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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-4, 7-11, and 14-18 are amended. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 9, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 2, 9, and 15, lines 4-5 recite “to the the one or more neural networks” which appears to contain an extra “the”. The Examiner suggests replacing “to the the one or more neural networks” with --“to the one or more neural networks--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lopez Mendez et al., US 2022/0036577.
Regarding claim 1, Lopez Mendez discloses a processor (para 0007-0008; a processor) comprising: one or more circuits (para 0100; specialized electronic circuitry) to:
obtain one or more previous poses of one or more cameras identified by one or more neural networks (para 0012; one or more neural networks) corresponding to one or more previous images of a sequence of images previously input to the one or more neural networks (figs. 1-2; para 0006, 0025, 0028, 0038, 0041, and 0054; receiving the previous camera pose PCAMT0 corresponds to a previous point in time T0; The sequence of image frames SIF may also include one or more preceding image frames IFPREC that precede the current image frame CIF, such as a previous image frame PIF corresponding to the previous point in time T0 are inputted into the neural network NN (i.e., the previous camera pose is obtained and identified by the neural network));
cause the one or more neural networks to identify a pose of the one or more cameras corresponding to a later image of the sequence of images input to the one or more neural networks based, at least in part, on the one or more previous poses of the one or more cameras identified by the one or more neural networks (figs. 1; para 0006, 0014, 0025, 0041, 0046, and 0054; the sequence of image frames SIF may also include one or more preceding image frames IFPREC that precede the current image frame CIF, such as a previous image frame PIF corresponding to the previous point in time T0 are inputted into the neural network NN; the one or more neural networks estimating a current camera pose corresponding to a current point in time using a previous camera pose (PCAMT0) corresponding to a previous point in time (T0), of a camera).
Regarding claim 2, the processor of claim 1, Lopez Mendez further discloses wherein causing the one or more neural networks to identify the pose of the one or more cameras corresponding to the later image of the sequence of images is further based on inputting the one or more previous images corresponding to the one or more previous poses of the one or more cameras to the the one or more neural networks (figs. 1-2; para 0006, 0025, 0028, 0038, 0041, and 0054).
Regarding claim 3, the processor of claim 2, Lopez Mendez further discloses wherein the sequence of images are captured by the one or more cameras (fig. 1; para 0006, 0038, and 0054).
Regarding claim 4, the processor of claim 3, Lopez Mendez further discloses wherein later image is a current image of the sequence of images captured by the one or more cameras (para 0006, 0038, and 0041).
Regarding claim 5, the processor of claim 4, Lopez Mendez further discloses wherein the sequence of images comprises a sequence of video frames of a video captured by the one or more cameras, and wherein the current image comprises a current video frame of the video (para 0038).
Regarding claim 6, the processor of claim 5, Lopez Mendez further discloses wherein the one or more circuits further use the one or more neural networks to label the current video frame to indicate the identified pose of the one or more cameras (para 0061 and 0066).
Regarding claim 7, the processor of claim 1, Lopez Mendez further discloses wherein at least an orientation or a position of the one or more cameras according to the identified pose of the one or more cameras is different than at least another orientation or another position of the one or more cameras according to the one or more previous poses of the one or more cameras (para 0001, 0035, 0037, 0042, 0044-0046, and 0053; comparing a current camera pose (i.e. a position and orientation of the camera) with previous camera pose to estimate the difference).
Regarding claim 8, this claim recites substantially the same limitations that are performed by claim 1 above, and it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 9, this claim recites substantially the same limitations that are performed by claim 2 above, and it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 10, this claim recites substantially the same limitations that are performed by claim 3 above, and it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 11, this claim recites substantially the same limitations that are performed by claim 4 above, and it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 12, this claim recites substantially the same limitations that are performed by claim 5 above, and it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 13, this claim recites substantially the same limitations that are performed by claim 6 above, and it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 14, this claim recites substantially the same limitations that are performed by claim 7 above, and it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 15, this claim recites substantially the same limitations that are performed by claim 1 above, and it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 16, this claim recites substantially the same limitations that are performed by claim 2 above, and it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 17, this claim recites substantially the same limitations that are performed by claim 3 above, and it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 18, this claim recites substantially the same limitations that are performed by claim 4 above, and it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 19, this claim recites substantially the same limitations that are performed by claim 5 above, and it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 20, this claim recites substantially the same limitations that are performed by claim 6 above, and it is rejected for the same reasons.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding independent claim 1, Applicant argues that Lopez Mendez is missing “the use of previous poses identified by the neural network to identify another pose using the neural network”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated in the rejection above, Lopez Mendez discloses receiving the previous camera pose PCAMT0 corresponds to a previous point in time T0; The sequence of image frames SIF may also include one or more preceding image frames IFPREC that precede the current image frame CIF, such as a previous image frame PIF corresponding to the previous point in time T0 are inputted into the neural network NN (i.e., the previous camera pose is obtained and identified by the neural network). The neural network estimating a current camera pose corresponding to a current point in time using a previous camera pose (PCAMT0) corresponding to a previous point in time (T0), of a camera (figs. 1-2; para 0006, 0025, 0028, 0038, 0041, and 0054).
The MPEP 2111 states that the USPTO must employ the “broadest reasonable interpretation" of the claims. With the broadest reasonable interpretation, Examiner interprets the claimed “… previous poses identified by the neural network…”, in light of the specification, as receiving the previous camera pose corresponds to a previous point in time and inputting the previous camera pose as part of the sequence of image frames into the neural network. Further, the neural network estimating a current camera pose corresponding to a current point in time using a previous camera pose.
Therefore, the claimed “… previous poses identified by the neural network…” reads on the disclosure of Lopez Mendez.
In view of the above arguments, the Examiner believes all rejections are proper and should be maintained.
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 VAN D HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)270-1937. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-6PM.
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 R 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.
/VAN D HUYNH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2665
Prosecution Insights