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 Objections
Claims 2, 12, 14 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
For claim 2, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner:
A method of updating a first three-dimensional (3D) model of an environment in an augmented reality system, the method comprising:
obtaining the first 3D model of the environment[[:]];
obtaining a first set of depth measurements of a first portion of the environment, wherein the first portion of the environment is less than all of the environment included in the first 3D model;
generating a second 3D model of the first portion of the environment;
generating a comparison of the first set of depth measurements to the second 3D model; and
responsive to the comparison exceeding a threshold difference, updating the first 3D model based at least in part on the first set of depth measurements.
For claim 12, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner:
The method of claim 2, further comprising:
after a predetermined period of time has passed since updating the first 3D model based at least in part on the first set of depth measurements, obtaining the ;
obtaining another set of depth measurements of the first portion of the environment;
generating a fourth 3D model of the first portion of the environment;
generating another comparison of the first set of depth measurements to the fourth 3D model; and
responsive to the other comparison exceeding another threshold difference, updating the
For claim 14, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner:
A non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium including executable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
obtain a first three-dimensional (3D) model of an environment[[:]];
obtain a first set of depth measurements of a first portion of the environment, wherein the first portion of the environment is less than all of the environment included in the first 3D model;
generate a second 3D model of the first portion of the environment;
generate a comparison of the first set of depth measurements to the second 3D model; and
responsive to the comparison exceeding a threshold difference, update the first 3D model based at least in part on the first set of depth measurements.
For claim 18, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner:
An augmented-reality system including:
an augmented reality headset;
one or more processors configured to:
obtain a first three-dimensional (3D) model of an environment[[:]];
obtain a first set of depth measurements of a first portion of the environment, wherein the first portion of the environment is less than all of the environment included in the first 3D model;
generate a second 3D model of the first portion of the environment;
generate a comparison of the first set of depth measurements to the second 3D model; and
responsive to the comparison exceeding a threshold difference, update the first 3D model based at least in part on the first set of depth measurements.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 13 is 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.
For dependent claim 13, parent claim 1 establishes a “first 3D model” and parent claim 12 establishes a “updated first 3D model”. Claim 13 goes on to recite the phrase “the first 3D model” and it is unclear and ambiguous to which of the “first 3D model” and “updated first 3D model” is being referenced by the phrase “the first 3D model”. Examiner has suggested amendments to parent claim 12 in the claim objections discussed above to resolve the ambiguity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 2, 3, 8-11, 14, 15, 18 and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5-8, 12 and 16 of U.S. Patent 11,580,703 in view of Gruber et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0262412 A1) (made of record of the IDS submitted 3/12/2025).
The following is a claim comparison of claims 2, 3, 8-11, 14, 15, 18 and 19 of the instant application and claims 1, 5-8, 12 and 16 of U.S. Patent 11,580,703.
Application No. 19/033,984
U.S. Patent No. 11,580,703
2. A method of updating a first 3D model of an environment in an augmented reality system, the method comprising: obtaining the first 3D model of the environment: obtaining a first set of depth measurements of a first portion of the environment, wherein the first portion of the environment is less than all of the environment included in the first 3D model;
generating a second 3D model of the first portion of the environment; generating a comparison of the first set of depth measurements to the second 3D model; and
responsive to the comparison exceeding a threshold difference, updating the first 3D model based at least in part on the first set of depth measurements.
1. A method comprising, by a computing system: updating a first 3D model of a region of an environment based on comparisons between the first 3D model and first depth measurements of the region of the environment generated during a first time period; determining that the region of the environment is static by comparing the first 3D model to second depth measurements of the region of the environment generated during a second time period;
in response to the determining that the region of the environment is static, detecting whether the region of the environment changed after the second time period based on comparisons between a second 3D model of the region of the environment and third depth measurements of the region of the environment generated after the second time period; and in response to detecting a change in the region of the environment, updating the first 3D model of the region of the environment.
