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 .
This action is in response to the Amendment filed on 5/11/2026.
Claims 1-21 are pending. Claim 21 is newly added.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of app 17/478,771 (now is US patent US 12039674 B2). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both claim the same subject matters and limitations as explained below.
Claim 1, 5 is determined to be obvious in light of claim 1,4 of 17/478,771 (now is US patent US 12039674 B2) based on reasons below for having similar limitations.
Instant application claims 1, 5
17/478,771 claim 1, 4
1.A method, comprising: controlling,
1. A method, comprising: obtaining, by an electronic device, inertial data from an inertial sensor of the electronic device; and operating the electronic device
5. The method of claim 1, further comprising: operating the electronic device based on inertial data while the electronic device is disposed on a moveable platform during various motion states of the moveable platform, in part by modifying the usage of the inertial data according to a current motion state of the moveable platform.
based on the inertial data while the electronic device is disposed on a moveable platform during various motion states of the moveable platform, in part by modifying the usage of the inertial data according to a current motion state of the moveable platform, wherein the operating comprises: controlling,
…Claim 1 continued…during a first period of time, an output of an electronic device using a first simultaneous location and mapping (SLAM) system of the electronic device;
detecting, with the electronic device, a change in a motion state of the electronic device;
during a first period of time, the electronic device using a visual-inertial simultaneous location and mapping (SLAM) system;
detecting, with the electronic device, a change in a motion state of the movable platform;
responsive to detecting the change in the motion state,
temporarily operating both the first SLAM system and a second, different SLAM system of the electronic device while comparing outputs of the first and second SLAM systems; and
responsive to determining that the outputs of the first and second SLAM systems have been in agreement for at least a predetermined amount of time,
The method of claim 2 wherein the operating further comprises,
responsive to detecting the discrepancy and prior to the switching,
temporarily operating both the visual-inertial SLAM system and the visual-only SLAM system while comparing outputs of the visual-only SLAM system and the visual-inertial SLAM system.
switching to control,
and switching to controlling,
…Claim 1 continued…during a second period of time, the output of the electronic device using the second SLAM system.
during a second period of time and responsive to detecting the change in the motion state of the moveable platform, the electronic device using a visual-only SLAM system.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. The Claim 1 of the instant application and parent case 17/478,771 (now is US patent US 12039674 B2) discloses almost every single limitations the same, but the instant (child) applicant has broader scope, although the parent case has additional limitations “based on the inertial data while the electronic device is disposed on a moveable platform during various motion states of the moveable platform, in part by modifying the usage of the inertial data according to a current motion state of the moveable platform, wherein the operating comprises: controlling,” but the instant application claim 5 disclose almost the same limitations. Therefore, claim 1, 5 of instant application discloses all limitations of 17/478,771 (now is US patent US 12039674 B2) claim 1,4 combined.
Claim 2, 3 is determined to be obvious in light of claim 2 of 17/478,771 (now is US patent US 12039674 B2) based on reasons below for having similar limitations.
Instant application claim(s) 2, 3
17/478,771 claim 2
2.The method of claim 1, wherein first SLAM system comprises a visual-inertial SLAM system.
3. The method of claim 2, wherein detecting the change in the motion state comprises detecting a discrepancy between visual data of the visual-inertial SLAM system and inertial data of the visual-inertial SLAM system.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein detecting the change in the motion state comprises detecting a discrepancy between visual data of the visual-inertial SLAM system and the inertial data of the visual-inertial SLAM system.
Claim 4 is determined to be obvious in light of claim 3 of 17/478,771 (now is US patent US 12039674 B2) based on reasons below for having similar limitations.
Instant application claim(s) 4
17/478,771 claim 3
4. The method of claim 3, wherein the visual data comprises an image-based rotation estimate for the electronic device, and the inertial data comprises a gyroscope-based rotation estimate for the electronic device.
3. The method of claim 2, wherein the visual data comprises an image-based rotation estimate for the electronic device, and the inertial data comprises a gyroscope-based rotation estimate for the electronic device.
Claim 6 is determined to be obvious in light of claim 7 of 17/478,771 (now is US patent US 12039674 B2) based on reasons below for having similar limitations.
Instant application claim(s) 6
17/478,771 claim 7
6. The method of claim 5, wherein the operating further comprises: displaying virtual content anchored to the moveable platform on which the electronic device is disposed.
