and the relative motion data to generate an absolute pose estimate and relative pose change and for combining the data by filling in, interpolating the absolute pose estimate and the relative pose change to generate the pose estimate in the manner as discussed above.
Thus, see Yu FIG. 9, reprinted below, and ¶¶0142-0150 wherein at steps 902 and 904, the extended reality program running on the XR system 100. Specifically,
PNG
media_image5.png
329
437
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Yu FIG. 9
the extended reality application sends a request to display media content on the display device in the virtual reality glasses 810. After receiving this request, the pose estimate is determined at step 904 and sent to the application on the XR system 100.
However, while Yu discloses the fusing or combining of its light data and relative motion data to determine absolute pose, Yu does not explicitly teach the particular fusion algorithm or the manner to which the absolute pose estimate and the relative pose change are determined.
Nevertheless, see the 915 Publication at ¶¶0270-0272 wherein absolute pose estimate/data is inferred from the light data. See also 915 Publication ¶0075 wherein pose data is obtained “with any well-known absolute pose recovery technique including geometric invariance, triangulation, ranging, path integration and motion analysis.”
Further see the 915 Publication at ¶0217 and ¶0223 wherein the relative motion devices detect relative motion data which is integrated to “relative changes in pose.” However, while there is impliedly an algorithm or equations for this integration, the 915 Publication does not explicitly disclose the use of inertial navigation equations or inertial strapdown equations. Nevertheless, Li teaches “[t]he inertial navigation module 26 is software that implements the classical “strapdown inertial navigation equations” (widely known in the art) which integrate the gyro data (rotation rate or delta angle) into attitude and transforms the accelerometer data (specific source or delta velocity) into a reference frame such as ECI, ECEF or local level frame. The transformed acceleration is then integrated into velocity and then integrated into position.” See Li ¶0051. It would have been obvious at the time the invention was filed to use strapdown equations when formulating the relative motion changes in the system of the 915 Publication as taught by Li. One having ordinary skill in the art would do so because as noted in Li, such strapdown equations are “widely known in the art” for transforming the relative motion data, i.e., acceleration and velocity data, into position data. See Li as quoted above. Thus, the proposed use of such strapdown inertial navigation equations would be obvious and predictable.
Finally see the 915 Publication at ¶¶0273-0274 and ¶¶0213-218 wherein the pose estimate comprising the orientation and absolute position of the object and relative motion data are combined using sensor fusion wherein the light data is used at times ti and the relative motions data is used between these times in association with the light data to determine absolute pose. Further, the present application states “the absolute pose inferred from the light data at time ti is used as the required initial condition.” See present specification page 126. Thus, the 915 Publication disclosed wherein the light data and relative motion data are integrated using fusion with the absolute pose estimates at time ti from the light data as an initial condition between the times ti and ti+1.
It would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to incorporate the fusion method of the 915 Publication and Li as the fusion method of Yu. One having ordinary skill in the art would do so because as explicitly stated in Yu, its combining of the data uses fusion. Furthermore, the 915 Publication teaches that use of “it is often advantageous to supplement it with an auxiliary motion detection component.” See 915 Publication ¶0213. Furthermore, the 915 Publication states that “[t]he combining of absolute and relative tracking data is sometimes referred to as "sensor fusion" and is based on techniques that are well known in the art of robotics.” See 915 Publication ¶0218. Finally, using the technique of fusion disclosed in the 915 Publication minimizes “the computational load of the on-board absolute motion detection component.” See 915 Publication ¶0218.
d) an application in communication with said processor for receiving said pose estimate from said processor and using said pose estimate for generating said input data.
See Yu FIGS. 1, 8A and 9 above and ¶0067, wherein the virtual reality glasses 810 has the XR system 100 provided therein for running the XR application to implement XR operations to generate input data to create the extended/virtual reality display on the glasses.
Regarding claim 2, Yu, the 915 Publication and Li teach the system of claim 1 and further teaches:
said auxiliary motion detection component comprises at least one relative motion sensor selected from the group consisting of accelerometers, gyroscopes, optical flow measuring units, electronic magnetic sensing components and wherein said change in said pose comprises at least one of a change in an orientation and a change in a position.
Note combination proposed above. Further see Yu FIG. 1 above, relative motion sensors 104 and 106.
Regarding claim 4, Yu, the 915 Publication and Li teach the system of claim 1 and further wherein:
said manipulated object is selected from the group consisting of wands, remote controls, three-dimensional mice, game controls, gaming objects, jotting implements, surgical implements, three dimensional digitizers, digitizing styli, hand-held tools, smart phones, tablets, wearable articles and utensils.
