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 .
Response to Arguments/Amendments
The amendment, filed 02/18/2026 in response to the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 11/24/2025 has been entered.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending in U.S. Patent Application No. 18/237,632.
Applicant’s remarks filed 02/18/2026 have been fully considered and are responded to below.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection for claim 20, the previous rejection is withdrawn in view of the claim amendments.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection for claims 8 and 17, the Applicant remarks and claim amendments have been considered but are not persuasive. The amended limitations recites “virtual light cards defined as non-emissive scene-referenced illumination surfaces distinct from the virtual light sources”. However, while claiming that the “virtual light card” is distinct from the “virtual light source”, it is still unclear how a “virtual light card” and “virtual light source” are distinct from each other. The specification nor the remarks provide no clear distinction between the two such that a person skilled in the art could make a understand the distinction between “virtual light card” and “virtual light source”. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection is maintained.
PNG
media_image1.png
239
838
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
152
854
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections, the Applicant remarks have been considered but are not persuasive. The Examiner responds below to the remarks made by the Applicant (see pages 6-7 of Applicant remarks).
Regarding the Applicant’s remarks on limitation (a), the Applicant asserts that Hirschfield does not disclose a “unified tracking framework” and is “fundamentally different”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner notes that there is no support or further explanation behind the assertion made by the Applicant regarding how Hirschfield is fundamentally different from the claimed invention. The amended claim 1 now recites that the same tracking system must track both “at least one physical camera” and “a control object”. Hirschfield discloses an ‘immersive content production system” (which may also be referred to as the “content production system” or “production system”) (see [0066]). Within the content production system, there are several different types of physical cameras (see [0068-0069], [0077]), and Hirschfield further discloses a motion capture system which contains alignment cameras (i.e., a physical camera) that can be used to track performers or objects such as a light capture device (i.e., a control object) (see [0083], [0350]). Therefore, Hirschfield’s “content production system” is a unified framework which can track both a control object as well as
PNG
media_image5.png
233
861
media_image5.png
Greyscale
different physical cameras.
PNG
media_image6.png
594
976
media_image6.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Definition for "render" provided by Merriam-Webster (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/render))]Regarding the Applicant’s remarks on limitation (b), the Applicant asserts that Hirschfield does not disclose “camera-dependent rendering logic” and is missing a control object [Wingdings font/0xE8] camera tracking [Wingdings font/0xE8] rendered environment [Wingdings font/0xE8] asset placement pipeline. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The amended claim discloses identifying any location within a virtual environment which is rendered for a physical camera. The Examiner notes that the term “rendered” is interpreted as a process for displaying an image (as defined by Merriam-Webster).
PNG
media_image8.png
205
818
media_image8.png
Greyscale
The process of rendering for a physical camera is interpreted as the process of displaying a location on the camera display/viewfinder, which is analogous to a location being in in a virtual environment being captured (i.e., in the view) of the camera. The claim does not recite the specific “camera-dependent rendering logic” as recited in the Applicant remarks. Hirschfield discloses identifying a location on virtual environment using a control object (see [0138]), and also having cameras which interact and track the control object which interacts with the virtual environment to place virtual lights or as a virtual pointer (see [0357, 0360-0361]).
Regarding the Applicant’s remarks on limitation (c), the Applicant asserts that Hirschfield does not disclose “control-object-driven spatial placement of virtual production assets” and that “lighting parameter modification is not equivalent to spatial placement of scene assets”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner notes that there is no justification or reasoning to this assertion to explain how/why lighting parameter modification is not equivalent to spatial placement of scene assets. Hirschfield discloses utilizing the light capture device to place lighting values (i.e., virtual assets) in a virtual environment (see [0360]). This process is based on the location and tracking of the light capture device, and therefore the placing of virtual objects is “in response to the identified location of the control object.’.
The 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections for claims 1-4, 11-14, and 18 are maintained. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections for claims 5-7, 9-10, 15-16, and 19-20 are maintained. Claims 8 and 17, due to a change in scope necessitated by the Applicant’s amendments, are now presented with a new grounds of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The Examiner notes the following from MPEP 2163(I)(B):
“Thus, the written description requirement prevents an applicant from claiming subject matter that was not adequately described in the specification as filed. New or amended claims which introduce elements or limitations that are not supported by the as-filed disclosure violate the written description requirement.”
