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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6-7, 9, 12-13, 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sun et al (10,521,685).
Regarding method claims 1 and 6 and system claim 13 Sun discloses,
Taking at least one image by the at least one camera and sending the at least one image to the computer system (note fig. 1, block 132 and col. 7 line 23-37, device 132 capture an image),
Searching, with the computer system, searching for AR markers in the at least one image (note col. 12 lines 1-12, search engine review for AR markers),
Identifying at least two AR markers in the at least one image (note col. 5 lines 14-21 describes plurality of markers),
Reading ID sections of the at least two AR markers (note col. 11 lines 50-65),
Determining object IDs of the at least two AR markers from the ID sections (note col. 11 lines 50-65),
checking the object IDs in a marker database to identify at least one known marker (note col. 7 lines 57-63, marker stored in database),
estimating at least one relative position of at least one remaining of the at least two AR markers relative to the known marker (note col. 10 lines 36-50),
storing the at least one estimated position together with the object ID of a respective AR marker in the marker database (note col. 7 lines 57-63, store data such as AR tags/markers and associated metadata and/or user profile information).
Regarding claim 7 Sun discloses,
displaying a marker pointing to the position of interest within a virtual or real image and/or - pointing a pointer to the position of interest (note col. 10 lines 20-29, displaying markers/tags within augmented reality).
Regarding claims 9 and 18 Sun discloses,
two AR marker includes a detection feature including a black rim that encloses an ID section (note col. 10 lines 36-51, examiner interprets identifying an object of interest within an AR view of device, one or more tags/markers associated with the object of interest).
Regarding claim 12 Sun discloses,
Indicating the position of interest relative to the camera is performed by at least one of directional indicators, an Augmented Reality view and a light pointer (note col. 4 lines 1-5, location relative to the object of interest).
Regarding claim 15 Sun discloses,
characterized in, that the at least one camera is mounted on a specific pan-tilt camera head that is configured to change a camera's orientation in at least two axes, wherein the pan-tilt camera head stabilized by an Internal Measurement Unit mechanically coupled to the at least one camera a IMU and/or the at least one camera is part of a mobile device including one of a cell phone (note fig. 1, block 132 and col. 7 lines 23-26 device is a smartphone).
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 8 and 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al in view of Goslin et al (10,587,834).
Regarding claim 8 Sun discloses a sensor capturing images, Sun does not clearly disclose Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) that is mechanically coupled to the camera, the method including the steps of: updating at least one pose and/or position of the at least one camera by reading data from the IMU and/or stabilizing at least one image taken by the at least one camera based on the data from the IMU. Goslin discloses inertial measurement unit (note col. 5 lines 39-51, motion and orientation sensor 16 may include one or more of an inertial measurement unit). Sun and Goslin are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include inertial measurement unit in the system of Sun as evidence by Goslin. The suggestion/motivation to do so provides tracking positions of objects for augmented reality that is less difficult (note col. 1 lines 11-14). It would have been obvious to combine Sun with Goslin to obtain the invention as specified by claim 8
Regarding claim 17 Sun discloses a sensor capturing images, Sun does not clearly disclose wherein the pointer includes at least one of a light pointer, a beamer, and a laser scanner. Goslin discloses wherein the pointer includes at least one of a light pointer, a beamer, and a laser scanner (note light source col. 3 lines 56-60 and fig. 1 block 14). Sun and Goslin are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the pointer includes at least one of a light pointer, a beamer, and a laser scanner in the system of Sun as evidence by Goslin. The suggestion/motivation to do so provides tracking positions of objects for augmented reality that is less difficult (note col. 1 lines 11-14). It would have been obvious to combine Sun with Goslin to obtain the invention as specified by claim 17.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al in view of Cho et al (12,019,773).
Regarding claims 10 and 11 Sun discloses a sensor capturing images, Sun does not clearly disclose using Slam algorithm. Cho discloses using SLAM algorithm (note col. 15 lines 54-63, construct the map and determine location and position information using a conventional simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM) algorithm applied to data received from one or more sensors). Sun and Cho are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Slam algorithm in the system of Cho as evidence by Goslin. The suggestion/motivation to do so constructs and updates a map of an environment, while simultaneously tracking and updating the location of a device (or a user) within the mapped environment (note col. 16 lines 4-7). It would have been obvious to combine Cho with Goslin to obtain the invention as specified by claims 9 and 10.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5, 14 and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter for dependent claim 2. Prior art could not be found for the features determining an object ID of the at least one AR marker from the respective ID section sections, lookup of a position of the at least one AR marker in the marker database, estimating at least one pose and/or position of the at least one camera based on the position of the at least one AR marker, calculating a route to the position of interest from the at least one pose and/or position of the at least one camera forwarding the route to a user or to a movable device. These features in combination with other features could not be found in the claimed invention. Claims 3-5 depend on claim 2. Therefore are also objected.
Regarding claim 14, prior art could not be found for the features a light pointer, and (ii) a beamer, and (iii) a laser scanner, wherein the pointer further includes at least one of: a pan-tilt head configured to change a pointer's orientation in at least two axes, the pan-tilt head further holding the at least one camera configured to change the pointer's orientation in at least two axes, and an IMU configured to stabilize the pointer. These features in combination with other features could not be found in the prior art.
Regarding claim 16, prior art could not be found for the features characterized in, that the at least one camera includes a first camera and a second camera, wherein the first camera is configured to image AR markers at fixed positions and second camera is configured to image AR markers at articles, and/or the at least one camera is positioned at a cart, wherein the cart has a direction indicator in which the cart will move next and/or wherein the cart is configured to move and/or move autonomously, and/or navigate, and/or orientate based on an estimated pose of the at least one camera. These features in combination with other features could not be found in the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY M DESIRE whose telephone number is (571)272-7449. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30am-3:00pm.
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, Henok Shiferaw can be reached at 571-272-4637. 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.
G.D.
August 17, 2026
/GREGORY M DESIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2676
Prosecution Insights