DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant's arguments filed 10 March 2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The new limitation is disclosed by at least Lv and Kimishima as detailed in the rejection below.
2. The response to Applicant's arguments filed on 15 October 2025 is copied below for reference.
3. Applicant argues on page 7 that Torama fails to disclose a third coordinate system, while Lv only discloses a third coordinate system in connection with GNSS/INS measurements, and Lv does not disclose determining a navigation solution from matched EO feature points as recited in claim 1.
This argument is not persuasive. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In the rejection for claim 1, Torama was not relied upon to disclose a third coordinate system and Lv was not relied upon to disclose determining a navigation solution from matched EO feature points.
And Lv’s third coordinate system is not “only in connection with GNSS/INS measurements”. Lv discloses a 3D model coordinate system and a world coordinate system, and matching feature points from a photo of a device to a 3D model of the device, and then calculating the location and pose of the device in a world coordinate system (see figs 2, 5-10, and corresponding text). In fact, Lv discloses all limitations of claim 1 except for the first coordinate system (of user equipment), while Torama discloses all limitations of claim 1 except for the third coordinate system (of world).
4. Applicant argues on pages 7-8 that the proposed combination appears to be hindsight driven because Torama is directed to device or pose estimation, while Lv is directed to GNSS navigation, and neither reference addresses multi-user sharing or suggests integrating EO-based feature matching with a world coordinate system.
This argument is not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Further, both Torama and Lv are directed to an invention for acquiring, extracting, and matching feature points for the purpose of spatial localization between at least two coordinate systems, so it would be obvious to modify one in view of the other. Indeed, Lv discloses all limitations of claim 1 except for the first coordinate system (of user equipment), while Torama discloses all limitations of claim 1 except for the third coordinate system (of world).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., multi-user sharing) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
And although the rejection used the combination of references to teach integrating EO-based feature matching with a world coordinate system (see rejection), Lv by itself does in fact teach this feature. Lv discloses matching feature points from a photo of a device to a 3D model of the device, and then calculating the location and pose of the device in a world coordinate system (see figs 2, 5-10, and corresponding text).
5. Applicant argues on pages 7-8 that “claim 1 further requires determining an integrated navigation solution in a third coordinate frame based on matched EO feature points. This is more than a coordinate transformation; it is a fusion step that combines EO-based pose estimation with other navigation data to produce a solution in a distinct frame, enabling accurate determination of user position, velocity and attitude. This integration is absent from Torama and Lv.”
This argument is not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “a fusion step that combines EO-based pose estimation with other navigation data to produce a solution in a distinct frame, enabling accurate determination of user position, velocity and attitude”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The Applicant is clearly wrong that the claimed invention would require the unclaimed single “fusion step that combines EO-based pose estimation with other navigation data to produce a solution in a distinct frame, enabling accurate determination of user position, velocity and attitude” which contradicts the language and structure of claim 1. The claimed invention can in fact be performed as a multi-step process including a coordinate transformation near the end, in accordance with the language and structure of claim 1.
And although the rejection used the combination of references to teach determining an integrated navigation solution in a third coordinate frame based on matched EO feature points (see rejection), Lv by itself does in fact teach this feature. Lv discloses matching feature points from a photo of a device to a 3D model of the device, and then calculating the location and pose of the device in a world coordinate system (i.e. the integrated navigation solution or part of the integrated navigation solution) (see figs 2, 5-10, and corresponding text).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
7. Claims 1-7, 9-16, and 18-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Torama et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # US 2023/0091546) in view of Lv (U.S. Patent Application Publication # US 2025/0182314), and further in view of Kimishima et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # US 2024/0175893).
Regarding claims 1 and 20, Torama discloses a method comprising:
acquiring observations by one or more electro-optical (EO) sensors on a front-facing surface of a user equipment (UE) (figs 1, 4-5, 7, etc);
extracting, by a processor of the UE, feature points from the observations (figs 1-2, 4-5, 7, etc) expressed in a first coordinate frame of the UE (figs 3A-D, P29, 62, 64, 66-68, 72, 74, etc: camera coordinate system or virtual three-dimensional space); and
matching, by the processor, the feature points to corresponding points of a model (figs 1, 4-5, 7, etc) in a second coordinate frame of a user of the UE (figs 3A-D, P29, 62, 64, 66-68, 72, 74, etc: 3D model coordinate system); and
determining, by the processor, an integrated navigation solution (figs 1, 4-5, 7, etc) in a coordinate frame (figs 3A-D, P29, 62, 64, 66-68, 72, 74, etc) based on the matched feature points (figs 1, 4-5, 7, etc),
wherein the integrated navigation solution comprises position and orientation of the second coordinate frame (figs 1, 3A-D, 4-5, 7, P29, 62, 64, 66-68, 72, 74, etc: position and posture/attitude/orientation of the 3D model coordinate system).