Claim 8 and claim 17 have been amended to further specify “virtual light cards defined as non-emissive scene-referenced illumination surfaces distinct from the virtual light sources”. The original specification for the invention discloses the following related to “virtual light cards”:
[0002]: “virtual light cards (i.e., a virtual light placed on the screen to light practical subjects)”
[0019]: “The tablet may include software that allows the user to pick objects (3D models, lights, light cards, etc.)”
[0023]: “… to indicate a location and/or object where virtual assets including light cards (i.e., a virtual light placed on a surface of the screen to aid the lighting of a physical subject on stage)”
The specification does not provide support for a “virtual light card” which is distinct from a light source, and furthermore there is no support for a virtual light card which is both an illumination surface while also being “non-emissive”. Additionally, there is no reference in the Applicant remarks to the specification for support of the amendments made to the claims. At best, the specification defines light cards as a virtual light placed to illuminate a physical object, which as disclosed does not provide enough distinction such that one skilled in the art could identify what the distinction between “virtual light source” and “virtual light card”. The
PNG
media_image9.png
316
478
media_image9.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Definition of a light card, obtained from Hirschfield and Jutan (US 2022/0343562))]
PNG
media_image11.png
268
974
media_image11.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Definition of a light card, obtained from https://vpglossary.com/vpglossary/light-card/)]Examiner notes the definitions for a light card found in the art:
In both references presented, the definitions for alight card align with the definition that is provided in the specification of the current invention, but they do not align with the claimed definition of a light card being distinct from a light source while also being an “illumination surface” and “non-emissive”.
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.
Claims 8 and 17 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. The amended claims 8 and 17 recite “virtual light cards defined as non-emissive scene-referenced illumination surfaces distinct from the virtual light sources”. While the claims note that there is a distinction between “virtual light sources” and “virtual light cards”, there is no support for how/why the light source and light cards are distinct. As claimed, it is unclear how a “virtual light card” can be considered to be both an “illumination surface” while also being “non-emissive”. As noted above in the Examiner response and 112(a) rejection, the specification, Applicant remarks, nor the art provide sufficient evidence such that one skilled in the art can adequately make a distinction between the two claimed terms.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 11-14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hirschfield and Jutan (US 2022/0343562; hereinafter “Hirschfield”).
Regarding Claim 1, Hirschfield discloses a method for tracking a control object on a stage for a virtual production, the method comprising (see Fig. 10):
tracking a control object on the stage using the same tracking system that tracks at least one physical camera used in the virtual production ([0350], [0360], Hirschfield discloses a light capture device (i.e., a control object), which is a handheld pointing device that is tracked by tracking cameras in order to determine a point or region of a virtual environment. The Examiner notes that Hirschfield discloses an “immersive content production system” (see [0066], which consists of various types of cameras which are used to track and locate the light capture device (see [0068-0069], [0077], [0083], and [0350]).);
identifying a location in a virtual environment rendered for the physical camera using tracking information of the control object (Fig. 10, [0138], Hirschfield discloses utilizing the light capture device to identify a region within an immersive virtual environment where a lighting value should be applied. The Examiner notes [0357] and [0360-0361] which disclose the light capture device being able to communicate with various cameras in order to track and locate the device.);
and placing virtual assets at the identified location in the virtual environment in response to the identified location of the control object. (Fig. 10, [0140], [0360], Hirschfield discloses applying a lighting value (i.e., virtual assets) to the region in the virtual environment. The Examiner notes [0360-0361] where Hirschfield discloses utilizing the location and orientation of the light capture device in order to place virtual lights and/or to interact with the virtual environment.).
Claim 18 is the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim corresponding to claim 1, and is similarly rejected (see [0008-0009], Hirschfield).
Regarding Claim 2, Hirschfield discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the virtual assets include light cards ([0140], Hirschfield discloses applying lighting to a region in a virtual environment.).
Claim 12 is the system claim corresponding to claim 2, and is similarly rejected (see [0008-0009], Hirschfield).
