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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Amendments
Claims 2, 10 and 18 have been canceled and as such the objections and rejections to the canceled claims have been withdrawn as moot.
Claims 3-7, 11-15 and 19-20 have been amended to correct for the previous claim objections and as such the objections are withdrawn.
Claims 9 and 11-16 have been amended to correct for the previous rejection made pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 112 and as such the rejection is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant’s correspondence, filed 6/29/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 3-9, 11-17, and 19-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive in part.
First applicant argues that Ahmed fails to teach performing feature analysis on an environmental depth map to obtain a feature point of a target object (see pages 10-11 of Applications correspondence filed 6/29/2026). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant has not provided any clarity as to what “feature analysis” is required. As such, any identification of a point in a 3D coordinate space representing the object would be read on by the claim. Ahmed teaches converting a 2D marker into 3D space and then mapping the positions of the 3D coordinates of the marker with a BIM model coordinate space, where the identification of point to point correspondence includes “feature analysis” under the broadest reasonable interpretation (see Ahmed, ¶67: a virtual representation of the detected 2D marker is determined with respect to the electronic device within a 3D space, such as determining 3D coordinates within the 3D space of at least three points on 2D marker, and given the virtual representation, the measured location data for the plurality of locations may be correlated with a plurality of points defined with respect to the virtual representation of the 2D marker to determine a mapping between the three-dimensional space and the construction site – i.e. mapping results in obtaining a feature point of a physical object, which is merely a data point in a coordinate system; ¶70: The locations of the set of control markers surrounding the 2D marker and/or the 2D marker itself may be obtained in a coordinate system that is also used to define the BIM, such as a global coordinate system or a site-specific coordinate system, with location of 2D marker accurately defined in 3D with respect to Building Information Model (BIM) – i.e. the particular coordinate system is an “environment parameter”; ¶73: a position and orientation (e.g., a six-degrees-of-freedom-6DOF pose) of a 2D marker may be determined in at least two different coordinate systems: a camera and/or tracking coordinate system and an extrinsic coordinate system that is the coordinate system of a BIM). Accordingly, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Further regarding claim 1, applicant argues that Ahmed fails to teach feature analysis is performed “based on a target environment parameter of the three-dimensional computer-generated environment in a computation coordinate system” (see page 11 of applicant’s correspondence filed 6/29/2029). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., some particular definition of “target environment parameter”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Applicant’s claim merely recites any “environmental parameter”, which under the broadest reasonable interpretation merely needs to be some value tied to both the feature analysis and the 3D environment. Ahmed teaches using the BIM coordinate system for both the BIM and the identified 3D marker points which is read on by the claims (see Ahmed, ¶70: The locations of the set of control markers surrounding the 2D marker and/or the 2D marker itself may be obtained in a coordinate system that is also used to define the BIM, such as a global coordinate system or a site-specific coordinate system, with location of 2D marker accurately defined in 3D with respect to Building Information Model (BIM) – i.e. the particular coordinate system is an “environment parameter”; ¶73: a position and orientation (e.g., a six-degrees-of-freedom-6DOF pose) of a 2D marker may be determined in at least two different coordinate systems: a camera and/or tracking coordinate system and an extrinsic coordinate system that is the coordinate system of a BIM). Accordingly, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Third, applicant argues that Ahmed fails to teach “a feature point of a target physical object” of “the target physical objects being calibrated” (see page 11 of applicant’s correspondence filed 6/29/2026). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., calibration of the physical object) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). At most, the claim merely states that a calibration model of the physical object is used for calibration, but as to the calibration of the physical object itself is not claimed. The recited calibration model can merely be some data model such as a transform, related to the physical object, as opposed to being used for the physical object calibration. If such is intended, applicant should amend explicitly state that the system calibrates the physical object itself using the model. Accordingly, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Fourth, applicant argues that the transformation of Ahmed does is not used “to determine calibration composition data of the target physical object” (see page 12 of applicant’s correspondence filed 6/29/2026). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
This argument is not persuasive for essentially the same reason as applicant’s third argument. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., calibration of the physical object) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). At most, the claim merely states that a calibration model of the physical object is used for calibration, but as to the calibration of the physical object itself is not claimed. The recited calibration model can merely be some data model such as a transform, related to the physical object, as opposed to being used for the physical object calibration. If such is intended, applicant should amend explicitly state that the system calibrates the physical object itself using the model. Accordingly, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
