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 .
Applicant’s response to the Non-final Office Action dated 10/21/2025, filed with the office on 02/20/2026, has been entered and made of record.
Response to Amendment
In light of Applicant’s amendment of claims 10 and 17, the rejections of record under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) with respect to claims 10 and 17 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment of the claims still invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f), accordingly, the claim interpretations are maintained.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 4 and 6-22 are pending. Claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 10-13, 15-17, 19 and 20 are amended. Claims 2, 3 and 5 are cancelled. Claims 21 and 22 are new.
Examiner’s Note
The claimed limitation “attempting to track to the trackable feature” is interpreted as ‘tracking a feature’ as the claims do not recite any instance of failed tracking attempt.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on February 20, 2026 with respect to the clam interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) has been fully considered; but they are not found persuasive. Specifically, in page 8 of its reply, Applicant argues in second paragraph that the amended claim language “mobile computing device” and “remote computing device” provide sufficient structure and do not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Examiner respectfully disagrees. The term “mobile computing device” does not provide a definitive structure but only suggests its capabilities i.e. the device can compute and it can be moved. Therefore, the limitation is interpreted as a cell phone according to Applicant’s disclosure, see Applicant’s specification page 5, lines 14-15: “a mobile digital device such as a cell phone” which provides sufficient structure for performing the functions recited in the claims. Therefore, claim interpretations are maintained.
With respect to the rejections of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant argues in page 9, third paragraph that the claims are patent eligible under the Streamlined Eligibility Analysis because they are directed to clear improvements to other technologies or technological processes, beyond computer improvements. Examiner respectfully disagrees. For Streamlined Eligibility Analysis, it must be established that the claims clearly do not attempt to ‘tie up’ a judicial exception (an abstract idea i.e. mental process). The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims fails to meet this criteria (see the updated Abstract idea rejection below). Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
Applicant further argues in pages 11-12, that a person cannot practically receive, at a mobile computing device, a point cloud, capture image data and generate verification data. Examiner respectfully disagrees. These recited functions are 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. Instructions to apply an exception using generic components (i.e. mobile computing device) cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
With respect to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant argues in page 19, first paragraph, that Tian fails to teach or suggest receiving faulty tracking data and attempting to track a trackable feature using the faulty tracking data in order to prevent spoofing. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Tian discloses a method of preventing spoofing by detecting fake movement and fake image data (which means the data provided is recognized to be faulty/incorrect) in ¶0047: “providing both fake movement data and corresponding fake image data… the service provider device may be able to detect fake movement data and/or fake image data, thereby preventing location spoofing”. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
Applicant continues to argue in page 20, third paragraph, that Lee does not teach a mask that conceal or occlude a trackable feature in the image data. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applying a mask on an object inherently conceals or occludes the object, therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
Applicant’s amendment of independent Claims 1, 14, addition of new independent claims 21 and 22, which has altered the scope of the claims of the instant application, has necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this office action with respect to claims of the instant application. Accordingly, in response to Applicant’s arguments that are merely directed to the amended portion of the claims and the new claims, new analyses have been presented below, which make Applicant’s arguments moot.
Consequently, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.
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 computing device” in claims 1-4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, 15-17, 19-22; “remote computing 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 § 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, 4 and 6-22 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 computing device, proof-of-location data”, “capturing, using an image sensor of the mobile computing device, image data”, “generating, by the mobile computing device, verification data”, and “determining, based on the verification data, whether the mobile computing 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 computing device, can receive location data, capture image data, generate verification data to verify the location and determine whether the mobile computing device is located at the received location. 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 user.
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 computing 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. Additionally, independent claims 21 and 22 recite similar abstract idea and therefore, are not patent eligible.
Further, with regard to dependent claims 4 and 6-20 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 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.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tian (US 2018/0374075 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Tian teaches, A method for generating proof of location, (Tian, ¶0002: “a method for electronic location authentication”) the method comprising: receiving, at a mobile computing 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”) wherein the proof-of-location data includes faulty tracking data configured to inhibit the mobile computing device from tracking to a trackable feature at the real-world location; (Tian, ¶0047: “attempt location spoofing by providing both fake movement data and corresponding fake image data”) capturing, using an image sensor of the mobile computing device, image data of an environment of the mobile computing 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 whether the mobile computing 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”) by: attempting, using the mobile computing device, to track to the trackable feature using the faulty tracking data and the image 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 and the image data, determining that the mobile computing 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”).
