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 .
Response to Amendment
The preliminary amendment filed 03/29/2024 has been entered.
Claims 2-15 have been cancelled.
Claims 16-34 have been added.
Claims 1 and 16-34 are pending.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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.
Claims 1, 16-18, 22-24 and 27-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reddy et al (“Reddy” hereinafter, U.S.P.N. 10,565,731 B1) in view of Bleyer et al (“Bleyer” hereinafter, U.S. Publication No. 2019/0012835 A1).
As per claim 1, Reddy discloses a method comprising: receive image data from one or more image devices (figure 24: receive input image from an image device, as shown in figure 6; column 21, lines 32-35: the imaging components 602 may be “wide screen cameras, 3D cameras, HD cameras, video cameras, among other types of cameras”), the image data including data representatives of an object in a physical environment (column 21, lines 37-41: the image data captures an object in a physical environment, the object may be a 6DOF controller); determining a plurality of candidate blobs within the image data (column 10, lines 42-52: Reddy teaches “ The image system may determine the orientation of the controller or object by applying a classifier or regressor to the patches having image data associated with the controller and then determine a translation of the controller based at least in part on the orientation and a prior 6DOF pose”, the patches in the image are the claimed “candidate blobs”); determining a location associated with individual ones of the plurality of candidate blobs (figures 16-24: a plurality of image points are identified from the image patches with locational information and orientation data); generating one or more sets of associations for individual ones of the plurality of candidate blobs (figure 16: numeral 1606: a set of candidates are determined to generate a 6DoF pose of the controller object); generating a plurality of candidate poses for the object based at least in part on the sets of associations (numeral 1608 in figure 16 and numeral 2406: a set of candidate poses are generated); and selecting a pose of the object from the plurality of candidate poses (numeral 2408 and 2410, at least a pose of the controller object is selected and outputted).
However, Reddy teaches using a classifier/regressor to detect the image blobs/patches. However, Reddy does not explicitly teach “individual ones of the candidate blobs having an intensity above an intensity threshold”.
Bleyer at paragraph [0054] teaches using an intensity threshold method to detect foreground objects (controller 602 with LEDs 610 in figure 6) for image classification and segmentation.
Reddy and Bleyer are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, ie. augmented reality imaging.
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Reddy in view of Bleyer’s teaching using intensity threshold for image classification/segmentation. One would be motivated to do so because both Reddy and Bleyer teach capturing and determining poses of a controller with LEDs as a “foreground object”, and “foreground objects will appear in the image information as predominately bright, and background objects will appear as predominately dark. The image segmentation component can leverage this property by labelling scene points with brightness values above a prescribed environment-specific intensity threshold value as pertaining to foreground objects, and labelling scene points having brightness values below a prescribed environment-specific intensity threshold value as corresponding to background objects” (Bleyer: paragraph [0054]).
As per claim 16, the combination Reddy and Bleyer teaches filtering the image data to remove data having an intensity below an intensity threshold (as taught in Reddy and Bleyer only the foreground object with intensity above a threshold is retained and processed for pose tracking, other image data is removed/ignored).
As per claim 17, the combination of Reddy and Bleyer teaches wherein generating one or more sets of associations is based at least in part on a nearest neighbor based at least in part on the location associated with the individual ones of the plurality of candidate blobs (Reddy: column 45, lines 22-30: “the image system may assign an identity to the image points based on the identity of the closest predicted image point within the candidate having the most inliers”).
As per claim 18, the combination of Reddy and Bleyer teaches wherein determining the location associated with individual ones of the plurality of candidate blobs further comprises determining a size of the individual ones of the plurality of candidate blobs (Reddy: column 5, lines 58-63: “ In some cases, the application of the pixel regressor may be used to identify areas or groups of pixels that are highly likely to contain an image point of the object and the suppression may be utilized to identify which pixel of the group of pixels contains the image point”).
As per claim 22, the combination of Reddy and Bleyer teaches wherein the object is a hand-held controller (as shown in Reddy figure 12, and Bleyer figure 6 the controllers are hand-held controllers).
As per claim 23, the combination of Reddy and Bleyer teaches performing one more actions within a virtual environment based at least in part on the selected pose (both Reddy and Bleyer systems are about tracking controller poses in a virtual/augmented environment).
As per claim 24, see explanation in claim 1. Reddy teaches a display, and wireless communication interface and at least a processor and a non-transitory computer-readable media for storing the instructions (see figure 7 in Reddy for display 708, communication interface 704 processor 712 and computer-readable media 714).
As per claim 27, see explanation in claim 18.
As per claim 28, see explanation in claim 23.
As per claim 29, see explanation in claim 1, and both Reddy and Bleyer’s systems are computer-like system, which inherently include a non-transitory computer readable medium.
As per claim 30, see explanation in claim 17.
As per claim 31, see explanation in claim 18.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19-21, 25-26 and 32-34 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOM Y LU whose telephone number is (571)272-7393. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9AM - 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, Matthew Bella can be reached at (571) 272 - 7778. 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.
/TOM Y LU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2667