Regarding Claim 3, Hirschfield discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the tracked control object includes: a finger, a hand, an arm, markers on the hand, an eyeline indicator, a voice-driven control object, or an object tag ([0350], Hirschfield discloses a light capture device which includes markers which are used to track the device. The Examiner notes that the term “object tag” is given its broadest reasonable interpretation and is interpreted as a tag/marker that is present on an object.).
Claim 13 is the system claim corresponding to claim 3, and is similarly rejected (see [0008-0009], Hirschfield).
Regarding Claim 4, Hirschfield discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the control object is a pointer to indicate the location ([0350], [0361], Hirschfield discloses using the light capture device as a virtual pointer to point out regions of a screen.).
Claim 14 is the system claim corresponding to claim 4, and is similarly rejected (see [0008-0009], Hirschfield).
Regarding Claim 11, Hirschfield discloses a system to track a control object on a stage for a virtual production, the system comprising (see Fig. 1):
a control object ([0350], [0360], Hirschfield discloses a light capture device);
a tracking device to track the control object on the stage, wherein the tracking device uses the same tracking system that tracks at least one physical camera used in the virtual production ([0135-0138], [0350], [0360], Hirschfield discloses a light capture device (i.e., a control object), which is a handheld pointing device that is tracked by tracking cameras in order to determine a point or region of a virtual environment. The Examiner notes that Hirschfield discloses an “immersive content production system” (see [0066], which consists of various types of cameras which are used to track and locate the light capture device (see [0068-0069], [0077], [0083], and [0350]).); and
a computer system to identify a location in a virtual environment rendered for the at least one physical camera using tracking information of the control object obtained by the tracking device (Fig. 10, [0138], Hirschfield discloses utilizing the light capture device to identify a region within an immersive virtual environment where a lighting value should be applied. The Examiner notes [0357] and [0360-0361] which disclose the light capture device being able to communicate with various cameras in order to track and locate the device.),
wherein the computer system places virtual assets at the identified location in the virtual environment in response to the identified location of the control object. (Fig. 10, [0140], [0360], Hirschfield discloses applying a lighting value (i.e., virtual assets) to the region in the virtual environment. The Examiner notes [0360-0361] where Hirschfield discloses utilizing the location and orientation of the light capture device in order to place virtual lights and/or to interact with the virtual environment.).
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 5-7, 9-10, 15-16, and 19-20 are rejected as being unpatentable over Hirschfield in view of Ro et al. (“AR Pointer: Advanced Ray-Casting Interface Using Laser Pointer Metaphor for Object Manipulation in 3D Augmented Reality Environment”, DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/app9153078; hereinafter “Ro”).
Regarding Claim 5, Hirschfield discloses the method of claim 4, wherein the pointer is tracked to create a virtual laser pointer in the virtual environment ([0350], [0361], Hirschfield discloses using the light capture device, which is tracked by cameras, as a virtual pointer to point out regions of a screen. The Examiner notes that a crosshair or reticle can be displayed in the virtual environment to show where the light capture device is being pointed at.)
Hirschfield does not explicitly disclose casting a virtual ray from a tip of the pointer to create a visible line.
Ro discloses casting a virtual ray from a tip of the pointer to create a visible line (3. AR Pointer, Ro discloses an AR pointer wherein a phone is placed in a user’s hand and is used as a pointer to interact with objects in an AR space. The Examiner specifically notes Fig. 2 wherein the virtual ray is shown to create a visible line, which is similar to the Applicant’s invention (see [0020] from Applicant specification.).
Hirschfield and Ro are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of using a pointing device to interact with a virtual environment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hirschfield by incorporating Ro’s logic of generating a virtual ray between two points such that the light capture device (i.e., a pointer) taught by Hirschfield is able to generate a visible line between the light capture device and a region in the virtual environment. The motivation behind this combination being the ability to visualize where the light capture device, in the real world, is pointing at in the virtual environment.
Claims 15 and 19 are the system and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claims, respectively, corresponding to claim 5, and are similarly rejected.
