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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
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.
Claim 8 is 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.
In regards to Claim 8, it is unclear in regards to what “the fiducial marker is in response to an in-game action” e.g. what about the fiducial mark happens in response to an in-game action. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Narkter (US 2016/0267712).
Claim 17: Narkter discloses a method comprising: presenting at least one computer simulation (gaming controls or inputs) on at least one display of at least one component (104); presenting, in the computer simulation on the display of the component, at least one fiducial marker; imaging the fiducial marker; generating information using the imaging useful for generating an image of the component (Fig. 3c, ¶ 5, 44, 62-66, emphasis on ¶ 65-66); and presenting the image of the component on at least one display (308) other than the component (Figs. 1-3c, 4a-7a, 9, ¶ 62-66, 72-81, 88-93, 106-107).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-13, 16, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Narkter (US 2016/0267712) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Narkter (US 2016/0267712) in view of Hubert (WO 2017/067810 A1) .
Claim 1: Nartker discloses an apparatus comprising: at least one virtual reality (VR) headset; at least one component (104) separate from the VR headset (308) and comprising at least one display; at least one source (the source being either 110 or component 104) of at least one computer simulation (VR game application)(¶ 31, 46, 48, 71) presentable on the VR headset, at least one visible fiducial marker being presented on the component (Fig. 3c, ¶ 5, 44, 62-66, emphasis on ¶ 65-66), an image of the component playing the computer simulation being displayed on the VR headset, the image of the component displayed on the VR headset being based at least in part on an image of the fiducial marker (Figs. 1-3c, 4a-7a, 9, ¶ 62-66, 72-81, 88-93, 106-107). Figs. 3c illustrates the at least one visible fiducial marker being presented on the component and Fig. 4a illustrates the image of the component playing the computer simulation being displayed on the VR headset without the at least one visible fiducial marker. It is implied that the fiducial marker presented on the component is not displayed on the image of the component playing the computer simulation displayed on the VR head set.
However, in the alternative Narkter teaches that various modifications can be applied without departing from the overall scope of the invention (¶ 126-127). Furthermore, an analogous art of Hubert teaches a similarly structured apparatus wherein at least one visible fiducial marker is presented on a component separate from the VR headset such that an image of the component displayed on the VR headset excludes the at least one visible fiducial marker (Abstract, page 9:25-page 11:3). 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 the apparatus of Narkter such that the at least one visible fiducial marker is not visible in the image displayed on the VR headset as taught by Hubert because such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, a means of providing a image for the VR headset based on at least one visible fiducial marker presented on the apparatus of at least Narkter (see above, ¶ 63, 65). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the display of the at least one visible fiducial marker would obscure the view of the image of VR headset unnecessarily hindering interaction of the user with the VR headset.
Claim 2: Narkter teaches wherein the at least one fiducial marker is useful for tracking the component for presenting the image of the component on the VR headset (Fig. 3c, ¶ 5, 44, 62-66, emphasis on ¶ 65-66).
Claim 6: Narkter in view of Hubert teaches the use of a plurality of fiducial markers of the computer simulation (Narkter - Fig. 3c, ¶ 5, 44, 62-66), but fails to teach the fiducial markers in respective corners of the computer simulation. 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 the fiducial markers of Narkter in view of Hubert such that they are located in respective corners of the computer simulation since it has been held that rearranging part of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim 7: Narkter discloses wherein the at least one fiducial marker comprises a quick response (QR) code representing tracking information (Fig. 3c, ¶ 5, 44, 62-66, emphasis on ¶ 65-66).
Claim 8: Narkter discloses wherein the fiducial marker is in response to an in-game action (syncing of the component to the VR headset)(¶ 59-60, 79) and is correlatable to a video enhancement (movement of the mobile device (component) and/or the rending of the user’s hand/fingers as the user is using controls on the mobile device)(Figs. 1-3c, 4a-7a, 9, ¶ 5, 44, 62-66, 72-81, 83, 88-93, 106-107) not sourced from the source of the computer simulation in case if the source is server (¶ 55 – rendering can be down via the VR headset, ¶ 63 – “real-time position and orientation to a VR application executing on the VR headset”).
Claim 9: Narkter disclose a device comprising: at least one computer storage that is not a transitory signal and that comprises instructions executable by at least one processor assembly (¶ 109-111) to: receive from at least one camera at least one image of at least one component (104) of a computer simulation system; based at least in part on at least one fiducial marker in the at least one image, generate a virtual representation of the component (Fig. 3c, ¶ 5, 44, 62-66, emphasis on ¶ 65-66); based at least in part on the at least one fiducial marker in the at least one image, generate a video enhancement (movement of the mobile device (component) and/or the rending of the user’s hand/fingers as the user is using controls on the mobile device); and present the virtual representation of the component and the video enhancement (movement of the mobile device (component) and/or the rending of the user’s hand/fingers as the user is using controls on the mobile device) in at least one computer simulation (VR game application)(¶ 31, 48) on a virtual reality (VR) display (308) (Figs. 1-3c, 4a-7a, 9, ¶ 5, 44, 62-66, 72-81, 83, 88-93, 106-107). Figs. 3c illustrates the at least one visible fiducial marker being presented on the component and Fig. 4a illustrates the image of the component playing the computer simulation being displayed on the VR headset without the at least one visible fiducial marker.
