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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bang, U.S. Patent Publication Number 2019/0304133 A1, in view of Zelek et al., U.S. Patent Publication Number 2024/0104771 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Bang discloses a method comprising: obtaining a plurality of keyframes (paragraph 0101, 50 keyframes obtained); determining that the plurality of keyframes includes a spatially redundant keyframe (paragraph 0105, number of similar keyframes); and in response to determining that the plurality of keyframes includes a spatially redundant keyframe (paragraph 0069, similarity between images may be analyzed and inferred), updating a map associated with a surrounding environment, the map being associated with the plurality of keyframes (paragraphs 0067-0068, keyframes stored in the server, the object classification tag may be automatically included in the keyframe; it is possible to automatically or manually update and exchange information), including: removing data associated with at least one keyframe of the plurality of keyframes based on the spatially redundant keyframe (paragraph 0108, keyframes labeled without an OTag for the monitor are removed).
However, it is noted that Bang fails to disclose adding at least one keyframe to the plurality of keyframes.
Zelek discloses removing data associated with at least one keyframe of the plurality of keyframes based on the spatially redundant keyframe, and adding at least one keyframe to the plurality of keyframes (paragraph 0148, a new keyframe is added; paragraph 0150, keyframes is removed).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the removing of keyframes as disclosed by Bang, adding keyframes as disclosed by Zelek, to avoid the instabilities and feature depravation that may occur and ensure a reliable feature-based map with sufficient reliable map points and features.
Regarding claim 2, Bang discloses wherein determining that the plurality of keyframes includes a spatially redundant keyframe includes determining that a previous batch of keyframes in a trajectory are spatially close to a current batch of keyframes (paragraph 0096, use GPS information of the labeled keyframes; comparing the latitude GPS and longitude GPS, at the user terminal with latitude GPS and longitude GPS of labeled keyframes with GPS information, only keyframes for which the spaced distance therebetween is lower than DGPS, are selected and used).
Zelek also discloses paragraph 0150, ensures that sufficient reliable map points and features are available in the immediate surrounding of the current frame; paragraph 0174, tracked in a local set of keyframes, which are relatively close to each other (i.e., do not exhibit significant variations in their scale).
Regarding claim 3, Bang discloses wherein spatially close is based on a position threshold and orientation threshold (paragraph 0017, calculating a difference between latitude and longitude of GPS information received; of the GPS information of the labeled keyframes; and selecting only labeled keyframes for which the calculated difference is less than a threshold).
Regarding claim 4, Bang discloses wherein spatially close is based on a visual overlap threshold (paragraph 0122, feature matching may be performed for the target object to overlap 3D virtual objects).
Zelek also discloses paragraph 0179, occupancy grid shows the current map points and newly added map points; it can be seen that there is no overlap between old and new points;
Regarding claim 5, Bang discloses wherein the visual overlap threshold is based on a number of common features (paragraph 0022, correspondence relationship between keypoints in a camera input image and keypoints in the keyframes; feature matching is performed; paragraph 0105, selecting keyframes though image feature matching among keyframes labeled with OTag termed ‘cup’ ; See also FIG. 7).
However it is noted that Bang discloses matching among keyframes with feature matching, but fails to disclose common landmarks.
Zelek discloses paragraph 0022, matching module checks for matches between landmarks in the local map and landmarks in the global map.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in feature matching as disclosed by Bang, the landmarks as disclosed by Zelek, in that it is common knowledge that a landmark is representative of a type of feature in a map.
Regarding claim 6, Bang discloses wherein spatially close is based on non-image data (paragraph 0017, calculating a difference between latitude and longitude of GPS information received; paragraph 0060, spatial map may be constructed).
Regarding claim Bang discloses wherein the non-image data includes at least one of location data, device data, pose data, orientation, and rotation (paragraph 0017, calculating a difference between latitude and longitude of GPS information received).
