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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 30, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on June 30, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends that the amendments address potential antecedent issues and do not change the scope of the claims. However, amended claims 1, 12, and 16 include substantive changes. In particular, claim 1 now requires using an identified feature point to emphasize the portion of a virtual object that is occluded by an additional object.
The cited specification passages disclose feature tracking for camera parameters and pose, depth-based rendering and occlusion handling, and separately, emphasis through focus and exposure. However, the original disclosure does not describe the claimed relationship in which the feature point is used to emphasize the occluded portion of the virtual object. Accordingly, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) is set forth below. Applicant argues that the cited references fail to teach, disclose or suggest all limitations of claim 1. In particular, Applicant asserts that the cited references fail to disclose.
identify at least one feature point within the field of view region based on at least one of the first set of image data or the second set of image data;
render the immersive content based on the set of depth information and the at least one feature point, wherein the individual virtual object is rendered such that the individual virtual object is partially occluded by an additional object visible through the display; and
display the immersive content on the display, such that the at least one feature point is used to emphasize a portion of the individual virtual object that is occluded by the additional object.
Regarding limitation (I), Examiner submits that Bradski, in ¶¶ [0320]- [0323], discloses feature tracking and feature or map data obtained from camera imagery for mapping and pose operations. Under a reasonable broad interpretation, the tracked image feature or map point corresponds to a feature point identified from the captured field-of-view imagery.
Regarding limitation (II), Examiner submits that Bradski ¶¶ [0320]- [0323] use feature-derived map and pose information in the augmented reality pipeline, while McCulloch ¶¶ [0004] and [0031]- [0034] use three-dimensional spatial and depth information to control rendering. Further, McCulloch, in ¶ [0060], describes a real-world object in front of a virtual object and suppressing virtual display content in the corresponding area; and in ¶ [0096], McCulloch expressly discusses partial occlusion in which part of the virtual object and part of the real object are displayed. Therefore, the combination of Bradski and McCulloch renders immersive content using both depth information and feature-derived scene or pose information. And McCulloch supplies the real-world-over-virtual partial occlusion relationship.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to limitation (III) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
For the above reasons, the rejections are sustained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 12, 14, and 16-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, this claim now recite wherein the individual virtual object is rendered such that the individual virtual object is partially occluded by an additional object visible through the display. However, the application as filed does not reasonably convey possession of the claimed relationship in which the identified feature point is used to emphasize a portion of the individual virtual object that is occluded by the additional object. Although the Applicants point out “[s]upport for the amendments can be found throughout the specification, e.g., paras. [0072]- [0073], [0078], [0087], [0091], [0125], [0133]” the discussion in the specification is not sufficient support for the newly added limitation.
Paragraph [0091] describes tracking multiple feature points across cameras from frame to frame to recover camera parameters, translation, scale, and pose. This disclosure supports feature points and feature tracking, but does not disclose using the feature point to emphasize an occluded portion of a virtual object.
Paragraphs [0072]- [0073], [0078], and [0087] describe depth information, rendering, z-keying, and handling of occlusion. These passages support depth-based placement and representation of virtual content relative to real-world objects, but do not disclose using a feature point to emphasize the occluded portion of the virtual object.
Paragraph [0087] separately explains that capture parameters such as focus and exposure may be computed using a virtual object as a focal point, such that the final captured image may emphasize the virtual object. The disclosure does not connect this emphasis to an identified image feature point, nor does it state that the emphasis is selectively applied to the portion of the virtual object that is occluded by another object.
The original claims likewise disclosed depth based occlusion of virtual objects, but did not disclose the claimed feature point controlled emphasis of an occluded virtual object portion.
Accordingly, the specification as filed does not describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Examiner respectfully requests that the Applicant point out where in the specification (i.e., paragraph, line number) support can be found for the aforementioned newly added limitations.
Regarding claims 3, 4, 7, 12, 14, and 16-29, these claims depend directly or indirectly from claim 1 and incorporate the same unsupported limitation. Therefore, these claims are rejected for the same written description deficiency.
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, 16-23, 27 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bradski et al. (US20150178939A1), hereinafter referred to as Bradski, in view of McCulloch et al. (US20130286004A1), hereinafter referred to as McCulloch in further view of Zollmann et al. "Image-based ghostings for single layer occlusions in augmented reality." 2010 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality. IEEE, 2010.