Note combination proposed above for claim 1. Further see Yu FIGS. 1, 8A and 9 above and ¶0067, wherein the extended/virtual reality glasses 810, i.e., wearable article, has the XR system 100 provided therein.
Regarding claim 5, Yu, the 915 Publication and Li teach the system of claim 4 and further:
wherein said application is selected from the group consisting of virtual reality applications, augmented reality applications, mixed reality applications and extended reality applications.
Note combination proposed above for claim 4. Further see Yu ¶¶0067 and 0045-0050, wherein the XR system 100 has an XR application running thereon.
Regarding claim 6, Yu, the 915 Publication and Li teach the system of claim 4 and further wherein:
said wearable articles are further selected from the group consisting of Augmented Reality glasses, Virtual Reality Glasses, Extended Reality glasses and Mixed Reality glasses.
Note combination proposed above for claim 4. Further see Yu FIGS. 1, 8A and 9 above and ¶0067, wherein the extended/virtual reality glasses 810, i.e., wearable article, has the XR system 100 provided therein.
Regarding claim 7, Yu, the 915 Publication and Li teach the system of claim 1 and further wherein:
said optical features are selected from the group consisting of active optical features and passive optical features.
Note combination proposed above for claim 1. Further see Yu ¶¶0071-0083 wherein the image sensor uses images which would necessarily have either active or passive optical features.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Yu, the 915 Publication and Li teach the use of active lighting sources/optical features within a map of the viewing area as evidence above for claim 7, but not the nature of the light sources. Nevertheless, the 915 Publication further teaches wherein said active optical features are modulated to produce an emission pattern that is temporally varied. See 915 Publication FIG. 25A above and ¶¶0260-0261 and 0271-0272 wherein the light sources 1022 are modulated, and further wherein said active optical features are disposed in a predetermined pattern at known locations in world coordinates. See 915 Publication FIG. 25A above, note positions of the light sources 1022.
It would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to incorporate the active optical features as further taught by the 915 Publication into the proposed combination of Yu and the 915 Publication. One having ordinary skill in the art would do so to allow the light sources to have known locations and be distinguishable from each other when imaging is performed. See the 915 Publication ¶0278. Furthermore, once these invariant features locations are known, “then knowledge of the spatial relationship between the object and these invariant features enables one to compute the object's pose.” See 915 Publication ¶0003.
Regarding claim 10, Yu, the 915 Publication and Li teach the system of claim 1 and further:
wherein said processor is mounted on-board said manipulated object.
Note combination proposed above for claim 1. Further see Yu FIGS. 1, 8A and 9 above and ¶0067, wherein the extended/virtual reality glasses 810, i.e., wearable article, has the XR system 100 provided therein.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Yu, the 915 Publication and Li teaches:
11. A method for generating input data from a pose estimate of a pose assumed by a manipulated object in a real three- dimensional environment that has optical features, said method comprising:
See Yu FIG. 1 above and ¶0139 wherein the extended reality (XR) system of FIG. 1 can be included in head mounted display/manipulated object shown in FIG. 8A above.
a) detecting by a photodetector mounted on-board said manipulated object light from said optical features and generating light data corresponding to said optical features;
See Yu FIG. 1 above, image sensor 102 on manipulated object 810 for capturing images and generating light data.
b) generating by an auxiliary motion detection component mounted on-board said manipulated object relative motion data indicative of a change in said pose;
See Yu FIG. 1 above, relative motion sensors 104 and 106 mounted on manipulated object 810 for generating related motion data.
c) accepting by a processor connect to said photodetector and to said auxiliary motion detection component said light data and said relative motion data indicative of said change in said pose;
Note claim interpretation section above regarding FL #1 wherein this functional limitation is limited to a central processing unit, a memory for holding software instructions and those software instructions embodying the algorithm discussed above for receiving the light data and the relative motion data to generate an absolute pose estimate and relative pose change and for combining the data by filling in, interpolating the absolute pose estimate and the relative pose change to generate the pose estimate in the manner as discussed above.
