DETAILED ACTION
This Action is in response to Applicant’s response filed on 08/19/2026. Claims 1-20 are still pending in the present application. This Action is made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection in view of Nickerson (US 2022/0198764 A1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-7, 10-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Emami (US 2021/0350612 A1) in view of Nickerson (US 2022/0198764 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 12 and 20, Emami discloses a method of target positioning, applied to a smart terminal and comprising:
[claim 12: an electronic device, comprising a memory, a processor and a computer program stored in the memory and executable on the processor, wherein the processor, when executes the program, perform acts comprising: (¶¶ 67 and 71)]
[claim 20: non-transitory computer readable storage medium having stored computer instructions for causing a computer to perform acts comprising: (¶ 70)]
obtaining image data of a surrounding environment; (¶ ¶ 17, 34 and 51: capturing image data of a physical world location using a camera on a mobile device)
generating a spatial image of the surrounding environment based on the image data; (¶¶ 35 and 55; creating a spatial representation of the physical world location based on the image data including sparse point cloud)
generating anchor point information corresponding to the positioning target based on the corresponding spatial image; and (¶¶ 17, 36, and 46-52; determines virtual spatial anchor pose information within or based on the matched spatial representation)
Emami fails to specifically obtaining the spatial image corresponding to a positioning target based on a location region of the positioning target; loading the anchor point information into the spatial image; and determining a specific location of the positioning target based on the spatial image loaded with the anchor point information.
In related art, Nickerson discloses obtaining the spatial image corresponding to a positioning target based on a location region of the positioning target; (Nickerson teaches generating and storing a 3D spatial map of an environment, including point cloud data and Spatial Anchor information, see paragraphs 15-17. The spatial map corresponds to the claimed spatial image. Nickerson teaches determining a physical location of the device and using that physical location to retrieve from a server a spatial map file corresponding to that physical location, see paragraphs 47-48.) loading the anchor point information into the spatial image; (Nickerson teaches the spatial computing device assigns a Spatial Anchor and transmits information relating to the Spatial Anchor to the spatial computing hub, which stores the Spatial Anchor information in the spatial map file, see paragraph 36. When the spatial map is later retrieved, a Spatial Anchor ID is included in the spatial map data, see paragraph 49.) and determining a specific location of the positioning target based on the spatial image loaded with the anchor point information. (Nickerson teaches environmental data and the Spatial Anchor ID from the spatial map are used to determine location information, including the position and rotation of the Spatial Anchor, and the resulting AR environment is displayed based on the spatial map file with content positioned relative to the determined Spatial Anchor, see paragraphs 50-51.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Nickerson into the teachings of Emami to effectively improve Emami’s positioning process by narrowing the spatial representation used for anchor localization to a spatial map associated with the target’s geographic region.
Regarding claims 2 and 13, Emami, as modified by Nickerson, discloses the claimed invention wherein the smart terminal comprises a lidar; obtaining the image data of the surrounding environment comprises: scanning, by the lidar, the surrounding environment, and generating point cloud image data based on a scanning result. (paragraphs 34-35, 41, 54-55, 75, 79 and 81)
Regarding claims 3 and 14, Emami, as modified by Nickerson, discloses the claimed invention wherein the smart terminal comprises a depth sensor; obtaining the image data of the surrounding environment comprises: detecting, by the depth sensor, a distance of an object in the surrounding environment, and generating depth image data based on a detecting result. (paragraphs 34-35, 41, 54-55, 75, 79 and 81)
Regarding claims 4 and 15, Emami, as modified by Nickerson, discloses the claimed invention wherein after generating the spatial image of the surrounding environment based on the image data, the method further comprises: outputting the spatial image to a cloud database for aggregating and storing, by the cloud database, the spatial image transmitted from the smart terminal and other smart terminals. (paragraphs 25, 32, 38, 44-48, 67 and 73)
Regarding claims 5 and 16, Emami, as modified by Nickerson, discloses the claimed invention wherein after generating the anchor point information corresponding to the positioning target based on the corresponding spatial image, the method further comprises: outputting the anchor point information to the cloud database for aggregating and storing, by the cloud database, a correspondence between the anchor point information and the corresponding spatial image. (paragraphs 38, 44, 46-47 and 52)
Regarding claims 6 and 17, Emami, as modified by Nickerson, discloses the claimed invention wherein generating the anchor point information corresponding to the positioning target based on the corresponding spatial image comprises: determining a boundary distance from at least one point on the positioning target to a boundary of the corresponding spatial image; generating a three-dimensional coordinate system based on the corresponding spatial image; and determining, based on the boundary distance, a corresponding coordinate point or point set of the positioning target in the three-dimensional coordinate system to generate the anchor point information. (paragraphs 35-36, 40, 42, 50-51 and 79-81)
Regarding claims 7 and 18, Emami, as modified by Nickerson, discloses the claimed invention wherein determining and obtaining the spatial image corresponding to the positioning target, and generating anchor point information corresponding to the positioning target based on the corresponding spatial image comprises: in response to the positioning target being a further smart terminal, determining whether a region where the further smart terminal is located has the corresponding spatial image; in response to the region having the corresponding spatial image, obtaining the corresponding spatial image and sending a positioning instruction to the further smart terminal to generate the anchor point information by the further smart terminal. (paragraphs 15, 32, 48-49, 53-57, 62 and 64)
Regarding claim 10, Emami, as modified by Nickerson, discloses the claimed invention wherein after generating anchor point information corresponding to the positioning target based on the corresponding spatial image, the method further comprises: outputting the anchor point information to an external network for other smart terminals to obtain the anchor point information; and determining the specific location of the corresponding positioning target using the anchor point information. (paragraphs 25-27, 32, 38, 44-52, 62, 76-78)
Regarding claim 11, Emami, as modified by Nickerson, discloses the claimed invention wherein the positioning target at least comprises: the smart terminal and a target input by a user through the smart terminal. (paragraphs 15-17, 26 and 36)
Claims 8-9 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Emami in view of Nickerson and in further view of You (US 2022/0108534 A1).
Regarding claims 8 and 19, Emami, as modified by Nickerson, discloses the claimed invention except for wherein determining the specific location of the positioning target comprises: obtaining and displaying network map data; inserting the spatial image at a location corresponding to the spatial image on the network map data; and loading the anchor point information into the spatial image to determine the specific location of the positioning target.
In related art, You discloses obtaining and displaying network map data; (paragraphs 148-150) inserting the spatial image at a location corresponding to the spatial image on the network map data; (paragraphs 148-150) and determine the specific location of the positioning target the specific location of the positioning target in the network map data based on the spatial image loaded with the anchor point information. (paragraphs 149-155)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of You into the teachings of Emami and Nickerson to effectively achieve consistent localization, tracking and sharing of spatial information among networked clients.
Regarding claim 9, Emami, as modified by Nickerson and You, discloses the claimed invention wherein after loading the anchor point information into the spatial image, the method further comprises: positioning the positioning target in the network map data based on the spatial image loaded with the anchor point information to generate navigation information. (paragraphs 19-23, 26-27, 58, 60-62, 77-78 and 81)
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BOBBAK SAFAIPOUR whose telephone number is (571)270-1092. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00am - 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, Stephen Koziol can be reached at (408) 918-7630. 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.
/BOBBAK SAFAIPOUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2665
Prosecution Insights