7. The method of claim 1, wherein the operating comprises displaying virtual content anchored to the moveable platform on which the electronic device is disposed.
Claim 7 is determined to be obvious in light of claim 8 of 17/478,771 (now is US patent US 12039674 B2) based on reasons below for having similar limitations.
Instant application claim(s) 7
17/478,771 claim 8
7. The method of claim 5, wherein operating the electronic device based on the inertial data while the electronic device is disposed on the moveable platform during various motion states of the moveable platform comprises operating the electronic device based on the inertial data while the electronic device is worn or carried by a user that is disposed on the moveable platform during various motion states of the moveable platform.
8. The method of claim 1, wherein operating the electronic device based on the inertial data while the electronic device is disposed on the moveable platform during various motion states of the moveable platform comprises operating the electronic device based on the inertial data while the electronic device is worn or carried by a user that is disposed on the moveable platform during various motion states of the moveable platform.
Claims 8-13, they recite limitations similar in scope to the limitations of Claims 1-6 but as a device which determined to be obvious in light of claim 9-15 of 17/478,771 (now is US patent US 12039674 B1) which recite limitations similar in scope to the limitations of Claims 8-13 of 17/478,771 (now is US patent US 12039658 B1) based on same reason described above for having similar limitations as described above for Claims 1-6.
Claims 14-20, they recite limitations similar in scope to the limitations of Claims 1-6 but as a non-transitory computer-readable medium which determined to be obvious in light of claims 16-17 along with method claims of 3-6 of 17/478,771 (now is US patent US 12039674 B1) which recite limitations similar in scope to the limitations of Claims 16-17 along with method claims of 3-6 of 17/478,771 (now is US patent US 12039658 B1) based on same reason described above for having similar limitations as described above for Claims 1-6.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-12, 14-18, 20, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pirchheim et al. (US 20150262029 A1, hereinafter Pirchheim), in view of Comer et al. (US 20190383937 A1, hereinafter Comer).
Regarding Claim 8, Pirchheim teaches a device comprising: a memory and at least one processor configured to (Pirchheim, Paragraph [0039], "The system may be a device 100, which may include one or more general purpose processors 161,
Image Processing module 171, Tracking module 181, Mapping module 180 ... and a memory 164): control, during a first period of time, an output of the device using a first simultaneous location and mapping (SLAM) system of the device (Pirchheim, Paragraph [0030], [0033], "Unconstrained SLAM (USLAM) systems handle both general and rotation only camera motion. Depending on the current camera motion, these SLAM systems apply either structure-from-motion or panoramic tracking and mapping techniques"; (0033], " According to certain aspects of the disclosure, a device while operating in panoramic SLAM mode can experience translational motion"; (0048], "The Tacking module 181 processes the video stream from the camera at frame-rate and tracks both general and rotation-only camera motion with respect to the active 3D map"; [0002], "The subject matter disclosed herein relates generally to location detection and specifically to Simultaneous Localization and Mapping (SLAM)"; It is noted that the device controls output (tracking of device position/orientation read on as output) using the panoramic SLAM system (first SLAM system) during a period of time);
detect, with the device, a change in a motion state of the device (Pirchheim,
Paragraph [0006], " Aspects of this disclosure provide techniques for robustly
detecting transitions between general and rotation only camera motion and the
corresponding panoramic/3D tracking and mapping modes"; [0037], "techniques
are described for detecting transitions from rotation-only to general motion while
the camera is tracked from a panorama map using a 3DOF rotation motion
model"); responsive to detection of the change in the motion state, [[ temporarily operate both the first SLAM system and a second, different SLAM system of the device while comparing outputs of the first and second SLAM systems; ]] and responsive to a determination that [[ the outputs of the first and second SLAM systems have been in agreement for at least a predetermined amount of time, ]] switch to control, during a second period of time, the output of the device using the second SLAM system (Pirchheim, Paragraph [0054], "In certain aspects, translational motion (indicated by the parallax angle) above a certain threshold may be used as an indicator to Switch from panoramic SLAM mapping to 6DOF SLAM mapping"; [0078], "The SLAM Switching module 910 may switch the Mapping module 180 from Panoramic SLAM module 175 to 6DOF SLAM module 173"; It is noted that, in response to detecting the motion state change (via parallax angle threshold), switches control from the panoramic SLAM (first SLAM) to the 6DOF SLAM (second SLAM)).
But Pirchheim does not explicitly disclose temporarily operate both the first SLAM system and a second, different SLAM system of the device while comparing outputs of the first and second SLAM systems and the outputs of the first and second SLAM systems have been in agreement for at least a predetermined amount of time.
However, Comer teaches responsive to detection of the change in the motion state, temporarily operate both the first SLAM system and a second, different SLAM system of the device while comparing outputs of the first and second SLAM systems (Comer, Paragraph [0059], "every available SLAM method maps environment 101, but only the primary (or currently active) SLAM method runs at full capacity, framerate, or bandwidth. This makes the latency of switching methods minimal, because secondary (or currently non-active) SLAM method(s) may run in the background at a lower capacity, framerate, or bandwidth"; Paragraph [0031], "The propagation component may receive angular velocity and accelerometer data from an Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) built into the HMD, for example, and it may use that data to produce a new HMD position and/or pose estimation <read on output of a SLAM system>"; Paragraph [0056], "HMD 102 may start monitoring the new positional tracking source, check the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), and compare the accuracy of the new SLAM method to the accuracy of the current SLAM method <read on comparing outputs of the first and second SLAM systems>"; It is noted that both the primary and secondary SLAM methods run concurrently ("every available SLAM method maps environment 101" and secondary runs "in the background") producing position/pose outputs per [0031], and their pose/accuracy outputs are compared per [0056], which reads on temporarily operating both SLAM systems while comparing their outputs); responsive to a determination that the outputs of the first and second SLAM systems have been in agreement for at least a predetermined amount of time, switch to control, during a second period of time, the output of the device using the second SLAM system (Comer, Paragraph [0008], "in response to a determination that a second SNR associated with the secondary SLAM method is greater than a first SNR associated with the primary SLAM method, and that the first and second SNRs are greater than a threshold value, determine an accuracy associated with the secondary SLAM method"; Paragraph [0056], "If the SNR of the new SLAM method is greater than a threshold, and the new SLAM method is more accurate than the current one, then the SLAM method may be switched using a soft handover technique or the like. This may happen when a new positional tracking source is detected or later when the SNR of new source becomes stronger due to user movement <read on predetermined amount of time>"; Paragraph [0055], "This process may occur throughout the user session to ensure that HMD 102 is using the most accurate SLAM method at any given time"; It is noted that Comer's joint condition — both SLAM methods' SNRs being greater than a common threshold value together with the accuracy correspondence between the concurrently generated pose outputs — reads on the outputs of the first and second SLAM systems being in agreement, and the "soft handover" together with the "later when the SNR of new source becomes stronger" language reads on the agreement persisting for a predetermined amount of time before the switch is completed).
Pirchheim and Comer are analogous since both of them are dealing with SLAM systems for mobile/wearable devices that use visual and inertial sensors, manage multiple SLAM modes for different motion scenarios, and adapt tracking and mapping based on sensor and contextual information. Pirchheim provided a way of detecting motion state changes (from rotation-only to general motion) by comparing visual and inertial sensor data to compute a parallax angle and switching between panoramic SLAM and 6DOF SLAM based on a threshold indicator. Comer provided a way of managing a plurality of SLAM methods by running one at full capacity while running the other(s) concurrently in the background, comparing their outputs (position/pose per [0031] and accuracy per [0056]) against a common SNR threshold, and switching between them using a soft handover only after verifying over an observation window that both SLAM methods jointly satisfy the threshold and the incoming method is more accurate. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the concurrent dual-SLAM operation, the joint-threshold agreement verification of the two SLAM systems' outputs, and the soft-handover time-persistence check taught by Comer into the modified invention of Pirchheim such that upon detecting the motion-state change by way of parallax-angle indicator, using panoramic SLAM and 6DOF SLAM are concurrently operated with their pose/mapping outputs compared, and control is switched from the panoramic SLAM to the 6DOF SLAM only after the two SLAM systems' outputs have been jointly above the confidence threshold and consistent for a persistence window, thereby preventing spurious/oscillating transitions and preserving tracking continuity. The motivation is to improve the user experience and enable robust, non-disruptive SLAM handovers that avoid tracking loss during motion state transitions, as discussed by Comer in Paragraph [0056].
Regarding Claim 9, The combination of Pirchheim and Comer teaches the
invention in Claim 8.
