Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 46-3 Filed 03/21/22 Page 1 of 27
`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 46-3 Filed 03/21/22 Page 1 of 27
`
`EXHIBIT 3
`EXHIBIT 3
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 46-3 Filed 03/21/22 Page 2 of 27
`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 46-3 Filed 03/21/22 Page 2 of 27
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address:COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`FILING DATE
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKETNO.
`
`CONFIRMATION NO.
`
` APPLICATION NO.
`
`11/543,008
`
`10/04/2006
`
`Eric Foxlin
`
`09970-014001
`
`5969
`
`7590
`26161
`aa
`“re
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.-C. (BO)
`P.O. BOX 1022
`MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022
`
`11/12/2010
`
`EXAMINER
`
`BROOKS, JULIAN D
`
`2624
`
`11/12/2010
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period forreply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e-mail address(es):
`PATDOCTC@ft.com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`GNTX0000142
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 46-3 Filed 03/21/22 Page 3 of 27
`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 46-3 Filed 03/21/22 Page 3 of 27
`Application No.
`Applicant(s)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`11/543,008
`
`Examiner
`
`JULIAN D. BROOKS
`
`FOXLIN ET AL.
`
`Art Unit
`
`2624
`
`-- The MAILING DATE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address--
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTH(S) OR THIRTY (30) DAYS,
`WHICHEVER IS LONGER, FROM THE MAILING DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`- Extensions of time may be available underthe provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a).
`In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed
`after SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Anyreply received by the Office later than three monthsafter the mailing date of this communication, evenif timely filed, may reduce any
`eamed patent term adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1)K] Responsive to communication(s) filed on 17 August 2010.
`2a)L] This action is FINAL.
`2b)[X] This action is non-final.
`3)L] Sincethis application is in condition for allowance exceptfor formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Ex parte Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims
`
`4)X] Claim(s) 1-24 is/are pending in the application.
`
`4a) Of the above claim(s)
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`5)L] Claim(s)
`is/are allowed.
`6)X] Claim(s) 1-24 is/are rejected.
`7)K] Claim(s)__ is/are objected to.
`8)L] Claim(s)__ are subjectto restriction and/or election requirement.
`
`Application Papers
`
`9)[_] The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`10)IX] The drawing(s) filed on 04 October 2006is/are: a)X] accepted or b)[_] objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121(d).
`11)_] The oath or declaration is objected to by the Examiner. Note the attached Office Action or form PTO-152.
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`
`12)L_] Acknowledgmentis made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or(f).
`a)_] All
`b)[-] Some * c)] Noneof:
`1.£] Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.{_] Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3.£] Copies ofthe certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`* See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`4) | Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`1)
`Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date.__.
`2) C] Notice of Draftsperson’s Patent Drawing Review (PTO-948)
`
`3)2Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08) 5) [] Noticeofinformal Patent Application
`
`Paper No(syMail Date 10/04/2006, 05/15/2007, 06/20/2007, and
`6) r] Other:
`.
`UePatentandTrademark Office
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 08-06)
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20100928
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`GNTX0000143
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 46-3 Filed 03/21/22 Page 4 of 27
`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 46-3 Filed 03/21/22 Page 4 of 27
`
`Application/Control Number: 11/543,008
`Art Unit: 2624
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Election/Restrictions
`
`1.
`
`Applicant's election without traverse of group 1 claims 1-24 in the reply filed on
`
`08/11/2010 is acknowledged.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Claims 1-42 were pending [10/04/2006].
`
`Claims 1-24 have been elected in responseto a restriction requirement
`
`[08/11/2010]
`
`4,
`
`Claims 1-24 are currently pending [08/24/2010].
`
`Priority
`
`5.
`
`Applicant's claim for domestic priority under 35 U.S.C 119(e) is acknowledged
`
`based on the provisional application 60723648 filed on 10/04/2005.
`
`information Disclosure Statement
`
`6.
