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 Amendment
Applicant's response to the last Office Action, filed on 1/14/2026 has been entered and made of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1, 8, 15 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) filed on 1/14/2026, 4/2/2026, and 4/2/2026 were considered and placed on the file of record by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claims 1, 3, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al., “Normalized Object Coordinate Space for Category-level 6D Object Pose and Size Estimation” in view of Birchfield et al. (US 2022/0277472).
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches a method comprising:
receiving a two-dimensional (2D) image from a camera of a first device (see figure 3, Wang discusses receiving a 2D RGB image from camera);
determining 2D keypoints of a second device located within the 2D image based on a predefined point model of a generalized version of the second device, wherein the generalized version of the second device is defined by common keypoints of physical features common across multiple hypothetical three-dimensional (3D) models of the second device (see figure 2, figure 3, section 3, Wang discusses extracting points of an object based on a Normalized Object Coordinate Space that is a uniformly scaled object model using correspondences from a large shape collection);
determining a 6 degree-of-freedom (6DOF) pose of the second device using the 2D keypoints (see figure 3, section 5.2, Wang discusses determining a 6 degree-of-freedom (6DOF) pose of the detected object).
Birchfield teaches outputting an estimated position of at least a component of the receiving aircraft based on the 6DOF pose (see figure 1, para. 0093, Birchfield discusses output a set of values indicating a 6-DoF pose and x, y, z positions and dimensions of the object (aircraft)).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Wang with Birchfield to derive at the invention of claim 1. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform 3D position and orientation estimation.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Wang in this manner in order to improve 3D position and orientation estimation of objects in images by extracting 2D points and utilizing a general model that contains information indicative of pose data. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Wang, while the teaching of Birchfield continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of calculating 6-DoF pose using 2D points of an object detected in an image and implementing an object model that contains related pose data, therefore permitting 6-D0F estimation from a 2D image of an object. The Wang and Birchfield systems perform object pose calculation, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Regarding claim 3, Birchfield teaches wherein determining the 6DOF pose comprises performing a perspective-n-point algorithm using the 2D keypoints to produce the 6DOF pose (see para. 0061, Birchfield discusses utilizing a perspective-n-point (PnP) algorithm to calculate a 6-DoF pose and relative dimensions of the object).
The same motivation of claim 1 is applied to claim 3. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Wang with Birchfield to derive at the invention of claim 3. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform 3D position and orientation estimation.
Claim 15 is rejected as applied to claim 1 as pertaining to a corresponding refueling system comprising: a processor; and non-transitory computer readable storage media storing code.
Claims 4, 5, 17, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang “Normalized Object Coordinate Space for Category-level 6D Object Pose and Size Estimation” in view of Birchfield et al. (US 2022/0277472) in view of Guo (US 2023/0281864).
Regarding claim 4, Wang and Birchfield do not expressly disclose wherein determining the 6DOF pose further comprises determining an error value associated with re-projection of a result of the perspective-n-point algorithm. However, Guo teaches wherein determining the 6DOF pose further comprises determining an error value associated with re-projection of a result of the perspective-n-point algorithm (see para. 0040, Guo discusses each object is initialized with a PnP pose, it is possible that the initialization can be very poor from a PnP failure, and, if the pose is bad enough e.g., off by a large orientation error, optimization cannot fix it due to only reaching local minima. The system is configured to check if the PnP pose from the current image yields more inliers over the last few views than the current estimated pose, and, if this is true, then the system is configured to re-initialize the object with the new pose).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Wang and Birchfield with Guo to derive at the invention of claim 4. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform 3D position and orientation estimation.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Wang and Birchfield in this manner in order to improve 3D position and orientation estimation that extracts 6-DoF pose information of objects in images utilizing PnP estimation because it effectively computes the rotation and translation that transform 3D object points into their corresponding 2D image projections that yields 6DoF pose of the object. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Wang and Birchfield, while the teaching of Guo continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of calculating 6-DoF pose data by implementing the PnP algorithm that transforms 3D object points into their corresponding 2D image projections, therefore leveraging the relationship between known 3D points real-world coordinate and their 2D projections. The Wang, Birchfield, and Guo systems perform object pose calculation, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Regarding claim 5, Guo teaches wherein determining re-projection error further comprises: identifying outlier 2D keypoints; and removing the outlier 2D keypoints (see para. 0043-0044, Guo discusses an outlier threshold to remove outliers).
The same motivation of claim 4 is applied to claim 5. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Wang and Birchfield with Guo to derive at the invention of claim 5. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform 3D position and orientation estimation.
