Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaino et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0225919), referred herein as Kaino, in view of Adachi et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0150971), referred herein as Adachi.
Regarding claim 1, Kaino teaches an augmented reality (AR) content display system comprising one or more processors configured to (fig 1; paragraph 38, lines 1-10 and 16-20):
acquire feature points in a nearby region in which guide information for displaying an AR content is pasted (paragraph 40, lines 1-9; paragraph 42, lines 1-7; paragraph 73; paragraph 130, lines 3-12; feature points are acquired in a region in which guide information is presented for displaying AR content); and
display the region in which the feature points are acquired and the AR content in association with each other (paragraph 39, lines 16-20; paragraph 42, the last 4 lines; paragraph 130, the last 5 lines; the AR content is displayed in association with the feature point region),
wherein the nearby region in which the feature point extraction is acquired is a region in a range around the position at which the guide information is pasted (paragraph 42, lines 1-7; paragraph 73; paragraph 99; paragraph 130, the last 5 lines; the nearby region is a region within a range of the position at which the guide information is pasted).
Although one skilled in the art might infer that the range described in Kaino would have been determined in advance, Kaino does not explicitly teach this feature.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Adachi teaches an augmented reality system configured to acquire feature points in a nearby region in which guide information for displaying AR content is present, and display the AR content in the region (figs 1 and 4-6; paragraphs 47, 49, and 51; paragraph 122), wherein the nearby region in which the feature point extraction is acquired is a region in a range determined in advance around the position at which the guide information is pasted (figs 13 and 14; paragraphs 115 and 119; paragraphs 121 and 122).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the pre-determined range of Adachi with the range of Kaino because this helps improve the localization and mapping accuracy without destabilizing the augmented reality display, thereby improving both the quality and efficiency of the AR display system (see, for example, Adachi, paragraph 3, the last 6 lines; paragraph 4, the last 5 lines; paragraph 5; paragraphs 123 and 124).
Regarding claim 9, the limitations of this claim substantially correspond to the limitations of claim 1 (except for the non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program executed by a processor, which is disclosed by Kaino, paragraph 9, lines 2-6); thus they are rejected on similar grounds.
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaino, in view of Adachi, and further in view of Tazoe et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0067961), referred herein as Tazoe.
Regarding claim 2, Kaino in view of Adachi teaches the AR content display system according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to specify a region with a number of feature points from the nearby region, and associate the specified region and the AR content with each other (Kaino, paragraphs 42 and 73; paragraph 130, lines 3-15; Adachi, paragraphs 115 and 119; paragraph 121; the motivation to combine is similar to that discussed above in the rejection of claim 1).
Kaino teaches that a larger number of features points are contemplated (paragraph 80, the last 5 lines). Further, Adachi teaches counting feature points and evaluating their distribution relative to the guide in order to calculate a stability metric, which entails choosing the higher stability amount (paragraphs 118 and 119; paragraph 121). Adachi also teaches selecting the greatest number of guides (paragraph 116).
Nevertheless, Kaino in view of Adachi does not explicitly teach specifying a region with a large number of feature points.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Tazoe teaches an AR content display system configured to acquire feature points in a nearby region in which guide information for displaying AR content may be present (figs 3 and 8; paragraph 45, lines 1-6; paragraph 74, lines 1-6; paragraph 84, lines 1-8), and further configured to specify a region with a large number of feature points (paragraphs 85 and 86).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the region specification of Tazoe with the region specification of Kaino in view of Adachi because this helps to more accurately identify the region and model positions to create a more realistic object output (see, for example, Tazoe, paragraph 45, lines 1-6; paragraph 181, the last 4 lines; paragraph 265).
Regarding claim 3, Kaino in view of Adachi, further in view of Tazoe teaches the AR content display system according to claim 2, wherein the one or more processors are configured to calculate an intensity for evaluating the feature points in the specified region (Kaino, paragraph 73; Adachi, figs 13 and 14; paragraph 115; paragraphs 118 and 119; paragraph 121; the motivation to combine is similar to that discussed above in the rejection of claim 1; Tazoe, paragraph 84, lines 1-8; paragraph 85; the motivation to combine is similar to that discussed above in the rejection of claim 2).
Regarding claim 4, Kaino in view of Adachi, further in view of Tazoe teaches the AR content display system according to claim 3, wherein the one or more processors are configured to associate the specified region and the AR content with each other when the intensity is more than a threshold determined in advance (Kaino, paragraph 130, lines 3-15; Adachi, figs 13 and 14; paragraphs 119 and 121; the motivation to combine is similar to that discussed above in the rejection of claim 1; Tazoe, paragraphs 85 and 86; the motivation to combine is similar to that discussed above in the rejection of claim 2).
Regarding claim 5, Kaino in view of Adachi, further in view of Tazoe teaches the AR content display system according to claim 3, wherein the one or more processors are configured to suggest acquiring feature points again with the guide information removed when the intensity is less than a threshold determined in advance (Kaino, paragraphs 105 and 113; paragraph 130, lines 3-15; Adachi, paragraphs 67 and 68; paragraphs 70 and 79; the motivation to combine is similar to that discussed above in the rejection of claim 1; Tazoe, paragraphs 85 and 87; the motivation to combine is similar to that discussed above in the rejection of claim 2).
Claims 7, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaino, in view of Adachi, and further in view of Moteki et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0267661), referred herein as Moteki.