Torama fails to disclose the third coordinate frame, wherein the integrated navigation solution comprises position, velocity, and orientation of the second coordinate frame expressed in the third coordinate frame.
In the same field of endeavor, Lv discloses the third coordinate frame (figs 2, 5-7, etc: world coordinate system), wherein the integrated navigation solution comprises position (figs 2, 5-10, and corresponding text, etc), velocity (P55-56, etc: implicit in combination with figs 2, 5-10, and corresponding text), and orientation of the second coordinate frame expressed in the third coordinate frame (figs 2, 5-10, and corresponding text, etc: calculate the location and pose/orientation of the 3D model/device [second coordinate frame] expressed in the world coordinate system [third coordinate frame]).
(Note that Lv also discloses all limitations of the independent claims except for the first coordinate system (of user equipment). Lv discloses a 3D model coordinate system [second coordinate frame] and a world coordinate system [third coordinate frame], and matching feature points from a photo of a device to a 3D model of the device, and then calculating the location and pose of the device in a world coordinate system (see figs 2, 5-10, and corresponding text)).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Torama to use a third coordinate frame (world) and express the second coordinate frame in the third coordinate frame, as taught by Lv, in order to facilitate sharing of navigation solutions between multiple users or multiple user equipments with different coordinate frames, with predictable results.
Neither Torama nor Lv explicitly discloses the velocity of the second coordinate frame expressed in the third coordinate frame.
In the same field of endeavor, Kimishima discloses velocity of the second coordinate frame expressed in the third coordinate frame (P50-52, 96, 119, etc: position, velocity, and orientation of the device coordinate frame [second coordinate frame] expressed in the global coordinate frame [third coordinate frame]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Torama in view of Lv to express the velocity of the second coordinate frame in the third coordinate frame, as taught by Kimishima, in order to facilitate sharing of navigation solutions between multiple users or multiple user equipments with different coordinate frames, with predictable results.
Regarding claim 11, see the rejection for claim 1 above.
Torama in view of Lv further discloses one or more inertial navigation system (INS) devices outputting inertial measurements of the UE in a first coordinate frame of the UE solution (Lv P24, 30, 42, 55-56, 61, 76, 125-129, claims 10, 17, etc).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Torama further discloses that the integrated navigation solution is determined based on motion constraints of the user in the second coordinate frame (figs 1, 3-5, 7, etc).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Torama further discloses determining a pose transformation between the first coordinate frame and the second coordinate frame, based on the matched feature points, wherein the integrated navigation solution is determined based on the pose transformation (figs 3A-D, P29, 62, 64, 66-68, 72, 74, etc).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Torama in view of Lv further discloses acquiring inertial measurements in the first coordinate frame using one or more inertial navigation system (INS) devices of the UE (Lv P24, 30, 42, 55-56, 61, 76, 125-129, claims 10, 17, etc: inertial measurement unit IMU); and determining, by the processor, an inertial navigation solution in a third coordinate frame based on the inertial measurements (Lv P76, 125-129, etc), wherein the integrated navigation solution is determined based on the inertial navigation solution (Lv P24, 30, 42, 55-56, 61, 76, 125-129, claims 10, 17, etc).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Torama in view of Lv does not explicitly disclose that the one or more INS devices comprise at least one of an accelerometer or a gyroscope.
However, it was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for an INS device to comprise at least one of an accelerometer or a gyroscope. The Examiner hereby takes Official Notice of this fact.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Torama in view of Lv to use an accelerometer or a gyroscope, as well known in the art, in order to estimate the position or attitude of the UE using well known devices and methods, with predictable results.
Regarding claim 6, Torama further discloses that the integrated navigation solution is determined based on navigational measurements (figs 1-5, 7, etc).
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Torama further discloses that the navigational measurements comprise ranging measurements (Lv P55-62, 139, claims 9-10, 16-17, etc) or global navigation satellite system (GNSS) measurements (Lv P103).
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Torama further discloses that the integrated navigation solution comprises at least a position, a velocity, or an attitude of the user (figs 1-5, 7, etc: such as position and posture/attitude of user’s head).
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Torama further discloses that the integrated navigation solution further comprises at least one of INS bias, GNSS receive clock bias or drift, a pose transformation between the first coordinate frame and the second coordinate frame, and a map of the environment (figs 3A-D, P29, 62, 64, 66-68, 72, 74, etc: pose transformation; or Lv figs 5-7, etc).
Regarding claims 10 and 19, Torama further discloses that the model is a three-dimensional (3D) model of a face of the user or an interior of a vehicle, and the 3D model is prestored prior to capturing the image or estimated in a simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM) approach after capturing the image (figs 1-3, 5, 7, etc: 3D model of head including face).
Conclusion
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 extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHELLEY CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1330. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays through Fridays.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erin Bishop can be reached at (571) 270-3713. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Shelley Chen/
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3665
April 8, 2026
Prosecution Insights