The combination further teaches wherein first SLAM system comprises a visual inertial SLAM system Pirchheim, Paragraph [0041], "the device 100 is a mobile/portable platform. The device 100 can include a means for capturing an
image. Such as camera 114 and may also include motion sensors 111, Such as
accelerometers, gyroscopes, electronic compass, or other similar motion sensing
elements."; [0006), "In contrast to existing vision-only methods such as model
selection algorithms, aspects of this disclosure may use one or more sensors,
including inertial (gyroscope, accelerometer), magnetic (compass), and vision
(camera) sensors"; [0041], "Mapping module 180 extends and refines the Global
SLAM map based on GOOF and panorama keyframes selected by the Tracking
module 181 "; It is noted that the SLAM system uses both visual data {from camera 114) and inertial data (from motion sensors 111 including gyroscopes and accelerometers), which constitutes a visual-inertial SLAM system).
Regarding Claim 10, The combination of Pirchheim and Comer teaches the
invention in Claim 9.
The combination further teaches wherein detecting the change in the motion
state comprises detecting a discrepancy between visual data of the visual-inertial SLAM
system and inertial data of the visual-inertial SLAM system (Pirchheim, Paragraph
[0008], "determining a parallax angle for the device, wherein the parallax angle is
determined by comparing the vision-based rotational motion angle and the
sensor-based rotational motion angle"; [0006), "In contrast to existing vision-only methods such as model selection algorithms, aspects of this disclosure may use one or more sensors, including inertial (gyroscope, accelerometer), magnetic (compass), and vision (camera) sensors"; [0054], "The detection of the translational motion between two camera views may be performed by comparing the rotational angle acquired using image processing techniques and sensors ... The parallax angle ... can be calculated by comparing the vision-based rotational motion angle with the sensor-based rotational motion angle").
Regarding Claim 11, The combination of Pirchheim and Comer teaches the
invention in Claim 10.
The combination further teaches wherein the visual data comprises an image based rotation estimate for the device, and the inertial data comprises a gyroscope based rotation estimate for the device (Pirchheim, Paragraph (0008], "determining a
vision-based rotational motion angle for the device, wherein the vision-based
rotational motion angle is determined by performing image processing on a
plurality of keyframes, determining a sensor-based rotational motion angle for the
device ... motion sensors may include gyroscopes"; [0081], "wherein the sensor based rotational motion angle is determined using one or more motion sensors";
[0054], "The rotational angle detected using image processing, also referred to as
vision-based rotational motion angle ... the rotational angle from the sensors, also referred to as sensor-based rotational motion angle").
Regarding Claim 12, The combination of Pirchheim and Comer teaches the
invention in Claim 8.
The combination further teaches wherein the at least one processor is further
configured to operate the device based on inertial data while the device is disposed on
a moveable platform during various motion states of the moveable platform (Pirchheim, Paragraph [0006), "In contrast to existing vision-only methods such as model
selection algorithms, aspects of this disclosure may use one or more sensors,
including inertial (gyroscope, accelerometer), magnetic (compass), and vision
(camera) sensors"; [0053], "Techniques are presented for monocular visual simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM) based on detecting a translational motion in the movement of the camera using at least one motion sensor"; [0003], "The visual SLAM system may operate in different modes for tracking the device and building the map based on the movement of the device ... while the device is experiencing general motion ... Similarly, when the device is only rotating"; [0041], "In one embodiment, the device 100 is a mobile/portable platform ... may also include motion sensors 111, such as accelerometers, gyroscopes"), in part by modifying the usage of the inertial data according to a current motion state of the moveable platform (Pirchheim, Paragraph [0054], "In certain aspects, translational motion (indicated by the parallax angle) above a certain threshold may be used as an indicator to Switch from panoramic SLAM mapping to GOOF SLAM mapping";
[0036], "The USLAM system supports transition from a panorama map to another
3D map ... followed by the initialization of a new 3D map")
Regarding Claim 1, it recites limitations similar in scope to the limitations of Claim 8 but as a method and the combination of Pirchheim and Comer teaches all the limitations as of Claim 8. Therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 2, it recites limitations similar in scope to the limitations of Claim 9 and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 3, it recites limitations similar in scope to the limitations of Claim 10 and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 4, it recites limitations similar in scope to the limitations of Claim 11 and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 5, it recites limitations similar in scope to the limitations of Claim 12 and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Pirchheim and Comer teaches the
invention in Claim 1.
