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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 9-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/27/2026.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 18773719, filed on 07/16/2024.
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: ‘computing device’ in claim.
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 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 1-8 and 13-20 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 (and similarly claim 13) recites: “using one or more filters for each of the plurality of regions… wherein the one or more filters are based on a design value of the camera;”. The ‘design value’ of the camera is not sufficiently described in the claims, rendering it further unclear how the filter is based on a design value. The ‘design value’ insufficiently described such that the metes and bounds of the limitation cannot be ascertained. For example, design value could be interpreted as a color of the camera (red, blue, silver, etc.), a shutter speed, a dynamic range, or virtually any other parameter associated with the camera. Accordingly, the link between said design value and the filter is unclear. Additionally, the nature of the filter itself is unclear. The limitation is being interpreted in view of the Specification (Paragraphs 54, 56, and 60) as follows: the design value is an external parameter ("relative position and direction between the camera and a photographing target) or internal parameter of the camera (focal length, optical center, radial distortion coefficient, etc. of the lens system); and the filter is a filter that is “generated based on the vanishing point calculated with the design value of the camera”.
Regarding claim 1, the claim limitation “computing device” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. This term is mentioned twice in the Specification in Paragraphs 14 and 22. Both instances restate claim language without providing a corresponding structure. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2-8 and 14-20 are rejected as dependent on the above claims.
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 1-8 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of estimating camera pose, without significantly more.
The claim recites: “A method comprising:
dividing, by a computing device and based on receiving an image from a camera, the image into a plurality of regions;
dividing the plurality of regions into a first detection zone and a second detection zone, wherein the first detection zone is associated with a vanishing point and the second detection zone is associated with a roll;
extracting, based on detecting one or more features of the image and using one or more filters for each of the plurality of regions, a representative feature of the image, wherein the one or more filters are based on a design value of the camera;
determining, based on the representative feature, a first feature error in the first detection zone and a second feature error in the second detection zone; and
estimating, based on the first feature error and the second feature error, a pose of the camera.”
The limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind and using mathematical calculations. A person can divide an image into regions, divide the regions into a first and second zone, extract a representative feature based on detecting a feature, determine feature errors, and estimate a pose. The filters based on a design value of the camera amount to mathematical calculations, and the image receiving amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity (data collection).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a computing device and camera, which are recited at a level of generality such that they amount to generic equipment for computation and image collection. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality. It is therefore a judicial exception that is not integrated into a practical application, and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. This claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of dividing into zones based on a point, line, and threshold value (mental process). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of extracting the representative feature (mental process) based on applying a filter (mathematical calculation). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of feature detection and extraction (mental process). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of feature extraction based on a distance or angle (mental process). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of determining a distance and angle (mental process). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 7-8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of estimating position and angle (mental process). The claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 13-20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of an apparatus with generic components for performing the abstract idea of claims 1-8. The processor and memory are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than generic computer components. The claims are not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 and 35 USC 112(b) but would be allowable if amended to overcome these rejections. Note that the following reasons for indicating allowable subject matter are in view of the claim interpretations described in the 35 USC 112(b) rejection.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: With respect to claims 1 and 13 (and respective dependent claims), in addition to other limitations in the claims the Prior Art of Record fails to teach, disclose or render obvious the applicant's invention as claimed, in particular:
Claim 1 (and similarly claim 13) recites: “A method comprising:
dividing, by a computing device and based on receiving an image from a camera, the image into a plurality of regions;
dividing the plurality of regions into a first detection zone and a second detection zone, wherein the first detection zone is associated with a vanishing point and the second detection zone is associated with a roll;
extracting, based on detecting one or more features of the image and using one or more filters for each of the plurality of regions, a representative feature of the image, wherein the one or more filters are based on a design value of the camera;
determining, based on the representative feature, a first feature error in the first detection zone and a second feature error in the second detection zone; and
estimating, based on the first feature error and the second feature error, a pose of the camera.”
Takahashi (US20180276844A1), the closest reference to the above claim, discloses the estimation of position or orientation of imaging devices based, in part, on segmented images and vanishing points. As shown in Figures 7 and 9, Takahashi obtains an image from a camera (9A), divides the image into segments (9B), and further divides the image into horizontal and vertical regions/zones (9C and 9D). The process also includes image filtering (see Paragraph 54). This process enables vanishing point determination and plane region determination. While Takahashi does not expressly describe that one zone is associated with vanishing points and another zone is associated with a roll, any segment of an image captured with a camera inherently is associated with a vanishing point and a roll. However, Takahashi does not disclose that the filter is based on a design value of the camera, determining errors in the zones, or estimating camera pose based on the first and second error, as claimed. It also does not appear obvious to incorporate these features. Additional close references include Pirchheim (US 20150371440 A1), Chao (US 20130322767 A1), and Bai (US 20240107001 A1). Pirchheim teaches obtaining an image of an urban outdoor scene and estimating camera pose, then further determining camera orientation in 3 Degrees of Freedom. Chao teaches camera pose estimation based on analysis of a captured image, the analysis including identifying edge line features and one or more vanishing points. Bai teaches an autonomous driving method that includes calibrating a vehicle camera according to a vanishing point position. However, none of these references expressly disclose the bolded limitations above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON JOSEPH SORRIN whose telephone number is (703)756-1565. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 5pm.
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, Sumati Lefkowitz can be reached at (571) 272-3638. 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 JOSEPH SORRIN/
Examiner, Art Unit 2672
/SUMATI LEFKOWITZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2672
Prosecution Insights