12. The method of claim 1, wherein the detecting whether the region of the environment changed comprises determining whether the change between the second 3D model of the region of the environment and the third depth measurements of the region of the environment generated after the second time period exceeds a threshold change.
3
16
8
5
9
6
10
7
11
8
14. A non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium including executable instruction that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: obtain a first 3D model of an environment: obtain a first set of depth measurements of a first portion of the environment, wherein the first portion of the environment is less than all of the environment included in the first 3D model;
generate a second 3D model of the first portion of the environment; generate a comparison of the first set of depth measurements to the second 3D model; and
responsive to the comparison exceeding a threshold difference, update the first 3D model based at least in part on the first set of depth measurements.
1. A method comprising, by a computing system: updating a first 3D model of a region of an environment based on comparisons between the first 3D model and first depth measurements of the region of the environment generated during a first time period; determining that the region of the environment is static by comparing the first 3D model to second depth measurements of the region of the environment generated during a second time period;
in response to the determining that the region of the environment is static, detecting whether the region of the environment changed after the second time period based on comparisons between a second 3D model of the region of the environment and third depth measurements of the region of the environment generated after the second time period; and in response to detecting a change in the region of the environment, updating the first 3D model of the region of the environment.
12. The method of claim 1, wherein the detecting whether the region of the environment changed comprises determining whether the change between the second 3D model of the region of the environment and the third depth measurements of the region of the environment generated after the second time period exceeds a threshold change.
15
16
18. An augmented-reality system including: an augmented reality headset; one or more processors configured to: obtain a first 3D model of an environment: obtain a first set of depth measurements of a first portion of the environment, wherein the first portion of the environment is less than all of the environment included in the first 3D model;
generate a second 3D model of the first portion of the environment; generate a comparison of the first set of depth measurements to the second 3D model; and
responsive to the comparison exceeding a threshold difference, update the first 3D model based at least in part on the first set of depth measurements.
1. A method comprising, by a computing system: updating a first 3D model of a region of an environment based on comparisons between the first 3D model and first depth measurements of the region of the environment generated during a first time period; determining that the region of the environment is static by comparing the first 3D model to second depth measurements of the region of the environment generated during a second time period;
in response to the determining that the region of the environment is static, detecting whether the region of the environment changed after the second time period based on comparisons between a second 3D model of the region of the environment and third depth measurements of the region of the environment generated after the second time period; and in response to detecting a change in the region of the environment, updating the first 3D model of the region of the environment.
12. The method of claim 1, wherein the detecting whether the region of the environment changed comprises determining whether the change between the second 3D model of the region of the environment and the third depth measurements of the region of the environment generated after the second time period exceeds a threshold change.
19
16
Claims 2, 3, 8-11, 14, 15, 18 and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5-8, 12 and 16 of U.S. Patent 11,580,703 in view of Gruber et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0262412 A1).
For independent claim 2, claims 1 and 12 of U.S. Patent 11,580,703 do not disclose wherein a first portion of the environment is less than all of the environment. However, these limitations are well-known in the art as disclosed in Gruber et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0262412 A1). It would have been obvious to obtain depth information as a set of depth measurements for a region as a portion of the environment where the portion of the environment is less than all of the environment included in the 3D model of an environment to update the 3D model of the environment to appropriately present augmented reality (Fig. 2; par. 62-63 and 124-125) as taught in Gruber et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0262412 A1). Claims 1 and 12 of U.S. Patent 11,580,703 otherwise discloses the same limitations of claim 2 of the instant application as shown in the claim chart above. Therefore, claim 2 is not patentably distinct from claims 1 and 12 of U.S. Patent 11,580,703.
For dependent claims 3 and 8-11, claims 5-8 and 16 of U.S. Patent 11,580,703 mirror and recite the same limitations of claims 3 and 8-11as shown in the claim chart above. Therefore, claims 3 and 8-11 are not patentably distinct from claims 5-8 and 16 of U.S. Patent 11,580,703.
