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
1. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
2. Claims 1-5,7, 9-14, 16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sun et al., US 2024/0169681.
Regarding claim 1, Sun teaches of a computer-implemented method for object tracking (See [0181]-[0183]), comprising:
capturing, by a first client device, an image of a second client device (See [0024] cameras from headset capture the field of view to be able to view the controller);
determining, by a sensor associated with the second client device, a position of the second client device within a physical space surrounding the first and the second client devices (See [0063]-[0067], [0095], [0181]-[0183], and [0196]-[0197] multiple sensors on the hand-hand device to determine is position within the physical space around the headset and handheld to provide and track movements of objects such as the virtual sword when raising the handheld controller);
labeling the image of the second client device with the position of the second client device (See [0068] annotated training data associated with the images of the handheld controller);
adding the image to a training dataset (See [0068] 6 Dof and SLAM images added to the training data); and
training, based on the training dataset, a model configured to determine an object position within a field of view of the first client device (See [0068] and [0095] training based on the training data which than determines the handheld/virtual sword position).
Regarding claim 2, Sun teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein: the first client device includes a head-mounted display (HMD) (See [0176]-[0181] headset); and the second client device includes at least one handheld controller associated with the HMD (See [0176]-[0183] handheld controller).
Regarding claim 3, Sun teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the first client device is communicatively coupled to the second client device (See [0068], [0095], and [0182] wearable/head mounted device communicates with the handheld).
Regarding claim 4, Sun teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein: the sensor includes at least one camera (See [0197] camera); and the at least one camera captures at least one of true-color images and false-color images (See [0197] RGB cameras for true color).
Regarding claim 5, Sun teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the sensor associated with the second client device is an integrated sensor of the second client device (See [0063]-[0067], [0095], [0181]-[0183], and [0196]-[0197] multiple sensors on the hand-hand device).
Regarding claim 7, Sun teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the sensor associated with the second client device is a non-integrated sensor associated with the second client device (See Fig.7A and [0104]-[0111] sensor may part of watch that is detachable and/or on the outside surface).
Regarding claim 9, Sun teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the training dataset includes a plurality of images of the second client device labeled with a plurality of positions of the second client device (See [0068] and [0095] training based on a plurality of captured images where the position/pose estimated for each image).
Regarding claim 10, Sun teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising rendering, based on the model, a digital representation of the second client device in a display of the first client device, wherein the digital representation of the second client device is visually consistent with the image of the second client device (See [0063]-[0067], [0095], [0181]-[0183], and [0196]-[0197] the handheld representation is displayed as VR/AR/MR for the virtual object which is consistent with the imaging of the second client device).
Regarding claim 11, the claim has been analyzed and rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, the claim has been analyzed and rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claims 2 and 3.
Regarding claim 13, the claim has been analyzed and rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 4.
Regarding claim 14, the claim has been analyzed and rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 5.
Regarding claim 16, the claim has been analyzed and rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 7.
Regarding claim 18, the claim has been analyzed and rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 9.
Regarding claim 19, the claim has been analyzed and rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 10.
Regarding claim 20, the claim has been analyzed and rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of claims 1-4 and 9-10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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 of this title, 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.
4. Claims 6, 8, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al., US 2024/0169681 in view of Chen et al., US 2017/0011553.
Regarding claim 6, Sun teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 5, wherein determining the position of the second client device within the physical space surrounding the first and the second client devices includes (See analysis of claims 1 and 5):
capturing, by the sensor associated with the second client device, a plurality of images of the physical space as the second client device moves within the physical space (See [0063]-[0067], [0095], [0181]-[0183], and [0196]-[0197] slam cameras of the handheld device for imaging as the handheld moves).
Sun is silent with respect to identifying, based on the plurality of images, at least one feature of the physical space, wherein the at least one feature includes at least one of an edge, a corner, or a texture of the physical space; determining the position of the second client device relative to the at least one feature of the physical space.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Chen teaches of identifying, based on the plurality of images, at least one feature of the physical space, wherein the at least one feature includes at least one of an edge, a corner, or a texture of the physical space; determining the position of the second client device relative to the at least one feature of the physical space (See [0022]-[0027] and [0032] identifying corners and edges to determine position of the handheld device in the physical space).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Sun to have incorporated the teachings of Chen for the mere benefit of more accurately identifying position of the handheld device.
Regarding claim 8, Sun teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 7, wherein determining the position of the second client device within the physical space surrounding the first and the second client devices includes (See analysis of claims 1 and 7):
capturing, by the sensor associated with the second client device, a plurality of images of the second client device as the second client device moves within the physical space (See [0063]-[0067], [0095], [0181]-[0183], and [0196]-[0197] slam cameras of the handheld device for imaging as the handheld moves);
identifying, based on the plurality of images, at least one integrated component of the second client device, wherein the at least one integrated component includes at least one infrared (IR) light-emitting diode (LED) physically coupled to the second client device (See [0068]-[0069] identifying from the images, the LED exposures).
Sun is silent with respect to identifying, based on the plurality of images, at least one feature of the physical space, wherein the at least one feature includes at least one of an edge, a corner, or a texture of the physical space; determining the position of the second client device relative to the at least one feature of the physical space.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Chen teaches of identifying, based on the plurality of images, at least one feature of the physical space, wherein the at least one feature includes at least one of an edge, a corner, or a texture of the physical space; determining the position of the second client device relative to the at least one feature of the physical space (See [0022]-[0027] and [0032] identifying corners and edges to determine position of the handheld device in the physical space).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Sun to have incorporated the teachings of Chen for the mere benefit of more accurately identifying position of the handheld device.
Regarding claim 15, the claim has been analyzed and rejected for the same reasons set forth in in the rejection of claim 6.
Regarding claim 17, the claim has been analyzed and rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 8.
Contact
5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ricky Chin whose telephone number is 571-270-3753. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-6:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached on 571-272-3982. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 703-872-9306.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Ricky Chin/
Primary Examiner
AU 2424
(571) 270-3753
Ricky.Chin@uspto.gov
Prosecution Insights