Regarding claim 17, Birchfield teaches wherein determining the 6DOF pose comprises: performing a perspective-n-point algorithm using the 2D keypoints to produce the 6-DOF pose (see para. 0061, Birchfield discusses utilizing a perspective-n-point (PnP) algorithm to calculate a 6-DoF pose and relative dimensions of the object).
Wang and Birchfield do not expressly disclose determining an error value associated with re-projection of a result of the perspective-n-point algorithm. However, Guo teaches determining an error value associated with re-projection of a result of the perspective-n-point algorithm (see para. 0040, Guo discusses each object is initialized with a PnP pose, it is possible that the initialization can be very poor from a PnP failure, and, if the pose is bad enough e.g., off by a large orientation error, optimization cannot fix it due to only reaching local minima. The system is configured to check if the PnP pose from the current image yields more inliers over the last few views than the current estimated pose, and, if this is true, then the system is configured to re-initialize the object with the new pose).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Wang and Birchfield with Guo to derive at the invention of claim 17. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform 3D position and orientation estimation.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Wang and Birchfield in this manner in order to improve 3D position and orientation estimation that extracts 6-DoF pose information of objects in images utilizing PnP estimation because it effectively computes the rotation and translation that transform 3D object points into their corresponding 2D image projections that yields 6DoF pose of the object. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Wang and Birchfield, while the teaching of Guo continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of calculating 6-DoF pose data by implementing the PnP algorithm that transforms 3D object points into their corresponding 2D image projections, therefore leveraging the relationship between known 3D points real-world coordinate and their 2D projections. The Wang, Birchfield, and Guo systems perform object pose calculation, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Claim 18 is rejected as applied to claim 5 as pertaining to a corresponding refueling system comprising: a processor; and non-transitory computer readable storage media storing code.
Claims 6, 7, 19, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang “Normalized Object Coordinate Space for Category-level 6D Object Pose and Size Estimation” in view of Birchfield et al. (US 2022/0277472) in view of Reddy et al. (US 10,565,731).
Regarding claim 6, Wang and Birchfield do not expressly disclose further comprising: tracking parameters of the second device and tracking the 6DOF pose to produce tracked parameters and tracked 6DOF pose values; and determining subsequent 6DOF pose based on the tracked parameters and tracked 6DOF pose values.
However, Reddy teaches further comprising: tracking parameters of the second device and tracking the 6DOF pose to produce tracked parameters and tracked 6DOF pose values; and determining subsequent 6DOF pose based on the tracked parameters and tracked 6DOF pose values (see col. 44 lines 33-55, Reddy discusses predicted 6DOF pose determined from a previous 6DOF pose associated with the object and determined with respect to a previous frame or image captured by the image system. The state estimator may predict the 6DOF pose based on a projected or estimated trajectory of the object and the previous pose).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Wang and Birchfield with Reddy to derive at the invention of claim 6. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform 3D position and orientation estimation.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Wang and Birchfield in this manner in order to improve 3D position and orientation estimation to further perform object tracking based on the previously calculated object pose. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Wang and Birchfield, while the teaching of Reddy continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of tracking an object across future images based a previously calculated 6-DoF pose data, therefore not needlessly calculating pose data each image. The Wang, Birchfield, and Reddy systems perform object pose calculation, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Regarding claim 7, Reddy teaches wherein further comprising, after a predefined number of iterations of determining 2D keypoints of the second device located within the 2D image based on the predefined point model of the generalized version of the second device, determining the 6DOF pose based on the tracked parameters and the tracked 6DOF pose values (see figure 23, col. 44 lines 33-5, Reddy discusses predicted 6DOF pose may be determined from a previous 6DOF pose associated with the object and determined with respect to a previous frame or image capture, therefore after one iteration of determining the 2D keypoints to generate the previous 6DOF pose).
The same motivation of claim 6 is applied to claim 7. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Wang and Birchfield with Reddy to derive at the invention of claim 7. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform 3D position and orientation estimation.
Claim 19 is rejected as applied to claim 6 as pertaining to a corresponding refueling system comprising: a processor; and non-transitory computer readable storage media storing code.
Claim 20 is rejected as applied to claim 7 as pertaining to a corresponding refueling system comprising: a processor; and non-transitory computer readable storage media storing code.
Claims 8, 10, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cramblitt (US 2019/0344902) in view of Birchfield et al. (US 2022/0277472) in view of Wang “Normalized Object Coordinate Space for Category-level 6D Object Pose and Size Estimation.”