For independent claim 14, claims 1 and 12 of U.S. Patent 11,580,703 do not disclose a non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium including executable instruction for execution by one or more processors and wherein a first portion of the environment is less than all of the environment. However, these limitations are well-known in the art as disclosed in Gruber et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0262412 A1). It would have been obvious to apply the use of a non-transitory computer readable medium for storing instructions for execution by a processor to perform the functions of a computer system (par. 9-10) to obtain depth information as a set of depth measurements for a region as a portion of the environment where the portion of the environment is less than all of the environment included in the 3D model of an environment to update the 3D model of the environment to appropriately present augmented reality (Fig. 2; par. 62-63 and 124-125) as taught in Gruber et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0262412 A1). Claims 1 and 12 of U.S. Patent 11,580,703 otherwise discloses the same limitations of claim 14 of the instant application as shown in the claim chart above. Therefore, claim 14 is not patentably distinct from claims 1 and 12 of U.S. Patent 11,580,703.
For dependent claim 15, claim 16 of U.S. Patent 11,580,703 mirrors and recites the same limitations of claim 15 as shown in the claim chart above. Therefore, claim 15 is not patentably distinct from claim 16 of U.S. Patent 11,580,703.
For independent claim 18, claims 1 and 12 of U.S. Patent 11,580,703 do not disclose an augmented-reality system including an augmented reality headset and one or more processors and wherein a first portion of the environment is less than all of the environment. However, these limitations are well-known in the art as disclosed in Gruber et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0262412 A1). It would have been obvious to apply the use of a system for performing augmented reality (par. 2)) including a headset to present augmented reality (par. 36) and a processor to execute instructions to perform the functions of a computer system (par. 9-10) to obtain depth information as a set of depth measurements for a region as a portion of the environment where the portion of the environment is less than all of the environment included in the 3D model of an environment to update the 3D model of the environment to appropriately present augmented reality (Fig. 2; par. 62-63 and 124-125) as taught in Gruber et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0262412 A1). Claims 1 and 12 of U.S. Patent 11,580,703 otherwise discloses the same limitations of claim 18 of the instant application as shown in the claim chart above. Therefore, claim 18 is not patentably distinct from claims 1 and 12 of U.S. Patent 11,580,703.
For dependent claim 19, claim 16 of U.S. Patent 11,580,703 mirrors and recites the same limitations of claims 19 as shown in the claim chart above. Therefore, claim 19 is not patentably distinct from claim 16 of U.S. Patent 11,580,703.
Claims 2, 3, 8-11, 14, 15, 18 and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5-8, 12 and 16 of U.S. Patent 12,229,904 in view of Gruber et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0262412 A1).
The following is a claim comparison of claims 2, 3, 8-11, 14, 15, 18 and 19 of the instant application and claims 1, 5-8, 12 and 16 of U.S. Patent 12,229,904.
Application No. 19/033,984
U.S. Patent No. 12,229,904
2. A method of updating a first 3D model of an environment in an augmented reality system, the method comprising: obtaining the first 3D model of the environment:
obtaining a first set of depth measurements of a first portion of the environment, wherein the first portion of the environment is less than all of the environment included in the first 3D model; generating a second 3D model of the first portion of the environment; generating a comparison of the first set of depth measurements to the second 3D model; and
responsive to the comparison exceeding a threshold difference, updating the first 3D model based at least in part on the first set of depth measurements.
1. A method comprising, by a computing system: monitoring one or more regions of a first 3D model of an environment to determine a frequency a respective region changes; determining a first region of the one or more regions is static based on the frequency the respective region changes;
delaying a first time period to a second time period to update the first 3D model based on comparisons between a second 3D model and first depth measurements of the first region; detecting whether the first region changed after the second time period based on the comparisons between the second 3D model and the first depth measurements of the first region; and in response to detecting a change in the first region, updating the first 3D model of the first region.
12. The method of claim 1, wherein the detecting whether the first region changed comprises determining whether the change between the second 3D model of the first region and the first depth measurements of the first region generated after the second time period exceeds a threshold change.