The scope of the claims, however, have changed based on applicant’s amendments, and with the additional limitations, the scope of how the different coordinate systems are used has also changed, and are not explicitly taught by Ahmed alone. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Dillen.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 11 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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, 4, 6, 9, 12, 14, 17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
Ahmed et al. (US 2025/0086830 A1) in view of
Dillen (US 2023/0377276 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Ahmed discloses:
An electronic device, (Ahmed, Figs. 2A-2B and ¶49: headset) comprising:
A processor, and a memory configured to store a computer program, wherein the processor is configured to invoke and run the computer program stored in the memory to implement operations (Ahmed, Figs. 2A and 2B and ¶50: processor 208; Also ¶56: processor 268 and memory unit 270, storage device 271; ¶59: processor 208 configured to load instructions from storage device 211 into memory 210 for execution, with similar process performed for processor 268, to perform disclosed methods) comprising:
At an electronic device configured to communicate with a display generation component and one or more input devices: (Ahmed, Fig. 2A and ¶52: augmented reality glasses; ¶53: augmented reality glasses having display device 255a/b for displaying augmented reality media content to user; ¶55: eye tracking and motion sensors for monitoring movement of augmented reality glasses; also ¶56: input/output device 272)
Displaying, via the display generation component, a three-dimensional computer-generated environment (Ahmed, Figs. 1A and 1B and ¶46: user wears headset to view a virtual image of internal partitions defined in Building Information Model (BIM) aligned with part-constructed portions of building; Note background ¶2 disclosing use for 3D model BIM);
Perform feature analysis on an environmental depth map corresponding to the three-dimensional computer-generated environment, based on an environment parameter of the three-dimensional computer-generated environment in a computation coordinate system, to obtain a feature point of a physical object (Examiner notes that “corresponding to the three-dimensional computer-generated environment” merely means that the environmental depth map is merely connected to, associated with or related to the 3D generated environment, but is not necessarily equivalent; This step is not necessarily performed in any required sequence to the displaying step; Furthermore, the “environmental parameter” merely needs to be some value tied to both the feature analysis and the 3D environment, but the claim is not specific as to what this parameter is, other than generically reciting it as “an environmental parameter”;
Ahmed, ¶45: SLAM performed on construction site 1 – where SLAM is “environment depth map”; ¶57: camera integrated in headset for performing SLAM; ¶60: 2D marker used to initialize/configure transformation between a coordinate system used by SLAM positioning system and coordinate system used by BIM; ¶67: a virtual representation of the detected 2D marker is determined with respect to the electronic device within a 3D space, such as determining 3D coordinates within the 3D space of at least three points on 2D marker, and given the virtual representation, the measured location data for the plurality of locations may be correlated with a plurality of points defined with respect to the virtual representation of the 2D marker to determine a mapping between the three-dimensional space and the construction site – i.e. mapping results in obtaining a feature point of a physical object, which is merely a data point in a coordinate system; ¶70: The locations of the set of control markers surrounding the 2D marker and/or the 2D marker itself may be obtained in a coordinate system that is also used to define the BIM, such as a global coordinate system or a site-specific coordinate system, with location of 2D marker accurately defined in 3D with respect to Building Information Model (BIM) – i.e. the particular coordinate system is an “environment parameter”; ¶73: a position and orientation (e.g., a six-degrees-of-freedom-6DOF pose) of a 2D marker may be determined in at least two different coordinate systems: a camera and/or tracking coordinate system and an extrinsic coordinate system that is the coordinate system of a BIM)
Determining calibration composition data of the physical object in the computation coordinate system, based on three-dimensional pose information of the feature point in the computation coordinate system; and (Ahmend, ¶21 discloses determining a pose, including position and orientation of a camera based on captured 2D image markers, and allows a transformation mapping between the origin of the camera coordinate system and the origin coordinate system of the BIM, which is a real world coordinate system of the BIM; Also ¶26: The two-dimensional marker is then represented in a virtual space following capture by a camera and this virtual representation is correlated with the positions of the measured plurality points to determine a mapping between a (virtual) three-dimensional space and the actual physical construction site (e.g., as defined in a geodetic or geographic coordinate system); ¶73: a position and orientation (e.g., a six-degrees-of-freedom-6DOF pose) of a 2D marker may be determined in at least two different coordinate systems: a camera and/or tracking coordinate system and an extrinsic coordinate system that is the coordinate system of a BIM – i.e. the pose and orientation of the plurality of marker points in the BIM coordinate system is “calibration composition data”)
Determine a calibration model of the physical object in a (Ahmed, ¶73: a position and orientation (e.g., a six-degrees-of-freedom-6DOF pose) of a 2D marker may be determined in at least two different coordinate systems: a camera and/or tracking coordinate system and an extrinsic coordinate system that is the coordinate system of a BIM, such that a mapping or transformation between the two coordinate systems may be determined such that the pose of the 2D marker with respect to the construction site is known)
Ahmed does not explicitly teach use of a rendering coordinate system. However, it was known at the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a rendering coordinate system, can be obtained based on using a transform between coordinate systems for presenting audio-visual data.