However, in the alternative Narkter teaches that various modifications can be applied without departing from the overall scope of the invention (¶ 126-127). Furthermore, an analogous art of Hubert teaches a similarly structured apparatus wherein at least one visible fiducial marker is presented on a component separate from the VR headset such that an image of the component displayed on the VR headset excludes the at least one visible fiducial marker (Abstract, page 9:25-page 11:3). 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 the apparatus of Narkter such that the at least one visible fiducial marker is not visible in the image displayed on the VR headset as taught by Hubert because such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, a means of providing a image for the VR headset based on at least one visible fiducial marker presented on the apparatus of at least Narkter (see above, ¶ 63, 65). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the display of the at least one visible fiducial marker would obscure the view of the image of VR headset unnecessarily hindering interaction of the user with the VR headset.
Claim 10: Narkter teaches wherein the at least one fiducial marker in the at least one image is part of a presentation of the computer simulation being presented on the component (Fig. 3c, ¶ 5, 44, 62-66, emphasis on ¶ 65-66).
Claim 11: Narkter teaches wherein the component has no tracking lamps (Fig. 3c, ¶ 5, 44, 62-66, emphasis on ¶ 65-66, ¶ 67 describes implementations outside of fiducial marker implementation that include tracking lamps on a case of the component, but not on the component. Furthermore, the implementation of the fiducial excludes the need of tracking lamps on the component).
Claim 12: Narkter teaches wherein the instructions are executable to: based at least in part on at least one fiducial marker in the at least one image, generate tracking information for placing the virtual representation of the component in the at least one computer simulation on the VR display (Figs. 1-3c, 4a-7a, 9, ¶ 5, 44, 62-66, 72-81, 83, 88-93, 106-107).
Claim 13: Narkter teaches wherein the instructions are executable to: generate the tracking information at least in part by correlating locations of the fiducial markers in the at least one image to respective locations on the component, and using the locations on the component to generate the virtual representation of the component (see above, Fig. 3c, ¶ 5, 44, 62-66).
Claim 16: Narkter in view of Hubert teaches the use of a plurality of fiducial markers of the computer simulation (Narkter - Fig. 3c, ¶ 5, 44, 62-66), but fails to teach the fiducial markers in respective corners of the computer simulation. 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 the fiducial markers of Narkter in view of Hubert such that they are located in respective corners of the computer simulation since it has been held that rearranging part of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim 18: Narkter teaches wherein presenting the image of the component on the at least one display comprises presenting an image of the computer simulation as shown on the component (see above). Figs. 3c illustrates the at least one visible fiducial marker being presented on the component and Fig. 4a illustrates presenting an image of the computer simulation as shown on the component, wherein the fiducial marker is not shown in the image of the component on the at least one display. It is implied that the fiducial marker is not shown in the image of the component on the at least one display.
However, in the alternative Narkter teaches that various modifications can be applied without departing from the overall scope of the invention (¶ 126-127). Furthermore, an analogous art of Hubert teaches a similarly structured apparatus wherein at least one visible fiducial marker is presented on a component separate from the VR headset such that an image of the component displayed on the VR headset excludes the at least one visible fiducial marker (Abstract, page 9:25-page 11:3). 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 the apparatus of Narkter such that the at least one visible fiducial marker is not visible in the image displayed on the VR headset as taught by Hubert because such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, a means of providing a image for the VR headset based on at least one visible fiducial marker presented on the apparatus of at least Narkter (see above, ¶ 63, 65). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the display of the at least one visible fiducial marker would obscure the view of the image of VR headset unnecessarily hindering interaction of the user with the VR headset.
Claim 19: Narkter in view of Hubert teaches cropping out the fiducial marker in the image of the component on the at least one display (Hubert- see above). Cropping out as best understood given it’s broadest reasonable interpretation refers to removing or not including; thus, Narkter in view of Hubert teaches the fiducial marker is removed or not including in the image of the component on the at least one display.
Claim 20: Narkter teaches comprising generating information using the imaging useful for presenting a video enhancement (movement of the mobile device (component) which results in movement of the computer simulation and/or the rending of the user’s hand/fingers as the user interacting with the computer simulation) of the computer simulation on the display (Figs. 1-3c, 4a-7a, 9, ¶ 5, 44, 62-66, 72-81, 83, 88-93, 106-107).
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narkter (US 2016/0267712) in view of Hubert (WO 2017/067810 A1) in view of Hildreth (US 2010/0259474) in view of Kurihara (US 2019/0310703).