Regarding claim 8, Cramblitt teaches a tanker aircraft comprising:
a camera (see para. 0006, Cramblitt discusses a camera on a refueling aircraft);
a refueling boom (see para. 0004, Cramblitt discusses refueling boom);
the camera configured to generate a two-dimensional (2D) image of the refueling boom (see figure 4, para. 0012, Cramblitt discusses obtaining, by a camera on the refueling aircraft, an image of a receiver aircraft having a receptacle for refueling the receiver aircraft);
a processor (see para. 0013, Cramblitt discusses a processor); and
non-transitory computer readable storage media storing code, the code being executable by the processor to perform operations comprising: receiving the 2D image from the camera (see figure 2, figure 3, figure 5, Cramblitt discusses receiving a 2D image from a camera);
determining 2D keypoints of a receiving aircraft located within the 2D image based on a predefined point model of a generalized version of the receiving aircraft (see para. 0006, Cramblitt discusses determining, from points on the image of the receiver aircraft, an orientation and position of the receiver aircraft relative to the camera using a pose estimation algorithm and a known relationship between the points on the image of the receiver aircraft and corresponding points on a 3D model of the receiver aircraft).
Cramblitt does not expressly disclose wherein the generalized version of the receiving aircraft is defined by common keypoints of physical features common across multiple hypothetical three-dimensional (3D) models of the receiving aircraft; determining a 6 degree-of-freedom (6DOF) pose of the receiving aircraft using the 2D keypoints; and outputting an estimated position of at least a component of the receiving aircraft based on the 6DOF pose.
Birchfield teaches determining a 6 degree-of-freedom (6DOF) pose of the receiving aircraft using the 2D keypoints (see figure 1, claim 1, para. 0069-0071, 0090-0091, Birchfield discusses receiving a 2D image that includes an object (aircraft) and determining keypoints based on a model); and
outputting an estimated position of at least a component of the receiving aircraft based on the 6DOF pose (see figure 1, para. 0093, Birchfield discusses output a set of values indicating a 6-DoF pose and x, y, z positions and dimensions of the object (aircraft)).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Cramblitt with Birchfield to derive at the invention of claim 8. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform 3D position and orientation estimation.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Cramblitt in this manner in order to improve 3D position and orientation estimation of objects in images by extracting 2D points and utilizing a general model that contains information indicative of pose data. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Cramblitt, while the teaching of Birchfield continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of calculating 6-DoF pose using 2D points of an object detected in an image and implementing an object model that contains related pose data, therefore permitting 6-D0F estimation from a 2D image of an object. The Cramblitt and Birchfield systems perform object pose calculation, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Cramblitt with Birchfield do not expressly disclose wherein the generalized version of the receiving aircraft is defined by common keypoints of physical features common across multiple hypothetical three-dimensional (3D) models of the receiving aircraft.
However, Wang teaches wherein the generalized version of the receiving aircraft is defined by common keypoints of physical features common across multiple hypothetical three-dimensional (3D) models of the receiving aircraft (see figure 2, figure 3, section 3, Wang discusses extracting points of an object based on a Normalized Object Coordinate Space that is a uniformly scaled object model using correspondences from a large shape collection).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Cramblitt and Birchfield with Wang to derive at the invention of claim 8. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform 3D position and orientation estimation.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Cramblitt and Birchfield in this manner in order to improve 3D position and orientation estimation of objects in images by extracting 2D points and utilizing a general model that contains information indicative of pose data. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Cramblitt and Birchfield, while the teaching of Wang continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of calculating 6-DoF pose using 2D points of an object detected in an image and implementing an object model that contains related pose data, therefore permitting 6-D0F estimation from a 2D image of an object. The Cramblitt, Birchfield, and Wang systems perform object pose calculation, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Regarding claim 10, Birchfield teaches wherein determining the 6DOF pose comprises performing a perspective-n-point algorithm using the 2D keypoints to produce the 6DOF pose (see para. 0061, Birchfield discusses utilizing a perspective-n-point (PnP) algorithm to calculate a 6-DoF pose and relative dimensions of the object).
The same motivation of claim 8 is applied to claim 10. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Cramblitt and Birchfield with Wang to derive at the invention of claim 10. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform 3D position and orientation estimation.
Claims 11, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cramblitt (US 2019/0344902) in view of Birchfield et al. (US 2022/0277472) in view of Wang “Normalized Object Coordinate Space for Category-level 6D Object Pose and Size Estimation” in view of Guo (US 2023/0281864).
Regarding claim 11, Cramblitt, Birchfield, and Wang do not expressly disclose wherein determining the 6DOF pose further comprises determining an error value associated with re-projection of a result of the perspective-n-point algorithm.
