DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the Application filed on November 8, 2024, which is a national stage application under 35 U.S.C. §371 of International Application No. PCT/CN2023/091479, filed on April 28, 2023, and claims priority of the Chinese Patent Application No. 202210501160.9, filed on May 9, 2022. Claims 1, 3-6, 9, and 11-12 have been amended, claim 10 has been canceled, and new claims 13-21 have been entered via preliminary amendment. An action on the merits follows. Claims 1-9 and 11-21 are pending on the application.
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 .
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 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.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 and 11-21 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 “determining whether a current frame that is received is a key frame based on a key frame group to be updated located by a simultaneous localization and mapping system, wherein the key frame group to be updated comprises at least one key frame to be applied… in response to determining that the current frame that is received is a key frame” in lines 2-5 of the claim. However, it is not clear if the claimed “at least one key frame” recited in line 4 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “key frame” previously recited in line 2 of the claim, or if the claimed “at least one key frame” recited in line 4 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding another “at least one key frame” different to the claimed “key frame” previously recited in line 2 of the claim, for example. Additionally, it is not clear if the claimed “a key frame” recited in line 5 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “key frame” previously recited in line 2 of the claim, or if the claimed “a key frame” recited in line 5 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to another “key frame” different from the claimed “key frame” previously recited in line 2 of the claim, or if the claimed “a key frame” recited in line 5 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “at least one key frame” recited in line 4 of the claim, or if the claimed “a key frame” recited in line 5 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to another “key frame” different from the claimed “at least one key frame” previously recited in line 4 of the claim, for example. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly set forth and the examiner cannot clearly determine which elements are encompassed by the claim language, which renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “optimizing a key frame to be applied in the updated key frame group to be updated, and updating a relative pose of the key frame to be applied to obtain an updated relative pose, so as to perform image rendering based on the updated relative pose” in lines 8-10 of the claim. However, it is not clear if the claimed “a key frame” recited in line 8 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “key frame” previously recited in line 2 of the claim, or if the claimed “a key frame” recited in line 8 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to another “key frame” different from the claimed “key frame” previously recited in line 2 of the claim, or if the claimed “a key frame” recited in line 8 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “at least one key frame” recited in line 4 of the claim, or if the claimed “a key frame” recited in line 8 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to another “key frame” different from the claimed “at least one key frame” previously recited in line 4 of the claim, for example. Additionally, it is not clear if the claimed “the key frame to be applied” recited in line 9 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “key frame to be applied” previously recited in line 4 of the claim, or if the claimed “the key frame to be applied” recited in line 9 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “key frame to be applied” previously recited in line 8 of the claim, for example. Furthermore, the claimed limitation “perform image rendering” recited in line 10 of the claim is not defined by the claim(s) and the examiner cannot clearly ascertain which steps are encompassed in the claim to “perform image rendering” process recited in line 10, for example. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly set forth and the examiner cannot clearly determine which elements are encompassed by the claim language, which renders the claim indefinite.
Claims 2-9 are rejected by virtue of being dependent upon rejected base claim 1. Additionally, the same rationale indicated above is applied to reject dependent claims which recite similar feature limitations ambiguities recited above, respectively.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “determining whether a current frame that is received is a key frame based on a key frame group to be updated located by a simultaneous localization and mapping system, wherein the key frame group to be updated comprises at least one key frame to be applied… in response to determining that the current frame that is received is a key frame” in lines 7-10 of the claim. However, it is not clear if the claimed “at least one key frame” recited in line 9 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “key frame” previously recited in line 7 of the claim, or if the claimed “at least one key frame” recited in line 9 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding another “at least one key frame” different to the claimed “key frame” previously recited in line 7 of the claim, for example. Additionally, it is not clear if the claimed “a key frame” recited in line 10 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “key frame” previously recited in line 7 of the claim, or if the claimed “a key frame” recited in line 10 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to another “key frame” different from the claimed “key frame” previously recited in line 7 of the claim, or if the claimed “a key frame” recited in line 10 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “at least one key frame” recited in line 9 of the claim, or if the claimed “a key frame” recited in line 10 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to another “key frame” different from the claimed “at least one key frame” previously recited in line 9 of the claim, for example. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly set forth and the examiner cannot clearly determine which elements are encompassed by the claim language, which renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 11 further recites the limitation “optimizing a key frame to be applied in the updated key frame group to be updated, and updating a relative pose of the key frame to be applied to obtain an updated relative pose, so as to perform image rendering based on the updated relative pose” in lines 13-15 of the claim. However, it is not clear if the claimed “a key frame” recited in line 13 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “key frame” previously recited in line 7 of the claim, or if the claimed “a key frame” recited in line 7 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to another “key frame” different from the claimed “key frame” previously recited in line 7 of the claim, or if the claimed “a key frame” recited in line 13 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “at least one key frame” recited in line 9 of the claim, or if the claimed “a key frame” recited in line 13 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to another “key frame” different from the claimed “at least one key frame” previously recited in line 7 of the claim, for example. Additionally, it is not clear if the claimed “the key frame to be applied” recited in line 14 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “key frame to be applied” previously recited in line 9 of the claim, or if the claimed “the key frame to be applied” recited in line 14 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “key frame to be applied” previously recited in line 13 of the claim, for example. Furthermore, the claimed limitation “perform image rendering” recited in line 15 of the claim is not defined by the claim(s) and the examiner cannot clearly ascertain which steps are encompassed in the claim to “perform image rendering” process recited in line 10, for example. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly set forth and the examiner cannot clearly determine which elements are encompassed by the claim language, which renders the claim indefinite.
Claims 13-20 are rejected by virtue of being dependent upon rejected base claim 11. Additionally, the same rationale indicated above is applied to reject dependent claims which recite similar feature limitations ambiguities recited above, respectively.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “determining whether a current frame that is received is a key frame based on a key frame group to be updated located by a simultaneous localization and mapping system, wherein the key frame group to be updated comprises at least one key frame to be applied… in response to determining that the current frame that is received is a key frame” in lines 5-7 of the claim. However, it is not clear if the claimed “at least one key frame” recited in line 7 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “key frame” previously recited in line 4 of the claim, or if the claimed “at least one key frame” recited in line 7 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding another “at least one key frame” different to the claimed “key frame” previously recited in line 5 of the claim, for example. Additionally, it is not clear if the claimed “a key frame” recited in line 7 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “key frame” previously recited in line 5 of the claim, or if the claimed “a key frame” recited in line 7 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to another “key frame” different from the claimed “key frame” previously recited in line 5 of the claim, or if the claimed “a key frame” recited in line 7 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “at least one key frame” recited in line 6 of the claim, or if the claimed “a key frame” recited in line 7 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to another “key frame” different from the claimed “at least one key frame” previously recited in line 6 of the claim, for example. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly set forth and the examiner cannot clearly determine which elements are encompassed by the claim language, which renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 12 further recites the limitation “optimizing a key frame to be applied in the updated key frame group to be updated, and updating a relative pose of the key frame to be applied to obtain an updated relative pose, so as to perform image rendering based on the updated relative pose” in lines 11-13 of the claim. However, it is not clear if the claimed “a key frame” recited in line 11 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “key frame” previously recited in line 5 of the claim, or if the claimed “a key frame” recited in line 11 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to another “key frame” different from the claimed “key frame” previously recited in line 5 of the claim, or if the claimed “a key frame” recited in line 11 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “at least one key frame” recited in line 6 of the claim, or if the claimed “a key frame” recited in line 11 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to another “key frame” different from the claimed “at least one key frame” previously recited in line 6 of the claim, for example. Additionally, it is not clear if the claimed “the key frame to be applied” recited in line 12 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “key frame to be applied” previously recited in line 6 of the claim, or if the claimed “the key frame to be applied” recited in line 12 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “key frame to be applied” previously recited in line 11 of the claim, for example. Furthermore, the claimed limitation “perform image rendering” recited in line 10 of the claim is not defined by the claim(s) and the examiner cannot clearly ascertain which steps are encompassed in the claim to “perform image rendering” process recited in line 13, for example. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly set forth and the examiner cannot clearly determine which elements are encompassed by the claim language, which renders the claim indefinite.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record cited in PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GUILLERMO M RIVERA-MARTINEZ whose telephone number is (571) 272-4979. The examiner can normally be reached on 9 am to 5 pm.
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, Andrew Bee can be reached on 571-270-5183. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GUILLERMO M RIVERA-MARTINEZ/ Examiner, Art Unit 2677
Prosecution Insights