Thus, see Yu FIG. 1 above, computing components 110 comprising CPU, GPU, DSP and ISP and/or XR engine 120. Further see ¶0072-0080 wherein this processor/computing components 110 and/or XR engine 120 performs pose estimation based on the light data and relative motion data
d) issuing a request from an application to said processor for said pose estimate at an application request time tr;
See Yu FIG. 9 above wherein at steps 902 and 904, the extended reality application running on the XR system 100 sends a request to display media content on the display device in the virtual reality glasses 810. After receiving this request, the pose estimate is determined at step 904 and sent to the application on the XR system 100.
e) implementing executable instructions on said processor to said application to provide said pose estimate by:
1) determining an absolute pose estimate of said pose from said light data at time ti by an absolute pose recovery technique selected from among geometric invariance, triangulation, ranging, path integration and motion analysis;
2) determining from said relative motion data a relative pose change using inertial navigation equations;
3) expressing said pose estimate with respect to world coordinates describing said real three-dimensional environment where said pose estimate is obtained by a combining technique that uses said absolute pose estimate for orientation of said manipulated object and for absolute position of a reference point on said manipulated object and numerical integration of said relative pose change with said absolute pose estimate as an initial condition.
Note claim interpretation section above regarding FL #2 wherein this functional limitation is limited to a central processing unit, a memory for holding software instructions and those software instructions embodying the algorithm discussed above for receiving the light data and the relative motion data to generate an absolute pose estimate and relative pose change and for combining the data by filling in, interpolating the absolute pose estimate and the relative pose change to generate the pose estimate in the manner as discussed above.
Thus, see Yu FIG. 1 above, computing components 110 comprising CPU, GPU, DSP and ISP and/or XR engine 120. Further see ¶0072-0080 wherein this processor/computing components 110 and/or XR engine 120 performs pose estimation based on the light data and relative motion data and thus discloses combining the data in an “other manner of combining such data.”
Furthermore, see Yu FIG. 9, reprinted below, and ¶¶0142-0150 wherein at steps 902 and 904, the extended reality program running on the XR system 100. Specifically,
PNG
media_image5.png
329
437
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Yu FIG. 9
the extended reality application sends a request to display media content on the display device in the virtual reality glasses 810. After receiving this request, the pose estimate is determined at step 904 and sent to the application on the XR system 100.
However, while Yu discloses the fusing or combining of its light data and relative motion data to determine absolute pose, Yu does not explicitly teach the particular fusion algorithm or the manner to which the absolute pose estimate and the relative pose change are determined.
Nevertheless, see the 915 Publication at ¶¶0270-0272 wherein absolute pose estimate/data is inferred from the light data. See also 915 Publication ¶0075 wherein pose data is obtained “with any well-known absolute pose recovery technique including geometric invariance, triangulation, ranging, path integration and motion analysis.”
Further see the 915 Publication at ¶0217 and ¶0223 wherein the relative motion devices detect relative motion data which is integrated to “relative changes in pose.” However, while there is impliedly an algorithm or equations for this integration, the 915 Publication does not explicitly disclose the use of inertial navigation equations or inertial strapdown equations. Nevertheless, Li teaches “[t]he inertial navigation module 26 is software that implements the classical “strapdown inertial navigation equations” (widely known in the art) which integrate the gyro data (rotation rate or delta angle) into attitude and transforms the accelerometer data (specific source or delta velocity) into a reference frame such as ECI, ECEF or local level frame. The transformed acceleration is then integrated into velocity and then integrated into position.” See Li ¶0051. It would have been obvious at the time the invention was filed to use strapdown equations when formulating the relative motion changes in the system of the 915 Publication as taught by Li. One having ordinary skill in the art would do so because as noted in Li, such strapdown equations are “widely known in the art” for transforming the relative motion data, i.e., acceleration and velocity data, into position data. See Li as quoted above. Thus, the proposed use of such strapdown inertial navigation equations would be obvious and predictable.
Finally see the 915 Publication at ¶¶0273-0274 and ¶¶0213-218 wherein the pose estimate comprising the orientation and absolute position of the object and relative motion data are combined using sensor fusion wherein the light data is used at times ti and the relative motions data is used between these times in association with the light data to determine absolute pose. Further, the present application states “the absolute pose inferred from the light data at time ti is used as the required initial condition.” See present specification page 126. Thus, the 915 Publication disclosed wherein the light data and relative motion data are integrated using fusion with the absolute pose estimates at time ti from the light data as an initial condition between the times ti and ti+1.
It would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to incorporate the fusion method of the 915 Publication and Li as the fusion method of Yu. One having ordinary skill in the art would do so because as explicitly stated in Yu, its combining of the data uses fusion. Furthermore, the 915 Publication teaches that use of “it is often advantageous to supplement it with an auxiliary motion detection component.” See 915 Publication ¶0213. Furthermore, the 915 Publication states that “[t]he combining of absolute and relative tracking data is sometimes referred to as "sensor fusion" and is based on techniques that are well known in the art of robotics.” See 915 Publication ¶0218. Finally, using the technique of fusion disclosed in the 915 Publication minimizes “the computational load of the on-board absolute motion detection component.” See 915 Publication ¶0218.
f) using said pose estimate by said application for generating said input data.