Claim 3: Narkter in view of Hubert teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting wherein the component is configured to present the computer simulation with the visible fiducial marker superimposed on the computer simulation. Narkter at least teaches that various modifications can be applied without departing from the overall scope of the invention (see above). Furthermore, an analogous art of Hildreth teaches it known in the art to superimposed fiducials over a computer simulation (¶ 35, 52). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the visible fiducial marker presented with the computer simulation of Narkter in view of Hubert such that the fiducial marker is superimposed on the computer simulation as taught by Hildreth because such a modification would have yielded predicable results, namely, a means of detecting fiducial marker(s) presented on a computer simulation in which at least Narkter is intended (Figs. 1-3c, 4a-7a, 9, ¶ 5, 44, 62-66, 72-81, 83, 88-93, 106-107).
Narkter in view of Hubert in view of Hildreth teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting the computer simulation presented on a display of the component being identical to the computer simulation when presented on the VR headset. Narkter at least teaches that various modifications can be applied without departing from overall scope of the invention (see above), that the component itself is capable of presenting the game (¶ 57, 79), that the computer simulation presented on a display of the component represents the touch controller inputs corresponding to the game application (Figs. 1-3c, 4a-7a, 9, ¶ 5, 44, 62-66, 72-81, 83, 88-93, 106-107), and the computer simulation presented on the VR headset corresponds to at least the touch controls or control layout image presented on the component, the component itself, and the viewable game in combination (Figs. 1-3c, 4a-7a, 9, ¶ 5, 44, 62-66, 72-81, 83, 88-93, 106-107). Furthermore, an analogous art of Kurihara teaches that a component (200) presents an image of the computer simulation for providing gaming inputs, wherein the image of the computer simulation presented to the computer simulation presented on the VR headset (104)(Figs. 9-13, ¶ 61, 92-96 ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the computer simulation presentation on the display of the component of Narkter in view of Hubert in view of Hildreth is identical to the computer simulation when presented on the VR headset as taught by Kurihara because such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, a means of providing touch game control inputs corresponding to a gaming application in which at least Narkter is intended (see above). Such a modification enhances the user-friendliness of the head-mounted display (Kurihara - ¶ 12).
The combination of Narkter in view of Hubert in view of Hildreth in view of Kurihara would result in the computer simulations being identical except that the computer simulation when presented on the display of the component is shown with the at least one visible fiducial marker and the computer simulation when presented on the VR headset is shown with no visible fiducial markers (see above with respect to at least the teaches of Narkter in view of Hubert).
Claim 4: Narkter in view of Hubert in view of Hildreth in view of Kurihara teaches wherein the computer simulation when presented on the VR headset is presented on a virtualization of the component separate from the VR headset (see above). As best understood given it’s broadest reasonable interpretation if the computer simulation presented on the component is identical to the computer simulation presented on the VR headset then there are two presentations of the computer simulation one that is presented on a virtualization of the component separate from the main computer simulation presented on the VR headset.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Narkter (US 2016/0267712) in view of Hubert (WO 2017/067810 A1) in view of Kurihara (US 2019/0310703).
Claim 14: Narkter in view of Hubert teaches the above, but lacks explicitly suggesting the computer simulation presented on a display of the component being identical to the computer simulation when presented on the VR headset. Narkter at least teaches that various modifications can be applied without departing from overall scope of the invention (see above), that the component itself is capable of presenting the game (¶ 57, 79), that the computer simulation presented on a display of the component represents the touch controller inputs corresponding to the game application (Figs. 1-3c, 4a-7a, 9, ¶ 5, 44, 62-66, 72-81, 83, 88-93, 106-107), and the computer simulation presented on the VR headset corresponds to at least the touch controls or control layout image presented on the component, the component itself, and the viewable game in combination (Figs. 1-3c, 4a-7a, 9, ¶ 5, 44, 62-66, 72-81, 83, 88-93, 106-107). Furthermore, an analogous art of Kurihara teaches that a component (200) presents an image of the computer simulation for providing gaming inputs, wherein the image of the computer simulation presented to the computer simulation presented on the VR headset (104)(Figs. 9-13, ¶ 61, 92-96 ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the computer simulation presentation on the display of the component of Narkter in view of Hubert is identical to the computer simulation when presented on the VR headset as taught by Kurihara because such a modification would have yielded predictable results, namely, a means of providing touch game control inputs corresponding to a gaming application in which at least Narkter is intended (see above). Such a modification enhances the user-friendliness of the head-mounted display (Kurihara - ¶ 12).
The combination of Narkter in view of Hubert in view of Kurihara would result in the computer simulations being identical except that the computer simulation when presented on the display of the component is shown with the at least one visible fiducial marker and the computer simulation when presented on the VR headset is shown with no visible fiducial markers (see above with respect to at least the teaches of Narkter in view of Hubert).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Please see attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAMAR HARPER whose telephone number is (571)272-6177. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am to 5:30pm.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571) 270-1344. 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.
/TRAMAR HARPER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715