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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ebstyne et al (US Pub 2015/0317832 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Ebstyne et al teaches a system comprising: a memory (26 in Fig. 1); and at least one hardware processor (28 in Fig. 1) coupled to the memory and comprising one or more processors that cause the system to perform operations (Fig. 1; Paragraph 0016) comprising:
accessing a first set of tracking indicia at a client device (see Paragraph 0024; “ In some examples, the computing device 22 may take the form of a desktop computing device, a mobile computing device such as a smart phone, laptop, notebook or tablet computer, network computer, home entertainment computer, interactive television, set-top box, gaming system, or other suitable type of computing device.”) ;
tracking a position of an object in 6 degrees of freedom (6DoF) within a three-dimensional space based on the first set of tracking indicia (See Fig.8; Paragraph [0052] “The tracking system 14 may receive sensor data 46 from a plurality of sensors 808 located on HMD device 36 and/or computing device 22. The sensor data 46 may provide location and orientation information in six degrees of freedom (e.g., x, y, z, pitch, roll, yaw). For example, the plurality of sensors 808 may include optical sensors and pose sensors as described above. As discussed in more detail below with respect to FIG. 9, the sensors 808 may include any suitable number and/or combination of sensors for determining a position, orientation, and/or other movement characteristics of the HMD device 36 in up to six degrees of freedom.”);
detecting a trigger event; accessing a second set of tracking indicia at the client device responsive to the trigger event (See Paragraph [0050] It will be appreciated that many other forms of user input 68 may be used to trigger the display of the feedback of an estimated quality level. In some examples, such user input 68 may be passive, such as the example above of the user 50 walking from the hallway 702 into the room 610. In other examples, the user input 68 may be explicit, such as the user 50 speaking verbal instructions to launch an augmented reality application 64 that utilizes the world-lock display mode 44.”); and
tracking the position of the object in 3 degrees of freedom (3DoF) based on the second set of tracking indicia (See Fig.8; Paragraph [0022] “The body-lock display mode 48 may be associated with a three degree of freedom (3DOF) tracking filter 820 that may operate in parallel with the 6DOF tracking filter 816. The 3DOF tracking filter 820 estimates an orientation of the HMD device 36 in three degrees of freedom (e.g., pitch, roll, yaw). For example, the estimate in three degrees of freedom may be determined using information from pose sensors that do not rely on optical data. Accordingly, the 3DOF tracking filter 820 may operate consistently during conditions in which the 6DOF tracking filter 816 may provide a degraded augmented reality experience.”).
Regarding Claims 2, 9, 16, Ebstyne et al teaches the system wherein the detecting the trigger event includes detecting an interruption in one or more tracking indicia from among the first set of tracking indicia (See Paragraph [0050] “It will be appreciated that many other forms of user input 68 may be used to trigger the display of the feedback 42 of an estimated quality level. In some examples, such user input 68 may be passive, such as the example above of the user 50 walking from the hallway 702 into the room 610. In other examples, the user input 68 may be explicit, such as the user 50 speaking verbal instructions to launch an augmented reality application 64 that utilizes the world-lock display mode 44.”).
Regarding Claims 3, 10, 17, Ebstyne et al teaches the system wherein the first set of tracking indicia and the second set of tracking indicia include one or more of: pitch; yaw; roll (See Paragraph [0018] “…. With reference also to the tracking system 14 shown in FIG. 8, the world-lock display mode 44 may be associated with a six degree of freedom (6DOF) tracking filter 816 that estimates a location and an orientation of the HMD device 36 in six degrees of freedom (e.g., x, y, z, pitch, roll, yaw).”); and
translation (See Paragraph [0058] In one example, acceleration data from an accelerometer may be analyzed to determine an input uncertainty value for a translation component”).
Regarding Claims 4, 11, 18, Ebstyne et al teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the set of tracking indicia comprise at least six tracking indicia (See Paragraph [0072] “… For example, the HMD device 900 may also include a head tracking system 912 that utilizes one or more pose sensors, such as pose sensors 914 on HMD device 900, to capture head pose data and thereby enable position tracking, direction/location and orientation sensing, and/or motion detection of the wearer's head. Accordingly and as described above, the tracking system 14 of FIG. 8 may receive sensor data from pose sensors 914 that enable the orientation of the HMD device to be estimated in three degrees of freedom or the location and orientation of the HMD device to be estimated in six degrees of freedom.”).
Regarding Claims 5, 12, 19, Ebstyne et al teaches the system wherein the system includes a tracking sub-system that includes one or more of a simultaneous localization and mapping tracking system. (see Paragraph [0002] “ “Simultaneous localization and mapping systems may provide augmented reality experiences. Typically, such tracking and mapping systems are dependent upon illumination and other visual aspects of the environment in which the user is operating. …”).
Regarding Claims 6, 13, 20, Ebstyne et al teaches the system further comprising: causing display of a media object at the client device based on the position of the object. (see Paragraph [0073] “… The orientation derived from the sensor signals of the IMU may be used to display, via the transparent display 904, one or more virtual objects with a body-locked position in which the position of each virtual object appears to be fixed relative to the wearer of the see-through display and the position of each virtual object appears to be moveable relative to real-world objects in the physical environment.”).
Regarding Claims 7, 14, Ebstyne et al teaches the system further comprising: receiving an input that selects the media object from among a collection of media objects; and causing display of the media object based on the position of the object in response to the input. (see Paragraph [0073] “… The orientation derived from the sensor signals of the IMU may be used to display, via the transparent display 904, one or more virtual objects with a body-locked position in which the position of each virtual object appears to be fixed relative to the wearer of the see-through display and the position of each virtual object appears to be moveable relative to real-world objects in the physical environment.”).
Regarding Claim 8, the method Claim 8 is rejected for same reason as the apparatus Claim 1, since claim limitations are same in both claims.
Regarding Claim 15, the CRM Claim 15 is rejected for same reason as the apparatus Claim 1, since claim limitations are same in both claims (the CRM non-transitory computer readable storage medium is shown in Paragraph 0090).
Conclusion
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, figures, or lines in the prior art references any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331-33, 216 USPQ 1038-39 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)).
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant’s definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIJAY SHANKAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7682. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am- 6 pm.
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, Matthew Eason can be reached at 571-270-7230. 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.
VIJAY SHANKAR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2624
/VIJAY SHANKAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2624