Regarding claim 7, Kaino in view of Adachi teaches the AR content display system according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to determine a position at which the guide information is pasted and a position in the region in which the feature points are acquired (Kaino, paragraph 40, lines 1-9; paragraph 42, lines 1-7; paragraph 73; paragraph 130, lines 3-12; Adachi, paragraphs 115, 121, and 121; the motivation to combine is similar to that discussed above in the rejection of claim 1).
Kaino in view of Adachi does not explicitly teach calculating misregistration between the position of the guide information and the position of the feature point region.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Moteki teaches an augmented reality system configured to acquire feature points in a nearby region in which guide information for displaying AR content is present, and display the region in which feature points are acquired and the AR content is associated (figs 4, 12, and 13; paragraph 28, lines 1-10; paragraph 43, lines 1-10; paragraph 52, lines 1-10), and further configured to calculate misregistration between the position of the guide information and the position of the feature point region (paragraphs 98 and 100; paragraph 101, lines 1-13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the misregistration calculation of Moteki with the feature point and guide processing of Kaino in view of Adachi because this greatly improves the accuracy of the guide identification even in situations where the region may obscure the guide (see, for example, Moteki, paragraph 5; paragraph 85).
Regarding claim 8, Kaino in view of Adachi teaches the AR content display system according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to display the AR content associated with the region when the feature points in the region are detected, and determine a position at which the AR content is displayed (Kaino, paragraph 39, lines 16-20; paragraph 42, the last 4 lines; paragraph 130, the last 5 lines; Adachi, paragraphs 115, 121, and 121; the motivation to combine is similar to that discussed above in the rejection of claim 1).
Kaino in view of Adachi does not explicitly teach correcting the position on a basis of calculated misregistration.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Moteki teaches an augmented reality system configured to acquire feature points in a nearby region in which guide information for displaying AR content is present, and display the region in which feature points are acquired and the AR content is associated (figs 4, 12, and 13; paragraph 28, lines 1-10; paragraph 43, lines 1-10; paragraph 52, lines 1-10), and further configured to correct the position at which AR content is present on a basis of calculated misregistration (paragraphs 98 and 100; paragraph 101, lines 1-13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the misregistration calculation of Moteki with the feature point and guide processing of Kaino in view of Adachi because this greatly improves the accuracy of the guide identification even in situations where the region may obscure the guide (see, for example, Moteki, paragraph 5; paragraph 85).
Regarding claim 10, Kaino teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program causing one or more processors to execute a process comprising (paragraph 9, lines 2-6):
recognizing a region with feature points of a target object, an AR content for which is to be displayed (paragraph 40, lines 1-9; paragraph 42, lines 1-7; paragraph 73; paragraph 130, lines 3-12; feature points are recognized in a region in which AR content is to be displayed); and
displaying the AR content while determining a position of the region with the feature points and a position at which the AR content is to be displayed when the AR content is displayed on a basis of the recognized region with the feature points (paragraph 39, lines 16-20; paragraph 42, the last 4 lines; paragraph 130, the last 5 lines; the AR content is displayed by determining a position of the region with the feature points and a position at which the AR is to be displayed, when AR content is displayed is based on recognizing the feature points),
wherein the region with the feature points is a region in a range around a position at which guide information for displaying the AR content is pasted (paragraph 42, lines 1-7; paragraph 73; paragraph 99; paragraph 130, the last 5 lines; the region with the feature points is a region in a range of the position at which the guide information for displaying the AR content is pasted).
Although one skilled in the art could might that the range described in Kaino would have been determined in advance, Kaino does not explicitly teach this feature.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Adachi teaches an augmented reality system configured to execute a process comprising acquiring feature points in a region in which guide information for displaying AR content is present, and displaying the AR content in the region (figs 1 and 4-6; paragraphs 47, 49, and 51; paragraph 122), wherein the region with the feature points is a region in a range determined in advance around a position at which guide information for displaying the AR content is pasted (figs 13 and 14; paragraphs 115 and 119; paragraphs 121 and 122).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the pre-determined range of Adachi with the range of Kaino because this helps improve the localization and mapping accuracy without destabilizing the augmented reality display, thereby improving both the quality and efficiency of the AR display system (see, for example, Adachi, paragraph 3, the last 6 lines; paragraph 4, the last 5 lines; paragraph 5; paragraphs 123 and 124)
Kaino in view of Adachi does not explicitly teach correcting misregistration between a position of the region with the feature points and a position at which the AR content is to be displayed.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Moteki teaches an augmented reality system configured to acquire feature points in a nearby region in which guide information for displaying AR content is present, and display the region in which feature points are acquired and the AR content is associated (figs 4, 12, and 13; paragraph 28, lines 1-10; paragraph 43, lines 1-10; paragraph 52, lines 1-10), and further configured to correct misregistration between a position of the region with the feature points and a position at which the AR content is to be displayed (paragraphs 98 and 100; paragraph 101, lines 1-13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the misregistration correction of Moteki with the feature point and guide processing of Kaino in view of Adachi because this greatly improves the accuracy of the guide identification even in situations where the region may obscure the guide (see, for example, Moteki, paragraph 5; paragraph 85).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 remains objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered, but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection presented above. The Examiner agrees that Kaino alone does not teach the newly amended claim limitations; however, the Examiner respectfully submits that Kaino in view of Adachi teaches these limitations.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kotake (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0285854); Marker arrangement information measuring apparatus and method.
Koga (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0375685); Information processing apparatus, and determination method.
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 DAVID T WELCH whose telephone number is (571)270-5364. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:30-5:30 EST, and alternate Fridays, 9:00-2:30 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, Xiao Wu can be reached at 571-272-7761. 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.
DAVID T. WELCH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2613
/DAVID T WELCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2613
Prosecution Insights