The combination further teaches wherein operating the electronic device based
on the inertial data while the electronic device is disposed on the moveable platform
during various motion states of the moveable platform comprises operating the
electronic device based on the inertial data while the electronic device is worn or carried
by a user that is disposed on the moveable platform during various motion states of the
moveable platform (Pirchheim, Paragraph [0040], "The device 100 may be ...
wearable device (e.g., eyeglasses, watch, head wear, head mounted device (HMD)
or similar bodily attached device)"; [0006), "In contrast to existing vision-only methods such as model selection algorithms, aspects of this disclosure may use one or more sensors, including inertial (gyroscope, accelerometer), magnetic (compass), and vision (camera) sensors"; [0041], "In one embodiment, the device 100 is a mobile/portable platform ... may also include motion sensors 111, such as accelerometers, gyroscopes")
But Pirchheim does not explicitly disclose while the electronic device is worn or carried by a user that is disposed on the moveable platform.
However, Comer teaches operating the electronic device based on the inertial data while the electronic device is worn or carried by a user (Comer, Paragraph [0033], "In various embodiments, user 101 may wear HMD 102 around their heads and over their eyes, during execution of an xR application"; [0031], “The propagation component may receive angular velocity and accelerometer data from an Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) built into the HMD”; [0034], "HMD 102 transmits Information to host IHS 103 regarding the state of user 101 (e.g., physical position, head orientation ... )")
Pirchheim and Comer are analogous since both of them are dealing with SLAM systems for mobile and wearable devices. Pirchheim provided a way of using inertial sensors to assist visual SLAM on a mobile platform. Comer provided a specific implementation of SLAM on a head-mounted display (HMO) worn by a user. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the wearable HMO configuration taught by Comer into the device of Pirchheim such that the device is worn by a user, enabling hands-free operation and immersive ARNR experiences while still utilizing Pirchheim's robust motion detection. The motivation is to enable immersive augmented reality experiences where the user can move freely, as discussed by Comer in Paragraph [0003] ("The goal of virtual reality (VR) is to immerse users in virtual environments").
Regarding Claim 14, it recites limitations similar in scope to the limitations of claim 8 and the combination of Pirchheim and Comer teaches all the limitations as of Claim 8. And Pirchheim discloses these features can be implemented on a computer readable storage medium (Pirchheim, Paragraph [0008], “Aspects of the disclosure describe an example method, apparatus, non-transitory computer readable medium”; [0009], “In certain aspects, the non-transitory computer readable storage medium may include instructions executable by a processor for performing aspects of simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM) as described herein”).
Regarding Claim 15, it recites limitations similar in scope to the limitations of Claim 9 and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 16, it recites limitations similar in scope to the limitations of Claim 10 and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 17, it recites limitations similar in scope to the limitations of Claim 11 and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 18, it recites limitations similar in scope to the limitations of Claim 12 and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 20, it recites limitations similar in scope to the limitations of Claim 7 and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 21, the combination of Pirchheim and Comer teaches the invention in Claim 1.
The combination further teaches first motion information in at least one dimension generated by the first SLAM system … second motion information in the at least one dimension generated by the second SLAM system (Pirchheim, Paragraph [0008], "determining a parallax angle for the device, wherein the parallax angle is determined by comparing the vision-based rotational motion angle <read on first motion information in at least one dimension> and the sensor-based rotational motion angle <read on second motion information in the at least one dimension>"; Paragraph [0054], "The parallax angle, that is the angle between the two viewpoints introduced by the translational motion, can be calculated by comparing the vision-based rotational motion angle with the sensor-based rotational motion angle"; It is noted that systemconfirms that "motion information in at least one dimension" is customarily compared in the SLAM art in the form of rotational motion angles derived from different sources, providing an art-recognized mode of comparing motion information in a dimension consistent with the two-SLAM comparison established under Comer).