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 1, 10, 15, 16, 19 and 20 are rejected 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tian (US 2018/0374075 A1) in view of Ichim et al. (US 2021/0319220 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 computing 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 computing device, image data of an environment of the mobile computing 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 verification data, whether the mobile computing 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”). However, The combination of Tian and Ichim does not explicitly teach, including a point cloud of a trackable feature at the real-world location; and generating, by the mobile computing device, verification data by attempting to track to the trackable feature using the point cloud and the image data, wherein the verification data includes information indicating which points of the point cloud were tracked to in the image data and how many times each point of the point cloud was tracked to in the image data;
In an analogous field of endeavor, Ichim teaches, including a point cloud of a trackable feature (Ichim. ¶0055: “a detected intruder, such as a chair, may be displayed to the user as a point cloud”) at the real-world location; (Ichim, ¶0055: “visualization of the real world (e.g., based on 3D reconstruction techniques) is presented to the user”) and generating, by the mobile computing device, verification data by attempting to track to the trackable feature using the point cloud (Ichim, ¶0006: “the system may detect observable features in the user's surroundings and generate a corresponding point cloud for those features”) and the image data, (Ichim, ¶0024: “capturing images of the user's surrounding using externally-facing cameras and processing the images to detect observable features of objects”) wherein the verification data includes information indicating which points of the point cloud were tracked to in the image data (Ichim, ¶0010: “a voting algorithm to categorize voxels having spatial points that appear to correspond to such a physical object being occupied or unoccupied”) and how many times each point of the point cloud was tracked to in the image data. (Ichim, ¶0043: “each point counts as a vote that its corresponding voxel is occupied. If a given voxel contains enough points, or votes, within it, then the system may have more confidence that the points correspond to one or more actual physical objects within the voxel”).
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 Ichim to introduce counting occupied points in a 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 verifying the presence of a physical object in the respective location of the point cloud. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the analogous arts Tian and Ichim to obtain the invention in claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, Tian in view of Ichim teaches, The method of claim 1, further comprising sending, from the mobile computing device to a remote computing device, a request to establish proof that the mobile computing 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 computing device is sent by the remote computing 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 in view of Ichim teaches, The method of claim 1, wherein the proof-of-location data further comprises faulty tracking data configured to inhibit a mobile computing device from tracking to the 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 computing device is disposed at the real-world location includes: attempting, using the mobile computing 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 computing 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 in view of Ichim teaches, The method of claim 1, wherein the proof-of-location data further comprises an instruction to a user of the mobile computing device to move the mobile computing 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 in view of Ichim 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 computing 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 in view of Ichim teaches, The method of claim 1, wherein the mobile computing device is a smart phone. (Tian, ¶0064: “the user device 1002 may be a smart phone”).
Claims 4, 6-9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tian (US 2018/0374075 A1) in view of Ichim et al. (US 2021/0319220 A1) and in further view of Ohashi (US 2021/0192781 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Tian in view of Ichim teaches, The method of claim 1, However, The combination of Tian and Ichim does not explicitly teach, wherein the point cloud included in the proof-of-location data is a reference point cloud, wherein the proof-of-location data further includes. an instruction to generate a point cloud corresponding to the trackable feature of the real-world location, and wherein determining whether the mobile computing device is disposed at the real-world location further includes: generating the point cloud of the trackable feature using the image data, wherein the verification data further includes the generated point cloud; and comparing the generated point cloud to the reference point cloud.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Ohashi teaches, wherein the point cloud included in the proof-of-location data is a reference point cloud, (Ohashi, ¶0138: “position and orientation estimated here are expressed using a coordinate system of a virtual space in which the point cloud represented by the reference point cloud data”) wherein the proof-of-location data further includes an instruction to generate a point cloud corresponding to the 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 computing device is disposed at the real-world location further 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”) wherein the verification data further includes the generated point cloud; and comparing the generated point cloud to the 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 in view of Ichim 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, Ichim and Ohashi to obtain the invention in claim 4.
