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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1-6, 8, 11-16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Potts et al. (hereinafter Potts – US Doc. No. 20170220119).
Regarding claim 1, Potts discloses a tracking method, applicable to a multi-device system, wherein the multi-device system is configured to track a target object in a physical environment and comprises a host device (see paragraph 0011 – note that the host device is an HMD; see also Figure 5) and a peripheral device (see paragraph 0009 – note that the peripheral device is a remote input device; see also Figure 2, element 110), and the tracking method comprises:
by the peripheral device, tracking the peripheral device (see paragraph 0010 – note that the remote input devices have inertial motion sensors for gesture motion tracking);
when the host device determines to track the target object, by the host device, tracking the peripheral device, to generate a first peripheral pose of the peripheral device relative to the host device (see paragraphs 0014 and 0019 – note that the image modeling of the HMD generates positions of objects in the environment and thus all generated data is relative to the hist device since the host device contains the image sensor; see also Figure 3, steps 310-320 – note that this is image based tracking by the HMD); and
by the peripheral device, generating a first target pose of the target object relative to the host device, and updating all position and pose data (see paragraph 0010 - note that the remote input devices may help track objects in order to balance power consumption and tracking accuracy; see also paragraphs 0029 and 0033-0034 – note that the gesture motion tracking via the remote input device depends on the tracking result of the remote input device by the HMD and that the IMU can be used to measure a change in orientation [read: updated pose data]). Potts does not specifically disclose generating a first target pose of the target object relative to the host device by using the first peripheral pose to transform a second target pose of the target object relative to the peripheral device into the first target pose.
It would have been obvious to combine the data collection and processing of pose data by both the HMD and peripheral device to transform as disclosed by Potts in order to determine any orientation and position data as calculated by the peripheral device, the combination yielding predictable results and no more than one of ordinary skill in the art would expect from such an arrangement and further offering power savings (as disclosed in Potts – paragraphs 0010).
Regarding claim 2, Potts discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed in the claim 1 rejection above and further that by the peripheral device, generating the first target pose of the target object relative to the host device by using the peripheral pose to transform the second target pose into the first target pose comprises: by the peripheral device, generating an image data of the target object (see paragraph 0032 – note the image sensors in the remote input devices); by the peripheral device, calculating the first target pose of the target object relative to the peripheral device according to the image data (see paragraphs 0032-0033 – note that the orientation is equivalent to the pose); and by the peripheral device, transforming the first target pose into the second target pose of the target object relative to the host device according to the first peripheral pose (see paragraphs 0033-0034 note the change in orientation).
Regarding claim 3, Potts discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed in the claim 1 rejection above and further that by the host device, tracking the peripheral device, to generate the first peripheral pose comprises: by the host device, generating an image data of at least one trackable object arranged on the peripheral device (see paragraph 0010); and by the host device, calculating an interaction-based pose according to the image data, to generate the first peripheral pose of the peripheral device relative to the host device (see paragraph 0028).
Regarding claim 4, Potts discloses all of the limitations of claim 3 as discussed in the claim 3 rejection above and further that by the host device, receiving a motion data corresponding to a movement of the peripheral device, wherein the peripheral pose is generated according to at least one of the motion data and the interaction-based pose (see paragraph 0036 – note that the information derived from the fusion of sensor data).
Regarding claim 5, Potts discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed in the claim 1 rejection above and further that by the first peripheral device, tracking the peripheral device comprises: by the peripheral device, generating an image data of the physical environment (see paragraph 0032 – note the image sensors in the remote input devices); and by the peripheral device, calculating a feature extraction based pose according to the image data and a host map established by the host device, to generate a second peripheral pose of the peripheral device (see paragraphs 0028 and 0033-0034 – note the use of graphical user interface features).
Regarding claim 6, Potts discloses all of the limitations of claim 5 as discussed in the claim 5 rejection above and further that by the peripheral device, generating a motion data corresponding to a movement of the peripheral device, wherein the second peripheral pose is generated according to at least one of the motion data and the feature extraction based pose (see paragraph 0028 – note the use of graphical user interface features as well as motion data).
Regarding claim 8, Potts discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed in the claim 1 rejection above and further that when the host device determines that the peripheral device is moved, by the host device, updating the first peripheral pose for the peripheral device (see paragraph 0010).
Apparatus claims 11-16 and 18 are drawn to the apparatus corresponding to the method of using same as claimed in claims 1-6 and 8 (respectively). Therefore apparatus claims 11-16 and 18 correspond to method claims 1-6 and 8 (respectively), and are rejected for the same reasons of anticipation (obviousness) as discussed above.
Claim 20 has limitations similar to those treated in the above rejection of claim 1, and is met by the reference as discussed above. Claim 20, however, also recites a non-transitory computer readable storage medium with a computer program to execute a tracking method applicable to a multi-device system (see Potts paragraphs 0066-0068).
Claims 7, 9, 10, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Potts et al. (hereinafter Potts – US Doc. No. 20170220119) in view of Forutanpour et al. (hereinafter Forutanpour – US Doc. No. 20220405959).
Regarding claim 7, Potts discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed in the claim 1 rejection above. Potts does not specifically disclose that when the host device determines that the peripheral device is not moved, by the host device, transmitting the first peripheral pose to the peripheral device.
Forutanpour discloses a simultaneous localization and mapping system wherein when the host system realizes that a peripheral device is stationary then a previously stored pose is used (see paragraph 0092).
It would have been obvious to combine the SLAM system as disclosed by Potts with the SLAM system as disclosed by Forutanpour, the combination yielding predictable results and no more than one of ordinary skill in the art would expect from such an arrangement.
Regarding claim 9, Potts discloses all of the limitations of claim 8 as discussed in the claim 8 rejection above. Although Potts discloses determining the field of view of the tracking cameras, Potts does not specifically disclose determining that at least one trackable object is not in a field of view of the host device, by the host device, generating an indication message.
Forutanpour discloses a simultaneous localization and mapping system wherein when the host system realizes that at least one trackable object is not in a field of view of the host device, by the host device, generating an indication message (see paragraph 0032).
It would have been obvious to combine the SLAM system as disclosed by Potts with the SLAM system as disclosed by Forutanpour, the combination yielding predictable results and no more than one of ordinary skill in the art would expect from such an arrangement.
Regarding claim 10, Potts discloses all of the limitations of claim 8 as discussed in the claim 8 rejection above. Although Potts discloses determining the field of view of the tracking cameras, Potts does not specifically disclose that before updating the first peripheral pose for the peripheral device, the tracking method further comprises: by the host device, determining at least one trackable object is in a field of view of the host device.
Forutanpour discloses a simultaneous localization and mapping system wherein when the host system realizes that at least one trackable object is not in a field of view of the host device, by the host device, generating an indication message (see paragraphs 0042-0044).
It would have been obvious to combine the SLAM system as disclosed by Potts with the SLAM system as disclosed by Forutanpour, the combination yielding predictable results and no more than one of ordinary skill in the art would expect from such an arrangement.
Apparatus claims 17 and 19 are drawn to the apparatus corresponding to the method of using same as claimed in claims 7 and 9 (respectively). Therefore apparatus claims 17 and 19 correspond to method claims 7 and 9 (respectively), and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as discussed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM R GIESY whose telephone number is (571)272-7555. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-6.
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, Patrick Edouard can be reached at 5712727603. 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.
/ADAM R. GIESY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2622
Prosecution Insights