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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 of US Application No. 18/645,240, filed on 24 April 2024, are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed on 23 July 2024 (2) have been considered. An initialed copy of form 1449 for each IDS is enclosed herewith.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the method steps of claim 1, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “one or more of the first set of keypoints” in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim previously recites “a first set of keypoints” in line 2. For this Detailed Action, this limitation is interpreted as –
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martini (US 2015/0172626 A1) in view of Sawhney et al. (US 10,726,264 B2, “Sawhney”).
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 15, Martini discloses localization and mapping and teaches:
one or more processors; and one or more memories coupled with the one or more processors and storing processor-executable code (central processor 100, RAM 110, software – see at least Fig. 3 and ¶ [0052], [0072]) that, when executed by the one or more processors, is configured to cause the apparatus to:
label, [ ], a first set of keypoints in a first image associated with a three-dimensional (3D) map of an environment, the first image having been captured during a first time period (capturing successive images and detecting feature points within the captured images – see at least Fig. 19 and ¶ [0211]; each landmark point may be defined by a three dimensional spatial position – see at least ¶ [0218], [0239]);
label, [ ], a second set of keypoints in a second image associated with the 3D map, the second image having been captured during a second time period (capturing successive images and detecting feature points within the captured images – see at least Fig. 19 and ¶ [0211]; each landmark point may be defined by a three dimensional spatial position – see at least ¶ [0218], [0239]; feature point detected at an intervening image – see at least Fig. 19 and ¶ [0212]); and
update, via the keypoint model, one of more of the first set of keypoints based on labeling the second set of keypoints (camera pose is determined based on non-bundle-adjusted points, i.e., the feature points detected at an intervening image, - see at least ¶ [0213]; bundle-adjustment is performed to generate bundle-adjusted landmark points by iteratively refining the three dimensional spatial positions of the landmarks and the camera pose data – see at least Fig. 19 and ¶ [0214], [0080]; bundle adjustment performed using ‘reprojection error’, i.e., a mathematical model – see at least ¶ [0080], [0081]).
Martini fails to teach labeling via a keypoint model.
However, Sawhney discloses object-based localization and teaches:
label, via a keypoint model, a first set of keypoints (keypoint detector 230 configured to receive image frame data and automatically detect instance dependent keypoints for objects captured in the received image – see at least 10:41-67; for each instance dependent keypoint 234, a location and associated descriptor may be specified – see at least 11:8-20);
label, via the keypoint model, a second set of keypoints (keypoint detector 230 configured to receive image frame data and automatically detect instance dependent keypoints for objects captured in the received image – see at least 10:41-67; for each instance dependent keypoint 234, a location and associated descriptor may be specified – see at least 11:8-20).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method for localization and mapping of Martini to provide for labeling keypoints via a keypoint model, as taught by Sawhney, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would automatically provide location information for each keypoint (see Sawhney at 11:8-20).
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 16, Sawhney further teaches:
wherein the keypoint model is trained to label keypoints for two-dimensional (2D)-to-3D keypoint matching (machine-learning based keypoint model 232 – see at least 10:41-67; the recitation ‘for two-dimensional (2D)-to-3D keypoint matching’ is an intended use recitation and is not limiting).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method for localization and mapping of Martini to provide for labeling keypoints via a keypoint model, as taught by Sawhney, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would automatically provide location information for each keypoint (see Sawhney at 11:8-20).
Regarding claims 3, 10, and 17, Martini further teaches:
wherein:
the first image is one of a first group of images associated with the 3D map (intervening image which is not a keyframe – see at least ¶ [0212]);
the second image is one of the second group of images associated with the 3D map (intervening image which is not a keyframe – see at least ¶ [0212]);
one or more images of the second group of images are the same as one or more images of the first group of images (intervening image which is not a keyframe – see at least ¶ [0212]); and
the first group of images and the second group of images are two-dimensional (2D) images (images obtained via camera 240 – see at least ¶ [0063]; monoscopic images – see at least ¶ [0072]).
Regarding claims 4, 11, and 18, Sawhney further teaches:
wherein the first group of images and the second group of images are captured via a sensor associated with a vehicle (local device 110 may take many forms, such as portable computing devices, and vehicles – see at least 2:40-59; local device 110 may include at least one digital imaging camera to capture two-dimensional images – see at least 2:60-67).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method for localization and mapping of Martini to provide for capturing images via a sensor associated with a vehicle, as taught by Sawhney, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would aid in providing localization of the mobile agent as a vehicle (see Sawhney at 1:5-17).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Martini further teaches:
wherein each of the first set of keypoints and the second set of keypoints are associated with features of the environment (landmark points detected as feature points in the image – see at least ¶ [0211]).
Regarding claims 5, 12, and 19, Sawhney further teaches:
wherein the keypoint model is remotely located from the vehicle (operations of the object-based localization system 170 may be performed outside of the local device 110 – see at least Fig. 4 and 17:52-67).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method for localization and mapping of Martini to provide the model remotely located from the vehicle, as further taught by Sawhney, with a reasonable expectation of success, because remote locations may provide additional processing capability, storage capacity, and energy (see Sawhney at 17:52-67).
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 20, Sawhney further teaches:
capturing, via the sensor, a 2D query image of the environment (imaging camera 130 captures two-dimensional images as image frame data 134 – see at least Fig. 1 and 2:60-67);
identifying a target image, from the first group of images and the second group of images, comprising a set of target keypoints that match a set of query keypoints of the 2D query image (keypoint detector 230 receives image frame data and detects instance dependence keypoints for objects captured in the image frame data – see at least Fig. 2 and 10:41-67; location selector 250 selects a location record 249 in the location database 248 with the greatest correlation to the information in the current location record 252 – see at least Fig. 2 and 11:53-67; correlation may be determined based on instance dependent keypoints – see at least 13:7-20);
determining a current location within the 3D map based on identifying the target image (localization module 160 determines a device pose estimate 162 that includes an estimated position, such as a 2D or 3D position – see at least Fig. 1 and 5:27-43; pose estimate may be based on selected local object instances 258 – see at least Fig. 2 and 17:8-25); and
autonomously or semi-autonomously navigating through the environment based on determining the current location (localization of a mobile agent is an important capability for smart navigation for implementation in autonomous vehicles – see at least 1:5-17),
wherein the keypoint model and the 3D map are stored at the vehicle (operations of the object-based localization system 170 may be performed outside of the local device 110 – see at least Fig. 4 and 17:52-67; frame records 454 at remote object-based localization system 450 – see at least Fig. 4 and 18:9-23).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method for localization and mapping of Martini to provide for capturing an image, identifying a target, determining a location, an navigating based on the location, i.e., localization, as further taught by Sawhney, with a reasonable expectation of success, because localization of the mobile agent may be used for smart navigation (see Sawhney at 1:5-17).
It would also have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and method for localization and mapping of Martini to provide the model and map remotely located from the vehicle, as further taught by Sawhney, with a reasonable expectation of success, because remote locations may provide additional processing capability, storage capacity, and energy (see Sawhney at 17:52-67).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON L TROOST whose telephone number is (571)270-5779. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am-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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at 313-446-6519. 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.
/AARON L TROOST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666