Comer further teaches wherein the comparing the outputs of the first and second SLAM systems comprises comparing first motion information in at least one dimension generated by the first SLAM system with second motion information in the at least one dimension generated by the second SLAM system (Comer, Paragraph [0031], "SLAM methods implemented in connection with xR applications may include a propagation component, a feature extraction component, a mapping component, and an update component. The propagation component may receive angular velocity and accelerometer data from an Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) built into the HMD, for example, and it may use that data to produce a new HMD position and/or pose estimation <read on motion information in at least one dimension>"; Paragraph [0059], "every available SLAM method maps environment 101, but only the primary (or currently active) SLAM method runs at full capacity, framerate, or bandwidth. This makes the latency of switching methods minimal, because secondary (or currently non-active) SLAM method(s) may run in the background at a lower capacity, framerate, or bandwidth"; Paragraph [0056], "HMD 102 may start monitoring the new positional tracking source, check the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), and compare the accuracy of the new SLAM method <read on second motion information generated by the second SLAM system> to the accuracy of the current SLAM method <read on first motion information generated by the first SLAM system>"; Paragraph [0008], "in response to a determination that the accuracy associated with the secondary SLAM method is greater than an accuracy associated with the primary SLAM method, re-designate the secondary SLAM method as primary, and re-designate the primary SLAM method as secondary"; It is noted that under Comer, each SLAM method — both primary (first) and secondary (second) — concurrently produces its own HMD position and/or pose estimation (read on motion information in at least one dimension such as position or orientation), and the compared "accuracy" between the primary and secondary SLAM methods is an evaluation of each SLAM's respective position/pose output against the other, which reads on comparing first motion information in at least one dimension generated by the first SLAM system with second motion information in the at least one dimension generated by the second SLAM system).
Pirchheim and Comer are analogous since both of them are dealing with SLAM systems for mobile/wearable devices that use visual and inertial sensors, manage multiple SLAM modes, and compare motion-related quantities to guide mode selection or transitions. Pirchheim provided a way of comparing rotational motion angles derived from vision and from motion sensors to compute a parallax angle that indicates a change of motion state. Comer provided a way of concurrently operating a plurality of SLAM methods (each producing its own position/pose estimation) and comparing their accuracies between the primary and secondary SLAM methods to guide the switch between them. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the concurrent per-SLAM position/pose estimation and inter-SLAM accuracy comparison taught by Comer into the modified invention of Pirchheim such that, when system of panoramic SLAM (first SLAM) and 6DOF SLAM (second SLAM) are concurrently operated per the combined framework, the comparison of their outputs is carried out by comparing the position/pose (motion information in at least one dimension) that each SLAM independently generates for the device, thereby permitting the switch decision to be based on the actual per-SLAM motion estimates rather than on any single indirect indicator. The motivation is to ensure that HMD 102 (the device) uses the most accurate SLAM method at any given time and to enable a robust, non-disruptive soft-handover between SLAM methods, as discussed by Comer in Paragraph [0055] ("This process may occur throughout the user session to ensure that HMD 102 is using the most accurate SLAM method at any given time") and Paragraph [0056].
Claim(s) 6, 13, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pirchheim et al. (US 20150262029 A1, hereinafter Pirchheim), in view of Comer et al. (US 20190383937 A1, hereinafter Comer) as applied to Claim 1, 8, 14 above respectively and further in view of Hare (US 20190178654 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Pirchheim and Comer teaches the
invention in Claim 12.
The combination further teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to operate the device by: displaying virtual content (Pirchheim, Paragraph [0044], "Virtual objects (e.g., text, images, video) may be inserted into the representation of a scene depicted on a device display").
But the combination does not explicitly disclose anchored to the moveable platform on which the device is disposed.
However, Hare teaches displaying virtual content anchored to the moveable platform on which the device is Disposed (Hare, Paragraph [0172], "This same method may be applied to anchor a virtual object to features of an object that is physically moving (e.g. a controller <read on moveable platform>)."; Paragraph [0025], "obtaining virtual object data indicating (1) an anchor relationship between a virtual object and the feature ... determining ... coordinates of the virtual object based on ... the feature ... and ... displacement... relative to the feature").
Hare and Pirchheim are analogous since both of them are dealing with tracking/mapping and presentation of virtual content in environments where the
device/object may move. Pirchheim provided a way of operating a device using visual/inertial tracking and switching SLAM modes based on motion state changes while the device is moving. Hare provided a way of anchoring a virtual object to features of an object that is physically moving such that the virtual object remains stable relative to the moving object. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the anchoring of virtual content to a physically moving object taught by Hare into the modified invention of Pirchheim such that when the device is disposed on (or moving with) a moveable platform, the system presents virtual content anchored to that moveable platform, thereby maintaining a stable relative placement of the virtual content during motion of the platform. The motivation is to keep virtual content stable relative to the relevant physical frame of reference during motion, as discussed by Hare in Paragraph [0172].
