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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/03/2026 has been entered.
Applicant’s submission of a Response
Applicant’s submission of a response was received on 06/03/2026. Presently, claims 1-20 are now pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Office Action mailed 04/06/2026. Applicant’s representative asserts that the amended claims limitations are not met. However, in light of the amendments to the claims, new rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been presented, as discussed in detail below.
In regards to rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103, applicant asserts the following: “Applicant respectfully submits that Coffey in view of Barney fails to disclose, teach, or suggest the limitation ‘estimate, between successive samples of the image data, a position of the collision within the physical venue,’ which is affirmatively required by currently amended independent claims 1 and 11. This limitation requires the system to actively generate collision position estimates at moments in time when no camera frame is available - that is, in the intervals between camera exposures - by drawing on a second, independently-sampled data stream: orientation data from the P/L detection unit. The technical basis for this architecture is that orientation data (e.g., from an IMU incorporating gyroscopes and accelerometers) can be sampled at substantially higher frequency than image data from a video camera.” (Page 7 of Remarks)
Regarding point (1), the examiner relies on newly found prior art to teach or disclose the amended limitations.
In response to the arguments above, the office relies on newly found prior art of Hook et al. (US 20170315629 A1; hereinafter Hook) to teach the amended limitations regarding “estimate, between successive samples of the image data, a position of the collision within the physical venue”. Furthermore, examiner notes that the explanation for this limitation is much narrower than what applicant is currently claiming. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., This limitation requires the system to actively generate collision position estimates at moments in time when no camera frame is available - that is, in the intervals between camera exposures - by drawing on a second, independently-sampled data stream: orientation data from the P/L detection unit) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). (See 103 rejection below).
In regards to rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103, applicant asserts the following: “Barney's system produces no output at moments when no camera frame is available, because Barney has no second data stream that could support such estimation. Barney does not identify, address, or contemplate the problem of position estimation between camera samples, because Barney's single-source, camera-only architecture does not give rise to that problem in the first place.” (Page 8 of Remarks).
Regarding point (2), the examiner relies on newly found prior art to teach or disclose the amended limitations.
In response to the arguments above, applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Furthermore, examiner notes that the explanation for this limitation is much narrower than what applicant is currently claiming. (See 103 Rejection below)
In regards to rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103, applicant asserts the following: “Furthermore, regarding claims 7 and 17, the Office Action cited MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B) for the proposition "that a mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced." (See page 9 of the Office Action, emphasis reproduced from the Office Action.) However, Applicant notes that the cited MPEP teaching applies to redundant components performing the same function without a new result. Adding a second user device with the recited per-device fusion and per-device identification requires the system to disambiguate among multiple concurrently active light beam sources and attribute each collision to the particular device that produced it. That is a functionally distinct capability producing a new result, i.e., per-device collision attribution in a contemporaneous multi-device environment, that no single device system produces. In view of the inapplicability of MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B) to claims 7 and 17 described above, in further view of the concession in the Office Action that Coffey as modified by Barney does not include the features recited by claims 7 and 17, Applicant respectfully submits that Coffey in view of Barney cannot be reasonably interpreted to disclose the features affirmatively required by claims 7 and 17. Thus, Applicant respectfully asserts that claims 7 and 17 are patentably distinguishable over Coffey in view of Barney for these additional reasons.” (Page 8 of Remarks).
Regarding point (3), the examiner relies on newly found prior art to teach or disclose the amended limitations.
In response to the arguments above, applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 7 and 17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. (See 103 Rejection below)
Regarding claim 11, since it recites similar features to claim 1, the rejection is maintained as present below.
Applicant’s representative argues that since the prior art does not disclose or suggest the suggested features of independent claim 1 or 11 and so, dependent claims are patentable. However, in light of the remarks and standing rejection below, the examiner asserts the prior art of record teaches all the elements as claimed and these elements satisfy all structural, functional, operational, and spatial limitations currently in the claims. Therefore, the standing rejections are proper and maintained.
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 1-8 and 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HOOK et al. (US 20170315629 A1; hereinafter Hook) in view of Coffey et al. (US 20220020204 A1; hereinafter Coffey).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Hook discloses a system comprising: a computing platform including a hardware processor and a memory storing a software code (computer system; abstract and ¶6); a video camera communicatively coupled to the computing platform (mobile device used with video camera; ¶17); and a user device communicatively coupled to the computing platform (user device is the mobile device 206; 17) , the user device including a position/location (P/L) detection unit (accelerometer, gyroscope, and the like; ¶17); detect, using the video camera, a collision of a light beam emitted by the user device (vector intersecting with display screen; ¶17-18) with a first object representation of the one or more object representations (there can be one or more items on the display; ¶24); fuse image data sampled from the video camera with orientation data sampled from the P/L detection unit to estimate (both images and orientation data is used together as shown in ¶17-19), between successive samples of the image data (inertial sensors used as a high frequency measurement and images being used as a lower frequency means that there are multiple images with lower frequency and there will be high frequency measurements between these successive image samples; ¶19), a position of the collision (vector intersecting display screen; ¶17); and identify the user device (determining position of mobile device; abstract), based on the 3D map (track the location of the mobile device in the 3d space in ¶17 and Fig 2) and the estimated position of the collision (¶17-19).