3
16
8
5
9
6
10
7
11
8
14. A non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium including executable instruction that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: obtain a first 3D model of an environment:
obtain a first set of depth measurements of a first portion of the environment, wherein the first portion of the environment is less than all of the environment included in the first 3D model; generate a second 3D model of the first portion of the environment; generate a comparison of the first set of depth measurements to the second 3D model; and
responsive to the comparison exceeding a threshold difference, update the first 3D model based at least in part on the first set of depth measurements.
1. A method comprising, by a computing system: monitoring one or more regions of a first 3D model of an environment to determine a frequency a respective region changes; determining a first region of the one or more regions is static based on the frequency the respective region changes;
delaying a first time period to a second time period to update the first 3D model based on comparisons between a second 3D model and first depth measurements of the first region; detecting whether the first region changed after the second time period based on the comparisons between the second 3D model and the first depth measurements of the first region; and in response to detecting a change in the first region, updating the first 3D model of the first region.
12. The method of claim 1, wherein the detecting whether the first region changed comprises determining whether the change between the second 3D model of the first region and the first depth measurements of the first region generated after the second time period exceeds a threshold change.
15
16
18. An augmented-reality system including: an augmented reality headset; one or more processors configured to: obtain a first 3D model of an environment:
obtain a first set of depth measurements of a first portion of the environment, wherein the first portion of the environment is less than all of the environment included in the first 3D model; generate a second 3D model of the first portion of the environment; generate a comparison of the first set of depth measurements to the second 3D model; and
responsive to the comparison exceeding a threshold difference, update the first 3D model based at least in part on the first set of depth measurements.
1. A method comprising, by a computing system: monitoring one or more regions of a first 3D model of an environment to determine a frequency a respective region changes; determining a first region of the one or more regions is static based on the frequency the respective region changes;
delaying a first time period to a second time period to update the first 3D model based on comparisons between a second 3D model and first depth measurements of the first region; detecting whether the first region changed after the second time period based on the comparisons between the second 3D model and the first depth measurements of the first region; and in response to detecting a change in the first region, updating the first 3D model of the first region.
12. The method of claim 1, wherein the detecting whether the first region changed comprises determining whether the change between the second 3D model of the first region and the first depth measurements of the first region generated after the second time period exceeds a threshold change.
19
16
Claims 2, 3, 8-11, 14, 15, 18 and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5-8, 12 and 16 of U.S. Patent 12,229,904 in view of Gruber et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0262412 A1).
For independent claim 2, claims 1 and 12 of U.S. Patent 12,229,904 do not disclose wherein a first portion of the environment is less than all of the environment. However, these limitations are well-known in the art as disclosed in Gruber et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0262412 A1). It would have been obvious to obtain depth information as a set of depth measurements for a region as a portion of the environment where the portion of the environment is less than all of the environment included in the 3D model of an environment to update the 3D model of the environment to appropriately present augmented reality (Fig. 2; par. 62-63 and 124-125) as taught in Gruber et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0262412 A1). Claims 1 and 12 of U.S. Patent 12,229,904 otherwise discloses the same limitations of claim 2 of the instant application as shown in the claim chart above. Therefore, claim 2 is not patentably distinct from claims 1 and 12 of U.S. Patent 12,229,904.
For dependent claims 3 and 8-11, claims 5-8 and 16 of U.S. Patent 12,229,904 mirror and recite the same limitations of claims 3 and 8-11as shown in the claim chart above. Therefore, claims 3 and 8-11 are not patentably distinct from claims 5-8 and 16 of U.S. Patent 12,229,904.
For independent claim 14, claims 1 and 12 of U.S. Patent 12,229,904 do not disclose a non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium including executable instruction for execution by one or more processors and wherein a first portion of the environment is less than all of the environment. However, these limitations are well-known in the art as disclosed in Gruber et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0262412 A1). It would have been obvious to apply the use of a non-transitory computer readable medium for storing instructions for execution by a processor to perform the functions of a computer system (par. 9-10) to obtain depth information as a set of depth measurements for a region as a portion of the environment where the portion of the environment is less than all of the environment included in the 3D model of an environment to update the 3D model of the environment to appropriately present augmented reality (Fig. 2; par. 62-63 and 124-125) as taught in Gruber et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0262412 A1). Claims 1 and 12 of U.S. Patent 12,229,904 otherwise discloses the same limitations of claim 14 of the instant application as shown in the claim chart above. Therefore, claim 14 is not patentably distinct from claims 1 and 12 of U.S. Patent 12,229,904.
