DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restriction
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-8, drawn to determining a pose for the object using lens characteristics, classified in G06T 2207/30244.
II. Claims 9-20, drawn to calculating a pose of the object based on the relationship data, classified in G06T 7/74.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as subcombinations disclosed as usable together in a single combination. The subcombinations are distinct if they do not overlap in scope and are not obvious variants, and if it is shown that at least one subcombination is separately usable. In the instant case, subcombination I has separate utility such as determining a pose for the object using lens characteristics. See MPEP § 806.05(d).
The examiner has required restriction between subcombinations usable together. Where applicant elects a subcombination and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
Inventions I and II require a different field of search (e.g. searching different main-groups / sub-groups or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Mr. Riley Balling (Reg. No. 66,784) on 12/10/2025 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Invention I, claims 1-8. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 9-20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
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.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 limitation(s) is/are: “an image acquisition device … configured to acquire a query frame …” as recited in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) 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 6 recites the claim language “the operational context includes at least one of: desired accuracy; whether the environment is a two-dimensional or three-dimensional environment; and available processing capabilities”. The Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 69 USPQ2d 1865 (Fed. Cir. 2004) decision regarding the claim interpretation of “at least one of x, y, and z.” at pages 15-16 set forth the rationale for determining that the term “and” is conjunctive (i.e. at least one of x, at least one of y, and at least one of z). Therefore the plain meaning of the current claim language “the operational context includes at least one of: desired accuracy; whether the environment is a two-dimensional or three-dimensional environment; and available processing capabilities” in light of the specification is interpreted to be “the operational context includes: at least one of desired accuracy; at least one of whether the environment is a two-dimensional or three-dimensional environment; and at least one of available processing capabilities”. Also see MPEP 2111.01 on the subject of Plain Meaning given to claim terms.
Claim 8 recites the claim language “the vision localization paradigm is at least one of: a pose approximation vision localization paradigm; a two-view geometry vision localization paradigm; a landmark navigation vision localization paradigm; a structures from motion vision localization paradigm; a learned depth vision localization paradigm; and a neural rendering vision localization paradigm”. The Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 69 USPQ2d 1865 (Fed. Cir. 2004) decision regarding the claim interpretation of “at least one of x, y, and z.” at pages 15-16 set forth the rationale for determining that the term “and” is conjunctive (i.e. at least one of x, at least one of y, and at least one of z). Therefore the plain meaning of the current claim language “the vision localization paradigm is at least one of: a pose approximation vision localization paradigm; a two-view geometry vision localization paradigm; a landmark navigation vision localization paradigm; a structures from motion vision localization paradigm; a learned depth vision localization paradigm; and a neural rendering vision localization paradigm” in light of the specification is interpreted to be “the vision localization paradigm is: at least one of a pose approximation vision localization paradigm; at least one of a two-view geometry vision localization paradigm; at least one of a landmark navigation vision localization paradigm; at least one of a structures from motion vision localization paradigm; at least one of a learned depth vision localization paradigm; and at least one of a neural rendering vision localization paradigm”. Also see MPEP 2111.01 on the subject of Plain Meaning given to claim terms.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al (CN 112884834 A, provided by Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement IDS - the attached English language translation is used hereinafter as the Official English language translation of this CN document).
Re Claim 1: He discloses a system (see He, Pages 27-28/60 at paragraph “In the above-mentioned embodiments, it may be implemented …”) comprising: an image acquisition device mounted to an object, the image acquisition device configured to acquire a query frame of an environment containing the object (see He, Page 6/60 at paragraph “In yet another implementation, the acquiring unit is used to acquire …”, Page 8/60 at paragraph “The present application provides a visual positioning method and system …”, Pages 10-11/60 at paragraph “Using the ToF depth camera on the positioning device …”); a memory device configured to store an image database (see He, Page 6/60 at paragraph “In yet another implementation, the acquiring unit is used to acquire …”, Page 14/60 at paragraph “Specifically, with regard … each picture in the database …”); and at least one processor configured to execute computer-readable instructions that direct the at least one processor to (see He, Pages 27-28/60 at paragraph “In the above-mentioned embodiments, it may be implemented …”): identify a set of data in the image database that potentially matches the query frame (see He, Page 6/60 at paragraph “In yet another implementation, the acquiring unit is used to acquire …”); identify a vision localization paradigm in a plurality of vision localization paradigms (see He, Page 8/60 at paragraph “Visual positioning methods are divided into three major positioning methods …” and paragraph “The present application provides … Different positioning methods can be selected for positioning according to the scene …”, Page 10/60 at paragraph “For rooms with rich …”, Page 11/60 at paragraph “For indoor daytime …”); and determine a pose for the object using the set of data, the query frame, and lens characteristics for the image acquisition device as inputs to the vision localization paradigm (see He, Page 7/60 at paragraph “The basic principle of visual …”, Page 9/60 at paragraph “Using the ToF depth camera …” through Page 10/60 at paragraph “The above-mentioned …”, Page 21/60 at paragraph “The first image …” through “By adopting the method for visual positioning …”, the first image, the candidate image(s), and the ToF depth camera internal parameters, are used to determine which of the three methods [direct method, indirect method, and CNN method] to use and thereby determine the pose of the object).
Although different embodiments of He have been referred to, it would have been exceedingly obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify He by combining He’s similar embodiments in order to not limit the embodiments to themselves but include other evident combinations and extensions thereof (see He, Page 27/60 at paragraph “In several embodiments …” through “The units described …”).
Re Claim 2: He further discloses wherein the computer-readable instructions that direct the at least one processor to identify the set of data (see He, Page 6/60 at paragraph “In yet another implementation, the acquiring unit is used to acquire …”), further direct the at least one processor to (see He, Pages 27-28/60 at paragraph “In the above-mentioned embodiments, it may be implemented …”): calculate a query general descriptor for the query frame (see He, Page 26/60 at paragraph “The visual positioning device used to obtain …” through Page 27/60 at paragraph “And calculating the final position …”); acquire general descriptors for a plurality of frames stored in the image database (see He, Page 26/60 at paragraph “The visual positioning device used to obtain …” through Page 27/60 at paragraph “And calculating the final position …”); compare the general descriptors to the query general descriptor for each of the plurality of frames (see He, Page 26/60 at paragraph “The visual positioning device used to obtain …” through Page 27/60 at paragraph “And calculating the final position …”); and designate a number of frames in the plurality of frames as the set of data (see He, Page 6/60 at paragraph “In yet another implementation, the acquiring unit is used to acquire …”, obtain one or more candidate images, Page 26/60 at paragraph “The visual positioning device used to obtain …” through Page 27/60 at paragraph “And calculating the final position …”, get candidate feature descriptors).
Re Claim 3: He further discloses wherein the computer-readable instructions that direct the at least one processor to identify the set of data (see He, Page 6/60 at paragraph “In yet another implementation, the acquiring unit is used to acquire …”), further direct the at least one processor (see He, Pages 27-28/60 at paragraph “In the above-mentioned embodiments, it may be implemented …”) to provide additional paradigm-specific information for the number of frames included in the set of data (see He, Page 9/60 at paragraphs “In this embodiment, various types …” through “The indoor and outdoor identifiers …”, indoor and outdoor scene type identification information provided by auxiliary location based service, Page 9/60 at paragraph “Using the ToF depth camera …” through Page 10/60 at paragraph “The above-mentioned …”, Page 21/60 at paragraph “The first image …” through “By adopting the method for visual positioning …”, the scene type information is used to determine which of the three methods [direct method, indirect method, and CNN method] to use and thereby determine the pose of the object).
