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 .
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s claim of priority from the US provisional application 63/389,688 filed on 07/15/2022 and 63/513,427 filed on 07/13/2023.
Drawings
The 20-page drawings have been considered and placed on record in the file.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The independent claim 1 recites a method for generating a proof of location. With respect to analysis of independent claim 1:
Step 1:
With regard to Step 1, the instant claim is directed to a method, therefore, the claim is directed to one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One:
With regard to 2A, Prong One, the limitations of “receiving, at a mobile digital device, proof-of-location data associated with a real- world location; capturing, using an image sensor of the mobile digital device, image data of an environment of the mobile digital device; and determining, based on the proof-of-location data and the image data, whether the mobile digital device is disposed at the real-world location”5, as drafted, recite an abstract idea, such as a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind of a person, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). That is, person operating the mobile digital device, can receive an image, capture an image and determine whether the received image and captured image are of the same location to verify a real-world location of the mobile device. This is the concept that falls under the grouping of abstract ideas mental processes, i.e., a concept performed in the human mind, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion of a device operator.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
The 2019 PEG defines the phrase “evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception”. Therefore, additional elements, or a combination of additional elements in the claim, are required to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception. In the instant case, the additional elements/limitations in the claim, i.e., an image sensor of the mobile digital device merely regarded as adding insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception, and do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception as an indication of integration of the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the above-mentioned additional elements/limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application; and therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Because the claims fail under Step 2A, the claims are further evaluated under Step 2B. The claims herein do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into practical application, the additional elements/limitations to perform the steps, amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Further, with regard to dependent claims 2-20 viewed individually, these additional steps, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations as an abstract idea, and do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses 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. Such claim limitations are: “mobile digital device” in claims 1-4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, 15-17, 19 and 20; “remote device” in claims 10 and 17.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, these are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structures described in the applicant’s drawings: schematics depicted in Fig. 8, and applicant’s specification: page 5, lines 14-15: “a mobile digital device such as a cell phone” as performing the claimed functions, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, as noted in the previous section above, claim limitation: “remote device” in claims 10 and 17 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Applicant's specification is devoid of any corresponding structures that perform the functions in the claims. Accordingly, Claims 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for lack of written description.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Specifically, as noted in the previous section above, claim limitation: “remote device” in claims 10 and 17 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, Applicant’s specification fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Applicant’s specification is devoid of any structures that perform the functions in the claims. Therefore, claims 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph for being indefinite.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 10, 15, 16, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tian (US 2018/0374075 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tian teaches, A method for generating proof of location, (Tian, ¶0002: “a method for electronic location authentication”) the method comprising: receiving, at a mobile digital device, (Tian, ¶0001: “physical location verification of users using mobile electronic devices”) proof-of-location data associated with a real- world location; (Tian, ¶0020: “determine reference features that are physically located at the asserted physical location, and send to the user device a physical location verification request for displaying a reference image including markers of those reference features on the user device”) capturing, using an image sensor of the mobile digital device, image data of an environment of the mobile digital device; (Tian, ¶0020: “analyzing imaging data captured while the user device is moved according to the movement instructions, the service provider device may detect location spoofing using pre-captured still images or videos”) and determining, based on the proof-of-location data and the image data, whether the mobile digital device is disposed at the real-world location. (Tian, ¶0020: “matching the features in the camera view of the user device with the markers of the reference features, the service provider device verifies that the user is actually at the physical location”).
Regarding claim 2, Tian teaches, The method of claim 1, wherein the proof-of-location data includes first data configured to facilitate tracking to a trackable feature of the real-world location, (Tian, ¶0030: “movement instruction 308 requesting the user to move the user device such that the feature in the camera view of the user device corresponding to the reference feature overlays with the marker 306”) and wherein determining whether the mobile digital device is disposed at the real-world location includes tracking to the trackable feature based on the captured image data. (Tian, ¶0030: “the marker 306 is partially translucent such that the user may be able to tell whether the feature in the camera view completely overlays with the marker 306”).
Regarding claim 10, Tian teaches, The method of claim 1, further comprising sending, from the mobile digital device to a remote device, a request to establish proof that the mobile digital device is at the real-world location, (Tian, ¶0021: “a system provider device receives, from a user device, a physical location asserted by the user device”) wherein the proof-of-location data received at the mobile digital device is sent by the remote device in response to the request. (Tian, ¶0029: “service provider device generates a physical location verification request including the reference features, and sends that physical location verification request to the user device”).
