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 .
The Office acknowledges the amendment dated 02 September 2025, in which:
Claims 1-3, 5, 8-11, 13, and 16-20 are currently pending.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8-11, 13, and 16-19 are amended.
Claims 4, 6, 7, 12, 14, and 15 are canceled.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) to claims 1-20 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8-11, 13, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faessler et al. ("A monocular pose estimation system based on infrared LEDs," 2014 IEEE, hereinafter “Faessler”) in view of Foxlin et al. (US 2007/0081695, hereinafter “Foxlin”) in view of Hamanaka (US 2006/0165293).
Faessler teaches a monocular pose estimation system that uses a single infrared camera to track a target object (e.g., a quadrotor) equipped with N infrared LEDs. Faessler is explicitly designed to handle marker occlusion, where only M LEDs (M < N) are visible. To solve the resulting marker-to-spot correspondence problem, Faessler teaches a "combinatorial approach" that performs an "exhaustive search through all possible combinations", testing "every permutation of three LEDs on the target object" against the detected spots (Section III, D). For each combination (group), Faessler computes a pose candidate, "project[s] the LEDs... into the camera image" (reprojects), and checks the "reprojection-distance". It then uses a "histogram" method to find the correct pose, which is the pose that best matches the detected spots (Section III, D).
Foxlin teaches an optical tracking system for virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) applications (Para. [0044]). Foxlin teaches that the 6-DOF pose of an object can be computed using a single camera and "only two markers" if "the marked object is equipped with inertial sensors to measure at least its pitch and roll" (Para. [0028]). Foxlin's own Claim 2 recites "information about an orientation of the object comes from a first inertial sensor mounted on the object" (Para. [0013]). Foxlin provides the motivation for this combination, stating that the "additional information from inertial sensors provides a considerable increase in the accuracy" (Para. [0028]).
Hamanaka teaches an "object pose estimating... system" (Abstract). Hamanaka's system works by generating "pose candidates" (Abstract), generating "comparative images... by projecting the three-dimensional object models... in accordance with the pose candidate" (i.e., reprojecting) (Abstract), and then scoring each candidate by "calculating weighted distance values" between the input image and the comparative (reprojected) image (Abstract). The formula provided, D.sub.kj=.SIGMA..sub.rW.sub.kj(r){I(r)-G.sub.kj(r)}.sup.2 (Para. [0161]), is a Sum of Squared Euclidean Distances. Critically, Hamanaka "select[s] one of the comparative images whose distance value... is the smallest... thereby to estimate and match the pose" (Abstract).
Motivation for Combination:
A person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) would be motivated to improve the accuracy and robustness of the monocular tracking system of Faessler. Foxlin provides the explicit teaching and motivation to add an "inertial sensor mounted on the object" to obtain "orientation" (rotation) information, stating this provides a "considerable increase in the accuracy" (Para. [0028]).
Furthermore, a PHOSITA implementing Faessler's "correspondence search" of "all possible combinations" would seek a robust and standard metric for scoring the resulting pose candidates to find the "optimum pose" (Hamanaka: Para. [0003]). While Faessler suggests a "histogram" method, Hamanaka teaches an explicit and well-known alternative: calculating the "distance value" (Euclidean error) for each candidate and selecting the pose corresponding to the "smallest" (minimum) distance value (Abstract). It would be an obvious design choice to apply the "minimum distance" cost function of Hamanaka to the combinatorial "all groups" search of Faessler. Using a "minimum average value" (as claimed) is a mathematically equivalent and minor variation of Hamanaka's "minimum total weighted distance value," as minimizing the sum is the same as minimizing the average for a group of a fixed size M.
Mapping of Claim Limitations:
Regarding Claim 1:
"A positioning method... applied to a virtual reality (VR) scene... headset device comprises a camera, the optical tracker comprises N LED lights": This preamble is taught by the combination. Faessler teaches the "Monocular Pose Estimation System" using a single "camera" to track an object with "N" infrared LEDs. Foxlin teaches applying such a system in the explicit context of "virtual reality (VR)" (Para. [0044]) using a camera mounted on a user's head (Para. [0013]).
"obtaining an infrared image... comprises M light spots... N > M > 1": Taught by Faessler, which uses an "infrared camera" and is explicitly shown to handle occlusion where M (detected spots) is less than N (Section II and III, total LEDs, e.g., nL=5).
"reprojecting, for each group... in multiple groups... wherein... the multiple groups... comprise all groups...": This limitation, which Applicant's remarks clarify as a combinatorial arrangement, is taught by Faessler. Faessler teaches a "combinatorial approach", a "brute-force search through all possible combinations", and testing "every permutation" (Section III, D). This is a direct teaching of testing "all groups" of hypotheses.
"calculating, for each group... Euclidean distances between the reprojection coordinates... and image coordinates...": Taught by Faessler, which calculates the "reprojection-distance". This is also taught by Hamanaka, which "calculat[es] weighted distance values" (based on Euclidean distance) between the "comparative images" (reprojections) and the "input image" (Abstract). Applicant's own remarks confirm this is the intended interpretation.