Regarding claim 8, Bang discloses wherein the plurality of keyframes includes: a first plurality of keyframes captured by a device, and a second plurality of keyframes associated with the map (paragraph 0022, correspondence relationship between keypoints in a camera input image and keypoints in the keyframes; feature matching is performed; FIG. 1); and determining that the plurality of keyframes includes a spatially redundant keyframe includes identifying a subset of the second plurality of keyframes that are spatially redundant with regard to the first plurality of keyframes (paragraph 0052, a large number of keyframes depicting large-scale or multiple spaces are stored on a user terminal or one or more servers; paragraph 0057, generate labeled keyframes including GPS information and/or first information from the input image; also serves to receive a limited number of promising keyframes on the basis of the labeled keyframes; perform feature matching between the promising keyframes and the input image).
Regarding claim 9, Bang discloses wherein the removing of the data associated with the at least one keyframe includes deleting the subset of the second plurality of keyframes (paragraph 0108, keyframes labeled without the OTag for the monitor are removed).
Regarding claim 10, Zelek discloses wherein the adding of the at least one keyframe to the plurality of keyframes includes adding the first plurality of keyframes to the plurality of keyframes (paragraph 0012, performing feature mapping between landmarks in the global map and landmarks of a subsequent keyframe to be added; paragraph 0099, when a new keyframe is added; their topological map is updated by incorporating the new Keyframe as a node, and search for data associations between the newly added node and surrounding ones; paragraph 0101, only select special frames, known as Keyframes, are used to perform map expansion).
Regarding claims 11-19, they are rejected based upon similar rational as above claims 1-8. Bang discloses paragraph 0014, terminal includes a transceiver; and a processor; paragraph 0071, an AR application is executed in the user terminal and location of the user may be transmitted to the application server.
It is noted that Bang fails to specifically disclose an apparatus comprising at least one processor and at least one memory including computer program code, the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus
Zelek discloses further discloses an apparatus comprising at least one processor and at least one memory including computer program code, the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to execute (paragraph 0014).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the terminal having an application executed as disclosed by Bang, the computer program code and memory as disclosed by Zelek, to execute the application as disclosed by Bang.
Regarding claim 19, Bang discloses wherein the removing of the data associated with the at least one keyframe includes deleting the subset of the second plurality of keyframes (paragraph 0108, keyframes labeled without an OTag for the monitor are removed).
However, it is noted that Bang fails to disclose and the adding of the at least one keyframe to the plurality of keyframes includes adding the first plurality of keyframes to the plurality of keyframes.
Zelek discloses adding of the at least one keyframe to the plurality of keyframes includes adding the first plurality of keyframes to the plurality of keyframes (paragraph 0148, a new keyframe is added; paragraph 0150, keyframes is removed).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the removing of keyframes as disclosed by Bang, adding keyframes as disclosed by Zelek, to avoid the instabilities and feature depravation that may occur and ensure a reliable feature-based map with sufficient reliable map points and features.
Regarding claim 20, it is rejected based upon similar rational as above claim 1. Bang discloses (paragraph 0071, an AR application is executed in the user terminal and location of the user may be transmitted to the application server ).
However it is noted that Bang fails to specifically disclose a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions stored thereon that, when executed by at least one processor, are configured to cause a computing system to perform operations.
Zelek discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions stored thereon that, when executed by at least one processor, are configured to cause a computing system to perform operations (paragraph 0014).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the terminal having an application executed as disclosed by Bang, the computer program code and memory as disclosed by Zelek, to execute the application as disclosed by Bang.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cheng et al., U.S. Patent Publication Number 2024/0144531 A1
Chen discloses paragraph 0014, check if redundant keyframes should be included or deleted from the keyframe database.
Holland et al., U.S. Patent Publication Number 2023/0038159 A1
Holland discloses paragraph 0071, event data can include a number of keyframes corresponding to one or more locations/environments where events of interest have been observed (e.g., detected from one or more frames obtained by the camera device); paragraph 0071, mapper can determine whether to create a new keyframe (or replace an existing keyframe) associated with an event, and record (or update) an event count associated with that keyframe in the event data; paragraph 0089, creation of new keyframes, culling/elimination of stale keyframes, etc..
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Motilewa Good-Johnson whose telephone number is (571)272-7658. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 6am-2:30pm.
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, Jason Chan can be reached at 571-272-3022. 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.
MOTILEWA . GOOD JOHNSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2616
/MOTILEWA GOOD-JOHNSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2619
Prosecution Insights