Regarding claim 15, Tian teaches, The method of claim 1, wherein the proof-of-location data comprises faulty tracking data configured to inhibit a mobile digital device from tracking to a trackable feature of the real-world location, (Tian, ¶0047: “attempt location spoofing by providing both fake movement data and corresponding fake image data”) and wherein determining whether the mobile digital device is disposed at the real-world location includes: attempting, using the mobile digital device, to track to the trackable feature using the faulty tracking data; (Tian, ¶0020: “detecting spoofed physical locations and/or verifying the actual real-time physical location of the user”; ¶0027: “a feature extraction process on the collected images to determine features associated with the physical location”) and in response to a successful attempt to track to the trackable feature using the faulty tracking data, determining that the mobile digital device is not disposed at the real-world location. (Tian, ¶0047: “the service provider device may be able to detect fake movement data and/or fake image data, thereby preventing location spoofing”).
Regarding claim 16, Tian teaches, The method of claim 1, wherein the proof-of-location data further comprises an instruction to a user of the mobile digital device to move the mobile digital device in a specified motion while the image sensor captures the image data. (Tian, ¶0031: “The physical location verification request 350 also includes a movement instruction 308 requesting the user to move the user device such that the corresponding two features in the camera view of the user device overlays with the markers 306 and 352”).
Regarding claim 19, Tian teaches, The method of claim 1, wherein the received proof-of-location data includes data configured to facilitate tracking (Tian, ¶0019: “physical location check-in services have been provided by social network service providers to help connect people in the real world”) to a plurality of trackable features of the real-world location, (Tian, ¶0033: “reference feature 410 is located at the physical location 210 of the real world”) and wherein determining whether the mobile digital device is disposed at the real-world location includes tracking to only a subset of the trackable features. (Tian, ¶0020: “the service provider device may determine reference features that are physically located at the asserted physical location, and send to the user device a physical location verification request for displaying a reference image including markers of those reference features on the user device”).
Regarding claim 20, Tian teaches, The method of claim 1, wherein the mobile digital device is a smart phone. (Tian, ¶0064: “the user device 1002 may be a smart phone”).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3-9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tian (US 2018/0374075 A1) in view of Ohashi (US 2021/0192781 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Tian teaches, The method of claim 2. However, Tian does not explicitly teach, wherein the first data includes a point cloud of the trackable feature and tracking to the trackable feature includes relocalizing the mobile digital device to the point cloud.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Ohashi teaches, wherein the first data includes a point cloud of the trackable feature and tracking to the trackable feature includes relocalizing the mobile digital device to the point cloud. (Ohashi, ¶0002: “A SLAM (Simultaneous Localization and Mapping) technique for estimating the position of a tracker and generating an environment map”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tian using the teachings of Ohashi to introduce localizing a device using point cloud. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of accurately locating a device in an environment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Tian and Ohashi to obtain the invention in claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, Tian teaches, The method of claim 1, wherein the proof-of-location data includes. However, Tian does not explicitly teach, an instruction to generate a point cloud corresponding to a trackable feature of the real-world location, and wherein determining whether the mobile digital device is disposed at the real-world location includes: generating the point cloud of the trackable feature using the image data; and comparing the generated point cloud to a reference point cloud.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Ohashi teaches, an instruction to generate a point cloud corresponding to a trackable feature of the real-world location, (Ohashi, ¶0003: “feature point data including plural feature points is generated on the basis of sensing data acquired by the tracker, such as a captured image captured by a camera”) and wherein determining whether the mobile digital device is disposed at the real-world location includes: generating the point cloud of the trackable feature using the image data; (Ohashi, ¶0088: “the position and orientation of the tracker 12 may be estimated on the basis of the common point cloud 50 stored in the identified database and the feature point data”) and comparing the generated point cloud to a reference point cloud. (Ohashi, ¶0003: “comparing the generated feature point data with the environment map, which is a point cloud stored in advance”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tian using the teachings of Ohashi to introduce point cloud. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of accurately comparing features represented by point clouds to verify the location of a device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Tian and Ohashi to obtain the invention in claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, Tian in view of Ohashi teaches, The method of claim 4, wherein the proof-of-location data includes the reference point cloud. (Ohashi, ¶0110: “The reference point cloud data is data representing a point cloud to be referred to in estimating the position or orientation of the tracker 12 identified by the tracker ID associated with the reference point cloud data”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tian in view of Ohashi using the additional teachings of Ohashi to introduce a comparable reference point cloud. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of using a prestored reference point cloud to accurately verify the location of a device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Tian and Ohashi to obtain the invention in claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, Tian in view of Ohashi teaches, The method of claim 5, wherein comparing the generated point cloud to the reference point cloud (Tian, ¶0020: “By matching the features in the camera view of the user device with the markers of the reference features, the service provider device verifies that the user is actually at the physical location”) is performed at the mobile digital device. (Tian, ¶0069: “user device 1100 is a portable or mobile phone including a touch screen input device and a plurality of input buttons that allow the functionality discussed above with reference to the method 100”).
