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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al (2022/0379197).
In regard to claim 1 Zhang discloses an augmented reality apparatus (Zhang Fig. 2 note Gamepad 2 as the apparatus which is part of the VR system), comprising:
a memory (Zhang Fig. 1 and par. 74 note storage unit 223); and
a processor coupled to the memory (Zhang Fig 1. And par. 74 note second processor 23) , wherein the processor is configured to:
obtain a first image from a first camera, the first image being associated with a first capture time based on a first clock (Zhang Fig. 7 and pars 91-93 note time stamp added to second cameras of gamepad);
map the first capture time to a second clock to obtain a second capture time, wherein the second clock is based on a network time (Zhang Fig. 6 and pars 88-90 note mapping time T2 and T3 from the gamepad device to the associated times T1 and T4 of the HMD);
associate the second capture time with the first image (Zhang pars 88-90 note determining a transmission time Td that can be used to associate timings of the gamepad with timings of the HMD);
obtain a second image from a second camera of another device, the second image including a third capture time based on the second clock (Zhang Fig. 7 and pars 91-93 note time stamp added to the first cameras of the HMD)
determine phase delta information based on a time difference between the second capture time associated with the first image and the third capture time of the second image (Zhang pars 88-90 note determining a time deviation T0 indicating a phase difference between the gamepad cameras and the HMD cameras); and
output the phase delta information to adjust a next capture time of at least one of a first camera or the second camera (Zhang pars 91-93 note aligning the relative time stamps of the cameras based on a time deviation between the images).
In regard to claim 2 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 1 above. Zhang further discloses the augmented reality apparatus further comprises the first camera (Zhang Fig. 1 and par 57 note second camera 21).
In regard to claim 4 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 1 above. the processor is further configured to:
determine the network time (Zhang pars 88-90 note time T1 sent from the master, HMD, device); and
broadcast the network time (Zhang Fig. 6 and pars 88-90 note T1 and T4 of the master, HMD, device are transmitted to the slave, gamepad, device).
In regard to claim 6 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 1 above. Zhang the network time comprises a timing synchronization function (TSF) time (Zhang pars 88-93 note the transmitted times T1 and T4 are used to synchronize the camera images and thus comprises a ‘timing synchronization function’).
Claims 16 and 18 relate to a method corresponding to the process steps implemented by the memory and processor in the apparatus of claims 1 and 4 above. Refer to the statements made in regard to claims 1 and 4 above for the rejection of claims 16 and 18 which will not be repeated here for brevity.
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.
Claim(s) 3, 5, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Beng Goh et al (2008/0309774 hereafter Beng).
In regard to claims 3 and 17 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claims 1 and 16 above. Zhang further discloses that:
the phase delta information includes information to adjust the next capture time of the first camera (Zhang pars 88-93 note T0 represents the time difference between both the HMD cameras and the gamepad cameras and is used to align the timestamped images from each of the two devices).
Zhang further discloses that capture time adjustment is performed using FSIN signals (Zhang par. 98). It is noted that Zhang does not disclose adjusting a vertical blanking period. However, Beng teaches synchronizing capture time by using an FSIN signal to set the timing of a Vsync, or vertical blanking interval (Beng par. 39).
It is therefore considered obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would recognize the advantage of adjusting a Vsync, or vertical blanking interval, using FSIN signals as taught by Beng in the invention of Zhang in order to improve image processing as suggested by Beng (Beng par 39).
In regard to claims 5 and 19 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claims 1 and 16 above. further discloses that:
the phase delta information includes information to adjust the next capture time of the second camera (Zhang pars 88-93 note T0 represents the time difference between both the HMD cameras and the gamepad cameras and is used to align the timestamped images from each of the two devices).
Zhang further discloses that capture time adjustment is performed using FSIN signals (Zhang par. 98). It is noted that Zhang does not disclose adjusting a vertical blanking period. However, Beng teaches synchronizing capture time by using an FSIN signal to set the timing of a Vsync, or vertical blanking interval (Beng par. 39).
It is therefore considered obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would recognize the advantage of adjusting a Vsync, or vertical blanking interval, using FSIN signals as taught by Beng in the invention of Zhang in order to improve image processing as suggested by Beng (Beng par 39).
