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 .
Introduction
This is a first action on the merits. Claims 1-9 are pending.
Examiner' s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs / columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on April 27, 2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the 202210458943.3 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed July 26, 2024 has been received and considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Fig. 1 has not been detailed within the specification. There are references to the figure, but there is no detail on the process being shown.
Fig. 2 has not been detailed within the specification. There are references to the figure, but there is no detail on what is being shown.
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 Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 3, lines 18-19, “proposed by the invention” should be removed.
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
Local odometry module in claims 1 and 2.
Map feature matching module in claims 1, 7, and 8.
Map-based positioning module in claims 1, 4, 7, and 8.
State propagation module in claims 2, 3, 5, and 6.
Feature tracking module in claims 2 and 3.
Multi-state observability constraint-schmidt-invariant Kalman filter (MSOC-S-IKF) state update module in claims 2-6, and 8-9.
Module in claims 4 and 8
The local odometry module is interpreted as including an IMU, a state propagation module, a camera, a feature tracking module, and a multi-state observability constraint-schmidt-invariant Kalman filter state update module as disclosed in paragraph 1 of page 3 and structural equivalents thereof.
The map-based positioning module is interpreted as including a module, a module, a module, an MSOC-S-IKF state update module, and a module as disclosed in paragraph 1 of page 7 and structural equivalents thereof.
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 1-9 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 limitations “local odometry module” in claims 1 and 2, “map feature matching module” in claims 1, 7, and 8, “map-based positioning module” in claims 1, 4, 7, and 8, “state propagation module” in claims 2, 3, 5, and 6, “feature tracking module” in claims 2 and 3, “Multi-state observability constraint-schmidt-invariant Kalman filter (MSOC-S-IKF) state update module” in claims 2-6, and 8-9, and “module” in claims 4 and 8 invoke 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. The specification merely states that the “map feature matching module”, “map-based positioning module”, “state propagation module”, “feature tracking module”, “Multi-state observability constraint-schmidt-invariant Kalman filter (MSOC-S-IKF) state update module”, and “module” are used, but fails to disclose a structure that performs their function. Paragraph 1 on page 3 of the specification provides items “local odometry module” is comprised of, however in the listing of the items in comprises it includes items that do not contain any structure resulting in the structure not being clearly defined. Paragraph 1 on page 7 of the specification provides items “map-based positioning module” is comprised of, however in the listing of the items in comprises it includes items that do not contain any structure resulting in the structure not being clearly defined. 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.
In claim 1, line 8, the limitation “values of corresponding state variables” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the corresponding state variables are a state of the system, add up to make the state of the system, or are separate from each other. As best understood, the state variables make up the state of the system.
In claim 1, line 8, the limitation “covariance of the values” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what values the covariance of the values include and the specification does not appear to disclose any covariance on the state variables listed on pages 3-4.
In claim 1, lines 12-13, the limitation “the local odometry” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if it is referring to the local odometry module previously recited or something else.
In claim 3, line 7, the limitation “the quantities” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if it is referring to the rotation angular velocity and linear acceleration previously recited or something else.
In claim 3, line 7, the limitation “state variables” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if it is referring to the state variables previously recited in claim 1, line 8, or new state variables.
In claim 3, line 7, the limitation “covariance corresponding to the state variables” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if it is referring to the covariance previously recited in claim 1, line 8, or a new covariance.
In claim 3, line 7, the limitation “covariance corresponding to the state variables” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what values the covariance of the values include and the specification does not appear to disclose any covariance on the state variables listed on pages 3-4.
In claim 3, line 8, the limitation “obtained state variables” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if it is referring to the state variables previously recited in claim 1, line 8, or claim 3, line 7.
In claim 3, line 8, the limitation “covariance” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if it is referring to the covariance previously recited in claim 1, line 8, or claim 3, line 7.
In claim 3, lines 16-17, the limitation “the inputted predicted state variables” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what state variables are being referred to as state variables have not been input.
In claim 3, lines 17-18, the limitation “state variables” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if it is referring to the obtained state variables previously recited in claim 3, line 8, predicted state variables previously recited in claim 3, lines 16-17, or the state variables previously recited in claim 1, line 8.
In claim 4, lines 2-3, the limitation “covariance corresponding to the state variables” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what values the covariance of the values include and the specification does not appear to disclose any covariance on the state variables listed on pages 3-4.
In claim 4, line 13, and claim 8, line 21, 32, and 35-37, the limitation "the local odometry reference system" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if it is referring to the local reference system previously recited in claim 1, line 7, or a new reference system.
In claim 8, lines 4-7 and 10-11, the limitation "a module" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if it is referring to a module previously recited or a new module.
