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 inventio n 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, 6, 7, 15, 16, 22, 23, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor (U.S. Patent No. 10,255,507), referred herein as Taylor, in view of Hou et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0351724), referred herein as Hou, and further in view of Houde (Iterative Design of an Interface for Easy 3-D Direct Manipulation; Human Interface Group; 1992), referred herein as Houde.
Regarding claim 1, Taylor teaches a method for generating a virtual object, comprising: acquiring position information and pose information of a virtual object box in a multi-dimensional space, wherein the virtual object box is pinned to an object that is identified in the multi-dimensional space, and determining size information of the virtual object box in the multi-dimensional space according to the pose information (figs 3A; column 13, line 53, through column 14, line 3; column 14, lines 8-18 and 21-29; column 15, lines 18-28; an object is identified in a multi-dimensional perspective image space, the location and pose of a virtual object box pinned to the object is acquired, and the size of the virtual object box is determined according to the pose);
determining a material according to the size information, and rendering the material into the virtual object box according to the position information and the pose information to generate the virtual object (column 15, lines 39-53; column 17, lines 23-34; column 18, lines 54-67; a material is determined and rendered into the box based on the location and pose information to generate a virtual object).
Taylor illustrates multi-dimensional perspective images (see, for example, figs 3A; column 13, lines 37-46), and as known in the art, perspective images – and any three-dimensional image – are necessarily two dimensional by virtue of the screen upon which they are displayed, but create the illusion of a three-dimensional scene. Nevertheless, Taylor does not explicitly teach that the virtual object box is in a three-dimensional space.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Hou teaches a method comprising acquiring position and pose information of a virtual object, determining a virtual object box based on pose and size information, and rendering a material into the box based on the position and pose information (paragraph 19, lines 1-4; paragraph 22, lines 1-8; paragraph 24, lines 1-10), wherein the virtual object box is in three-dimensional space (paragraph 20, lines 1-9 and the last 11 lines; paragraph 32).
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 three-dimensional space bounding box determination with the bounding box determination of Taylor because this increases the accuracy of the bounding box around the object by considering all dimensions of the object, including its depth, thereby improving the object recognition efficiency and processing (see, for example, Hou, paragraph 21; paragraph 29, the last 4 lines; paragraph 30, the last 10 lines).
Applicant’s specification does not provide any description of what is meant by the term “hung,” thus there is a wide range of reasonable interpretations of this term. However, as best understood, and in light of the specification, Taylor in view of Hou does not appear to explicitly teach that the virtual object box is hung on the identified object and is used for placing the virtual object.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Houde teaches a method for manipulating virtual objects comprising identifying an object in three-dimensional space and acquiring position information of a virtual object box in three-dimensional space (page 135, the paragraphs beginning “This paper…” and “This work…”; page 138, the paragraph beginning “A strategy…”), wherein the virtual object box is hung on the identified object and is used for placing the virtual object (page 138, figs 6 and 7; the paragraph beginning “Narrative handles…” and “Handles for…” and “Hands which…”; pages 140-141, figure 12; the paragraphs titled “A bounding box” and “Cube shaped handles” and “Hand shaped handles.”).
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 hung virtual box for placing the virtual object because this improves the virtual object interaction by providing a simple and intuitive interface for manipulating the virtual object in three-dimensional space (see, for example, Houde, page 135, the abstract; page 136, the first two paragraphs).
Regarding claim 6, Taylor in view of Hou, further in view of Houde teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein rendering the material into the virtual object box according to the position information and the pose information to generate the virtual object comprises: acquiring depth information of the virtual object box in the three-dimensional space; scaling the material according to the depth information; and rendering the scaled material into the virtual object box according to the position information and the pose information (Taylor, column 18, lines 33-40 and 54-67; Hou, paragraph 22; paragraphs 32 and 33; the motivation to combine is similar to that discussed above in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 7, Taylor in view of Hou, further in view of Houde teaches the method according to claim 6, wherein scaling the material according to the depth information comprises: determining a scaling ratio according to the depth information; and scaling the material according to the scaling ratio (Taylor, column 18, lines 33-40 and 54-67; Hou, paragraph 22; paragraphs 32 and 33; the motivation to combine is similar to that discussed above in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 15, the limitations of this claim substantially correspond to the limitations of claim 1 (except for the processing apparatus and storage storing a program, which is taught by Taylor, column 13, lines 23-30); thus they are rejected on similar grounds.
Regarding claim 16, the limitations of this claim substantially correspond to the limitations of claim 1 (except for the processing apparatus and medium storing a program, which is taught by Taylor, column 13, lines 23-30); thus they are rejected on similar grounds.
