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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 5, 6, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the claim purports to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, but fails to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function. As such, the claim recites a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-5, 7, 8, 12, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a VR site” in line 7 and claim 4 recites “a training site”, “a VR training site”, and “a real-world training site” in lines 3, 5, 6, respectively. It is unclear to the Examiner whether these limitations are the same or different from each other.
Claims 2 and 12 recite “IMU”, “RGBD camera”, and “LiDAR” in line 3. The limitations include abbreviated terms which need to be expanded out on first use.
Claim 5 recites “scene graph updates” in line 12. However, an initial form of the scene graph is never recited in claims 1 and 5.
Claim 5 recites “a helmet” in lines 4 and 5. It is unclear to the Examiner whether the limitation in line 4 is the same or different from the limitation in line 5.
Claims 6 depends on at least claim 5. Therefore, the claim 6 is rejected for at least the same reason as claim 5.
Claim 7 recites “the dynamic scene graph” in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 8 and 16 recite “near future” in lines 7, 6, respectively. The term “near future” in claims 8 and 16 is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “the near future” is not defined by the claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear to the Examiner how long with respect to time the limitation “near future” is defined as. Also, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claims 5, 6, and 9 limitations “helmet pose tracking module configured to estimate a pose of a helmet…”, “trainee ego-pose tracking module configured to estimate a pose of the trainee…”, “object pose tracking module configured to estimate the pose and state…”, “scene graph update module configured to perform scene graph updates…”, and “target object selector configured to prepare a list of target objects…” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The written description in paragraphs 0012-0016 describes the modules with corresponding functions but lack a corresponding structure. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lane et al. (U.S. Patent Application 20120156652) in view of Sharon et al. (U.S. Patent Application 20080118107).
In regards to claim 1, Lane teaches a training system [Fig. 15; e.g. the simulator system 1505 configured to augment the training scenarios afforded by an existing ground combat simulation, 0060] for synchronizing a virtual reality (VR) site state and a real-world site state [e.g. dynamically generate one or more views of a virtual environment that are consistent with the participant's respective and unique points of view, 0064], the training system comprising:
a sensor data processor [e.g. simulator system comprising camera module, head tracking module, and object tracking module, 0061-0063] configured to estimate a pose and state of a real object from sensor data [e.g. The object tracking module triangulates the position of the weapon within the capture volume and detect trigger pulls. The position and orientation of the weapon is tracked, 0063, 0066] and to update a state of an object within a VR site based on the pose and state of the real object [e.g. Since the position of the weapon 110 at the time it is fired can be known from motion capture, a trajectory for the virtually discharged round (or rounds) in the virtual environment can be determined and used for purposes of the simulation. The actual trajectory of discharged rounds will be determined in response to the position of the weapon 110 within the capture volume, 0045, 0068].
Lane does not explicitly teach
performing tracking optimization based on dynamic object importance.
However, Sharon teaches
performing tracking optimization based on dynamic object importance [e.g. Once regions are grouped into salient objects by motion calculation engine 213, tracking optimization engine 217 identifies a set of regions for each object that is optimal for tracking purposes. However, if one or more of the objects being tracked is no longer trackable or if the frames used to create the seed are too old (e.g., "stale"), then tracking optimization engine initiates generation of a new seed by engines 211-216, 0035].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Lane’s training system with the features of performing tracking optimization based on dynamic object importance in the same conventional manner as taught by Sharon because Sharon provides an efficient method of identifying and tracking salient objects [0002-0004].
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lane et al. (U.S. Patent Application 20120156652) in view of Sharon et al. (U.S. Patent Application 20080118107) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fortin-Deschenes et al. (U.S. Patent Application 20190258058).
In regards to claim 2, Lane as modified by Sharon does not explicitly teach the training system of claim 1, wherein the sensor data are obtained by a sensor comprising at least any one of IMU, an RGBD camera, and LiDAR.
However, Fortin-Deschenes teaches the training system [e.g. HMD system for collaborative training, 0067-0068] of claim 1, wherein the sensor data [e.g. captured data, 0070] are obtained by a sensor [e.g. sensor, 0072] comprising at least any one of IMU [e.g. integrated inertial measurement unit (IMU), 0069], an RGBD camera [e.g. stereo tracking and dense depth sensing (i.e. RGB/IR cameras (82, 84)), 0090], and LiDAR [e.g. Such techniques include time of flight (ToF) cameras, laser scanning or structured light (emphasis added), 0069].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the combination of Lane’s training system and the teachings of Sharon with the features of wherein the sensor data are obtained by a sensor comprising at least any one of IMU, an RGBD camera, and LiDAR in the same conventional manner as taught by Fortin-Deschenes because sensors such as IMU, RGBD camera, and LiDAR are well known and commonly used in the art of HMD systems.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lane et al. (U.S. Patent Application 20120156652) in view of Sharon et al. (U.S. Patent Application 20080118107) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rosinol et al. (3D Dynamic Scene Graphs: Actionable Spatial Perception with Places, Objects, and Humans).
In regards to claim 3, Lane as modified by Sharon does not explicitly teach the training system of claim 1, wherein the sensor data processor receives context extracted from the sensor data and a dynamic scene graph.
However, Rosinol teaches the training system of claim 1, wherein the sensor data processor receives context extracted from the sensor data [e.g. A Spatial PerceptIon eNgine (SPIN) that populates the DSG nodes and edges using sensor data. Our spatial perception engine extracts static objects from the metric-semantic mesh, see section titled “SPATIAL PERCEPTION ENGINE: BUILDING A 3D DSGs FROM SENSOR DATA” on page 5] and a dynamic scene graph [e.g. A DSG (Dynamic Scene Graph), introduced in Section III, is a layered directed graph where nodes represent spatial concepts (e.g. objects, rooms, agents) and edges represent pairwise spatiotemporal relations, see section titled “Introduction” on page 2].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the combination of Lane’s training system and the teachings of Sharon with the features of wherein the sensor data processor receives context extracted from the sensor data and a dynamic scene graph in the same conventional manner as taught by Rosinol because scene graphs are well known and commonly used in the art of game engines in order to describe, manipulate, and render complex scenes [see section titled “Related Work” on page 2].
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lane et al. (U.S. Patent Application 20120156652) in view of Sharon et al. (U.S. Patent Application 20080118107), and further in view of Rosinol et al. (3D Dynamic Scene Graphs: Actionable Spatial Perception with Places, Objects, and Humans).
In regards to claim 10, the claim recites similar limitations as claims 1 and 3, but in method form. Therefore, the same rationale as claims 1 and 3 are applied.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lane et al. (U.S. Patent Application 20120156652) in view of Sharon et al. (U.S. Patent Application 20080118107), and further in view of Rosinol et al. (3D Dynamic Scene Graphs: Actionable Spatial Perception with Places, Objects, and Humans) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Fortin-Deschenes et al. (U.S. Patent Application 20190258058).
In regards to claim 12, the claim recites similar limitations as claim 2. Therefore, the same rationale as claim 2 is applied.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4, 13-15, 17 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.
Claims 5-9, 11, 16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
In regards to claim 4, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest the training system of claim 3, wherein the dynamic scene graph is initially generated from a description of a training site and is updated by a detection of a change in a state, which occurs due to an interaction between a VR training site and a trainee and an interaction between a real-world training site and the trainee upon runtime.
In regards to claim 5, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest the training system of claim 1, wherein the sensor data processor comprises:
a helmet pose tracking module configured to estimate a pose of a helmet in order to estimate a posture of a sensor attached to a helmet that is worn by a trainee;
a trainee ego-pose tracking module configured to estimate a pose of the trainee on the basis of a camera attached to the helmet;
an object pose tracking module configured to estimate the pose and state of the real object; and
a scene graph update module configured to perform scene graph updates by using the pose of the trainee, the pose of the helmet, and the pose and state of the real object.
In regards to claims 6-9, the claims depend on at least claim 5. Therefore, claims 6-9 are allowed for at least the same reason as claim 5.
In regards to claim 11, the claim recites similar limitations as claim 4. Therefore, claim 11 is allowed for at least the same reason as claim 4.
In regards to claims 13-17, the claims recite similar limitations as claims 5-9, respectively. Therefore, claims 13-17 are allowed for at least the same reason as claims 5-9, respectively.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW SHIN whose telephone number is (571)270-5764. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 11:00AM to 7:00PM EST.
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, Said Broome can be reached at 571-272-2931. 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.
/ANDREW SHIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2612
/Said Broome/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2612
Prosecution Insights