See Yu FIGS. 1, 8A and 9 above and ¶0067, wherein the virtual reality glasses 810 has the XR system 100 provided therein for running the XR application to implement XR operations to generate input data to create the extended/virtual reality display on the glasses.
Regarding claim 12, Yu, the 915 Publication and Li teach the method of claim 11 and further wherein:
said auxiliary motion detection component comprises at least one relative motion sensor selected from the group consisting of accelerometers, gyroscopes, optical flow measuring units, electronic magnetic sensing components and wherein said change in said pose comprises at least one of a change in an orientation and a change in a position.
Note combination proposed above for claim 11. Further see Yu FIG. 1 above, relative motion sensors 104 and 106.
Regarding claim 14, Yu, the 915 Publication and Li teach the method of claim 11 and further wherein:
said manipulated object is selected from the group consisting of wands, remote controls, three-dimensional mice, game controls, gaming objects, jotting implements, surgical implements, three dimensional digitizers, digitizing styli, hand-held tools, smart phones, tablets, wearable articles and utensils.
Note combination proposed above for claim 11. Further see Yu FIGS. 1, 8A and 9 above and ¶0067, wherein the extended/virtual reality glasses 810, i.e., wearable article, has the XR system 100 provided therein.
Regarding claim 15, Yu, the 915 Publication and Li teach the method of claim 14 and further wherein:
said application is selected from the group consisting of virtual reality applications, augmented reality applications, mixed reality applications and extended reality applications.
Note combination proposed above for claim 14. Further see Yu ¶0067, wherein the XR system 100 has an XR application running thereon.
Regarding claim 16, Yu, the 915 Publication and Li teach the method of claim 14 and further wherein:
said wearable articles are further selected from the group consisting of Augmented Reality glasses, Virtual Reality Glasses and Mixed Reality glasses.
Note combination proposed above for claim 14. Further see Yu FIGS. 1, 8A and 9 above and ¶0067, wherein the extended/virtual reality glasses 810, i.e., wearable article, has the XR system 100 provided therein.
Regarding claim 17, Yu, the 915 Publication and Li teach the method of claim 11 and further wherein:
said optical features are selected from the group consisting of active optical features and passive optical features.
Note combination proposed above for claim 11. Further see Yu ¶¶0071-0083 wherein the image sensor uses images which would necessarily have either active or passive optical features.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Yu, the 915 Publication and Li teach the use of active lighting sources/optical features within a map of the viewing area as evidence above for claim 17, but not the nature of the light sources. Nevertheless, the 915 Publication further teaches wherein said active optical features are modulated to produce an emission pattern that is temporally varied. See 915 Publication FIG. 25A above and ¶¶0260-0261 and 0271-0272 wherein the light sources 1022 are modulated, and further wherein said active optical features are disposed in a predetermined pattern at known locations in world coordinates. See 915 Publication FIG. 25A above, note positions of the light sources 1022.
It would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to incorporate the active optical features as further taught by the 915 Publication into the proposed combination of Yu and the 915 Publication. One having ordinary skill in the art would do so to allow the light sources to have known locations and be distinguishable from each other when imaging is performed. See the 915 Publication ¶0278. Furthermore, once these invariant features locations are known, “then knowledge of the spatial relationship between the object and these invariant features enables one to compute the object's pose.” See 915 Publication ¶0003.
Regarding claim 20, Yu, the 915 Publication and Li teach the method of claim 11 and further wherein:
said processor is mounted on-board said manipulated object.
Note combination proposed above for claim 11. Further see Yu FIGS. 1, 8A and 9 above and ¶0067, wherein the extended/virtual reality glasses 810, i.e., wearable article, has the XR system 100 provided therein.
VIII.D. Rejections of Claims 3 and 13 Over Yu, 915 Publication, Li and 549 Publication
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Yu in view of the 915 Publication in view Li as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of the 549 Publication.
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Yu, the 915 Publication and Li teaches the system of claim 1 and the method of claim 11 and further teaches:
said absolute pose recovery technique uses a motion analysis,
said combining technique includes interpolation of said absolute pose estimate between times ti and ti+1, and said numerical integration of said relative pose change is performed between times ti and ti+1, where said inertial navigation equations are using strapdown inertial navigation equations.
See discussion above for claims 1 and 11 wherein Yu, the 915 Publication and Li discloses various techniques for determining the absolute pose. Further see discussion above for claims 1 and 11 wherein the combination of Yu, the 915 Publication and Li discloses using interpolation of the absolute pose estimate and the relative pose change, and the inertial navigation equations are strapdown inertial navigation equations.