Regarding claims 22 and 23, the limitations of these claims substantially correspond to the limitations of claims 6 and 7, respectively; thus they are rejected on similar grounds as their corresponding claims.
Regarding claim 28, the limitations of this claim substantially correspond to the limitations of claim 6; thus they are rejected on similar grounds.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim objections have been fully considered, and are persuasive. The amendments have overcome the claim objections, thus they are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 101 rejections have been fully considered, and are persuasive. The amendments have overcome the 101 issues in the claims, thus the 101 rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 103 rejections have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, with respect to feature 1, on pages 10 and 11 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that the combination of Taylor and Hou does not teach the newly amended limitations regarding the virtual object box hung on an object and used for placing the virtual object. The Examiner respectfully submits that this argument is moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented above.
Regarding claim 1, with respect to feature 2, on page 11 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that the combination of Taylor and Hou does not teach determining size information of the box in 3D space according to the pose information because 1) Taylor discloses sizes being determined by fixed ratios rather than pose information, and 2) Hou teaches 3D pose and 3D size of a 3D bounding box of a real object, but these are calculated in parallel and there is no disclosure of determining size from pose. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with these arguments.
With respect to the first argument, it is respectfully submitted that the virtual object boxes in Taylor do have ratios, but the size of those boxes are clearly and explicitly based on the position and pose information. In the provided citations, the box acquisition begins by identifying the position and pose of the virtual object box at the head of an identified object, then an extent of the object to which the box should encompass is predicted, and then a size of the final virtual object box is determined based on the position, pose, and extent. This clearly teaches this broad claim language, and any purported differences are not currently reflected in the claims.
With respect to the second argument, although the Examiner disagrees with this argument, Hou is not relied upon to teach this feature, as it is taught by Taylor.
Regarding claim 1, with respect to feature 3, on pages 11 and 12 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that the combination of Taylor and Hou does not teach determining and rendering materials because 1) Taylor does not mention how to determine materials, and the rendering is a geometric transformation of pixels and cannot generate virtual objects, whereas claim 1 determines materials according to size information and the rendering “refers to” drawing the material into the virtual object box to generate a new virtual object which belongs to three-dimensional rendering in the field of augmented reality technology, and 2) Hou does not involve generating virtual objects and does not mention determining material. The Examiner respectfully disagreed with these arguments.
With respect to the first argument, it is respectfully submitted that, absent further clarification in the claim, the particular manner in which Taylor determines materials and performs the rendering is not germane to the requirements of the claim limitations. The claim very broadly recites determining a material according to the size information and rendering the material into the virtual object box according to the pose information to generate the virtual object. There is no definition of the material or the virtual object, no limitations regarding “how to determine materials” or the manner in which they are rendered, and no limitations regarding “three-dimensional rendering in the field of augmented reality technology.” Thus none of these purported differences are required by the claims. The broad terminology of the claim is clearly and explicitly disclosed in Taylor, which determines a material according to the size information to render it into the virtual object box to generate the virtual object; nothing in this claim refers to “drawing” the material into the virtual object box to generate a “new” virtual object “which belongs to three-dimensional rendering in the field of augmented reality technology,” as asserted by the Applicant. (Although it is separated noted that Hou explicitly discloses “three-dimensional rendering in the field of augmented reality technology.”) If it were the case that such limitations can be found in the specification, it is noted that although claims are read in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not imported into the claims. See MPEP 2111.01(II).
With respect to the second argument, although the Examiner disagrees with this argument, Hou is not relied upon to teach this feature, as it is taught by Taylor.
Regarding the remaining claims, on page 12 of the Remarks, the Applicant argues that the independent claims 15 and 16 are not taught by the prior art for reasons similar to those discussed in regard to claim 1, and that the dependent claims are not taught by the prior art, insomuch as they depend from claims that are not taught by the prior art. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with these arguments, for the reasons discussed above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5, 18-21, and 24-27 remain 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.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Nystad (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0060630); Graphics processing systems.
Velic (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0304732); System and method for toy recognition.
Takahashi (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0148219); Computer-readable recording medium for drawing processing, drawing processing apparatus, drawing processing method, computer-readable recording medium for sound processing, sound processing apparatus, and sound processing method.
Lee (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0065908); Localization-aware active learning for object detection.
Choe (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0309248); Using image augmentation with simulated objects for training machine learning models in autonomous driving applications.
Hernando (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0120829); Person activity recognition.
Kee (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0045536); System and method for audio tagging of an object of interest.
Meier (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0327730); Method for training neural network, system for training neural network, and neural network.
Challa (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0273972); Efficient gaming monitoring using artificial intelligence.
Quinn (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0196874); Gaming activity monitoring systems and methods.
Breen (Interactive Occlusion and Automatic Object Placement for Augmented Reality); Eurographics, 1996.
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