`
`The information disclosure statements (IDS)s submitted on 10/04/2006,
`
`05/15/2007, 06/20/2007, and 01/14/2008 are in compliance with the provisions of 37
`
`CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered
`
`and copies are enclosed within this office action.
`
`GNTX0000144
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 46-3 Filed 03/21/22 Page 5 of 27
`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 46-3 Filed 03/21/22 Page 5 of 27
`
`Application/Control Number: 11/543,008
`Art Unit: 2624
`
`Page 3
`
`7.
`
`The Drawings submitted on 10/04/2006 are approved for examination purposes.
`
`Drawings
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 107
`
`8.
`
`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 ofthis title.
`
`9.
`
`Claims 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as notfalling within one of the four
`
`statutory categories of invention. While the instant claim(s) recite a series of steps or
`
`acts to be performed, the claim(s) neither transform underlying subject matter, positively
`
`tie to another statutory category that accomplishes the claimed method steps, and
`
`furthermore, these steps can be performed manually/mentally by a human being, and
`
`are thus an abstract idea. The body of the claims must positively recite the particular
`
`hardware machine such as a processor, computer, circuitry, etc, (whatever is disclosed)
`
`that is used to perform the significant and inventive steps of the claimed method, and
`
`thus tying the claim to the statutory category of machine. Furthermore, nor do the
`
`claims appropriately transform the underlying subject matter as required. The claims
`
`need to obtain data that represents a physical object, modify/produce calculated
`
`information from this data, and finally create an external depiction that represents the
`
`modified/produced calculated information/data, (an external depiction, for example, can
`
`be but is not limited to visually displaying the modified data/calculated information).
`
`Particularly the present claims fail to create an external depiction, that is notify or signal
`
`GNTX0000145
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 46-3 Filed 03/21/22 Page 6 of 27
`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 46-3 Filed 03/21/22 Page 6 of 27
`
`Application/Control Number: 11/543,008
`Art Unit: 2624
`
`Page 4
`
`to a user results of any computations. NO NEW MATTER MAY BE ADDED. Examiner
`
`suggests amending the claims to recite using a processor/computer to perform the
`
`computations.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
`
`10.
`
`The following is a quotation of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
`
`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.
`
`11.
`
`Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as
`
`being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject
`
`matter which applicant regards as the invention.
`
`Claims 13 and 14 both recite the limitation "the line containing the two points";
`
`however, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
`
`Specifically, the claims fail to previously define or recite a line that containing the two
`
`points such thatit is clear as to whatis being referred to by “the line containing the two
`
`points”.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
`
`12.
`
`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 —
`
`(e) the invention was described in (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by
`another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent
`granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the
`applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section
`351(a) shall have the effects for purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States
`
`GNTX0000146
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 46-3 Filed 03/21/22 Page 7 of 27
`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 46-3 Filed 03/21/22 rage 77of 27
`BO7B-00 Lae
`rey Docket Noo ¢
`
`aot
`
`IN TRE TINITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARE€
`
`wn
`
`Appheant
`SerialNo.
`Filed
`Title
`
`Ox
`Art Unit
`> ric Foshin ef al.
`Examiner
`: 11/543.0G6
`Conf No,
`: October 4 3006
`> TRACKING OBJECTS WITH MARKERS
`
`Mali Stop Amendment
`Cammmissioner for Patents
`PAO. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-14350
`
`LR U2, 2010 La
`
`
`AMENDMENTUN REPLYTOACTION OF
`
`Please amend the abave-identified application as follows:
`
`
`
`GNTX0000180
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 46-3 Filed 03/21/22 Page 8 of 27
`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 46-3 Filed 03/21/22 Page 8 of 27
`: Eric Foxtin ef al,
`Attorney's Docket Ne. 8670-00) 400!
` Applicant
`Serial Na.