However, Guo teaches wherein determining the 6DOF pose further comprises determining an error value associated with re-projection of a result of the perspective-n-point algorithm. (see para. 0040, Guo discusses each object is initialized with a PnP pose, it is possible that the initialization can be very poor from a PnP failure, and, if the pose is bad enough e.g., off by a large orientation error, optimization cannot fix it due to only reaching local minima. The system is configured to check if the PnP pose from the current image yields more inliers over the last few views than the current estimated pose, and, if this is true, then the system is configured to re-initialize the object with the new pose).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Cramblitt, Birchfield, and Wang with Guo to derive at the invention of claim 11. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform 3D position and orientation estimation.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Cramblitt, Birchfield, and Wang in this manner in order to improve 3D position and orientation estimation of objects in images by extracting 2D points and utilizing a general model that contains information indicative of pose data. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Cramblitt, Birchfield, and Wang, while the teaching of Guo continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of calculating 6-DoF pose using 2D points of an object detected in an image and implementing an object model that contains related pose data, therefore permitting 6-D0F estimation from a 2D image of an object. The Cramblitt, Birchfield, Wang, and Guo systems perform object pose calculation, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Regarding claim 12, Guo teaches wherein determining re-projection error further comprises: identifying outlier 2D keypoints; and removing the outlier 2D keypoints (see para. 0043-0044, Guo discusses an outlier threshold to remove outliers).
The same motivation of claim 11 is applied to claim 12. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Cramblitt, Birchfield, Wang, and Guo to derive at the invention of claim 12. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform 3D position and orientation estimation.
Claims 13, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cramblitt (US 2019/0344902) in view of Birchfield et al. (US 2022/0277472) in view of Wang “Normalized Object Coordinate Space for Category-level 6D Object Pose and Size Estimation” in view of Reddy et al. (US 10,565,731).
Regarding claim 13, Wang, Birchfield, and Wang do not expressly disclose wherein the processor is further configured to perform operations comprising: tracking parameters of the receiving aircraft and tracking the 6DOF pose to produce tracked parameters and tracked 6DOF pose values; and determining subsequent 6DOF pose based on the tracked parameters and tracked 6DOF pose values.
However, Reddy teaches wherein the processor is further configured to perform operations comprising: tracking parameters of the receiving aircraft and tracking the 6DOF pose to produce tracked parameters and tracked 6DOF pose values; and determining subsequent 6DOF pose based on the tracked parameters and tracked 6DOF pose values (see col. 44 lines 33-55, Reddy discusses predicted 6DOF pose determined from a previous 6DOF pose associated with the object and determined with respect to a previous frame or image captured by the image system. The state estimator may predict the 6DOF pose based on a projected or estimated trajectory of the object and the previous pose).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Cramblitt, Birchfield, Wang with Reddy to derive at the invention of claim 13. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform 3D position and orientation estimation.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Cramblitt, Birchfield, Wang in this manner in order to improve 3D position and orientation estimation to further perform object tracking based on the previously calculated object pose. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Cramblitt, Birchfield, Wang, while the teaching of Reddy continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of tracking an object across future images based a previously calculated 6-DoF pose data, therefore not needlessly calculating pose data each image. The Cramblitt, Birchfield, Wang, and Reddy systems perform object pose calculation, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Regarding claim 14, Reddy teaches wherein the processor is further configured to perform operations comprising,. after a predefined number of iterations of determining 2D keypoints of the receiving aircraft located within the 2D image based on the predefined point model of the generalized version of the receiving aircraft, determining the 6DOF pose based on the tracked parameters and the tracked 6DOF pose values (see figure 23, col. 44 lines 33-5, Reddy discusses predicted 6DOF pose may be determined from a previous 6DOF pose associated with the object and determined with respect to a previous frame or image capture, therefore after one iteration of determining the 2D keypoints to generate the previous 6DOF pose).
The same motivation of claim 13 is applied to claim 14. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Cramblitt, Birchfield, Wang with Reddy to derive at the invention of claim 14. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform 3D position and orientation estimation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 9, 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: No prior art was found to claim “wherein the multiple hypothetical 3D models comprise model variations and the predefined point model of the generalized version of the second device comprises semantic keypoints based on the predefined point model trained using singular value decomposition components found using the model variations.”
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) 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 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNY A CESE whose telephone number is (571) 270-1896. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 9am – 4pm.
If attempts to reach the primary examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gregory Morse can be reached on (571) 272-3838. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Kenny A Cese/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2663
Prosecution Insights