"calculating an average value of the corresponding Euclidean distances of each group...": Taught by Hamanaka, which calculates a total distance value D.sub.kj for each group (pose candidate j) (Para. [0140], [0167], [0255]). Calculating an average value (dividing the total distance by M) is an obvious, mathematically equivalent step for normalizing the score of each group.
"obtaining a minimum average value from respective average values and determining a distance corresponding to the minimum average value as a positioning distance": Taught explicitly by Hamanaka, which "select[s] one of the comparative images whose distance value... is the smallest... thereby to estimate... the pose" (Abstract). The "positioning distance" is a component of the "pose."
Regarding Claim 9 (Apparatus) and Claim 17 (Medium):
Claims 9 and 17 recite an apparatus (processor + memory) and a non-transitory medium, respectively, configured to perform the method of Claim 1. Faessler, Foxlin, and Hamanaka all teach systems that fundamentally use processors and memory to execute their respective algorithms (Hamanaka, Fig. 4). Therefore, Claims 9 and 17 are obvious for the same reasons as Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 2:
"obtaining... first coordinates... and a rotation...": Faessler teaches obtaining "first coordinates" (Section III, A, the arrangement of the LEDs is known). As evidenced by Faessler’s associated open-source documentation (see NPL supporting reference “RPG Monocular Pose Estimator”), these known coordinates of the 3D LED positions are stored and provided to the processor via a "YAML configuration file"). Foxlin teaches obtaining information about “orientation” (rotation/pitch/roll) to aid the optical tracking (Para. [0030] – [0031]).
"wherein the rotation can be determined according to a sensor that is deployed on the optical tracker": This limitation, added by Applicant to overcome indefiniteness, is explicitly taught by Foxlin, which teaches using an "inertial sensor mounted on the object" (Claim 2).
"reprojecting, according to the first coordinates and the rotation...": This is taught by the combination. A PHOSITA would be motivated to use Foxlin's sensor-derived rotation as a known input to Faessler's reprojection step to improve accuracy, as suggested by Foxlin (Para. [0028]).
Regarding Claim 10 (Apparatus) and Claim 18 (Medium):
Claims 10 and 18 are rejected for the same reasons as Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 3:
"converting image coordinates... into Homogeneous coordinates...": This is a fundamental, textbook step in 3D-to-2D projection, inherent in the PnP/reprojection algorithms of Faessler, Foxlin, and Hamanaka. It is an obvious, implicit step for any PHOSITA implementing this algorithm.
"calculating a first distance... according to the first coordinates... rotation, and the Homogeneous coordinate": This is the PnP solver step. Faessler teaches this by "comput[ing] the pose candidate" (Section III, D). Foxlin teaches this by using the known "rotation" (pitch/roll) to solve for the unknown translation (distance) and yaw (Para. [0035] – [0039]).
"reprojecting, according to the rotation and the first distance...": This is the verification/error-checking step, taught by Faessler ("project the LEDs... into the camera image") (Section III, D) and Hamanaka ("generating... comparison image... in accordance with the pose candidate") (Abstract).
Regarding Claim 11 (Apparatus) and Claim 19 (Medium):
Claims 11 and 19 are rejected for the same reasons as Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 5:
This claim recites the standard, textbook definition of the "reprojecting" step of Claim 3.
"determining second coordinates... in the camera coordinate system...": This 3D world-to-camera transform is explicitly taught by Foxlin's mathematical derivation (e.g., r.sub.1.sup.c=R.sub.w.sup.cr.sub.1.sup.w) (Para. [0030] – [0031]) and is inherent in any reprojection algorithm, including Faessler's and Hamanaka's.
"calculating the... reprojection coordinates... according to the second coordinates and a camera intrinsic parameter...": This 3D-to-2D projection is explicitly taught by Foxlin (using "focal length f" and "pinhole camera model") (Para. [0034]) and inherent in Faessler's "pin-hole camera model". A "camera intrinsic parameter" is a prerequisite for any camera model.
Regarding Claim 13 (Apparatus):
Claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons as Claim 5.
Regarding Claim 8:
"...a group of target identification lists which are generated according to an arrangement...": This limitation is duplicative of the "all groups" limitation in Claim 1. As established for Claim 1, this is explicitly taught by Faessler's "combinatorial approach" involving "every permutation" of the LEDs is the arrangement claimed. Applicant's remarks confirm "arrangement" refers to the combinatorial generation of groups, which is exactly what Faessler teaches (Section III, D).
Regarding Claim 16 (Apparatus):
Claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons as Claim 8.
Regarding Claim 20:
This claim recites a positioning system comprising the apparatus of Claim 9. As Claim 9 is obvious for the reasons stated above, Claim 20, which depends upon it, is also obvious.
Response to Arguments/Amendments/Remarks
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 5, 8-11, 13, and 16-20 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references used in the current rejection.
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 extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN EARLES whose telephone number is (571)272-4628. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday at 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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, William Boddie can be reached on 571-272-0666. 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.
/BRYAN EARLES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2625
Prosecution Insights