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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's traversal of the restriction requirement in the reply filed on 1 April 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there was a preliminary amendment to the claims (07/19/2024) which cancelled the original claims in favor of a new set of claims, which should no bet/are not subject to restriction.
This is persuasive the requirement is withdrawn.
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) 19-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bradski (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2019/0094981 A1).
Regarding claim 19:
Bradski teaches: a computer-implemented method for determining user intent (para. 17, methods for facilitating virtual and augmented reality interaction, interaction teaches “user intent”), comprising:
tracking head pose of a user, wherein tracking head pose of a user records movement data (para., 897, head pose processor to calculate near or real-time head pose, to do this, movement data needs to be recorded; additional teaching: para. 944-45, which teach averages of head position);
extracting, using the movement data and as extracted features, features in an environment of the user (e.g. para. 945, “current measures of head position…allows consistent rendering of objects on/around a user’s body.” The “extracted features” can features in the environment that allow for rendering of objects on/around a user’s body) (another example: para. 1159, head pose information can be used to determine object and listener pose – the object and listener pose are extracted features in the user environment);
performing eye tracking (para. 157, the AR device can have eye tracking cameras) to obtain a fixation point of eyes of the user in a field-of-view of the user (para. 815, eye tracking is used to track where a user is looking (fixation point), which is also the vergence of the eyes) in a head frame (The examiner is interpreting “in a head frame” two different ways, both of which are taught by Bradski:
Paragraphs 1004-1011 describe correlating the eye coordinates with world coordinates of a world camera, the “world camera” being cameras placed on a user’s head (head cameras). This result of this correlation teaches performing eye tracking “in a head frame”; OR
Paragraphs 1004-1011, the coordinates of the eye tracking are “in a head frame” by themselves, before correlation with world coordinates.
*Claim interpretation: either interpretation a broad, reasonable interpretation of what is meant by “in a head frame”, consistent with Applicant’s specification as filed, where “head frame” is described in paragraph [0202], as: “the head frame is associated with a coordinate system local to Alice”. The eye coordinate system of Bradski is a local coordinate system, so too is the eye coordinates correlated with world coordinates)
calculating, based on a combination of the fixation point of eyes of the user and the head pose of the user, an eye gaze target point (see para. 1006, which teaches that there are “three main components to gaze tracking: an eye tracking module (pupil detection and center of cornea detection), a head tracking module, and a correlation module that correlates the eye tracking module with the head tracking module.” The functions of the correlation module teach calculating an eye gaze target point (e.g. para. 1015,1029, a target point or position) based on a combination of fixation point and head pose, as claimed);
determining what virtual objects in the environment of the user intersect with a gaze fixation point in local space, wherein the gaze fixation point is based on the calculation of the eye gaze target point (see e.g. paras. 1015, 1018, which teaches a ‘gaze line’ whereby a gaze fixation point can be any point along a determined gaze line, for example. See also the section entitled “Gaze Tracking Hardware” beginning at para. 1019 and Figs 119-122);
determining that the gaze fixation point intersects with a virtual object of the virtual objects (e.g. para. 1002-04, which teaches tracking whether a user’s eye is directed at one or more virtual objects. Applying this to gaze fixation point, related to eye tracking, would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill);
extracting semantic intent directives associated with the virtual object (para. 1003, virtual object(-s) a user is looking at “may further allow the system to understand a user's interest in a particular virtual or real object”. Indications of user interest teaches “semantic intent directives” associated with the virtual object. Another example of extracting semantic intent directives is by treating the gaze as user interaction. See para. 1001, 1172, 1391); and
communicating the semantic intent directives associated with the virtual object to a wearable computing device of another user (e.g. Fig. 55, 71, multiple users interacting with each other. See e.g. paras. 175-83, which describe systems and methods in AR and VR whereby one or more users can control, manipulate or alter virtual objects (para. 178) with simultaneous user interaction (paras. 180-86). This teaches an embodiment whereby the semantic intent directive from one user associated with a virtual object is communicated to a wearable device of another, such as the two users wearing wearable devices in Fig. 55. This is also taught by games and gaze gesture interaction. Id.),
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained the above, and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
The prior art included each element recited in claim 19, although not necessarily in a single embodiment, with the only difference being between the claimed element and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of certain elements in a single prior art embodiment, as described above.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 20:
Bradski teaches: the computer-implemented method of claim 19, wherein tracking head pose of a user is performed using a wearable computing device of the user (Fig. 3: 30, HMD wearable device) comprising a combination of an inertial measurement unit (IMU) (claim 1, the HMD can have an IMU, used to detect movements of the HMD, including initiating data capture) and a camera (para. 1013, head camera (world cameras)) to record rotational and translational motion of the user (paras. 1011-1015, similar to eye tracking, rotational and translational head movement can be obtained in relation to the world/head camera;
also, even without the rotational and translational vectors, rotational and translational motion (movement that includes and does not include changes in orientation, is recorded as a result of head motion from the world camera).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of Applicant’s claims, to have further modified the applied reference(-s) in view of same to have obtained the above, motivated to facilitate user movement tracking to discern interaction with a system.
