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 .
Applicant’s submission of a Response
Applicant’s submission of a response was received on 02/26/2026. Presently, claims 1-20 are now pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 02/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s representative asserts that the amended claims limitations are not met. However, the rejection of claims 1-20 are maintained as presented below.
Applicant’s representative alleges the following:
In regards to rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, Barney fails to disclose, teach, or suggest (i) a P/L detection unit in the wand producing orientation data that is sampled by control system 423, (ii) synchronization of an image data stream with P/L data, or (ii) determination of a beam collision position within a physical venue (Page 10 of Remarks).
In regards to rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, Coffey in view of Barney fails to disclose, teach, or suggest the limitations: "synchronize image data sampled from the video camera with orientation data sampled from the P/L detection unit to determine a position of the collision within the physical venue; and identify the user device, based on the 3D map and the determined position of the collision within the physical venue," affirmatively required by currently amended independent claim 1, and similarly required by currently amended independent claim 11 (Page 11 of Remarks).
Regarding point (1), the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant’s representative argues that Barney fails to disclose, teach, or suggest (i) a P/L detection unit in the wand producing orientation data that is sampled by control system 423, (ii) synchronization of an image data stream with P/L data, or (iii) determination of a beam collision position within a physical venue.
However, in regards to arguments above, (i) the P/L detection unit producing orientation data is disclosed by Coffey (¶35), the wand also has P\L detection units (¶82 of Barney) that measure orientation because gyro-sensors inherently detect, track, and measure orientation, (ii) even though the word synchronization is not explicitly used in Barney, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that “synchronization” is happening by taking multiple pictures (¶189 of Barney) and taking the data from these pictures and process this image data with the control system 423, which also analyzes position and movement of the signal from the light emitting module (¶191 of Barney), leading to synchronization. (iii) As mentioned by the applicant, Barney has 2 different embodiments, where light collides with a display device 418 (Fig 27) or light collides with a physical area (Fig 27A) and position is determined of either type of collision (¶189 or ¶196). (See 103 rejection in office action below).
Regarding point (2), the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant’s representative argues that the newly added claim limitations requiring "synchronize image data sampled from the video camera with orientation data sampled from the P/L detection unit to determine a position of the collision within the physical venue; and identify the user device, based on the 3D map and the determined position of the collision within the physical venue," are not met.
However, in regards to arguments above, even though the word synchronization is not explicitly used, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that “synchronization” is happening because it has already been established that the camera is taking photographs that have image data with position of the signal output by the light emitting module of the wand (¶189 of Barney) and the wand also has gyro sensors that measure orientation (¶82 of Barney) and this information is received and processed by the control system 423 (¶191 of Barney), which processes image data received from the camera and analyzes position and movement of the signal from the light emitting module, leading to synchronization. (See 103 rejection in office action 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 1-4, 6-7, 11-14, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coffey et al. (US 20220020204 A1; hereinafter Coffey) in view of Barney et al. (US 20050143173 A1; hereinafter Barney).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Coffey discloses a system comprising: a computing platform (computing platform; abstract) including a hardware processor and a memory storing a software code (abstract); a video camera communicatively coupled to the computing platform (abstract); and a user device communicatively coupled to the computing platform (user device 140; ¶24 and Fig 1C or 1D), the user device including a position/location (P/L) detection unit (P/L sensors; ¶33); the hardware processor configured to execute the software code (abstract) 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); and identify the user device, based on the 3D map (detecting user device 140 used in real world venue 120 that uses tracking systems to generate a virtual world simulation; ¶27). Coffey does not explicitly disclose
detect, using the video camera, a collision of a light beam emitted by the user device with a first object representation of the one or more object representations; synchronize image data sampled from the video camera with orientation data sampled from the P/L detection unit to determine a position of the collision within the physical venue; and identify the user device based on the determined position of the collision within the physical venue.
However, Barney focuses on a player device (wand) that uses an infrared LED transmitter or RF transmitter device and the circuitry of this device can be replace a gun or rifle in a conventional shooting gallery (¶128). This relates to Coffey because they both have a user device that interacts with the projected environment and computing platform. Barney teaches detect, using the video camera, a collision of a light beam emitted by the user device with a first object representation of the one or more object representations (camera can detect when the light is intercepted by the display in ¶189, which has at least 1 image in ¶187); synchronize image data sampled from the video camera with orientation data sampled from the P/L detection unit to determine a position of the collision within the physical venue (synchronization is automatically happening because it has already been established that the camera is taking photographs that have image data with position of the signal output by the light emitting module of the wand in ¶189 and the wand also has gyro sensors that measure orientation in ¶82 and this information is received and processed by the control system 423 in ¶191, which processes image data received from the camera and analyzes position and movement of the signal from the light emitting module); and identify the user device based on the determined position of the collision (there is inherent identification of the wand because the camera is able to detect the position of the signal intercepted by the display; ¶189) within the physical venue (collisions can be detected on a display or a surrounding area as shown in Fig 27 and 27A).
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 Coffey to implement the teachings of Barney to implement the use of a light emitting device in an environment created by projection mapping because it would provide a more realistic and interactable environment. This gives the benefit of high immersion for the user to point their device to areas in the virtual environment and interact with them.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Coffey discloses wherein the one or more object representations comprise one or more digital representations of one or more respective objects (¶15).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Coffey discloses 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).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Coffey discloses 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 in ¶16 and projection mapping is inherently designed to present objects on an arbitrarily shaped surface). Coffey discloses a location on the arbitrarily shaped surface corresponding to the one of the one or more object representations but does not explicitly disclose wherein detecting the collision detects the collision of the light beam emitted by the user device with a location on the arbitrarily shaped surface corresponding to the first object representation.