For dependent claim 15, claim 16 of U.S. Patent 12,229,904 mirrors and recites the same limitations of claim 15 as shown in the claim chart above. Therefore, claim 15 is not patentably distinct from claim 16 of U.S. Patent 12,229,904.
For independent claim 18, claims 1 and 12 of U.S. Patent 12,229,904 do not disclose an augmented-reality system including an augmented reality headset and one or more processors and wherein a first portion of the environment is less than all of the environment. However, these limitations are well-known in the art as disclosed in Gruber et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0262412 A1). It would have been obvious to apply the use of a system for performing augmented reality (par. 2)) including a headset to present augmented reality (par. 36) and a processor to execute instructions to perform the functions of a computer system (par. 9-10) to obtain depth information as a set of depth measurements for a region as a portion of the environment where the portion of the environment is less than all of the environment included in the 3D model of an environment to update the 3D model of the environment to appropriately present augmented reality (Fig. 2; par. 62-63 and 124-125) as taught in Gruber et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0262412 A1). Claims 1 and 12 of U.S. Patent 12,229,904 otherwise discloses the same limitations of claim 18 of the instant application as shown in the claim chart above. Therefore, claim 18 is not patentably distinct from claims 1 and 12 of U.S. Patent 12,229,904.
For dependent claim 19, claim 16 of U.S. Patent 12,229,904 mirrors and recites the same limitations of claims 19 as shown in the claim chart above. Therefore, claim 19 is not patentably distinct from claim 16 of U.S. Patent 12,229,904.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 2, 5, 8-10, 14, 16, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gruber et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0262412 A1, hereinafter “Gruber”) (made of record of the IDS submitted 3/12/2025).
For claim 2, Gruber discloses a method of updating a first 3D model of an environment in an augmented reality system (disclosing a method for updating a model of an environment in a system for performing augmented reality (par. 2-3, 27 and 49)), the method comprising: obtaining the first 3D model of the environment (disclosing acquisition of a 3D model of a scene corresponding to the environment (par. 3 and 6)): obtaining a first set of depth measurements of a first portion of the environment, wherein the first portion of the environment is less than all of the environment included in the first 3D model (disclosing a depth camera to obtain depth information as a set of depth measurements for a region as a portion of the environment where the portion of the environment is less than all of the environment included in the 3D model of the scene (Fig. 2; par. 62-63)); generating a second 3D model of the first portion of the environment (disclosing generation of a second image as a second 3D model of the portion of the environment (Fig. 10; par. 122-123)); generating a comparison of the first set of depth measurements to the second 3D model (disclosing generation of a comparison of depth values of the portion of the environment corresponding to the set of depth measurements to depth values of the second image as the second 3D model (par. 124-125)); and responsive to the comparison exceeding a threshold difference, updating the first 3D model based at least in part on the first set of depth measurements (disclosing, in response to the comparison being greater than or exceeding a threshold difference, updating a composite image corresponding to the 3D model of the scene based on the depth values of the portion of the environment corresponding to the set of depth measurements (par. 63 and 124-125)).
For claim 5, depending on claim 2, Gruber discloses further comprising: displaying artificial reality content on a display of the augmented reality system based at least in part on the updated first 3D model (disclosing display of a virtual object as artificial reality content on a display of the augmented reality system based on the updated 3D model of the scene (Fig. 1; par. 64)).
For claim 8, depending on claim 2, Gruber discloses further comprising: before obtaining the first set of depth measurements of the first portion of the environment, identifying one or more objects using the first 3D model to detect objects in the environment (disclosing, before acquiring the depth information of the portion of the environment, the performance of detection to identify an object using the 3D model of the scene to detect objects in the environment (par. 30-31)); and assigning one or more characteristics to the one or more objects based on a respective object (disclosing assignment of features to the object based on a target object (par. 31 and 51)).