`7 TE/S43, 008
`Piles
`2 OQetuber 4, 2600
`Page
`2 Farid
`
`
`
`Claims 1-24 are currently pending in the application. Claims 4-6 have been cancelled.
`
`The chiims have been amended to moreclearlypoint ont certain aspecis of the claimed
`inventions. Newclaims 43-46 have been added, No newmatter has beanadded.
`
`Clauns 1-24 stand rejected under 34 U.S.C. 101 as nor falling within one of the four
`
`Slatwiory calegories of invention. Applicants do net concede that the claimsas originally drafted
`fail to satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101. However to expedite prosecution, claim [ has
`been amendedio rectic “oltaming a camera image, from a camera having a variable orientation,
`
`ofanobject having a variable orientation , and processing said camera image ina data
`
`processor’ and “generating one or moresignals representative ofthe location and azimuth ofthe
`24
`
`object.”
`
`“The method ofthe claims as amended does not cover methods that would be performed
`
`entirely manually or mentally by a human being. Applicants sabmit that the claims as amended
`
`iherefore satisiy the requirements of 35 USC. 101 and respectfully request thet the rejection on
`
`that basis be withdrawn.
`
`Claims 13 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph as being
`
`indefinite because of alleged lack of antecedent basis for the limitation “theline containing the
`
`pvo points.” Claims 13 and [4 have been amendedto recite “the line defined by the twa points.”
`
`Applicants submit that there is antecedent basis for “the two pomis” in claim }. Applicants
`further submit that as a matter of mathematics, any two points in animage will define a single.
`unique, line. For that reason, the limitation “the Hine defined bythe nwo pointe” is not indefinite.
`For this reason, applicants respectfully request that the rejection under 38 LIS.C. 112, second
`
`paragraph be withdrawn.
`
`Claims 1-10, 13-15 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as anticipated by Satohet
`
`al. Claims 11-L2 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.ae a8 unpatentable aver Satoh et all, and
`
`Yagi. Claims [7-24 stand rejected under 35 L5.C. 103(a) as unpatentable aver Satohetal, and
`
`Yagi. Applicants submit that Satoh dees not disclose, teach or suggest claims 1-3 ar 7-24 as
`734
`amended,
`In particular, claim | has been amended to recite “ubtaining a carnera image, fram a
`camera having a variable orientation, of an object having a variable orientation,” asd conipating
`
`GNTX0000181
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 46-3 Filed 03/21/22 Page 9 of 27
`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 46-3 Filed 03/21/22 Page 9 of 27
`
`Applicant
`Serial No.
`Filed
`Page
`
`: Eric Foxlin et ai.
`: 11/543,008
`: October 4, 2006
`: 2of ld
`
`Amendments to the Claims:
`
`Attomey’s Docket No.: 09970-0014001
`
`This listing of claims replacesall prior versions andlistings ofclaimsin the application:
`
`Listing of Claims:
`
`1.
`
`(Currently Amended) A method comprising obtaining a camera image, from a camera
`
`having a variable orientation, of an object having a variable orientation, and processing said
`
`camera image in a data processor by computing the spatial location and azimuth ofan theobject
`
`from the locations, in a-single saidcamera image, of exactly two points on the object,
`
`information about an orientation of said camera, and information about an orientation ofthe
`
`object, and generating one or more signals re
`
`
`
`resentative of the location and azimuth ofthe
`
`
`
`2.
`
`(Currently Amended) The method ofclaim 1, wherein the information about an
`
`orientation of the object comes from an first inertial sensor mounted on the object, and the
`
`information about an orientation of the camera comes from an inertial sensor mounted on the
`
`camera.
`
`3.
`
`(Previously Presented) The method ofclaim 1, further comprising using image locations
`
`in said camera image of one or more additional points on the object to identify said two points.
`
`4-6.
`
`(Cancelled)
`
`7.
`
`(Currently Amended) The method of claim ] [[6]], wherein information from said second
`
`inertial sensor comprises information about pitch and roll with respectto gravity.