However, Barney focuses on a player device (wand) that uses an infrared LED transmitter or RF transmitter device and the circuitry of this device can be replace a gun or rifle in a conventional shooting gallery (¶128). This relates to Coffey because they both have a user device that interacts with the projected environment and computing platform. Barney teaches wherein detecting the collision detects the collision of the light beam emitted by the user device (the light emitting module of the wand as it's intercepted by the display device 418 in ¶189) with a location on the arbitrarily shaped surface corresponding to the first object representation (there are images in the display acting as object representations; ¶187).
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 Coffey to implement the teachings of Barney to implement the use of a light emitting device in an environment created by projection mapping because it would provide a more realistic and interactable environment. This gives the benefit of high immersion for the user to point their device to areas in the virtual environment and interact with them.
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Coffey discloses wherein the image data and the orientation data are sampled at different sampling rates (the technology used makes this process inherent. The IMU in ¶35 is implemented from the P/L sensors and is inherently designed to sample at different rates and using SLAM to determine the moving perspective of the user in ¶18 will require different sampling rates).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Coffey as modified by Barney discloses that one or more users can experience this virtual world (¶11) but Coffey as modified by Barney does not explicitly disclose 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; synchronize second image data sampled from the video camera with second orientation data sampled from the second P/L detection unit to determine a position of the second collision within the physical venue; and identify the second user device, based on the 3D map and the determined 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, 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 Coffey to implement the teachings of Barney for 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; synchronize second image data sampled from the video camera with second orientation data sampled from the second P/L detection unit to determine a position of the second collision within the physical venue; and identify the second user device, based on the 3D map and the determined position of the second collision within the physical venue 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.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coffey in view of Barney in view of NOCON et al. (US 20200254336 A1; hereinafter Nocon).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Coffey does not explicitly disclose wherein the software code comprises one or more Kalman filters configured to synchronize image data sampled from the video camera with the orientation data sampled from the P/L detection unit.
However, Nocon focuses on how Kalman filters can be implemented to determine orientation in a mobile device used for gaming, which relates to Coffey because the user device can be used to determine orientation too. Nocon teaches the software code comprises one or more Kalman filters (¶44) configured to synchronize image data sampled from the video camera with the orientation data sampled from the P/L detection unit (synchronizing different types of data given to a Kalman filter is inherent, this process is called sensor fusion or data fusion).
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 Coffey to implement the teachings of Nocon for the benefit of combining and synchronizing data to provide a more stable and highly accurate estimation of the position and orientation.
Claims 8-10 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coffey in view of Barney in view of Baszucki et al. (US 20100093438 A1; hereinafter Baszucki).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Coffey does not explicitly disclose wherein the system further comprises a game engine, the method further comprising generating, by the game engine, a virtual game environment corresponding to the physical venue but examiner notes that the use of a game engine when creating game environments is highly likely.
However, Baszucki focuses on dynamic and scalable topology for virtual world environments created through a game engine, which relates to Coffey because Coffey also generates a virtual environment, which can be an environment for a game. Baszucki teaches wherein the system further comprises a game engine, the method further comprising generating, by the game engine, a virtual game environment corresponding to the physical venue (virtual worlds or environments will use a game engine; ¶28).
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 Coffey to implement the teachings of Baszucki because the use of a game engine when creating game environments provides the benefit of a complete toolset that can handle the fundamental aspects of video game creation or development.
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Coffey 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, Barney focuses on a player device (wand) that uses an infrared LED transmitter or RF transmitter device and the circuitry of this device can be replace a gun or rifle in a conventional shooting gallery (¶128). This relates to Coffey because they both have a user device that interacts with the projected environment and computing platform. Barney teaches wherein the hardware processor is further configured to execute the software code to output, to the game engine (if using a game engine, the process of executing code is inherent), a location of the collision within the virtual game environment (the location would be where the light emitting module of the wand is intercepted by the display device 418 in ¶189 and what happens in the display is part of the virtual game environment).
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 Coffey to implement the teachings of Barney to implement the use of a light emitting device in an environment created by projection mapping because it would provide a more realistic and interactable environment. This gives the benefit of high immersion for the user to point their device to areas in the virtual environment and interact with them.
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Coffey 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 first object representation in the virtual game environment.
However, Barney focuses on a player device (wand) that uses an infrared LED transmitter or RF transmitter device and the circuitry of this device can be replace a gun or rifle in a conventional shooting gallery (¶128). This relates to Coffey because they both have a user device that interacts with the projected environment and computing platform. Barney teaches wherein the hardware processor is further configured to execute the game engine (inherent) to display the collision (this is how game engines work; the developer chooses how the collision is displayed) of the light beam with the first object representation in the virtual game environment (there is a collision when pointing with the wand at a certain target to be magically transformed; ¶67).
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 Coffey to implement the teachings of Barney to implement the use of a light emitting device in an environment created by projection mapping because it would provide a more realistic and interactable environment. This gives the benefit of high immersion for the user to point their device to areas in the virtual environment and interact with them.
Conclusion
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 JOSE ANGELES whose telephone number is (703)756-5338. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 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
Prosecution Insights