Regarding Claim 6, it recites limitations similar in scope to the limitations of Claim 13 and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 19, it recites limitations similar in scope to the limitations of Claim 13 and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
Response to Arguments
The rejection of Claims 1-20 under Nonstatutory Double Patenting are maintain rejected since by the time of examining the case, there is no eTerminal/Terminal Disclaimer filed by the Applicant.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1, 8, 14, filed on 5/11/2026, with respect to rejection under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered but is not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that prior art does not teaches the limitation “responsive to a determination that the outputs of the first and second SLAM systems have been in agreement for at least a predetermined amount of time, switch to control, during a second period of time, the output of the device using the second SLAM system”
In response to the argument, the prior art Comer teaches in Paragraph [0008], [0031], [0056], [0059] that accuracy is a comparison of the SLAM systems' pose/position outputs, you cannot compute or compare "accuracy" of two SLAMs without comparing the pose/mapping outputs they each generate, check therefore is a comparison of the SLAM outputs of the two methods (with SNR as an additional gating metric. Under BRI, "outputs of the first and second SLAM systems" reads on the tracked SLAM outputs that Comer teaches are being generated in parallel and compared for "accuracy." The rejection's use of SNR is properly understood as a summary metric of that comparison, not a substitute for it. The Applicant's own spec at [0039] also describes SLAM outputs broadly as "mapping, location, and/or pose information which Comer fully anticipate that. As for ‘agreement’, prior art Comer teaches in Paragraph [0008], that "a second SNR associated with the secondary SLAM method is greater than a first SNR associated with the primary SLAM method," AND "the first and second SNRs are greater than a threshold value." which means when both primary and secondary SNRs are above a common threshold, the two SLAM methods are "in agreement" that each is producing a signal above the operational confidence floor. Comer further teaches in Paragraph [0056] that "If the SNR of the new SLAM method is greater than a threshold, and the new SLAM method is more accurate than the current one, then the SLAM method may be switched using a soft handover technique. By combining [0008] and [0056] threshold condition both SLAM methods producing reliable, mutually consistent signal) is the "in agreement" limitation. Additionally, prior art Comer taches in Paragraph [0056] that switching "using a soft handover technique." A "soft handover" (in contrast to a hard handover) is understood in the art to require sustained parallel operation with mutual consistency before the transfer is completed which means a soft handover to necessarily involve verifying that both systems are in mutual agreement over some observation window — exactly the claimed operation. As for the predetermined amount of time, Comer's soft handover and continuous monitoring inherently involve a time-based verification. Prior art Pirchheim further confirm the action in Paragraph [0054], [0078] that itself teaches threshold-based switching to avoid spurious transitions and threshold-based indicator to switch. A implementing Comer's soft-handover SLAM switching would apply a persistence/dwell threshold (predetermined time) to prevent switching oscillation which is standard hysteresis design in mode-switching control systems and is expressly motivated by both Pirchheim (threshold to switch, [0054]) and Comer (soft handover to avoid disruption, [0056]). Although "predetermined amount" is not used exact wording, it is an obvious design choice motivated by both references to prevent tracking loss and oscillation. Hence the combination of the prior arts fully anticipate the limitations. Therefore, applicant remarks cannot be considered persuasive.
In regard to Claims 2-7, 9-13, 15-20, they directly/indirectly depends on independent Claim 1, 8, 14 respectively. Applicant does not argue anything other than the independent claim 1, 8, 14. The limitations in those claims in conjunction with combination previously established as explained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20220412740 A1 LOCALIZATION USING SENSORS THAT ARE TRANSPORTABLE WITH A DEVICE
US 20220232169 A1 METHOD OF CONTROLLING A PORTABLE DEVICE AND A PORTABLE DEVICE
US 20210225083 A1 Computer Systems and Methods for Navigating Building Information Models in an Augmented Environment
US 20210142510 A1 SELF-POSITION ESTIMATION DEVICE, SELF-POSITION ESTIMATION METHOD, AND PROGRAM THEREOF
US 20210089772 A1 METHOD OF USING A HETEROGENEOUS POSITION INFORMATION ACQUISITION MECHANISM IN AN OPERATING SPACE AND ROBOT AND CLOUD SERVER IMPLEMENTING THE SAME
US 20210042996 A1 SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR INTEGRATING OBJECTS IN MONOCULAR SLAM
US 20210027492 A1 Joint Environmental Reconstruction and Camera Calibration
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 YUJANG TSWEI whose telephone number is (571)272-6669. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am-5:30pm 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, Kent Chang can be reached on (571)272-7667. 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.
/YuJang Tswei/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2614
Prosecution Insights