`
`GNTX0000194
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 46-3 Filed 03/21/22 Page 10 of 27
`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 46-3 Filed 03/21/22 Page 10 of 27
`
`Application No.
`Applicant(s)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`11/543,008
`Examiner
`JULIAN BROOKS
`
`FOXLIN ET AL.
`Ant Unit
`2624
`
`-- The MAILING DATE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTH(S) OR THIRTY(80) DAYS,
`WHICHEVER IS LONGER, FROM THE MAILING DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a).
`In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed
`after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing dateof this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Anyreply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, evenif timely filed, may reduce any
`eamed patent term adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1)] Responsive to communication(s)filed on 05/03/2011.
`2a)[X] This action is FINAL.
`2b)[_] This action is non-final.
`3)L] Sincethis application is in condition for allowance exceptfor formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Ex parte Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims
`
`4X] Claim(s) 1-3, 7-24, and 43-46 is/are pending in the application.
`4a) Of the above claim(s)
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`5)X] Claim(s) 43 is/are allowed.
` s) 1-3, 7-24, and 44-46is/are rejected.
`6)K] Claim
`7)L] Claim(s)__ is/are objectedto.
`8)L] Claim(s)___ are subjectto restriction and/or election requirement.
`
`=em
`
`) )
`
`Application Papers
`
`9)[_] The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`
`10)] The drawing(s)filed on
`is/are: a)L_] accepted or b)[_] objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`1) The oath or declaration is objected to by the Examiner. Note the attached Office Action or form PTO-152.
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`
`12)(_] Acknowledgmentis madeof a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`a)L] All b)[] Some*c)] None of:
`1.] Certified copiesof the priority documents have been received.
`2.[_] Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3..] Copiesof the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`“ See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`1)
`Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`2) [[] Notice of Draftsperson’s Patent Drawing Review (PTO-948)
`3)
`Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTQ/SB/08)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date 05/03/2011.
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`4) rl Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date.
`5) C] Notice of Informal Patent Application
`6) r] Other:
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 08-06)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20110716
`
`GNTX0000200
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 46-3 Filed 03/21/22 Page 11 of 27
`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 46-3 Filed 03/21/22 Page 11 of 27
`
`Application/Control Number: 11/543,008
`Art Unit: 2624
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Response to Amendment
`
`Claims 1-42 were pending [10/04/2006].
`
`Claims 1-24 were elected in responseto a restriction requirement [08/1 1/2010]
`
`Claims 1-24 were currently pending [08/24/2010].
`
`Claims 1, 2, 7,9, 10, and 13-24, have been amended [05/03/2011].
`
`Claims 4-6 have been cancelled [05/03/2011].
`
`Claims 43-46 have been newly added [05/03/2011].
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`Information Disclosure Statement
`
`7.
`
`The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 05/03/2011 is in
`
`compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure
`
`statement has been considered and a copy is enclosed within this office action.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 1017
`
`8.
`
`Examiner’s previous rejection of claims 1-24 under 35 U.S.C. 101 as notfalling
`
`within one of the four statutory categories of invention has been withdrawn in response
`
`to Applicant’s appropriate amendment to claim 1, which nowrecites that a processor
`
`performs the computing steps.
`
`GNTX0000201
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 46-3 Filed 03/21/22 Page 12 of 27
`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 46-3 Filed 03/21/22 Page 12 of 27
`
`Application/Control Number: 11/543,008
`Art Unit: 2624
`
`Page 3
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
`
`9.
`
`Examiner’s previous rejection of claims 13 and 14 has been withdrawnin
`
`response to Applicant’s appropriate amendmentto the claims.
`
`10.
`
`The following is a quotation of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
`
`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.
`
`
`
`11. Claim7is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being
`
`indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject
`
`matter which applicant regards as the invention.