Re Claim 4: Although He fails to explicitly disclose a user interface, wherein the computer-readable instructions that direct the at least one processor to identify the vision localization paradigm, further direct the at least one processor to receive a paradigm selection from the user interface, the Examiner takes Official Notice that it would have been exceedingly obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify He’s system to include a user interface that receives a paradigm selection from the user interface as is exceedingly well known and typical in the image processing and signal processing fields of endeavor in order to broaden the applicability of the system and improve the user experience, as evidenced by e.g. Humenberger et al [“Robust Image Retrieval-based Visual Localization using Kapture” – arXiv - 1/07/2022 – pages 1-21] (see Humenberger, abstract, Figure 1, Section 3. Kapture description, the Kapture toolbox is an open source tool that allows the user to select the visual localization method from the list of visual localization methods).
Re Claim 5: He further discloses further comprising additional sensors, wherein the computer-readable instructions that direct the at least one processor to identify the vision localization paradigm, further direct the at least one processor to detect an operational context for the object based on navigational information acquired from the additional sensors (see He, Page 9/60 at paragraph “In this embodiment, various types of sensors …”, Page 10/60 at paragraph “The light sensor …”, Page 12/60 at paragraph “6. Positioning result … navigation information …”, Page 21/60 at paragraph “The first image …” through “By adopting the method for visual positioning …”, extract a part of the point cloud of the scene by using the initial positioning position obtained by the sensor(s) of the positioning device).
Re Claim 6: He further discloses wherein the operational context includes at least one of: desired accuracy; whether the environment is a two-dimensional or three-dimensional environment; and available processing capabilities (see He, Page 7/60 at paragraph “The basic principle …”, Page 8/60 at paragraph “Visual positioning methods …” through “The present application provides …”, Page 12/60 at paragraph “Compared with traditional positioning …”, low power consumption with high accuracy for the 2D environment scene images).
Re Claim 7: He further discloses wherein data stored on the image database is received from a central repository, wherein the data stored on the image database was calculated by a plurality of processors at the central repository (see He, Page 16/60 at paragraph “Which solution to use …”, Page 21/60 at paragraph “The positioning algorithm requires more computing …”).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He in view of Humenberger et al (“Investigating the Role of Image Retrieval for Visual Localization - An exhaustive benchmark” – arXiv – 5/31/2022 – pages 1-34). The teachings of He have been discussed above.
Re Claim 8: He further discloses wherein the vision localization paradigm is at least one of: a pose approximation vision localization paradigm; a two-view geometry vision localization paradigm; a learned depth vision localization paradigm; and a neural rendering vision localization paradigm (see He, Page 7/60 at paragraph “The basic principle …”, Page 8/60 at paragraph “Visual positioning methods are divided into three major positioning methods …” through paragraph “The present application provides … Different positioning methods can be selected for positioning according to the scene …”, Page 10/60 at paragraph “For rooms with rich …”, Page 11/60 at paragraph “For indoor daytime …”, Page 20/60 at paragraph “For small rooms …”, e.g. CNN method to get the pose using at least depth sensors, e.g. direct method using the 3D points and the 2D image geometric relationship, e.g. trained PoseNet network using at least depth sensors).
However He fails to explicitly disclose where Humenberger discloses a landmark navigation vision localization paradigm (see Humenberger, Fig. 1, Paragraph “Our main contributions … there is a strong correlation between landmark retrieval performance and Paradigm 1 …” in page 3, Section 3.4 Paradigm 3a: Landmark retrieval); a structures from motion vision localization paradigm (see Humenberger, Fig. 1, Section 3.3. Paradigm 2b: Pose estimation with a global map, Structure-from-Motion SFM).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify He’s system using Humenberger’s teachings by including various other localization paradigm’s to He’s paradigm’s / visual positioning methods in order to improve the localization / pose determination accuracy of the object (see Humenberger, Fig. 1, abstract, Paragraph “Our main contributions …”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lund et al ‘343 discloses vehicle localization; Kim et al ‘972 discloses vehicle pose estimation and/or error correction; Hofmann et al ‘347 discloses estimating a three-dimensional pose of the tracked object in the image frame based at least in part on the camera parameters.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERNARD KRASNIC whose telephone number is (571)270-1357. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thur. and every other Friday from 8am - 4pm.
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, Vincent Rudolph can be reached at (571)272-8243. 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.
/Bernard Krasnic/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2671 April 7, 2026