However, Yu, the 915 Publication and Li do not explicitly teach using homography in its absolute pose determination. Nevertheless, the 549 Publication teaches using homography in its determination of pose. See 549 Publication ¶0231 wherein “it employs a type of algorithm generally referred to in the art as pose estimation through comparison,” “[i]n this approach a database of screen images 128' obtained at different rotations and translations is compared to the complete image description provided by unit 202” and “such comparison preferably employs a homography.” It would thus have been obvious at the time the invention was filed to use homography in the pose estimate as taught by the 549 Publication in the pose estimate of the 915 Publication. One having ordinary skill in the art would do so because as noted in the 549 Publication, using homography adds “efficiency” to the comparison for mapping images to determine the pose estimate. See 549 Publication ¶0231.
IX. EXAMINERS’ RESPONSES TO APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS
Examiners have fully considered the Applicant’s remarks on pages 8-14 of the Apr 2026 Amendment.
On pages 8-9 of the Apr 2026 Amendment, Applicant argues the claims now avoid interpretation under 35 U.S.C. §112(f) on the basis that “[p]rocessor with the executable instructions it performs is thus submitted to recite sufficient structure and function, as requested by the Examiners.” Examiners disagree. First, as provided above, Examiners find the claims are unclear whether the instructions are even required in the claims. Second, the test is not simply reciting “processor” and “instructions” to avoid invocation, rather the test is whether the limitation recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function. Since FL #1 and FL #2 are computer-oriented limitations, to avoid invocation, they must not only recite the hardware for performing the function, but a sufficient manifestation of the algorithm for performing the function. FL #1 and FL #2 do not recite a complete algorithm for determining pose, but merely reference a “combining technique” without reciting what that is. The specification would have to be referenced to determine what this technique is. Examiners note to avoid invocation, the claims must recite sufficient structures (hardware and software via a sufficient algorithm) to perform the claimed function without having to reference the specification or anything else.
On pages 9-11 of the Apr 2026 Amendment, Applicant argues that Li is not analogous art since does not deal with light data from optical features and thus cannot be applied to the claimed invention. Examiners disagree as this argument ignores the rejection. Li is merely being applied in the rejection on why one having ordinary skill in the art would use “strapdown inertial navigation equations” in relative motion sensors. Thus, Examiners submit Li is pertinent to the issue of relative motion sensors within the claims. Examiners note Applicant agrees with this assessment of Li wherein Applicant states “[t]he fact that Li happens to use an inertial unit (IMU) with strap-down inertial navigation equations...” Examiners further note Li was not applied for the light data in the rejections above, rather the rejections apply a combination of references.
On pages 11-13 of the Apr 2026 Amendment, Applicant argues that Yu does not teach the recited combining technique on the basis that this limitation is “completely outside any suggestion made by Yu.” Examiners agree in part. As provided in the rejection above, Yu suggests fusing or combining of its light data and relative motion data to determine absolute pose, however Yu does not explicitly teach the particular fusion algorithm or the manner to which the absolute pose estimate and the relative pose change are determined. Thus, Examiners agree with Applicant the specific combining techniques is outside the disclosure of Yu. However, Examiners do find Yu provides a specific suggestion to use some combining technique of this data, which Examiners find is explicitly taught in the 915 Publication. Thus, Examiners submit the combination of Yu, the 915 Publication and Li teaches the recited combining technique in the context of combining light data and relative motion data.
On pages 13-14 of the Apr 2026 Amendment, Applicant argues that Yu does not even mention homography. Examiners disagree as Yu was not applied for this feature in the rejections above, rather the rejections apply a combination of references.
X. INFORMATION MATERIAL TO PATENTABILITY
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 C.F.R. §1.56 to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in the present application.
XI. CONCLUSION
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Applicant's substantial amendments provided in the Apr 2026 Amendment necessitated the new and amended grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP §706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. §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 C.F.R. §1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §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 KENNETH WHITTINGTON whose telephone number is (571) 272-2264. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am - 5:00pm, Monday - Friday.
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.
/KENNETH WHITTINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Conferees:
/Stephen J. Ralis/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
/ANDREW J. FISCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992
1 See Examiners findings and conclusions provided in pages 2-7 of the non-final Office action mailed September 28, 2023. Since Applicant agrees the present application is a Bauman-type application and has amended its priority claims, Examiners need not reproduce the findings from this prior Office action.
Prosecution Insights