`
`Claim 7 recites the limitation "said inertial sensor”in line two; however, there is
`
`insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, claim 1, which
`
`claim 7 depends, fails to recite or state an inertial sensor so thatit is clear as to whatis
`
`being referred to by "said inertial sensor".
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`12.
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all
`
`obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
`
`(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set
`forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and
`the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.
`Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
`
`13.
`
`Claims 1-3, 7-10, 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
`
`unpatentable over Satoh etal., U.S. Patent Application Publication No.
`
`GNTX0000202
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 46-3 Filed 03/21/22 Page 13 of 27
`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 46-3 Filed 03/21/22 Page 13 of 27
`
`Application/Control Number: 11/543,008
`Art Unit: 2624
`
`Page 4
`
`20050256391 A1, filed on 05/11/2005, [herein Satoh], and furtherin view of Kiraly,
`
`U.S Patent No. 7324663, filed 06/06/2003, [herein Kiraly].
`
`With respect to claim 1, Satoh discloses “A method comprising obtaining a
`
`camera image, of an object having a variable orientation, and processing said camera
`
`image in a data processor by computing the spatial location and azimuth of the object”
`
`(Page 3, paragraph 0030, 0033, and Page 4, paragraph 0041), “from the locations, in
`
`said camera image, of exactly two points on the object” (Page 3, paragraphs 0032-
`
`0034), “and information about an orientation of the object” (Pages 3-4, paragraphs
`
`0037-0038), “and generating one or more signals representative of the location and
`
`azimuth of the object” (Page 4, paragraph 0041).
`
`It is however noted that Satoh fails to explicitly disclose “from a camera having a
`
`variable orientation’, and “information about an orientation of said camera”, as claimed.
`
`On the other hand Satoh as modified by Kiraly teaches “from a camera having a
`
`variable orientation” (Col. 8, lines 21-38, variable orientation is evident by Kiraly's any
`
`orientation difference), and “information about an orientation of said camera”(Col. 8,
`
`lines 21-38).
`
`Satoh and Kiraly are combinable because they are from the same field of
`
`endeavor which is the imaging and tracking of an imaged object wherein the object
`
`contains markers. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the camera calibration and alignment of Kiraly
`
`into the bird’s eye view cameras of Satoh in order to assure proper alignment.
`
`GNTX0000203
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 46-3 Filed 03/21/22 Page 14 of 27
`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 46-3 Filed 03/21/22 Page 14 of 27
`
`Application/Control Number: 11/543,008
`Art Unit: 2624
`
`Page 5
`
`The motivation for doing so would have been to achieve a predictable result
`
`improvement by applying a known technique to a known device. Satoh contains a
`
`“base” process of imaging an object which contains markers and tracking the object
`
`utilizing the markers and orientation information on the object, which the claimed
`
`invention can be seen as an “improvement”in that the imaging is performed with a
`
`camera with variable orientation and utilizing the imaging cameraorientation in the
`
`object tracking, wherein Satoh’s camera is only disclosed as being fixed. Kiraly contains
`
`a knowntechnique of aligning and thus calibrating an imaging camera that images an
`
`object which contains markersfor tracking, moreover this alignment information is
`
`utilized in the tracking calculations, which is applicable to the base process by
`
`calibrating Satoh’s bird eye view cameras and using these calibrated orientations as
`
`“the known values in the data storage 17” (Satoh, page 3, paragraph 0035). Kiraly’s
`
`known technique of camera alignment and calibration would have been recognized by
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art as applicable to the base process of Satoh and the result
`
`would have been predictable and resulted in calibrating the bird’s eye view camera of
`
`Satoh in order to provide more accurate tracking.
`
`With respectto claim 2, Satoh as modified by Kiraly discloses “wherein the
`
`information about an orientation of the object comes from an inertial sensor mounted on
`
`the object” (Page 3-4, paragraph 0037, first inertial sensor corresponds to Satoh’s
`
`gyroscopes), “and the information about the orientation of the camera comes from an
`
`inertial sensor mounted on the camera’(Kiraly: Page 8, lines 21-33, inertial sensor
`
`corresponds to Kiraly’s accelerometer or inclinometer).
