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 § 101
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.
Claims 1, 5-8, 12-15, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
According to the USPTO guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that Claims 1, 5-8, 12-15, and 19-20 are directed to an abstract idea as shown below:
STEP 1: Do the claims fall within one of the statutory categories (i.e. process, a computer readable medium, i.e. a system)? YES. Claims 1-7 are directed to a method, Claims 8-14 are directed to a device, and Claims 15-20 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? YES, the claims are directed towards an abstract idea
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
- Mathematical concepts — mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
- Certain methods of organizing human activity — fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations
- Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
Regarding Claim 1, representative of Claim 8 and 15, the claim recites, a method comprising:
obtaining, using at least one processing device of an electronic device, one or more images capturing a face of a user and a reference object with one or more known dimensions (see step 2A prong 2, insignificant extra-solution activity - mere data gathering step);
identifying, using the at least one processing device, a first plane on which eyes of the user are located and a second plane on which the reference object is located (Mathematical concepts — mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations. Examiner notes identifying planes can be done with equations defining the plane);
projecting, using the at least one processing device, image data of the reference object from the second plane onto the first plane (Mathematical concepts — mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations. Examiner notes projection from one plane to another is a mathematical concept);
determining, using the at least one processing device, a sizing factor based on (i) pixels that the reference object occupies after being projected onto the first plane and (ii) the one or more known dimensions (Mathematical concepts — mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations. Examiner notes the sizing factor is a ratio);
identifying, using the at least one processing device, a number of pixels between centers of pupils of the user's eyes in the one or more images (Mathematical concepts — mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations); and
identifying, using the at least one processing device, a first estimate of an interpupillary distance of the user's eyes by applying the sizing factor to the number of pixels between the centers of the pupils of the user's eyes (Mathematical concepts — mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations. Examiner notes applying the sizing factor to a number of pixels to calculate the distance, is a mathematical calculation).
Regarding Claim 5, representative of Claim 12 and 19, the claim recites, the method of Claim 1, wherein identifying the first and second planes comprises identifying the first and second planes using a trained machine learning model (see step 2A prong 2, additional element merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer).
Regarding Claim 6, representative of Claim 13 and 20, the claim recites, the method of Claim 1, wherein: the electronic device comprises a portable computing device; and the method further comprises transmitting the first estimate of the interpupillary distance of the user's eyes to an extended reality (XR) headset configured to be worn by the user (see step 2A prong 2, additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use).
Regarding Claim 7, representative of Claim 14, the claim recites, the method of Claim 1, wherein:
the reference object comprises any object having a known size (see step 2A prong 2, insignificant extra solution activity. Examiner notes the limitation only puts a limitation on what the reference object can be); and
the reference object is positioned at any location within the one or more images where the reference object is fully visible (see step 2A prong 2, insignificant extra solution activity. Examiner notes the limitation only puts a limitation on where the reference object can be).
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claims 1, 5-8, 12-15, and 19-20 does/do not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? NO, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Claims 1, 5-8, 12-15, and 19-20 does/do not recite any additional elements that are not well-understood, routine or conventional.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7-8, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cascetta (US 20230206598 A1) in view of Limon (US 20200397284 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, representative of Claim 8 and 15, Cascetta teaches a method comprising:
obtaining, using at least one processing device of an electronic device, one or more images capturing a face of a user and a reference object with one or more known dimensions ([0008] acquiring a two-dimensional (2D) image of the user's face in which a real object with known metric size and well-known visual appearance is positioned near the user's face);
determining, using the at least one processing device, a sizing factor based on (i) pixels that the reference object occupies after being projected onto the first plane and (ii) the one or more known dimensions ([0010] measuring the distance in pixels between two predetermined points of the real object whose distance in metric units is known, for example the distance between the two short sides of the credit card; [0011] calculating the pixel-to-millimetre conversion ratio between the known distance between the two predetermined points of the real object expressed in metric units and the distance measured in pixels);
identifying, using the at least one processing device, a number of pixels between centers of pupils of the user's eyes in the one or more images ([0012] detecting on the 2D image two reference points corresponding to the pupils; [0013] measuring the distance in pixels between the two reference points); and
identifying, using the at least one processing device, a first estimate of an interpupillary distance of the user's eyes by applying the sizing factor to the number of pixels between the centers of the pupils of the user's eyes ([0014] determining the estimation of the interpupillary distance expressed in metric units by multiplying the distance in pixels between the two reference points by the pixel-to-millimetre conversion ratio).
Cascetta doesn’t explicitly teach
identifying, using the at least one processing device, a first plane on which eyes of the user are located and a second plane on which the reference object is located;
projecting, using the at least one processing device, image data of the reference object from the second plane onto the first plane;
Limon teaches
identifying, using the at least one processing device, a first plane on which eyes of the user are located and a second plane on which the reference object is located ([0192]: the centers of eyes 530 and object 502 are projected onto the plane 529 and/or the plane 527);
projecting, using the at least one processing device, image data of the reference object from the second plane onto the first plane ([0192]: the centers of eyes 530 and object 502 are projected onto the plane 529 and/or the plane 527).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have modified the teachings of Cascetta to include the teachings of Limon by projecting the object to the same plane as the eyes. Doing so would improve the accuracy of an interpupillary distance measurement.
Regarding Claim 7, representative of Claim 14, Cascetta and Limon teaches the method of Claim 1. In addition, Cascetta teaches wherein: the reference object comprises any object having a known size ([0008]: a real object with known metric size). Cascetta does not teach the remaining limitation of Claim 7, however, Limon teaches and the reference object is positioned at any location within the one or more images where the reference object is fully visible ([0105]: camera 118 may be configured to capture the image including the reference object, [0169] In some demonstrative embodiments, the object may not be positioned on the plane of the pupils, Examiner notes unlike Cascetta describing the object must be near the same plane as the eyes (see [0017] of Cascetta), Limon teaches this is not a requirement).
Claim(s) 2, 9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cascetta (US 20230206598 A1) and Limon (US 20200397284 A1) in view of Hoyle (US 20230116779 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, representative of Claim 9 and 16, the Cascetta and Limon combination teaches the method of Claim 1. However, neither explicitly teach the remaining limitations of Claim 2.
Hoyle teaches wherein determining the number of pixels between the centers of the pupils of the user's eyes ([0005]: various dimensions of features of the head like interpupillary distance may be determined in pixels (picture elements). However, some scale is needed to convert this size in pixels to the real-world size, for example in millimeters) comprises:
using a face detection model to identify an area in each of the one or more images containing the user's face ([0031] Another approach for identifying a plurality of features start with detecting a face of a person in the image. This may be performed using any conventional face detection method); and
using a facial landmark extraction model to identify the centers of the pupils of the user's eyes in each area containing the user's face ([0033]: Active appearance models…is applied to the image once the face has been detected to detect so-called landmarks… detection various points on the face are identified which can be labelled, for example, the boundary of the lips, eyes and irises, [0007] The term “feature” in this respect refers to one or more parts of a head which may be identified in the image, and/or relationships between such parts. For example, the interpupillary distance may be seen as such a feature, [0003]: the interpupillary distance (PD) as defined …which is the distance between the centers of the pupils).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have modified the teachings of Cascetta and Limon to include the teachings of Hoyle by substituting the general mention of interpupillary distance measure from an image for a face detection model and landmark extraction model to identify centers of pupils. Doing so would provide the predictable result of providing centers of pupils in an image from which an interpupillary distance measurement can be obtained.
Claim(s) 5, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cascetta (US 20230206598 A1) and Limon (US 20200397284 A1) in view of Sato (US 20190347520).
Regarding Claim 5, representative of Claim 12 and 19, the Cascetta and Limon combination teaches the method of Claim 1. Although Limon teaches identifying an eyes plane and an object plane (see Fig. 5, elements 527 and 529 respectively), herein the first and second planes, Limon does not explicitly teach using a trained machine learning model.
Sato teaches wherein identifying the first and second planes comprises identifying the first and second planes using a trained machine learning model ([0070]: identifier 102 identifies the object included in the second computational imaging image, and obtains the position of the object …the position of the object may include the position of the object included in an image in a plane and the position of the object included in the image in a depth direction. For example, identifier 102 identifies… using a classifier).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have modified the teachings of the Cascetta and Limon combination to include the teachings of Sato by substituting Limon’s general plane identification for Sato’s plane identification using a machine learning model. Doing so would provide the predictable result of an object plane for a detected object.
Claim(s) 6, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cascetta (US 20230206598 A1) and Limon (US 20200397284 A1) in view of Miller (US 20230037046 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, representative of Claim 13 and 20, the Cascetta and Limon combination teaches the method of Claim 1. Neither explicitly teach the remaining limitations of Claim 6.
Miller teaches wherein: the electronic device comprises a portable computing device; and the method further comprises transmitting the first estimate of the interpupillary distance of the user's eyes to an extended reality (XR) headset configured to be worn by the user ([0117]: display system may perform a rough calibration by measuring the guest user's interpupillary distance (IPD), [0003] The present disclosure relates to display systems, virtual reality, and augmented reality imaging and visualization systems and, more particularly, to depth plane selection based in part on a user's interpupillary distance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have modified the teachings of Cascetta and Limon to include the teachings of Miller as an application of the interpupillary distance estimation performed by the Cascetta and Limon combination. Doing so would improve the accuracy of images rendered in the extended reality headset.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 10-11, 17-18 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANICE VAZ whose telephone number is (703)756-4685. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00pm.
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, Matthew Bella can be reached at (571) 272-7778. 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.
/JANICE E. VAZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2667 /MATTHEW C BELLA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2667
Prosecution Insights