Dillen disclose:
Determine a calibration model of the physical object in a rendering coordinate system, based on the calibration composition data and a coordinate offset between the computation coordinate system and the rendering coordinate system (Dillen, ¶19 discloses a system for aligning data based on user head movement, where a mapper maps the input poses to rendering poses in a rendering coordinate system in response to user head movement data, the rendering coordinate system fixed with respect to the head movement, wherein each rendering category is linked with a coordinate system transform from a real world coordinate system to a category coordinate system, the coordinate system transform being different for different categories and at least one category coordinate system being variable with respect to the real world coordinate system and the rendering coordinate system; ¶183: an adaptation of the rendering may be introduced by the coordinate system transform of the rendering category being with respect to a reference that may vary with respect to the (typically real world) coordinate system which indicates the head movement, e.g., based on the user movement, some compensation may be applied to the head movement data, e.g. to offset for some movement of the user as a whole)
Both Ahmed and Dillen are directed to systems and techniques for aligning objects in augmented reality systems based on transformations between coordinate systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the system and technique for coordinating positional coordinate data to align virtual objects for proper placement in physical environments for augmented reality as provided by Ahmed, including the additional transformation of data to a rendering coordinate system as provided by Dillen, using known electronic interfacing and programming techniques. The additional use of the rendering system based on user head movement allows “improved operation, increased flexibility, reduced complexity, facilitated implementation, an improved user experience, a more consistent perception of an audio and/or visual scene, improved customization, improved personalization; an improved virtual reality experience, and/or improved performance and/or operation would be advantageous” (Dillen, ¶17).
Regarding claim 1, the claimed method is the same as the implemented operations of claim 9, and as such claim 1 is rejected based on the same rationale as claim 9 set forth above.
Regarding claim 17, Ahmed discloses:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program, wherein the computer program causes a computer to perform operations (Ahmed, Figs. 2A and 2B and ¶50: processor 208; Also ¶56: processor 268 and memory unit 270, storage device 271; ¶59: processor 208 configured to load instructions from storage device 211 into memory 210 for execution, with similar process performed for processor 268, to perform disclosed methods; also note claim 20 of Ahmed directed to non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions for execution)
Further regarding claim 17, the operations implement the method of claim 1 and as such claim 17 is further rejected based on the same rationale as claim 1 set forth above.
Regarding claim 12, Ahmed further discloses:
Wherein the determining the calibration composition data of the physical object in the computation coordinate system, based on three-dimensional pose information of the feature point in the computation coordinate system comprises: determining a calibration representation of the physical object based on the three-dimensional pose information of the feature point in the computation coordinate system (Ahmed, ¶44: feature based SLAM systems for marker based positioning system; ¶48: headwear with sensors using active markers and camera devices for SLAM navigation; ¶67: Determining a virtual representation may comprise determining 3D coordinates within the 3D space of at least three points on the 2D marker (e.g., the 3D coordinate of each corner of the 2D marker)); and
Determining, based on the calibration representation, at least one spatial anchor point of the physical object and boundary information associated with the spatial anchor point, to constitute the calibration composition data of the physical object in the computation coordinate system. (Ahmed, ¶60: 2D markers are mounted in place on structure – see Figs. 3A-3F and ¶63, where Marker has boundary 334; ¶67 discloses determining a virtual representation of the 2D marker with respect to the electronic device HMD within a 3D space by determining a plane or polygon forming the 2D marker in 3D space with respect to the camera or electronic device, where the virtual representation comprises determining the 3D coordinates within the 3D space of the at least three points on the 2D marker – i.e. the polygon boundary information associated with the points used as 3D positional data of the 2D marker determined from the identified 2D marker point, which can be corners of the 2D marker, and given the virtual representation, the measured location data for the plurality of locations may be correlated with a plurality of points defined with respect to the virtual representation of the 2D marker to determine a mapping between the three-dimensional space and the construction site – note any feature point used as corner for determining polygon is an anchor point for maker, determined from 3D positional data of identified points in image)
Regarding claim 4, the claimed method is the same as the implemented operations of claim 12, and as such claim 4 is rejected based on the same rationale as claim 12 set forth above.