Regarding claim 21:
Bradski teaches: the computer-implemented method of claim 19, comprising, estimating, using the extracted features, the head pose of the user with respect to a world frame associated with the environment of the user (e.g. paras. 1004-1011, head tracking or head pose is estimated with respect to “world coordinates” (para. 1006), or a world frame as claimed).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of Applicant’s claims, to have further modified the applied reference(-s) in view of same to have obtained the above, motivated to facilitate user movement tracking to discern interaction with a system.
Regarding claim 22:
Bradski teaches: the computer-implemented method of claim 19, wherein the head frame is associated with a coordinate system local to the user (see mapping to claim 1 and e.g. paras. 1004-11, head frame is associated with the world coordinate system and/or eye coordinate system, both local to a user).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of Applicant’s claims, to have further modified the applied reference(-s) in view of same to have obtained the above, motivated to facilitate user movement tracking to discern interaction with a system.
Regarding claim 23:
Bradski teaches: the computer-implemented method of claim 19, wherein determining what virtual objects in the environment of the user intersect with the eye gaze target point in local space includes use of static virtual scene models (e.g. para. 190-92, 203, static aspects of a digital world, or para. 931, a static 3D background) in a world frame associated with the environment of the user (para. 190, 203, a digital world is a world frame associated with the environment of the user) and dynamic virtual objects in the environment of the user (paras. 185, 190, 191, all of which teach dynamic virtual objects) (the examiner’s interpretation of “static virtual scene models” is a broad, reasonable interpretation consistent with Applicant’s specification as filed; see specification, para. 204, which states that “ static virtual scene models in the world frame 2140b (which may describe static virtual objects in the environment A)“) .
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of Applicant’s claims, to have further modified the applied reference(-s) in view of same to have obtained the above, motivated to facilitate virtual scene rendering that accounts for various scene changes and/or interactivity.
Regarding claim 24:
Bradski teaches: the computer-implemented method of claim 19, comprising calculating the gaze fixation point with respect to a world frame associated with the environment of the user and a ray direction in the world frame (e.g. paras. 1015, 1018, which teaches a ‘gaze line’ whereby a gaze fixation point can be any point along a determined gaze line, for example. See also the section entitled “Gaze Tracking Hardware” beginning at para. 1019 and Figs 119-122. The gaze line teaches a ray direction in the world frame).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of Applicant’s claims, to have further modified the applied reference(-s) in view of same to have obtained the above, motivated to facilitate user movement tracking to discern interaction with a system.
Regarding claim 25:
Bradski teaches: the computer-implemented method of claim 19, wherein the virtual object intersected by the gaze fixation point is classified as an object of interest (e.g. paras. 10, 1033, 1722, objects a user is looking at can be considered an “object of interest”. Applying this to gaze fixation point, as mapped in claim 19, would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A)).
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 26: see also claim 19.
Bradski teaches: a non-transitory, computer-readable medium storing one or more instructions executable by a computer system to perform one or more operations (para. 194, memory storing executable code that is local to a computing device, such as Fig. 1: 12), comprising:
The operations correspond to the method of claim 19; the same rationale for rejection applies.
Regarding claim 27: see also claim 20.
These claims are similar; the same rationale for rejection applies.
Regarding claim 28: see also claim 21.
These claims are similar; the same rationale for rejection applies.
Regarding claim 29: see also claim 22.
These claims are similar; the same rationale for rejection applies.
Regarding claim 30: see also claim 23.
These claims are similar; the same rationale for rejection applies.
Regarding claim 31: see also claim 24.
These claims are similar; the same rationale for rejection applies.
Regarding claim 32: see also claim 25.
These claims are similar; the same rationale for rejection applies.
Regarding claim 33: see also claim 19.
Bradski teaches: a computer-implemented system (Fig. 1: 10 system), comprising: one or more computers (Fig. 1: 12 devices ); and one or more computer memory devices interoperably coupled with the one or more computers (para. 185, 189-190, the devices can be interoperaby coupled with have memory local to Fig. 1: 12, 14 or 11)) and having tangible, non-transitory, machine-readable media storing one or more instructions that, when executed by the one or more computers (para. 194, the devices can have executable code stored in memory on the device), perform one or more operations, comprising:
The operations correspond to the method of claim 19; the same rationale for rejection applies.
Regarding claim 34: see also claim 20.
These claims are similar; the same rationale for rejection applies.
.
Regarding claim 35: see also claim 21.
These claims are similar; the same rationale for rejection applies.
Regarding claim 36: see also claim 22.
These claims are similar; the same rationale for rejection applies.
Regarding claim 37: see also claim 23.
These claims are similar; the same rationale for rejection applies.
Regarding claim 38: see also claim 24.
These claims are similar; the same rationale for rejection applies.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, relevant to virtual and augmented reality image processing/rendering.
* * * * *
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sarah Lhymn whose telephone number is (571)270-0632. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00 AM to 6:00 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, 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.
Sarah Lhymn
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2613
/Sarah Lhymn/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2613
Prosecution Insights