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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to all claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection (see below).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krauss et al. (US Pub. No. 2014/0049558 A1) in view of Wang (US Pub. No. 2024/0094831 A1).
As to claims 1, 8 and 9, Krauss shows an information processing device (including control device 102, see-through display device 108, computing device 106, etc., Fig. 1 and paras. 21 and 22), an associated methodology (Fig. 11 and para. 51) and computer program (Fig. 13 and paras. 60 – 63). comprising: a captured image obtaining section 206 (Figs. 2 and 3 and para. 25) configured to obtain a captured image resulting from capturing a front of a user wearing a head-mounted display (Fig. 4B and para. 32); an estimating section (i.e. depth sensor 206, for example, Figs. 2 and 3 and para. 25) configured to estimate a position of a controller including a gripping portion (joystick 402b for example, Fig. 4B and para. 33) to be gripped by the user on a basis of the captured image in which the controller appears (Fig. 4B and para. 33); and a display control section (204, Figs. 2 and 3 and para. 25) configured to display the captured image resulting from capturing the front of the user on the head-mounted display (Fig. 4B and paras. 25 and 32); the display control section being configured to further display a first object (arrow 610, for example, Fig. 6B and para. 40) indicating a part to be gripped by the user together with the captured image on a basis of an estimation result of the position of the controller (Fig. 6B and para. 40).
Krauss does not show that the device estimates a position of a controller based on determining a respective position of a plurality of markers arranged on a surface of the controller.
Wang shows that an electronic device estimates a position of a controller 10A based on determining a respective position of a plurality of markers 96 arranged on a surface of the controller (Fig. 3 and para. 49).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of fling to modify the teachings of Krauss with those of Wang because designing the system in this way allows the device to track the location of the controller device relative to an external object such as a surface (para. 50).
As to claim 2, Krauss shows that the display control section further displays the first object indicating the part to be gripped in a vicinity of the gripping portion of the controller appearing in the captured image on the basis of the estimation result of the position of the controller (Fig. 6B and para. 40).
As to claims 19 and 30, Wang shows that the plurality of markers comprises one or more light sources configured to emit light in association with the plurality of markers (Fig. 3 and para. 49).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of fling to modify the teachings of Krauss with those of Wang because designing the system in this way allows the device to track the location of the controller device relative to an external object such as a surface (para. 50).
Claims 3, 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krauss as modified above by Wang in view of Yokokawa (US Pub. No. 2022/0163800 A1).
As to claim 3, Krauss shows that the display control section displays the first object indicating a part through which to interact with the controller appearing in the captured image on the basis of the estimation result of the position of the controller (i.e. arrow indicated which direction to grasp the joystick, Fig. 6B and para. 40).
Krauss does not show that the controller further includes a curved portion for insertion of a hand by the user.
Yokokawa shows that a controller further includes a curved portion for insertion of a hand by the user (Figs. 5 – 9 and para. 42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of fling to modify the teachings of Krauss as modified above with those of Yokokawa because designing the system in this way allows the device to provide training to a user to interact with different types of controllers (para. 42).
As to claim 4, Krauss shows that the display control section further displays a second object (i.e. shaded overlay 612, for example, Fig. 6C and para. 40).
Krauss does not show that the object moves in a direction in which to insert a hand in a vicinity of the controller appearing in the captured image.
Yokokawa shows training methodology demonstrating how to insert a hand in a vicinity of the controller appearing in the captured image (Figs. 5 – 9 and para. 42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of fling to modify the teachings of Krauss as modified above with those of Yokokawa because designing the system in this way allows the device to provide training to a user to interact with different types of controllers (para. 42).
As to claim 7, Krauss shows that the display control section displays the first object in a case where the controller appears in the captured image and a distance between the head-mounted display and the controller is equal to or less than a predetermined threshold value (i.e. based on gaze direction/depth, paras. 25 and 26).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 6 and 10 – 18 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.
Specifically, claim 5 recites “… the display control section sets the second object in a non-display state in a case where a non- stationary state of the controller continues for a first time or more.”
The prior art does not show this configuration; therefore this claim contains allowable subject matter.
Claim 6 recites “… the display control section resumes the display of the second object in a case where a stationary state of the controller continues for a second time or more, the second time being longer than the first time, after the non-stationary state of the controller continues for the first time or more and the second object is set in a non-display state.”
The prior art does not show this configuration; therefore this claim contains allowable subject matter.
Claim 10 recites “…wherein estimating the position of the controller further comprises: determining, based on an arrangement of the plurality of markers, an observed value corresponding to the position of the controller; determining, based on sensor data corresponding to a movement of the controller, an initial estimation of the position of the controller; and determining, based on the observed value and the initial estimation of the position of the controller, the estimation result of the position of the controller.”
The prior art does not show this configuration; therefore this claim contains allowable subject matter.
Claims 11 and 12 recite similar subject matter as that of claim 10, and therefore contain allowable subject matter for the reasons above.
Claim 13 recites “… wherein estimating the position of the controller further comprises: determining, based on an estimation error corresponding to the initial estimation of the position of the controller, a Kalman gain; and determining the estimation result of the position of the controller based on correcting the initial estimation of the position of the controller using the Kalman gain.”
The prior art does not show this configuration; therefore this claim contains allowable subject matter.
Claims 14 and 15 recite similar subject matter as that of claim 13, and therefore contain allowable subject matter for the reasons above.
Claim 16 recites “… wherein the one or more processors are further configured to, subsequent to displaying the first object: adjust the first object to a non-display state based on contact of the user with the controller being detected.”
The prior art does not show this configuration; therefore this claim contains allowable subject matter.
Claims 17 and 18 recite similar subject matter as that of claim 16, and therefore contain allowable subject matter for the reasons 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 CARL ADAMS whose telephone number is (571)270-7448. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9AM - 5PM 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, Ke Xiao can be reached at 571-272-7776. 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.
/CARL ADAMS/Examiner, Art Unit 2627