Regarding claim 7, Tian in view of Ohashi teaches, The method of claim 4, further comprising communicating the generated point cloud to a remote server, (Tian, ¶0070: “a computer and/or a network server, includes a bus 1202 or other communication mechanism for communicating information, which interconnects subsystems and components”) wherein comparing the generated point cloud to the reference point cloud is performed at the remote server. (Tian, ¶0056: “the service provider device may apply a single verification criterion (e.g., the marker matching criterion), which may take less time to process”).
Regarding claim 8, Tian in view of Ohashi teaches, The method of claim 4, wherein generating the point cloud includes generating the point cloud based on a numeric parameter, (Ohashi, ¶0051: “coordinate values expressed using the X1-Y1-Z1 coordinate system are set for each of the plural points 52 included in the common point cloud”) and wherein determining whether the mobile digital device is disposed at the real-world location includes determining whether the generated point cloud is consistent with the numeric parameter. (Ohashi, ¶0065: “feature points extracted from a captured image will be compared with the points 52 included in the common point cloud 50. Accordingly, a position and an orientation of the tracker 12a to be estimated will be expressed using the common coordinate system”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tian in view of Ohashi using the additional teachings of Ohashi to introduce coordinate values. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of verifying the exact location of the user device using numerical coordinate values. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Tian and Ohashi to obtain the invention in claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, Tian in view of Ohashi teaches, The method of claim 8, wherein the received proof-of-location data includes the numeric parameter. (Ohashi, ¶0138: “a coordinate system of a virtual space in which the point cloud represented by the reference point cloud data identified in the process of S104 is arranged).
Regarding claim 17, Tian teaches, The method of claim 1. However, Tian does not explicitly teach, wherein the proof-of-location data includes only a first subset of points of a reference point cloud of a trackable feature disposed at the real- world location, and wherein determining whether the mobile digital device is disposed at the real-world location includes: based on the first subset of points, localizing the mobile digital device to the trackable feature, wherein localizing the mobile digital device to the trackable features includes generating a complete point cloud of the trackable feature including the first subset of points and a second subset of points including at least one point absent from the first subset; and transmitting the second subset of points to a remote device for comparison to the reference point cloud.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Ohashi teaches, wherein the proof-of-location data includes only a first subset of points of a reference point cloud of a trackable feature disposed at the real- world location, (Ohashi, ¶0144: “the point cloud represented by the reference point cloud data identified in the process of S104 is determined as not being a common point cloud”) and wherein determining whether the mobile digital device is disposed at the real-world location includes: based on the first subset of points, localizing the mobile digital device to the trackable feature, (Ohashi, ¶0007: “estimation section estimates the position or orientation of the first tracker in the common coordinate system on the basis of the common point cloud and first feature point data indicating relative positions of plural feature points”) wherein localizing the mobile digital device to the trackable features includes generating a complete point cloud of the trackable feature including the first subset of points and a second subset of points including at least one point absent from the first subset; (Ohashi, ¶0064: “points 52 corresponding to those of the points 56 included in the first individual point cloud 54 whose corresponding points 52 are not included in the common point cloud 50 are added to the common point cloud 50”) and transmitting the second subset of points to a remote device for comparison to the reference point cloud. (Ohashi, ¶0121: “determine whether or not some of the points 52 included in the common point cloud 50 coincide with some of the points 60 included in the second individual point cloud 58”; ¶0125: “the feature point data transmission section 96 may transmit, to the server 10, the captured image, the direction data, the data indicating the latitude and the longitude”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tian using the teachings of Ohashi to introduce analyzing a new subset of points. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of accurately verifying an environment of a device using newly scanned features. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Tian and Ohashi to obtain the invention in claim 17.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tian (US 2018/0374075 A1) in view of Moloney (US 2020/0098096 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Tian teaches, The method of claim 1, further comprising. However, Tian does not explicitly teach, masking the image data captured by the image sensor of the mobile digital device.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Moloney teaches, masking the image data captured by the image sensor of the mobile digital device. (Moloney, ¶0018: “the blur generator 118 can generate masked visual captures to mask features in visual captures”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tian using the teachings of Moloney to introduce masking image data. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of removing unnecessary objects from consideration while verifying a location from an image. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Tian and Moloney to obtain the invention in claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, Tian in view of Moloney teaches, The method of claim 11, wherein masking the image data includes partially obscuring, by a physical object, a trackable feature in a field of view of the image sensor (Moloney, ¶0018: “generating and/or locating privacy masks on the visual captures such that the privacy masks are to at least one of blur, obscure, obfuscate, conceal, or hide features”; ¶0033: “mask or blur corresponding portions of an input image”) while the image sensor captures the image data. (Moloney, ¶0018: “masked images can be based on still image captures output by cameras”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tian in view of Moloney using the additional teachings of Moloney to introduce masking a portion of an image. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of improving location verification results by masking an object of interest. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Tian and Moloney to obtain the invention in claim 12.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tian (US 2018/0374075 A1) in view of Moloney (US 2020/0098096 A1) and in further view of Lee et al. (US 2021/0101286 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Tian in view of Moloney teaches, The method of claim 11, wherein the proof-of-location data includes an instruction to. However, the combination of Tian and Moloney does not explicitly teach, generate a point cloud of a trackable feature of the real-world location, and wherein determining whether the mobile digital device is disposed at the real-world location includes: generating a point cloud of the trackable feature using the masked image data; and comparing the generated point cloud to a reference point cloud, the reference point cloud corresponding to a predicted point cloud of the trackable feature incorporating the mask.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Lee teaches, generate a point cloud of a trackable feature of the real-world location, (Lee, ¶0038: “real world robot (e.g., robot 190) in generating predicted 3D point clouds based on RGB-D images captured”) and wherein determining whether the mobile digital device is disposed at the real-world location includes: (Lee, ¶0048: “simulate various environments that include corresponding environmental objects and corresponding placement location”) generating a point cloud of the trackable feature using the masked image data; (Lee, ¶0067: “generates a predicted 3D point cloud of the real object based on processing, using a point cloud prediction network, the object mask and the channel(s) (e.g., including the color channel(s) and/or the depth channel) of at least a portion of the real image”) and comparing the generated point cloud to a reference point cloud, the reference point cloud corresponding to a predicted point cloud (Lee, ¶0122: “comparison of: the projection of the additional predicted 3D point cloud, and the additional ground truth depth image of the real object”) of the trackable feature incorporating the mask. (Lee, ¶0122: “generating an additional ground truth depth image for the real object based on the additional object mask”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tian in view of Moloney using the teachings of Lee to introduce generating a point cloud using masked image data. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of verifying a masked object’s location. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Tian, Moloney and Lee to obtain the invention in claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, Tian in view of Moloney and in further view of Lee teaches, The method of claim 13, wherein comparing the generated point cloud to the reference point cloud incorporating the mask is performed at a remote server. (Tian, ¶0070: “a computer and/or a network server, includes a bus 1202 or other communication mechanism for communicating information, which interconnects subsystems and components”).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tian (US 2018/0374075 A1) in view of Ter Beest (US 10,262,437 B1).
Regarding claim 18, Tian teaches, The method of claim 1, wherein receiving the proof-of-location data comprises. However, Tian does not explicitly teach, obtaining the proof-of-location data from a blockchain.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Ter Beest teaches, obtaining the proof-of-location data from a blockchain. (Ter Beest, col. 14, lines 60-62: “a distributed ledger (blockchain) 1000 as a primary database in the method to store objects and their locations”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tian using the teachings of Ter Beest to introduce a blockchain storage. A person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the known elements as described above and achieve the predictable result of securing the stored information from tampering. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Tian and Ter Beest to obtain the invention in claim 18.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEHRAZUL ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0489. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 8am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Saini Amandeep can be reached on (571) 272-3382. 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.
/MEHRAZUL ISLAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2662
/AMANDEEP SAINI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2662
Prosecution Insights