`
`GNTX0000204
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 46-3 Filed 03/21/22 Page 15 of 27
`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 46-3 Filed 03/21/22 Page 15 of 27
`
`Application/Control Number: 11/543,008
`Art Unit: 2624
`
`Page 6
`
`With respectto claim 3, Satoh as modified by Kiraly discloses “further comprising
`
`using image locations in said camera image of one or more additional points on the
`
`object to identify said two points” (Page 3, paragraphs 0033 & 0034 and page 9,
`
`paragraphs 0109-0111 and page 10, paragraph 0118).
`
`With respect to claim 7, Satoh as modified by Kiraly discloses “wherein
`
`information from said inertial sensor comprises information about pitch and roll with
`
`respect to gravity” (Page 4, paragraph 0037, Satoh’s accelerations sensor concerns
`
`with pitch and roll angles).
`
`With respect to claim 8, Satoh as modified by Kiraly discloses “wherein azimuth
`
`of the camera, if measured, is not used to computethe relative location and azimuth of
`
`the object with respect to the camera” (See figure 1, Satoh's inertial sensors are on the
`
`object being imaged by camera 18).
`
`With respectto claim 9, Satoh as modified by Kiraly discloses “wherein
`
`information from said inertial sensor mounted on said object comprisespitch with
`
`respect to gravity” (Page 3, paragraph 0037, gyroscopes are known to measurepitch,
`
`roll, and yaw).
`
`GNTX0000205
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 46-3 Filed 03/21/22 Page 16 of 27
`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 46-3 Filed 03/21/22 Page 16 of 27
`
`Application/Control Number: 11/543,008
`Art Unit: 2624
`
`Page 7
`
`With respect to claim 10, Satoh as modified by Kiraly discloses “wherein
`
`information from said inertial sensor mountedin said object also comprisesroll with
`
`respect to gravity” (Page 3, paragraph 0037, gyroscopes are known to measurepitch,
`
`roll, and yaw).
`
`With respect to claim 13, Satoh as modified by Kiraly discloses “wherein
`
`information from said inertial sensor mounted on said object comprisespitch” (Page 3,
`
`paragraph 0037, gyroscopes are known to measure pitch, roll, and yaw), “and the pitch
`
`of the line defined by the two points is equivalent to the pitch of the object” (Page 4,
`
`paragraph 0037, and Figure 1, items 14, p1 and p2, since the points are on the object,
`
`the pitch of a line connecting the points is also the object).
`
`With respect to claim 14, Satoh as modified by Kiraly discloses “further
`
`comprising calculating pitch of the line defined by the two points using the measured
`
`pitch and roll of the object and a knownorientation of said line on the object” (See
`
`Figure 10 and Pages 15-16, paragraphs 0180-0183).
`
`With respect to claim 15, Satoh as modified by Kiraly discloses “further
`
`comprising updating the computed spatial location and orientation of the object based
`
`on the information about the angular velocity and linear acceleration of the object from
`
`the first inertial sensor” (See Figure 8, and Page 13, paragraph 0159, as well as Pages
`
`3-4, paragraph 0037, updating is accomplished by Satoh’s looping for subsequent
`
`GNTX0000206
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 46-3 Filed 03/21/22 Page 17 of 27
`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 46-3 Filed 03/21/22 Page 17 of 27
`
`Application/Control Number: 11/543,008
`Art Unit: 2624
`
`Page 8
`
`frames, moreover, the orientation measuring involves considering angular rate and
`
`acceleration).