Regarding Claim 6, Hirschfield in view of Ro teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the virtual ray guides a virtual artist to place the virtual assets at the identified location (3.2. User Interaction for Object Manipulations, Fig. 3, Ro discloses different object manipulations a user can perform with the AR pointer, including moving an object. Also see [0140], wherein Hirschfield discloses applying lighting to a specific region of a virtual environment based on where the light capture device is directed at.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to further modify the combination of Hirschfield in view of Ro such that the virtual ray is utilized to guide the placement of an object/lighting. The motivation for this combination being the ability to visualize a connection between the real-world and the virtual environment.
Claims 20 is the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim (the Examiner notes the 112(b) issue with claim 20) corresponding to claim 5, and is similarly rejected.
Regarding Claim 7, Hirschfield in view of Ro teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the tracked control object includes a tablet computer including software that enables a user to pick and place virtual objects in the virtual environment based on the virtual ray from the tracked tablet computer to a scene in the virtual environment (3. AR Pointer, Ro discloses an AR pointer, where a smartphone (i.e., tablet computer) is used as a pointer to interact with objects in a virtual AR environment. Also note [0356], wherein Hirschfield discloses the light capture device being able to mount a smartphone to the device for positioning the light measurement device.).
Claim 16 is the system claim corresponding to claim 7 and is similarly rejected (see [0008-0009], Hirschfield).
Regarding Claim 9, Hirschfield in view of Ro teaches the method of claim 7, wherein the user controls various aspects of the virtual objects directly on the tablet computer (3. AR Pointer, Ro discloses an AR pointer, where a smartphone (i.e., tablet computer) is used as a pointer to interact with objects in a virtual AR environment. Also note [0356], wherein Hirschfield discloses the light capture device being able to mount a smartphone to the device for positioning the light measurement device.).
Regarding Claim 10, Hirschfield in view of Ro teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the various aspects include at least one of color, brightness, scale, and rotation ([0137-0139], Hirschfield discloses applying a lighting value to a virtual environment, wherein the lighting value comprises a color value, an intensity (i.e., brightness). Hirschfield further discloses using a size value (i.e., scale) and rotation value which are applied to the region of interest within a virtual environment. Also see 3.2 User Interaction for Object Manipulations, Fig. 3, wherein Ro discloses changing the scale and rotation of an object.).
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected as being unpatentable over Hirschfield in view of Ro in view of Seymour (“Art of (LED wall) virtual production sets, part two: How you make one”, https://www.fxguide.com/fxfeatured/art-of-led-wall-virtual-production-sets-part-two-how-you-make-one/, Publication Date: 2020).
Regarding Claim 8, Hirschfield in view of Ro teaches the method of claim 7, wherein the virtual objects include at least one of: geometric 3D models (3.2 User Interaction for Object Manipulations, Ro discloses manipulating 3D objects.), virtual light sources (Fig. 10, [0140], [0360], Hirschfield discloses applying a lighting value (i.e., virtual assets) to the region in the virtual environment),
Hirschfield in view of Ro does not teach virtual light cards defined as non-emissive scene-referenced illumination surfaces distinct from the virtual light sources.
Seymour discloses virtual light cards defined as non-emissive scene-referenced illumination surfaces distinct from the virtual light sources (iPad control, Using the Wall as light panels, Seymour discloses utilizing a LED virtual production studio, wherein an iPad controller can be used to place digital reflective light cards.).
Hirschfield, Ro, and Seymour are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of using a device to interact with a virtual environment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hirschfield in view of Ro such that the tablet computer which interacts with the virtual environment (as taught by Hirschfield in view of Ro) further includes Seymour’s disclosure of placing reflective light cards. The motivation for this combination being the ability to increase the capabilities of the device with regards to how it interacts and the types of items which can be placed in the virtual environment.
Claim 17 is the system claim corresponding to claim 8 and is similarly rejected (see [0008-0009], Hirschfield).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Trottnow et al., “Intuitive Virtual Production Tools for Set and Light Editing”, DOI: 10.1145/2824840.2824851, Publication Year: 2015
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PROMOTTO TAJRIAN ISLAM whose telephone number is (703)756-5584. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, Chan Park can be reached at (571) 272-7409. 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.
/PROMOTTO TAJRIAN ISLAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2669 /CHAN S PARK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2669
Prosecution Insights