Regarding claim 20, the limitations included from claim 18 are rejected based on the same rationale as claim 18 set forth above. Further regarding claim 20, the operations further implement the method of claim 4 and as such claim 20 is further rejected based on the same rationale as claim 4 set forth above.
Regarding claim 14, Ahmed further discloses:
Wherein the determining a calibration model of the target physical object in a (Ahmed, ¶60: initialize or configure a transformation between a coordinate system used by at least one positioning system and a coordinate system used by the Building Information Model (BIM); ¶86: A user wearing the headset 530 and viewing an augmented reality display such as augmented reality glasses 250 needs to view the BIM 512 aligned to the current pose of the headset 530, i.e. positions and orientations within the BIM coordinate system 512 need to be mapped to the positioning coordinate system 534, using point-to-point transformation, defining the relative rotation and translation between the origins of the coordinate systems for the BIM and the positioning system; ¶88 further disclosing transformation between coordinate systems for accurate placement of the 2D marker within the system coordinates; ¶73: a position and orientation (e.g., a six-degrees-of-freedom-6DOF pose) of a 2D marker may be determined in at least two different coordinate systems: a camera and/or tracking coordinate system and an extrinsic coordinate system that is the coordinate system of a BIM, such that a mapping or transformation between the two coordinate systems may be determined such that the pose of the 2D marker with respect to the construction site is known)
Ahmed does not explicitly teach use of a rendering coordinate system. However, it was known at the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a rendering coordinate system, can be obtained based on using a transform between coordinate systems for presenting audio-visual data.
Dillen disclose:
Determine a calibration model of the physical object in a rendering coordinate system, based on the calibration composition data and a coordinate offset between the computation coordinate system and the rendering coordinate system comprises: performing a coordinate transformation on the composition data by using the coordinate offset between the computation coordinate system and the rendering coordinate system, to obtain a pose of the target physical object in the rendering coordinate system; and determining, based on the pose, the calibration model of the target physical object in the rendering coordinate system. (Dillen, ¶19 discloses a system for aligning data based on user head movement, where a mapper maps the input poses to rendering poses in a rendering coordinate system in response to user head movement data, the rendering coordinate system fixed with respect to the head movement, wherein each rendering category is linked with a coordinate system transform from a real world coordinate system to a category coordinate system, the coordinate system transform being different for different categories and at least one category coordinate system being variable with respect to the real world coordinate system and the rendering coordinate system; ¶183: an adaptation of the rendering may be introduced by the coordinate system transform of the rendering category being with respect to a reference that may vary with respect to the (typically real world) coordinate system which indicates the head movement, e.g., based on the user movement, some compensation may be applied to the head movement data, e.g. to offset for some movement of the user as a whole)
Both Ahmed and Dillen are directed to systems and techniques for aligning objects in augmented reality systems based on transformations between coordinate systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the system and technique for coordinating positional coordinate data to align virtual objects for proper placement in physical environments for augmented reality as provided by Ahmed, including the additional transformation of data to a rendering coordinate system as provided by Dillen, using known electronic interfacing and programming techniques. The additional use of the rendering system based on user head movement allows “improved operation, increased flexibility, reduced complexity, facilitated implementation, an improved user experience, a more consistent perception of an audio and/or visual scene, improved customization, improved personalization; an improved virtual reality experience, and/or improved performance and/or operation would be advantageous” (Dillen, ¶17).
Regarding claim 6, the claimed method is the same as the implemented operations of claim 14, and as such claim 6 is rejected based on the same rationale as claim 14 set forth above.
Claim(s) 5 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
Ahmed et al. (US 2025/0086830 A1) in view of
Dillen (US 2023/0377276 A1) and in further view of
Wong (US 2025/0111522 A1).