Regarding claim 1, Bradski discloses immersive headset, comprising (¶¶ [0043]- [0044]):
a display configured to render immersive content selected from the group consisting of virtual reality content, mixed reality content, and augmented reality content (¶¶ [0043]- [0045]);
primary system of cameras (¶ [0323[), wherein the primary system of cameras comprises:
a first plurality of cameras, and configured to capture a first set of image data (¶¶ [0323] and [0327]); and
a second plurality of cameras, and configured to capture a second set of image data (¶¶ [0323[ and [0327]);
derive a set of depth information (¶ [0327])
Bradski does not explicitly disclose located in a right area of the immersive headset corresponding to a field of view region and located in a left area of the immersive headset corresponding to the field of view region; a memory, storing image processing instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the image processing instructions; corresponding to the field of view region based on the first set of image data and the second set of image data; and render the immersive content based on the set of depth information, wherein the set of depth information is used to determine where to render an individual virtual object on at least one image of the immersive content wherein the individual virtual object is rendered such that the individual virtual object is partially occluded by an additional object visible through the display; and wherein the immersive content is displayed such that the at least one feature point is used to emphasize a portion of the individual virtual object that is occluded by the additional object..
However, McCulloch from the same or similar endeavor of image system discloses located in a right area of the immersive headset corresponding to a field of view region and located in a left area of the immersive headset corresponding to the field of view region (¶¶ [0037], [0038], [0047]- [0050] and [0061]);
at least one processor configured to execute the image processing instructions (¶ [0051]);
corresponding to the field of view region based on the first set of image data and the second set of image data (¶¶ [0048]- [0050]);
identify at least one feature point within the field of view region based on at least one of the first set of image data or the second set of image data (¶¶ [0320]- [0323].)
render the immersive content based on the set of depth information, wherein the set of depth information is used to determine where to render an individual virtual object on at least one image of the immersive content (¶¶ [0004] and [0031]-0034])
wherein the individual virtual object is rendered such that the individual virtual object is partially occluded by an additional object visible through the display (¶¶ [0060] and [0096])
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings disclosed by Bradski to add the teachings of McCulloch as above, in order to capture video and still images, typically in color, of the real world to map real objects in the display field of view of the see-through display, and hence, in the field of view of the user (McCulloch, [0047]).
Furthermore, Bradski and McCulloch disclose render the immersive content based on the set of depth information, wherein the set of depth information is used to determine where to render an individual virtual object on at least one image of the immersive content (Bradski: ¶¶ [0320]- [0323] and McCulloch: ¶¶ [0004] and [0031]-0034])
Moreover, Zollmann from the same or similar endeavor of image system discloses wherein the immersive content is displayed such that the at least one feature point is used to emphasize a portion of the individual virtual object that is occluded by the additional object (Section 1 explains that camera images are analyzed for “edges, salient locations and texture details” and that “These features are then used as input for the ghostings.” Zollmann further teaches that ghosting techniques “enhance the perception of occluded virtual objects.” Figure 3 shows camera-image features creating a ghosting map used with virtual geometry, and Figure 5 shows extracted scene features controlling the occlusion cues over virtual content.).
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings disclosed by Bradski and McCulloch to add the teachings of Zollmann as above, in order to provide users with essential perceptual cues to understand the relationship of depth between hidden information and the physical scene (Zollmann, Abstract).
Regarding claim 16, Bradski, McCulloch and Zollmann disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Bradski does not explicitly disclose the immersive headset of claim 1, wherein the additional object comprises a real world object.
However, Ackerman from the same or similar endeavor of image system discloses the wherein the additional object comprises a real world object (¶ [0060] and [0096]).
The motivation for combining Bradski and McCulloch has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 17, Bradski, McCulloch and Zollmann disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Bradski discloses the immersive headset of claim 1, further comprising at least one additional sensor (¶¶ [0302], [0320] and [0324]).
Regarding claim 18, Bradski, McCulloch and Zollmann disclose all the limitations of claim 17, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Bradski discloses the immersive headset of claim 17, wherein the at least one additional sensor comprises a secondary system of cameras, positioned towards an additional region, and configured to capture a secondary set of image data (¶ [0323]).
Regarding claim 19, Bradski, McCulloch and Zollmann disclose all the limitations of claim 18, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Bradski discloses the immersive headset of claim 18, further comprising at least one illumination light source configured to project infrared light, wherein the secondary system of cameras is: sensitive to infrared wavelengths (¶ [0323]).
Bradski does not explicitly disclose configured to capture the secondary set of image data based, at least in part, on the infrared light projected over the additional region.