`
`With respect to claim 16, Satoh discloses “further comprising correcting for drift in
`
`the updated spatial location or orientation of the object using an updated image from the
`
`camera” (See Figure 8, and Page 13, paragraph 0159, as well as Pages 3-4, paragraph
`
`0037, updating is accomplished by Satoh’s looping and using subsequent frames).
`
`14.
`
`Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable
`
`over Satoh et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20050256391 A1, filed on
`
`05/11/2005, [herein Satoh], and Kiraly, U.S Patent No. 7324663,filed 06/06/2003,
`
`[herein Kiraly] as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Yagi et al., U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6603865 B1, published 08/05/2003, [herein Yagil].
`
`With respect to claim 11 Satoh and Kiraly fails to explicitly disclose “wherein said
`
`one or more additional points includes a third point that is closer to one of said two
`
`points than to the other, and wherein identifying said two points comprises using the
`
`location in said image of said third point to distinguish said two points from each other’,
`
`as claimed.
`
`On the other hand Yagi teaches “wherein said one or more additional points
`
`includes a third point that is closer to one of said two points than to the other, and
`
`wherein identifying said two points comprises using the location in said image of said
`
`GNTX0000207
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 46-3 Filed 03/21/22 Page 18 of 27
`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 46-3 Filed 03/21/22 Page 18 of 27
`
`Application/Control Number: 11/543,008
`Art Unit: 2624
`
`Page 9
`
`third point to distinguish said two points from each other” (See Figure 7 and Cols. 12-13,
`
`lines 50-67 & 1-15 respectively).
`
`Satoh and Yagi are combinable becausethey are from a similar field of endeavor
`
`which is determining position of an imaged object using markers on the object.
`
`At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person ofordinary
`
`skill in the art to incorporate the marker arrangement of Yagi into the position and
`
`orientation of a targeted object determination of Satoh.
`
`The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have beento improve position
`
`detection accuracy as noted by Yagi (Col. 1, lines 58-67); Furthermore, Satoh teaches
`
`the use of multiple markers butfails to disclose a specific arrangement and processing.
`
`Yagi teaches a multiple marker arrangement and processing that one of ordinary skill in
`
`the art would have not only recognized as being applicable to Satoh but also recognized
`
`that doing so would have yielded an improved accuracy and higher processing speed
`
`as taught by Yagi (Col. 13, lines 49-61).
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Satoh with Yagi to obtain the
`
`invention as specified in claim 11.
`
`With respect to claim 12, Satoh as modified by Kiraly and Yagi teaches “wherein
`
`said one or more additional points includes a fourth point that is collinear with said two
`
`points, and wherein identifying said two points further comprises using the location in
`
`said image of said fourth point to distinguish the linear array of points to which it belongs
`
`from other linear arrays of points” (Yagi: See Figures 3 & 7, Cols. 7-8, lines 49-67 & 1-
`
`10 respectively, and Cols. 12-13, lines 50-67 & 1-15 respectively).
`
`GNTX0000208
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 46-3 Filed 03/21/22 Page 19 of 27
`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 46-3 Filed 03/21/22 Page 19 of 27
`
`Application/Control Number: 11/543,008
`Art Unit: 2624
`
`Page 10
`
`15.
`
`Claims 17-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable
`
`over Satoh et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20050256391 A1, filed on
`
`05/11/2005, [herein Satoh] and Kiraly, U.S Patent No. 7324663, filed 06/06/2003,
`
`{herein Kiraly], as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Foxlin, U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6757068 B2, published on 06/29/2004, [herein Foxlin].
`
`With respect to claim 17, Satoh and Kiraly fail to disclose “wherein the camera
`
`image is provided by a camera mounted on the head of a person”, as claimed, although
`
`Satoh does suggest mounting a camera on the head of an observer,it is not the “bird’s
`
`eye view” camera that observes the object.
`
`On the other hand Foxlin teaches “wherein the camera image is provided by a
`
`camera mounted on the head of a person”(Col. 5, lines 13-25, and Col 13, lines 17-27,
`
`camera mounted on