Regarding claim 13, the limitations included from claim 12 are rejected based on the same rationale as claim 12 set forth above. Further regarding claim 13, Ahmed further discloses:
Wherein the calibration representation of the physical object comprises (Ahmed, ¶60: 2D markers are mounted in place on structure – see Figs. 3A-3F and ¶63, where Marker has boundary 334; ¶67 discloses determining a virtual representation of the 2D marker with respect to the electronic device HMD within a 3D space by determining a plane or polygon forming the 2D marker in 3D space with respect to the camera or electronic device, where the virtual representation comprises determining the 3D coordinates within the 3D space of the at least three points on the 2D marker)
Further more, Ahmed discloses use of positioning with stereo cameras (Ahmed, ¶35) and for system using stereoscopic display HMD (Ahmed, ¶53: attached to, or incorporated in, each of the eye regions 253a, 253b is a respective transparent or semi-transparent display device 255a, 255b for displaying augmented reality media content to a user) The only limitation not explicitly taught is that the calibration representation includes a three dimensional stereoscopic graph as well as a 2D planar graph. Examiner notes that the applicant’s specification discloses the 3D graph as a box and the 2D graph as a plane, and that a 3D graph would also include the 2D plane as one side.
Wong discloses:
Wherein the calibration representation of the physical object comprises a three-dimensional stereoscopic graph and a two-dimensional planar graph for enclosing the physical object (Wong, Figs. 3-4 and ¶33: the virtual images corresponding to the tracking apparatus 2 are respectively displayed at the positions of the first virtual calibration coordinate VCC1 and the second virtual calibration coordinate VCC2, where the hand HD of the user using the head-mounted device HMD holds the tracking apparatus 2 and prepares to move the tracking apparatus 2 to the positions of the first virtual calibration coordinate VCC1 and the second virtual calibration coordinate VCC2; ¶35: as shown in FIG. 4, in the image window WIN2 of the head-mounted device HMD, the processor 13 determines whether the tracking apparatus 2 has moved to the first virtual calibration coordinate VCC1 (e.g., the tracking apparatus 2 is overlapped with the virtual image; ¶47 discloses three-dimensional space calibration based VCC1)
Both Ahmed and Wong are directed to calibration of alignment of virtual and physical data for use in augmented reality. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the system and technique for coordinating positional coordinate data to align virtual objects for proper placement in physical environments for augmented reality as provided by Ahmed, including the additional transformation of data to a rendering coordinate system as provided by Dillen, by using a 3D virtual box as an alignment object as provided by Wong, using known electronic interfacing and programming techniques. The modification merely substitutes one known alignment element for calibrating the alignment of coordinate data for proper visualization of virtual elements combined with physical elements in augmented reality for another, yielding predictable results of utilizing a three-dimensional alignment object. Moreover the modification results in an improved augmented reality device alignment by accounting for an additional visual alignment indicator by allowing for user to more easily ensure the augmented reality system is properly calibrated and allowing for an additional axes check, providing more data for performing calibration and potentially ensuring even better fit between virtual and world coordinate space.
Regarding claim 5, the claimed method is the same as the implemented operations of claim 13, and as such claim 5 is rejected based on the same rationale as claim 13 set forth above.
Claim(s) 7-8 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
Ahmed et al. (US 2025/0086830 A1) in view of
Dillen (US 2023/0377276 A1) and in further view of
Gibby et al. (US 2020/0186786 A1).