Regarding claim 6, Tian in view of Ichim and in further view of Ohashi teaches, The method of claim 4, 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 computing 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 Ichim and in further 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 Ichim and in further 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 computing 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 Ichim and in further 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, Ichim and Ohashi to obtain the invention in claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, Tian in view of Ichim and in further 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 in view of Ichim teaches, The method of claim 1. However, The combination of Tian and Ichim does not explicitly teach, wherein the proof-of-location data includes only a first subset of points of the point cloud of the trackable feature disposed at the real-world location, and wherein determining whether the mobile computing device is disposed at the real-world location includes: based on the first subset of points, localizing the mobile computing device to the trackable feature, wherein localizing the mobile computing 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 computing device for comparison to the point cloud.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Ohashi teaches, wherein the proof-of-location data includes only a first subset of points of the point cloud of the 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 computing device is disposed at the real-world location includes: based on the first subset of points, localizing the mobile computing 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 computing 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 computing device for comparison to the 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 in view of Ichim 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, Ichim 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 Ichim et al. (US 2021/0319220 A1) and in further view of Moloney (US 2020/0098096 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Tian in view of Ichim teaches, The method of claim 1, further comprising. However, The combination of Tian and Ichim does not explicitly teach, masking the image data captured by the image sensor of the mobile computing device.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Moloney teaches, masking the image data captured by the image sensor of the mobile computing 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 in view of Ichim 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, Ichim and Moloney to obtain the invention in claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, Tian in view of Ichim and in further view of Moloney teaches, The method of claim 11, wherein masking the image data includes partially obscuring, by a physical object, the 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 Ichim and in further 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, Ichim 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 Ichim et al. (US 2021/0319220 A1), in further view of Moloney (US 2020/0098096 A1) and still 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. However, the combination of Tian and Moloney does not explicitly teach, wherein the point cloud included in the proof-of-location data comprises a reference point cloud, wherein the proof-of-location data further includes an instruction to generate a point cloud of the trackable feature of the real-world location, and wherein determining whether the mobile computing device is disposed at the real-world location includes: generating the point cloud of the trackable feature using the masked image data, wherein the verification data further includes the generated point cloud; and comparing the generated point cloud to the 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, wherein the point cloud included in the proof-of-location data comprises a reference point cloud, (Lee, ¶0119: “a ground truth 3D point cloud”) wherein the proof-of-location data further includes an instruction to generate a point cloud of the 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 computing device is disposed at the real-world location includes: (Lee, ¶0048: “simulate various environments that include corresponding environmental objects and corresponding placement location”) generating the 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”) wherein the verification data further includes the generated point cloud; (Lee, ¶0067: “generates a predicted 3D point cloud of the real object based on processing”) and comparing the generated point cloud to the reference 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”) the reference point cloud corresponding to a predicted point cloud 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 Ichim and in further 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, Ichim, Moloney and Lee to obtain the invention in claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, Tian in view of Ichim, in further view of Moloney and still 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 Ichim et al. (US 2021/0319220 A1) and in further view of Ter Beest (US 10,262,437 B1).
Regarding claim 18, Tian in view of Ichim teaches, The method of claim 1, wherein receiving the proof-of-location data comprises. However, The combination of Tian and Ichim 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 in view of Ichim 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, Ichim and Ter Beest to obtain the invention in claim 18.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tian (US 2018/0374075 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 2021/0101286 A1).
Regarding claim 22, Tian teaches, A method for generating proof of location, (Tian, ¶0002: “a method for electronic location authentication”) the method comprising: receiving, at a mobile computing device, (Tian, ¶0001: “physical location verification of users using mobile electronic devices”) proof-of-location data associated with a real-world location including (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”). However, Tian does not explicitly teach, an instruction to generate a point cloud of a trackable feature at the real-world location and a mask; capturing, using an image sensor of the mobile computing device, masked image data of an environment of the mobile computing device including the trackable feature, wherein the trackable feature is at least partially occluded by the mask in the masked image data; generating a point cloud of the trackable feature using the masked image data; and determining whether the mobile computing device is disposed at the real-world location by comparing the generated point cloud to a reference point cloud, wherein the reference point cloud corresponds to a predicted point cloud of the trackable feature incorporating the mask.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Lee teaches, an instruction to generate a point cloud of a trackable feature at the real-world location and a mask; (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”) capturing, using an image sensor of the mobile computing device, masked image data of an environment of the mobile computing device (Lee, ¶0032: “the RGB-D image is a real world image, the object mask engine 142 can use an object detection network 172 to detect object bounding box(es) for object(s) in the RGB-D image as well as an associated mask for each of the object(s)”) including the trackable feature, wherein the trackable feature is at least partially occluded by the mask in the masked image data; (Lee, ¶0033: “generate the depth image to include, for those pixels in the object mask (generated by object mask engine 142) that represent the object, the depth values, from the depth channel, that corresponds to those pixels”) generating a point cloud of the trackable feature using the masked image data; (Lee, ¶0056: “generates a predicted 3D point cloud of the simulated object based on processing, using a point cloud prediction network, the object mask”) and determining whether the mobile computing device is disposed at the real-world location (Lee, ¶0028: “checking whether the simulated object is moved above its original pose. This evaluation can be done easily in simulation since there is access to the ground truth object pose”) by comparing the generated point cloud to a reference point cloud, (Lee, ¶0119: “comparison of the predicted 3D point cloud itself to a ground truth 3D point cloud”) wherein the reference point cloud corresponds to a predicted point cloud of the trackable feature incorporating the mask. (Lee, ¶0056: “predicted 3D point cloud of the simulated object based on processing, using a point cloud prediction network, the 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 Ichim 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, Ichim and Lee to obtain the invention in claim 22.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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 at (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