DETAILED ACTION
Preliminary Remarks
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The preliminary amendment of 07/25/24 is noted wherein claims 1-36 were canceled and claims 37-65 were added.
Priority
This application is a 371 of PCT/US2022/080861 filed 12/02/22 which claims benefit of 63/285,939 filed 12/03/21.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. It is important that the abstract not exceed 150 words in length since the space provided for the abstract on the computer tape used by the printer is limited. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc.
The abstract comprises the phrase, “systems and methods are provided…” (see line 1) which can be implied and therefore should be omitted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 37, 38, 40-54, 56-60 and 62-65 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a “method of deriving a scaling factor for a plurality of camera poses” (claim 37) and a “method of validating position information in augmented reality pose data” (claim 56) with the steps of “receiving…selecting…calculating…adjusting…” (claim 37) and “providing…identifying…generating…” (claim 56) respectively. These claims simply perform the abstract idea of computing “mathematical relationships” between sets of data without any sort of actual production/output using such computations. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the “steps” of each of the “methods” solely perform mathematical computation and do not apply such calculations in any sort of actual real-world environment for the production of tangible results. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because by simply performing mathematical computations without any sort of actual generation/output of data using such computations, the claims simply perform the abstract processing without providing any other significant additional elements than the mathematical relationships themselves. Note, the Examiner has NOT included claims 39 and 61, of which depend upon claims 37 and 56 respectively, in this rejection since they explicitly recite the actual usage of such mathematical relationships to “generate a scaled three-dimensional model” thus at least claim additional elements that provide significantly more than just performing mathematical computations The Examiner suggests integrating such language or the like into independent claims 37 and 56 respectively as a possible solution to overcoming the current 35 USC 101 rejection of the above claims.
Claim 55 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The Examiner acknowledges that the claim(s) recite(s) “A computer system…one or more processors; and memory…” however 1) these solely occur within the preamble and 2) within the body of the claim, the limitations resemble that of method claim 37 above of which has been rejected under 35 USC 101 for reciting an abstract idea or more particularly for reciting simply “mathematical relationships.” This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the “steps” of each of the “methods” solely perform mathematical computation and do not apply such calculations in any sort of actual real-world environment for the production of tangible results. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because by simply performing mathematical computations without any sort of actual generation/output of data using such computations, the claims simply perform the abstract processing without providing any other significant additional elements than the mathematical relationships themselves. Further as per the claim reciting a “system,” the MPEP is explicit in that, “simply implementing a mathematical principle on a physical machine, namely a computer, was not patentable application of that principle” (see MPEP 2106.04(d), 1st paragraph). Therefore, the Examiner deems the 35 USC 101 rejection as just and suggests remedying the issue similar to that which was suggested for claims 37 and 56 respectively above.
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 37-57 and 60-61 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.
In reference to claims 37, 55 and 56, these claims comprise the limitation of, “…selecting pairs of augmented reality poses of the plurality of augmented reality poses with reliable translation distances…” (see lines 7-8 of claim 37, 11-12 of claim 55) and “…identifying pairs of reliable augmented reality poses…” (lines 5-6 of claim 56) of which the Examiner deems as indefinite as the term “reliable” is a relative term of which the claims do not setup or bind any sort of values/measure/comparison/etc. thereto. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be inclined to immediately and distinctly point out and equate “reliable” measures for “translation distances” or “poses.” The specification does seem to at least provide some further language that a possible inference can be made however such language is not found within the claims in question (see for example paragraph 61 of Applicant’s specification). Note, claims 38-54, 57 and 60-61 depend upon claims 37 and 56 and are therefore at least inherently included in this rejection. Further note, claims 58-59 and 62-65 have NOT however been included in this rejection since they explicitly go on to at least attempt to describe that “reliable” term in question.
References Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Upendran et al. (U.S. Publication 2022/0327792)
Upendran et al. discloses systems and method for scaling a 3D representation of a building structure.
Pillai et al. (U.S. Publication 2021/0118184)
Pillai et al. discloses systems, methods and other embodiments to self-supervised training of a depth model for monocular depth estimation.
Knorr et al. (U.S. Publication 2018/0286065)
Knorr et al. discloses a method of determining spatial coordinates of a 3D reconstruction of at least part of a first real object at absolute spatial scale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Antonio Caschera whose telephone number is (571) 272-7781. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday between 6:30 AM and 2:30 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Said Broome, can be reached at (571) 272-2931.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Mail Stop ____________
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
or faxed to:
571-273-8300 (Central Fax)
See the listing of “Mail Stops” at http://www.uspto.gov/patents/mail.jsp and include the appropriate designation in the address above.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the Technology Center 2600 Customer Service Office whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600.
/Antonio A Caschera/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2612
3/24/26