However, McCulloch from the same or similar endeavor of image system discloses the configured to capture the secondary set of image data based, at least in part, on the infrared light projected over the additional region (¶¶ [0052] and [0058]).
The motivation for combining Bradski and McCulloch has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 20, Bradski, McCulloch and Zollmann disclose all the limitations of claim 18, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Bradski discloses the immersive headset of claim 18, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the image processing instructions to determine a set of feature data corresponding to the additional region by performing feature tracking based on the secondary set of image data (¶¶ [0320]- [0323]).
The motivation for combining Bradski and McCulloch has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 21, Bradski, McCulloch and Zollmann disclose all the limitations of claim 20, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Bradski discloses the immersive headset of claim 20, wherein rendering the immersive content is further based on the set of feature data. (¶¶ [0320]- [0323]).
Regarding claim 22, Bradski, McCulloch and Zollmann disclose all the limitations of claim 18, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Bradski discloses the immersive headset of claim 18, wherein the secondary system of cameras comprises two cameras, each of which corresponds to a singular eye of a wearer of the immersive headset (¶¶ [0320]- [0323]).
Regarding claim 23, Bradski, McCulloch and Zollmann disclose all the limitations of claim 18, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Bradski discloses the immersive headset of claim 18, wherein the secondary system of cameras is located in a central area of the immersive headset, relative to the first plurality of cameras and the second plurality of cameras (¶¶ [0320]- [0323]).
Regarding claim 27, Bradski, McCulloch and Zollmann disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Bradski does not explicitly disclose the immersive headset of claim 1, wherein the set of depth information is derived by observing parallax in at least one of the first set of image data or the second set of image data.
However, McCulloch from the same or similar endeavor of image system discloses the immersive headset of claim 1, wherein the set of depth information is derived by observing parallax in at least one of the first set of image data or the second set of image data. (¶ [0049]).
The motivation for combining Bradski and McCulloch has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 28, Bradski, McCulloch and Zollmann disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Bradski does not explicitly disclose the immersive headset of claim 1, wherein at least one of the first set of image data or the second set of image data comprises a depth map.
However, McCulloch from the same or similar endeavor of image system discloses the immersive headset of claim 1, wherein at least one of the first set of image data or the second set of image data comprises a depth map (¶ [0048]).
The motivation for combining Bradski and McCulloch has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Claims 3, 7 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bradski, in view of McCulloch and Zollmann, and further, in view of Pomerantz (US20140160250A1), hereinafter referred to as Pomerantz.
Regarding claim 3, Bradski, McCulloch and Zollmann disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Bradski discloses the immersive headset of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the image processing instructions to: modify brightness of the immersive content on the display (¶¶ [0098] and [0213]).
Bradski does not explicitly disclose the in response to observed changes in a composite set of image data comprising the first set of image data and the second set of image data.
However, Pomerantz from the same or similar endeavor of image system discloses the in response to observed changes in a composite set of image data comprising the first set of image data and the second set of image data (¶¶ [0252] and [0744] - [0746]).
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings disclosed by Bradski and McCulloch and Zollmann to add the teachings of Pomerantz as above, in order to determine whether the video data may include a hand gesture instruction by comparing a time-varying pattern of brightness of the video data to a pattern of brightness that is characteristic of at least a portion of a user's hand being passed across a field of view of the camera, and processing the hand gesture instruction in response to detecting the hand gesture instruction. (Pomerantz, [0398]).
Regarding claim 7, Bradski, McCulloch and Zollmann disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Bradski does not explicitly disclose the immersive headset of claim 1, wherein the primary system of cameras corresponds to a set of different resolutions.
However, Pomerantz from the same or similar endeavor of image system discloses the immersive headset of claim 1, wherein the primary system of cameras corresponds to a set of different resolutions (¶ [0188]).
The motivation for combining Bradski, McCulloch, Zollmann and Pomerantz has been discussed in connection with claim 3, above.
Regarding claim 29, Bradski, McCulloch and Zollmann disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Bradski does not explicitly disclose the immersive headset of claim 1, wherein the first plurality of cameras is aligned along a first vertical axis within the right area of the immersive headset; and wherein the second plurality of cameras is aligned along a second vertical axis within the left area of the immersive headset.
However, Pomerantz from the same or similar endeavor of image system discloses the immersive headset of claim 1, wherein the first plurality of cameras is aligned along a first vertical axis within the right area of the immersive headset; and wherein the second plurality of cameras is aligned along a second vertical axis within the left area of the immersive headset (¶ [0182], [0183] and [0245]- [0246]).
