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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "a third set of parameters " in the parameters representing the state of the virtual hand. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 3 depends on claim 1, which does not provide antecedent basis for a first or second set of parameters. The Examiner is unable to discern whether a third set of parameters is to be interpreted as a set of parameters for each of the three hand states or a set of three parameters since there is no previous mention of a first and second set of parameters. The examiner will interpret the claim as read upon in the specification ¶ [0023] so that “the third set of parameters represent a second state of the virtual hand when it grips the object.” Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The limitation of the generation of the graphical representation of the virtual hand and its transmission between states is recited in claim 1 in its entirety. Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1-5 13-19 & 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over John Harries (Pat. Pub. US-20180359448-A1, herein after “Harries”) in view of John Johnston Et. Al. (Pat. Pub. US-10429923-B1, herein after “Johnston”).
In regard to claims 1 & 15, Harries teaches [a] method of generating a graphical representation of a virtual hand in a virtual environment including at least one object at a position, so-called position of the object, the object being intended to be gripped by the virtual hand “When a virtual avatar hand is within the embedded grasp range of an unoccupied grasp point, and a correctly oriented grasp gesture is made with the virtual avatar hand, the disclosed system provides a context appropriate pre-authored animation from a library of animations for the virtual avatar hand, and blends it with a calculated procedural animation of a kinematic chain connecting the avatar hand to the grasp point” (Harries, ¶ [0021]) where an object has a grasp point at a position, and the virtual hand in the virtual environment will grab the object at the grasp point, the method comprising:
a determination of at least a third state of the virtual hand intermediate between a first state and a second state of the virtual hand, the second state corresponding to a state of the hand gripping the object, so-called gripping state, the third state of the virtual hand being a function of the first state and of the virtual hand, and of the second state of the virtual hand “the disclosed system provides a context appropriate pre-authored animation from a library of animations for the virtual avatar hand, and blends it with a calculated procedural animation of a kinematic chain connecting the avatar hand to the grasp point” (Harries, ¶ [0021]), where an animation is used to blend the motion from not grasping to grasping. Not grasping is read as the first state, grasping is read as the second state, and the animation is read as the third state,
the third state allowing generation of a graphical representation of the virtual hand from a state of the virtual hand among the first state and the second state of the virtual hand to the third state of the virtual hand “The system can perform a procedural physical simulation embodying the physical properties, characteristics and dimensions of the virtual objects such that virtual contact of those objects with each other proceeds in a manner consistent with the real-world observation of similar objects interacting with each other” (Harries, ¶ [0035]) where a procedural physical simulation of the virtual hand grasping the object is read as a graphical representation of the virtual hand moving between the first and second states, or a third state.
Harries does not explicitly teach that the virtual hand has a first state and second state.
Johnston teaches that the virtual hand has a first state “a first state: determining whether a tip of the digit is within a tolerance distance of the virtual object” (Johnston, ¶ [0054]) and second state “whenever a tip of the digit is within the tolerance distance of the virtual object transitioning to a second state and determining whether a curl metric … is within a range defined for a grab” (Johnston, ¶ [0054]). Additionally, “whenever the curl metric for the hand is within the range defined for the grab transitioning to the second state, and presenting across a display of a head mounted device a display of the hand grabbing the virtual object” (Johnston, ¶ [0054]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of a virtual hand that can pick up objects in virtual reality without the pop by use of an animation process taught by Harries, with the method of hand states that allow the virtual hand to switch between grabbing states based on proximity taught by Johnston to produce a virtual hand state set that can be switched between based on proximity to smoothen the process of picking up a virtual object. The motivation to do so would be to remove the jarring grab process in virtual reality.
In regard to claim 15, claim 1 is substantially similar to claim 15, hence the rejection analysis for claim 1 is also applied to claim 15. Harries teach the additional limitations of [a] virtual-reality device “control the virtual reality environment in synchrony on multiple suitable devices and embodiments” (Harries, ¶ [0032]) including:
a first generator of a graphical representation of a virtual hand in a state of the virtual hand in a virtual environment (Harries, ¶ [0021]),
a second generator of a graphical representation of an object intended to be gripped by a virtual hand at a position of the object in the virtual environment “The system can provide/render full and partial avatar representations of local and external parties with local constraints, grasping objects and other avatar representations” (Harries, ¶ [0040]), and
a graphical reproducer configured to reproduce the virtual environment, the graphical representation generated of the virtual hand, and the graphical representation generated of the object (Harries, ¶ [0021]);
wherein the first generator of a graphical representation of a virtual hand includes a computer determining at least a third state of the virtual hand intermediate between a first state and a second state of the virtual hand, the second state corresponding to a state of the hand gripping the object, so-called gripping state, the third state of the virtual hand being a function of the first state of the virtual hand and second state of the virtual hand (Harries, ¶ [0021]),
the third state allowing generation of a graphical representation of the virtual hand from a state of the virtual hand among a first state and a second state of the virtual hand to the second state at the second position, passing through the third state at the third position (Harries, ¶ [0035]) & (Johnston, ¶ [0054]).