Although Hook does disclose this projection on a physical location, it does not explicitly disclose the elements of a physical venue, such as the hardware processor configured to execute the software code to: obtain a three-dimensional (3D) map of a physical venue; identify one or more object representations within the physical venue. However, Coffey teaches the hardware processor configured to execute the software code to: obtain a three-dimensional (3D) map of a physical venue (virtual world simulation with a projection device 104; ¶15-16); identify one or more object representations within the physical venue (multiple objects such as floor, wall, and objects; ¶16).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hook to implement the teachings of Coffey in order to provide a more realistic and interactable environment. This gives the benefit of high immersion for the user to point their device to large areas in the virtual environment and interact with them.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Hook does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more object representations comprise one or more digital representations of one or more respective objects.
However, Coffey teaches wherein the one or more object representations comprise one or more digital representations of one or more respective objects (¶15).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hook to implement the teachings of Coffey in order to provide a more realistic and interactable environment. This gives the benefit of high immersion for the user to point their device to large areas in the virtual environment and interact with them and the objects represented.
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Hook does not explicitly disclose wherein each of the one or more object representations is in motion within the physical venue.
However, Coffey teaches wherein each of the one or more object representations is in motion within the physical venue (there is motion in the object representations because they have to vary the conformal projection in real time as the perspective of the user changes; ¶20).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hook to implement the teachings of Coffey in order to provide a more realistic and interactable environment. This gives the benefit of high immersion for the user to point their device to large areas in the virtual environment and interact with the objects in motion.
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Hook discloses wherein detecting detects the collision of the light beam emitted by the user device with a location on an area (vector intersecting display screen; ¶17).
Hook does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more object representations are presented on an arbitrarily shaped surface, and the arbitrarily shaped surface corresponding to the one of the one or more object representations. However, Coffey teaches wherein the one or more object representations are presented on an arbitrarily shaped surface (real-world venue may include multiple structures, such as walls, a ceiling, and one or more additional objects; ¶16), and the arbitrarily shaped surface corresponding to the one of the one or more object representations (the simulator can be implemented on an arbitrarily shaped surface because they venue can have objects around with those shapes; ¶15).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hook to implement the teachings of Coffey in order to provide a more realistic and interactable environment. This gives the benefit of high immersion for the user to point their device to large areas in the virtual environment and interact with it in multiple locations of the area.
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Hook discloses wherein the software code comprises one or more Kalman filters configured to synchronize (Kalman filters are fundamentally designed to combine/fuse measurements into a common state, as such, this is a normal capability for a Kalman filter) image data sampled from the video camera with the orientation data sampled from the P/L detection unit (Kalman filters being used with the different measurements as stated in ¶12).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Hook discloses wherein the image data and the orientation data are sampled at different sampling rates (inertial sensors used as a high frequency measurement and images being used as a lower frequency means that there are sampled at different rates, one at a higher frequency and the other at a lower frequency; ¶19).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Hook does not explicitly disclose further comprising a second user device communicatively coupled to the computing platform, the second user device including a second P/L detection unit, wherein the hardware processor is further configured to execute the software code to: detect, using the video camera, a second collision of a second light beam emitted by the second user device with a second object representation of the one or more object representations; fuse second image data sampled from the video camera with second orientation data sampled from the second P/L detection unit to estimate, between successive samples of the second image data, a position of the second collision within the physical venue; and identify the second user device, based on the 3D map and the estimated position of the second collision within the physical venue.
However, since the second user device has the same structure as the user device and has the same purpose of the user device, this will qualify as a duplication of parts. Furthermore, Hook mentions that the system may be configured to communicate with multiple mobile devices, instead of just one in the preferred embodiment (¶12 of Hook).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hook to implement the teachings of Coffey for a second user device since it has been held that a mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP 2144.04, VI, B. Duplication of Parts. In this case there is no new and unexpected result.
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Hook does not explicitly disclose further comprising a game engine configured to generate a virtual game environment corresponding to the physical venue.
However, Coffey teaches further comprising a game engine (hardware and software used to create this virtual world; abstract) configured to generate a virtual game environment corresponding to the physical venue (¶16).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hook to implement the teachings of Coffey because the use of a game engine when creating game environments provides the necessary hardware and software implementation required to create a virtual environment.
Claims 9, 10, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hook in view of Coffey as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Di-Sheng HU (US 20160195364 A1; hereinafter Hu).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Hook does not explicitly disclose wherein the hardware processor is further configured to execute the software code to output, to the game engine, a location of the collision within the virtual game environment.
However, Hu teaches wherein the hardware processor is further configured to execute the software code to output, to the game engine, a location of the collision of the light beam with the one of the one or more object representations (display a collision by a sign "HIT" on the target image area; ¶17).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hook to implement the teachings of Hu to provide the proper feedback to the user/player. Once the user hits an object, the game will let the user know if the collision happened in order for the user/player to move their laser towards another location.
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Hook does not explicitly disclose wherein the hardware processor is further configured to execute the game engine to display the collision of the light beam with the one of the one or more object representations in the virtual game environment.
However, Hu teaches wherein the hardware processor is further configured to execute the game engine to display the collision of the light beam with the one of the one or more object representations in the virtual game environment (display a collision by a sign "HIT" on the target image area; ¶17).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hook to implement the teachings of Hu to provide the proper feedback to the user/player. Once the user hits an object, the game will let the user know if the collision happened in order for the user/player to move their laser towards another location.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE ANGELES whose telephone number is (703)756-5338. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 8am-5pm.
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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at (571) 272-4430. 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.
/JOSE ANGELES/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/Jay Trent Liddle/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