Claim(s) 7-11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Chen (2019/0035149).
In regard to claims 7 and 20 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claims 1 and 16 above. Zhang does not disclose details regarding modeling. However, Chen discloses generating personalized 3D models of a user including:
obtain a third image, the third image including at least a head and torso of a person (Chen Fig. 1 note full body images input into ‘Personalized 3D Body Modeling’ module, further note Figs 27-28 and pars 353-360 for a first full body method using fully body images from e.g. a Kinect camera, finally note pars 394-397 for a second full body method using full body images captured by a mobile device, further note full body images include the head and torso);
extract a first set of features form the third image (Chen par. 357 note the first full body method determining 30 morph and 18 joint parameters for depth based images, also note par. 395 the second full body method extracting image features for mobile images);
obtain a fourth image, the fourth image including a portion of a head around eyes of the person (Chen generally Figs 1-26 and pars 196-344 for multiple methods of obtaining fourth images of a user’s face including the eye portion of the face including pars 202-229 for a first head modeling method using a single image and pars 230-319 for a second head modeling method using multiple images, particularly note pars 320-329 program to assist in obtaining one or multiple images of a user’s face with acceptable quality);
extract a second set of features from the fourth image (Chen pars. 209 and 240 note extracting facial landmarks);
generate a head model based on the first set of features and second set of features, the head model including pose information for a camera that captured the third image (Chen pars. 230-259 note second head modeling method using a second set of features, or landmarks, detected in the face images, further note par. 268 for using camera pose information in generating a head model, finally note par. 314 for using a first set of features from the full body images to determine the size of the head model);
generate a body model based on the third image (Chen pars 353-397 for generating full body models);
combine the head model and body model into a full body model (Chen pars 406-414 note combining the head and body models); and
output the full body model (Chen par. 192 note outputting a single unified 3D user avatar).
It is therefore considered obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would recognize the advantage of incorporating the 3D model generation of Chen into the invention of Zhang in order to allow a user to generate a 3D body avatar as suggested by Chen (Chen pars 100-101)
In regard to claim 8 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 7 above. Chen further discloses that the processor is further configured to concatenate the first set of features and the second set of features (Chen pars 406-414 note combining the head and body model also concatenates the features of those models) .
In regard to claim 9 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 8 above. Chen further discloses the processor is further configured to generate the head model based on the concatenated first set of features and second set of features (Chen par. 314 note features of the body model are used in generating the head model).
In regard to claim 10 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 7 above. Chen further discloses that the processor is further configured to normalize a color of the third image (Chen par. 403 note normalizing skin tone colors between the full body and face images).
In regard to claim 11 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 7 above. Chen further discloses that the head model further includes a mesh model of the head and corresponding texture (Chen pars 260-264 note head model includes a mesh model and textures).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12-15 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 12 requires, in addition to the limitations of the claims from which it depends, segmenting third and fourth images to identify portions of the images corresponding to a HMD worn by the user.
The closest arts are Zhang and Chen. Zhang discloses a virtual reality system including an HMD and controllers with cameras and includes details of synchronizing the cameras. Chen discloses a method for generating a personalized 3D avatar including taking third and fourth images to generate head and body models of a user. However neither Zhang nor Chen disclose details of identifying and segmenting an HMD in the third and fourth images of the user as required by claim 12.
Claims 13-15 depend from claim 12 and include allowable subject matter for the same reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 6795124 B1 Gamo; Naoyasu et al..
US 12520045 B2 Sheikh; Hamid R. et al.
US 20150154452 A1 Bentley; Michael et al.
US 20210099628 A1 NAKAMURA; Kenya
US 20210377424 A1 Hanamoto; Nobuyuki et al.
US 20220078350 A1 Kanma; Hiroshi et al.
US 20230260552 A1 BOSE; Bhaskar et al.
US 20240034362 A1 Oba; Eiji
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMIAH CHARLES HALLENBECK-HUBER whose telephone number is (571)272-5248. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 9 A.M. to 5 P.M.
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, William Vaughn can be reached at (571)272-3922. 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.
/JEREMIAH C HALLENBECK-HUBER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481
Prosecution Insights