In claim 8, line 9, the limitation "an MSOC-S-IKF state update module" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this is the same MSOC-S-IKF state update module previously recited in claims 2-6 or a new one.
In claim 8, lines 12-13, the limitation “a map key frame” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if it is referring to the map key frame previously recited in claim 7, line 4, or a new one.
Claims 2-9 are also rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim as they do not
clear the deficiencies of the claims from which they depend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Streem (US 2022/0398775) in view of Kaiser (US 2022/0189054).
Regarding claim 1, Streem discloses a map-based consistent and efficient filtering algorithm for visual inertial positioning, wherein the algorithm is implemented through the following system, and the system comprises three modules:
a local odometry module, a map feature matching module, and a map-based positioning module,
wherein the local odometry module is configured to receive data of a camera and an inertial measurement unit (IMU), obtain a state of the system in a local reference system in real time, and obtain values of corresponding state variables (Streem, [0029] regarding a mobile subsystem that collects images of its surrounding and inertial data, [0048] regarding the image feature extractor module that extracts image data from any suitable image which can include point features, [0049] regarding point features being vectors containing image coordinates and a feature descriptor vector & Fig. 2 regarding the First Stage Matching Module receiving the image and inertial data. Thus, the local odometry module is synonymous to the mobile subsystem, image feature extractor, and first stage matching module);
the map feature matching module is configured to detect a similarity between a scene observed by the camera at a current moment and a pre-built map scene, and obtain a feature matching pair of an image feature at the current moment and a map feature (Streem, [0079] regarding a second stage matching module that is configured to perform suitable matching between any image feature data and map feature data. Thus, the map feature matching module is part of the second stage matching module); and
the map-based positioning module is configured to receive an output amount of the local odometry and the feature matching pair, obtain an updated state of the local odometry and a relative transformation between the local reference system and a map reference system, and then calculate a state of a robot in the map reference system (Streem, [0080] regarding the second stage matching module outputting pose data that is indicative of a transformation between the image sensor frame to a world frame. Thus the map-based positioning module is a different part of the second stage matching module).
Streem does not explicitly disclose wherein the local odometry module is configured to obtain covariance of the values.
Kaiser teaches wherein the local odometry module is configured to obtain covariance of the values (Kaiser, [0022] regarding determining covariance data relating to an object used to determine the vehicle's location).
Streem and Kaiser are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of location determination. 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 Streem to incorporate determining covariance of the data, as disclosed by Kaiser, with a reasonable expectation of success because doing so would yield the predictable result of determining how the variables would interact with one another.
Regarding claim 2, Streem in view of Kaiser teaches the map-based consistent and efficient filtering algorithm for visual inertial positioning as claimed in claim 1, wherein the local odometry module comprises:
the IMU,
a state propagation module in signal connection to the IMU,
the camera,
a feature tracking module in signal connection to the camera, and
a Multi-State Observability Constraint-Schmidt-Invariant Kalman Filter (MSOC-S-IKF) state update module based on local feature observation in signal connection to the state propagation module and the feature tracking module (Streem, [0029] regarding a mobile subsystem that collects images of its surrounding and inertial data, [0048] regarding the image feature extractor module that extracts image data from any suitable image which can include point features, [0049] regarding point features being vectors containing image coordinates and a feature descriptor vector & Fig. 2 regarding the First Stage Matching Module receiving the image and inertial data. Thus, the local odometry module comprises the mobile subsystem (i.e., camera and IMU), an image feature extractor module that is connected to the camera, and a first stage matching module, part of which is connected to the IMU, and another part that is connected to the image feature extractor module and the other part that is connected to the IMU).
Regarding claim 7, Streem in view of Kaiser teaches the map-based consistent and efficient filtering algorithm for visual inertial positioning as claimed in claim 1, wherein the map feature matching module is configured to obtain, through information about the current camera and a map, map feature points obtained by the current camera through matching and a map key frame in which the map feature points are observable, namely, a feature pair and a map key frame that match, wherein signals of the feature pair and the map key frame that match are transmitted to the map-based positioning module (Streem, [0079] regarding a second stage matching module that is configured to perform suitable matching between any image feature data and map feature data & [0080] regarding the second stage matching module outputting pose data that is indicative of a transformation between the image sensor frame to a world frame. Thus, the part of the map feature matching module that matches the data would send the feature data to the part of the map feature matching module that outputs the transformation).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6 and 8-9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX GRIFFIN whose telephone number is (703)756-1516. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:30am - 5:30pm.
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, ERIN BISHOP can be reached at (571)270-3713. 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.
/ALEX B GRIFFIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665