The motivation for combining Bradski, McCulloch and Pomerantz has been discussed in connection with claim 3, above.
Claims 4, 14, and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bradski, in view of McCulloch, and Zollmann and further, in view of Sutherland (US 20160025982 A1), hereinafter referred to as Sutherland.
Regarding claim 4, Bradski, McCulloch and Zollmann disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Bradski does not explicitly disclose the immersive headset of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the image processing instructions to utilize the set of depth information to perform pose estimation for the immersive headset.
However, Sutherland from the same or similar endeavor of image system discloses the immersive headset of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the image processing instructions to utilize the set of depth information to perform pose estimation for the immersive headset (¶¶ [0026] and [0028])
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings disclosed by Bradski and McCulloch and Zollmann to add the teachings of Sutherland as above, in order to provide a dense surface prediction to which the depth map is aligned (Sutherland, [0028]).
Regarding claim 14, Bradski, McCulloch and Sutherland disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Bradski does not explicitly disclose the immersive headset of claim 1, wherein the primary system of cameras further comprises a reference camera; and wherein reference camera and the display are included in a removable component that is mounted within the immersive headset.
However, Sutherland from the same or similar endeavor of image system discloses the immersive headset of claim 1, wherein the primary system of cameras further comprises a reference camera; and wherein reference camera and the display are included in a removable component that is mounted within the immersive headset (¶¶ [0051]- [0053]).
The motivation for combining Bradski, McCulloch and Sutherland has been discussed in connection with claim 4, above.
Regarding claim 24, Bradski, McCulloch and Sutherland disclose all the limitations of claim 17, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Bradski does not explicitly disclose the immersive headset of claim 17, wherein the at least one additional sensor comprises a video camera; and the immersive content comprises background video obtained by the video camera.
However, Sutherland from the same or similar endeavor of image system discloses the immersive headset of claim 17, wherein the at least one additional sensor comprises a video camera; and the immersive content comprises background video obtained by the video camera. (¶ [0041]).
The motivation for combining Bradski, McCulloch and Sutherland has been discussed in connection with claim 4, above.
Regarding claim 25, Bradski, McCulloch and Sutherland disclose all the limitations of claim 17, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Bradski does not explicitly disclose the immersive headset of claim 1, wherein deriving the set of depth information further comprises: identifying near-field and far-field portions of the field of view region; and generating depth maps for each of the near-field and far-field portions of the field of view region.
However, Sutherland from the same or similar endeavor of image system discloses the immersive headset of claim 1, wherein deriving the set of depth information further comprises: identifying near-field and far-field portions of the field of view region; and generating depth maps for each of the near-field and far-field portions of the field of view region (¶¶ [0029]- [0032]).
The motivation for combining Bradski, McCulloch and Sutherland has been discussed in connection with claim 4, above.
Regarding claim 26, Bradski, McCulloch and Sutherland disclose all the limitations of claim 17, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Bradski does not explicitly disclose the immersive headset of claim 25, wherein each of the near-field and far-field portions of the field of view region are identified relative to a threshold distance.
However, Sutherland from the same or similar endeavor of image system discloses the immersive headset of claim 25, wherein each of the near-field and far-field portions of the field of view region are identified relative to a threshold distance (¶¶ [0070] and [0071]).
The motivation for combining Bradski, McCulloch and Sutherland has been discussed in connection with claim 4, above.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bradski, in view of McCulloch, and Zollmann and further, in view of Ciurea (US20150049916 A1), hereinafter referred to as Ciurea.
Regarding claim 12, Bradski, McCulloch and Zollmann disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Bradski does not explicitly disclose the immersive headset of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to render the immersive content by sampling and resampling portions of the image data to increase consistency between pixels of the immersive content.
However, Ciurea from the same or similar endeavor of image system discloses the immersive headset of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to render the immersive content by sampling and resampling portions of the image data to increase consistency between pixels of the immersive content (¶¶ [0168] and [0173]).
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings disclosed by Bradski and McCulloch and Zollmann to add the teachings of Ciurea as above, in order to increase the similarity of corresponding pixels in the captured images (Ciurea, [0168]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FABIO LIMA whose telephone number is (571)270-0625. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday, 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM (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, Jamie Atala can be reached on (571) 272-7384. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/FABIO S LIMA/Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights