Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/19/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
4. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an acquisition module, configured to capture…; a determination module, configured to determine…; a calculation module, configured to determine…; a conversion module, configured to convert…” in claim 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. According to the teachings in the specification as-published, the claimed modules are described as program or software embodied in a structure of a processor, see paragraphs 0136 and 0142. Thus, the claimed modules are interpreted to be embodied on a processor.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Specification
5. The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 2-4 and 6 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 § 101
7. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
8. Claim 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 10 recites "A computer-readable storage medium". Considering the open-ended definition of the medium in the specification, applying the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification and taking into account the meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP §2111), the claim as a whole covers both transitory and non-transitory media. A transitory medium does not fall into any of the 4 categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
11. Claim(s) 1, 5 and 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WU (US 2022/0362659) in view of Stafford et al. (US 2020/0174552) hereinafter “Stafford”.
As per claim 1, WU discloses a method for positioning and tracking, wherein the method for positioning and tracking is applied to a virtual reality (VR) head-mounted device equipped with an image acquisition device to perform positioning and tracking of a handle (paragraph 0041), and the handle is equipped with multiple light sources (FIG. 1; paragraph 0041, first light-emitting marks 3 and second light-emitting marks 4 on the optical handle controller); the method comprises:
capturing an image containing a plurality of light spots by the image acquisition device, wherein the plurality of light spots are generated by each of multiple light sources on the handle emitting invisible light (FIGs. 1-2; paragraph 0041, two or more Camera tracking Cameras built into a VR headset integrated machine, which are used to capture the first light-emitting marks 3 and second light-emitting marks 4 on the optical handle controller in real time. The first light-emitting marks 3 are in the infrared band as taught in paragraph 0050);
determining first identification data of target light sources corresponding to the plurality of light spots in the image in the multiple light sources (paragraph 0041, By detecting the position area of the second light-emitting marks 4 on an image of the handle controller, it is possible to determine on the image a rough position of the light spot of the first light-emitting marks 3 on the handle controller);
determining a positional relationship between a plurality of the target light sources according to the first identification data (paragraph 0041, After that, at the position area on the image, two-dimensional position coordinates of the light spots corresponding to the first light-emitting marks 3 and the second light-emitting marks 4 on the handle controller on the tracking Camera image are detected in real time by computer image processing algorithm. Then, two-dimensional position coordinates on the image corresponding to each first light-emitting mark 3 and each second light-emitting mark 4 on the handle controller are matched by computer vision algorithm),
However, WU does not explicitly disclose calculating a first distance parameter between the handle and the VR head-mounted device according to the positional relationship; and
converting the first distance parameter into a spatial coordinate of the handle to perform positioning and tracking of the handle.
In the same field of endeavor, Stafford discloses calculating a first distance parameter between the handle and the VR head-mounted device according to the positional relationship (such as: distance of XA1 from the reference coordinate R4, distance of YA1 from the reference coordinate R4, and distance of ZA1 from the reference coordinate R4, taught in paragraph 0129); and
converting the first distance parameter into a spatial coordinate of the handle (the position 1 is determined from the distance XA1, YA1, and ZA1, see paragraph 0129 and FIG. 6) to perform positioning and tracking of the handle (intended use statement).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to combine the elements taught by WU, with those of Stafford, because both references are drawn to the same field of endeavor, because indeed both references are related to tracking handle movement with respect to a VR head-mounted device, and because such a combination represents a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield a predictable result. This rationale applies to all combination of WU and Stafford used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
As per claim 5, WU discloses wherein the light sources are arranged on the handle according to preset arrangement rules (paragraphs 0042 and 0047), and the determining the positional relationship between the plurality of the target light sources according to the first identification data (paragraph 0041) comprises: obtaining the arrangement rules; and determining the positional relationship of the target light sources corresponding to the plurality of light spots respectively in the multiple light sources according to the arrangement rules (paragraphs 0042 and 0047).
As per claim 7, arguments analogous to those applied for the last limitations of claim 1, that are rejected by Stafford, are applicable for claim 7.
As per claims 8-10, arguments analogous to those applied for claim 1 are applicable for claims 8-10; in addition, Stafford teaches a memory and a processor for executing the claimed methods (paragraph 0009).
12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. (CN-114489310 B, CN-113721767 B, CN-110262667 B, CN-107153369 B, CN-114500979 B, WO-2021227163, US-20220382365, US-20220374072, US-20200333878, US-20180333643, US-20220373793, US-20220370895, US-20220362659, US-20190138114, US-20200174552, US-20220358663)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED JEBARI whose telephone number is (571)270-7945. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 09:00am-06:00pm.
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, Chris Kelley can be reached at 571-272-7331. 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.
/MOHAMMED JEBARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights