DETAILED ACTION
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In para.0032, line 3, change “FGI” to “FIG”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-7, 10-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Keyes (US 10,146,323).
Referring to claims 1, 11 and 20, Keyes discloses a host (fig. 2, system 202) comprising:
a storage circuit (fig. 2, data storage 206) to store a program code (fig. 2, program 210/208); and
a processor (fig. 2, processing unit 204) coupled to the storage circuit and to access the program code to execute:
obtaining an object magnetic variation (fig. 5, inset 508 magnetic field magnitude) from a magnetometer (fig. 2, magnetometer 234; 21:8-12),
wherein the magnetometer (fig. 1a, sensor 122; 9:5-9) and an object magnet (fig. 5, magnet ring 504) are disposed on a real object (fig. 5, HMD 502, ring 504) in a real world;
determining a real object behavior (fig. 8, background detection 802, gesture detections 804) of the real object based on the object magnetic variation; and
controlling a virtual object (6:67-7:3, virtual line) in a virtual world (8:12-22, superimposed view; 6:57-7:3) based on the real object behavior.
As to claims 2-3 and 12-13, Keyes discloses the host of claim 1, wherein the processor is to:
determining whether the object magnetic variation match an event magnetic pattern (21:32-63, magnetic field differs from background);
in response to the object magnetic variation matching the event magnetic pattern, generating an event trigger signal (21:53-63, trigger=1 or trigger=0); and
controlling the virtual object based on the event trigger signal (21:49-52, HMD in gesture detection state).
As to claims 4 and 14, Keyes discloses the host of claim 1, wherein the processor is to: in response to the real object behavior being determined, playing an event animation (6:67-7:3, virtual line) related to the virtual object in the virtual world.
As to claims 5 and 15, Keyes discloses the host of claim 1, wherein the object magnet is an additional component (fig. 5, magnet ring 504) attached to the object.
As to claims 6 and 16, Keyes discloses the host of claim 1, wherein the object magnetic is to enhance the object magnetic variation so that a minimal value (fig. 5, background+perturbation field 508-2) of the object magnetic variation is stronger than an earth’s magnetic field (fig. 5, background field magnitude 508-1; 18:50-53) at a location (fig. 5, user 501) of the object.
As to claims 7 and 17, Keyes discloses the host of claim 1, wherein an object magnetic field of the object magnetic is greater than 75 microtesla (21:63-22:28, deviation in Tesla strength).
As to claim 10, Keyes discloses the host of claim 1,
wherein the object magnetic variation comprises values in three directions (5:23-27, three orthogonal directions), and
the processor is to determining the real object behavior of the real object based on a value (5:23-45, magnetic magnitude) in a direction (5:23-45, three orthogonal directions) related to the real object behavior (5:23-45, gesture).
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 8-9 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keyes in view of Nicoli (US 11/305,180).
As to claims 8 and 18, Keyes discloses the host of claim 1.
Todeschini discloses the real object is a gun (fig. 1A, hand controller 100) and the object magnet (fig. 3B, magnet 345) is disposed on a trigger (fig. 1A, trigger assembly 120) of the gun.
Keyes and Nicoli are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor in virtual reality controller using magnet and magnetometer. Before the time of the filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, having the teaching of Keyes and Nicoli before him or her to modify the magnet ring of Keyes to include the hand controller of Nicoli, thereafter the virtual reality application receives inputs from hand controller. The suggestion and/or motivation for doing so would be obtaining the advantage of improved controller design (1:37-2:2) as suggested by Nicoli. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Keyes with Nicoli to obtain the invention as specified in the instant application claims.
As to claims 9 and 19, Keyes discloses the host of claim 1.
Nicoli discloses the real object behavior comprises pulling a trigger of the gun (1:43-50, trigger depression). (See TSM analysis in claim 8 above).
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See M.P.E.P 707.05(c).
US 10,867,448 discloses VR/AR input device using magnetic/magnetometer for controlling.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to examiner Cheng-Yuan Tseng whose telephone number is (571)272-9772, and fax number is (571)273-9772. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 09:00 to 17:30 Eastern Time. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alicia Harrington can be reached on (571)272-2330. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300. 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. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866)217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800)786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571)272-1000.
/CHENG YUAN TSENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2615
Prosecution Insights