In regard to claim 2, Harries in view of Johnston teach [t]he method according to claim 1, wherein the method includes a determination, as a function of a geometry of object, of the second state of the virtual hand in a second position of the virtual hand corresponding to the position of the object “Without limitation on the extent of the geometric analysis, grasp points can also be dynamically generated with queries from the avatar representation against the stored shape of virtual objects within grasp range” (Harries, ¶ [0022]) where grasp points can be dynamically generated and mapped to the object so that the virtual hand my conform to the geometry of the object when grabbing.
In regard to claim 3, Harries in view of Johnston teach [t]he method according to claim 1, wherein a state of the virtual hand is represented by parameters of a third set of parameters “Transition criteria for the first state 60 of the state machine 100G includes checking whether a tip of a digit (e.g., thumb tip and/or tip of any of the other four fingers) (or other hand portion) of the hand lies within a tolerance distance of the object that the hand is intending to grab” (Johnston, ¶ [0075]) where a transition criteria to enter the grabbing state, or second state, is read as a parameter.
In regard to claim 4, Harries in view of Johnston teach [t]he method according to claim 1, wherein the method includes the generation of the graphical representation of the virtual hand from a state of the virtual hand among the first state and the second state of the virtual hand to the third state “The system can perform a procedural physical simulation embodying the physical properties, characteristics and dimensions of the virtual objects such that virtual contact of those objects with each other proceeds in a manner consistent with the real-world observation of similar objects interacting with each other” (Harries, ¶ [0035]) where a procedural physical simulation of the virtual hand grasping the object is read as a graphical representation of the virtual hand moving between the first and second states through a third state, or procedural simulation.
In regard to claim 5, Harries in view of Johnston teach [t]he method according to claim 1, wherein a state of the virtual hand includes a degree of closure of the virtual hand “temporal and consistent contacts between virtual objects are represented without limitation as joint constraints with authorable degrees of freedom of movement in rotation and translation and as penetration constraints between temporally maintained contact” (Harries, ¶ [0036]) where holding the object will limit the joint’s ability to completely close, giving the virtual hand a degree of closure. The act of holding an object is read as the second state of the virtual hand.
In regard to claim 13, Harries in view of Johnston teach [a] computer device for implementing the graphical-representation method according to claim 1 “experience and control the virtual reality environment in synchrony on multiple suitable devices and embodiments” (Harries, ¶ [0032]) which teaches of a computer device to implement the taught methods.
In regard to claim 14, Harries in view of Johnston teach [a] processing circuit comprising a processor and a memory, the memory storing program code instructions of a computer program to execute the control method according to claim 1, when the computer program is executed by the processor “The system 600 can have one or more processors, such as processor 610” (Harries, ¶ [0077]) where a processor executes the program and “[m]ain memory 615 provides storage of instructions and data for programs executing on processor 610” (Harries, ¶ [0079]).
In regard to claim 16, Harries in view of Johnston teach [t]he method according to claim 1, wherein the generation method is implemented prior to a reception of a gripping instruction by a virtual-reality device reproducing the virtual environment “The method can include creating, by the one or more processors on a display, a visual representation of manipulations and interactions with the one or more virtual object representations” (Harries, ¶ [0009]) where the objects are displayed to the user before they may be interacted with.
In regard to claim 17, Harries in view of Johnston teach [t]he method according to claim 1, wherein the generation method includes a verification of the satisfaction of an intention condition relating to gripping of the object by the virtual hand, the satisfaction leading to the determination of the third state of the virtual hand “When a virtual avatar hand is within the embedded grasp range of an unoccupied grasp point, and a correctly oriented grasp gesture is made with the virtual avatar hand …” (Harries, ¶ [0021]) where the embedded grasp range is read as an intention condition, and moving the virtual hand within the range is verification of the satisfaction of the intention condition which causes the hand to make a grasp gesture, or third state. The reason for this would be to “blend the local representations of avatars and objects from their true positions and orientations, … towards an expected set of positions and orientations based on temporal persistence such that movement is perceived as natural and free of jarring and pops” (Harries, ¶ [0041]).
In regard to claim 18, Harries in view of Johnston teach [t]he method according to claim 17, wherein the satisfaction of the intention condition is verified as a function of at least one parameter of the virtual hand in its current state among the first state and the second state of the hand among the following ones: a current position of the virtual hand relative to the position of the object “Transition criteria for the first state 60 of the state machine 100G includes checking whether a tip of a digit (e.g., thumb tip and/or tip of any of the other four fingers) (or other hand portion) of the hand lies within a tolerance distance of the object that the hand is intending to grab” (Johnston, ¶ [0075]), a current orientation of the virtual hand relative to the position of the object “The position and orientation of the finger relative to the HMD's interface, as determined by the motion-capture system, can be used to manipulate a cursor symbol. As will be readily apparent to one of skill in the art, many other ways of mapping the control object position and/or orientation onto a screen location can, in principle, be used” (Johnston, ¶ [0054]) where tracking the orientation.
In regard to claim 19, Harries in view of Johnston teach [t]he method according to claim 17, wherein the method comprises obtaining data representing a direction of the gaze of a user, the satisfaction of the intention parameter associated with an object being a function of gaze data indicating that the user is looking in the direction of the object “cameras 102, 104 can be oriented toward portions of a region of interest 112 by motion of the device 101, in order to view a virtually rendered or virtually augmented view of the region of interest 112 that can include a variety of virtual objects 116 as well as contain an object of interest 114” (Johnston, ¶ [0063]) where moving the device changes field of view. Field of view is read as gaze data, and objects within the field of view are rendered.
In regard to claim 21, Harries in view of Johnston teach [t]he method according to claim 1, wherein the virtual hand is in a first state at a first position in the virtual environment “a first state: determining whether a tip of the digit is within a tolerance distance of the virtual object” (Johnston, ¶ [0054]) where a first state is taught, in a second state at a second position corresponding to the position of the object “whenever the curl metric for the hand is within the range defined for the grab transitioning to the second state” (Johnston, ¶ [0054]) where a second state is taught and in a third state at a third position in the virtual environment “ transitions of a multiple state finite state machine cooperatively coupled with a curl metric and augmented by heuristics whether a grab has occurred” (Johnston, ¶ [0069]) where the curling and transitioning between the first and second states is read as the third state.
In regard to claim 22, Harries in view of Johnston teach [t]he method according to claim 1, wherein a state of the virtual hand includes an orientation of the virtual hand relative to the virtual object in the virtual environment “When a virtual avatar hand is within the embedded grasp range of an unoccupied grasp point, and a correctly oriented grasp gesture is made with the virtual avatar hand …” (Harries, ¶ [0021]) where the hand must be in a grasp range relative to the object to make a grasp gesture.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harries in view of Johnston and G Wedig (Pat. Pub. CN-112602090-A, herein after “Wedig”).
In regard to claim 20, Harries in view of Johnston teach [t]he method according to claim 4, wherein the third state of the virtual hand includes a degree of closure of the virtual hand “determining whether a curl metric defining a geometric relationship in space between a first vector defined along the digit at a point fixed by a metacarpal bone of the digit and a second vector defined at a distal bone at the tip of the digit computed for at least one digit of the hand” (Johnston, ¶ [0054]) whose so-called transition value results from a linear interpolation between the first value of the degree of closure of the virtual hand in a first state and the second value of the degree of closure of the virtual hand in a second state “one implementation blocks a closed first from grabbing a virtual object by determining a relationship between the curl metric and a maximum curl threshold defining a closed first and blocking transition to the second state whenever the curl exceeds the maximum curl threshold” (Johnston, ¶ [0080]) which teaches a curl threshold, or degree of closure for the second state from the first state.
Harries in view of Johnston fail to teach that the transition value results from a linear interpolation between the two degrees of closure.
Wedig teaches that the transition value results from a linear interpolation between the two degrees of closure “interpolating the posture of a digital character may be based on separating a linear parameter and an angle parameter indicative of the posture of the digital character” (Wedig, Page 2), additionally, “[radial basis function neural network] uses a plurality of distance measures on the space composed of two independent linear components and a 3 D angle, wherein the linear component [is subject to] the Euclidean distance metric, wherein the distance of the 3 D angle is directly calculated in the SO (3)” (Wedig, Page 3) where a transitional value can be determined using a plurality of distance measures.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of a virtual hand with a degree of closure for the second state taught by Harries and Johnston, with the method of linear interpolation to determine a distance measurement or transition value taught by Wedig to produce a virtual hand which has a degree of closure in the second state with a transitional value calculated by linear interpolation. The motivation to do so would be for the hand to know how much to close to realistically grab the object.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAIDEN ALEXANDER USSERY whose telephone number is (571)272-1192. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday* 7:30AM - 5PM.
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, Tammy Goddard can be reached at (571) 272-7773. 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.
/C.A.U./Examiner, Art Unit 2611
/TAMMY GODDARD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Prosecution Insights