Regarding claim 15, the limitations included from claim 14 are rejected based on the same rationale as claim 14 set forth above. Further regarding claim 15, Gibby discloses:
Wherein the determining, based on the calibration pose, the calibration model of the target physical object in the rendering coordinate system comprises: presenting, based on the calibration pose, a preview model of the target physical object in the three-dimensional computer-generated environment (Gibby, ¶15: a user can view an optical code (e.g. a real view of an optical code) through an AR headset, where the optical code may be a 2D bar code, a QR code, linear bar code, an AprilTag, or another optical code that is visible to cameras or sensors of the AR headset, and user aligns a virtual image with optical code; ¶23: alignment marker 108 projected onto holographic lenses of AR headset to enable alignment marker 108 to be aligned with optical code 106, where AR headset projects alignment marker 108 in a position using a default interpupillary distance with which the AR headset is programed, but due to individual eye location variations of user, the alignment marker may not actually align with optical code 106 as viewed by user through AR headset; ¶34: this technology enables calibration of a user's individual eye positions using a printed optical code that the AR headset detects and then computes the 3D position of the optical code, with virtual representation of code displayed in proximity to physical optical code);
In response to calibration adjustment on the preview model, updating the calibration pose (Gibby, ¶15: user moves or drags graphical marker until aligned with optical code as viewed from eye of user; ¶17: delta values or changes for the eye position settings for modifying where the virtual images or objects are projected for the individual user can be stored as a user setting or a user profile for each individual user in a user preferences database on the AR headset); and
In response to calibration confirmation on the preview model, presenting, based on the updated calibration pose, the calibration model of the target physical object in the three-dimensional computer-generated environment. (Gibby, ¶15: ser moves or drags graphical marker until aligned with optical code as viewed from eye of user; Fig. 3 and ¶¶32-33: projected graphical marker 308 which user selects and drags until aligned with optical code 306; ¶37 discloses printed calibration page; Note that the use of the code is for calibration of 3D computer generated environment, as discussed in ¶40 which discloses the anchoring of the image data to a position in real-world space, within 3D image data set)
Both Ahmed and Gibby are directed to calibration of alignment of virtual and physical data for use in augmented reality. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the system and technique for coordinating positional coordinate data to align virtual objects for proper placement in physical environments for augmented reality as provided by Ahmed, including the additional transformation of data to a rendering coordinate system as provided by Dillen, by providing additional adjustments by a user to better align the data for more accurate presentation of augmented reality as provided by Gibby, using known electronic interfacing and programming techniques. The modification results in an improved augmented reality experience by allowing proper visualization of data to a specific user’s vision (see e.g. ¶3 and ¶18 of Gibby explaining need and improvement).
Regarding claim 7, the claimed method is the same as the implemented operations of claim 15, and as such claim 7 is rejected based on the same rationale as claim 15 set forth above.
Regarding claim 16, the limitations included from claim 9 are rejected based on the same rationale as claim 9 set forth above. Further regarding claim 16, Wong discloses:
Determining a plurality of pre-configured application coordinate systems, and recording a coordinate offset between the computation coordinate system and each of the application coordinate systems, to determine the coordinate offset between the computation coordinate system and the rendering coordinate system (Gibby: ¶27: The eye adjustments may be transformed into an interpupillary distance (IPD) between the right eye and left eye of a user by computing and then modifying a stored interpupillary distance containing the right eye adjustments and left eye adjustments. The updated interpupillary distance (IPD) may then be applied as the eye adjustment in the AR headset. The virtual objects may be projected onto holographic lenses, waveguides diffraction gratings, or similar optical materials of the AR headset using the revised interpupillary distance (IPD). The revised interpupillary distance (IPD) for a distance between the eyes of the user may be stored in a user profile for each individual user of the AR headset. Alternatively, the right eye adjustments and the left eye adjustments may be stored in a user profile as a specific eye position for each eye (e.g., X and Y delta values); ¶28: The right eye adjustments and left eye adjustments may be created by referencing an adjustment to a position of the wireframe in two axes for both the right eye and left eye of the user – i.e. two coordinate systems, one for each eye, and performing adjustments for each eye to obtain the proper offset of virtual object data for proper display based on personal user’s pupils)
Both Ahmed and Gibby are directed to calibration of alignment of virtual and physical data for use in augmented reality. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the system and technique for coordinating positional coordinate data to align virtual objects for proper placement in physical environments for augmented reality as provided by Ahmed, including the additional transformation of data to a rendering coordinate system as provided by Dillen, by providing additional adjustments by a user to better align the data for more accurate presentation of augmented reality using adjustments for both eyes of a user as provided by Gibby, using known electronic interfacing and programming techniques. The modification results in an improved augmented reality experience by allowing proper visualization of data to a specific user’s vision (see e.g. ¶3 and ¶18 of Gibby explaining need and improvement).
Regarding claim 8, the claimed method is the same as the implemented operations of claim 16, and as such claim 8 is rejected based on the same rationale as claim 16 set forth above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM A BEUTEL whose telephone number is (571)272-3132. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 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, DANIEL HAJNIK can be reached at 571-272-7642. 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.
/WILLIAM A BEUTEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2616
Prosecution Insights