For claim 9, depending on claim 8, Gruber discloses further comprising: segmenting the environment into a plurality of portions, including the first portion, based on the one or more characteristics assigned to the one or more objects (disclosing the segmentation of the environment into portions including the portion of the environment based on the features assigned to objects (par. 62 and 76)).
For claim 10, depending on claim 8, Gruber discloses further comprising: tracking one or more positions of the one or more objects based on the first 3D model (disclosing tracking of positions of the object based on the 3D model of the scene (par. 48, 50-51 and 65-67)), and wherein: updating the first 3D model based at least in part on the first set of depth measurements includes updating the one or more positions of the one or more objects (disclosing updating of the 3D model of the scene includes updating the positions of the object (par. 65-67)).
For claim 14, Gruber discloses a non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium including executable instruction that, when executed by one or more processors (disclosing a non-transitory computer readable medium for storing instructions for execution by a processor to perform the functions of a computer system (par. 9-10)), cause the one or more processors to perform the method of claim 2 (see above as to claim 2).
For claim 16, depending on claim 14, this claim is a combination of the limitations of claim 14 and claim 5. It follows claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons as to claim 14 and claim 5.
For claim 18, Gruber discloses an augmented-reality system (disclosing a system for performing augmented reality (par. 2)) including: an augmented reality headset (disclosing a headset to present augmented reality (par. 36)); one or more processors (disclosing a processor to execute instructions to perform the functions of a computer system (par. 9-10)) configured to perform the method of claim 2 (see above as to claim 2).
For claim 20, depending on claim 18, this claim is a combination of the limitations of claim 18 and claim 5. It follows claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons as to claim 18 and claim 5.
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.
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) 3, 15 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gruber in view of Sheffield et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0362551 A1).
For claim 3, depending on claim 2, Gruber does not disclose a second 3D model has a lower resolution than a first 3D model.
However, these limitations are well-known in the art as disclosed in Sheffield.
Sheffield similarly discloses a system and method for presenting augmented reality (par. 49). Sheffield explains it is known to generated a second 3D model having a lower resolution than a first 3D model (par. 61-63). It follows Gruber may be accordingly modified with the teachings of Sheffield to implement its second 3D model at a lower resolution than its first 3D model.
A person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify Gruber with the teachings of Sheffield. Sheffield is analogous art in dealing with a system and method for presenting augmented reality (par. 49). Sheffield discloses its use of a low resolution model is advantageous in conserving memory and improving processing speed of an augmented reality display (par. 61-63). Consequently, a PHOSITA would incorporate the teachings of Sheffield into Gruber for conserving memory and improving processing speed of an augmented reality display. Therefore, claim 3 is rendered obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
For claim 15, depending on claim 14, this claim is a combination of the limitations of claim 14 and claim 3. It follows claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons as to claim 14 and claim 3.
For claim 19, depending on claim 18, this claim is a combination of the limitations of claim 18 and claim 3. It follows claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons as to claim 18 and claim 3.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gruber in view of Tauber (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0195904 A1).
For claim 6, depending on claim 2, Gruber does not disclose does not disclose an aggregated point cloud.
However, these limitations are well-known in the art as disclosed in Tauber.
Tauber similarly discloses a system and method for generating a three-dimensional model of a scene (par. 11). Tauber explains its system captures depth measurements where corresponding depth maps may be fused to form a unified point cloud as an aggregated point cloud representing the depth measurements (par. 38). It follows Gruber may be accordingly modified with the teachings of Tauber to represent its first set of depth measurements to be fused as an aggregated point cloud.
A PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify Gruber with the teachings of Tauber. Tauber is analogous art in dealing with a system and method for generating a three-dimensional model of a scene (par. 11). Tauber discloses its use of an aggregated point cloud is advantageous in appropriately rendering a virtual camera view via the aggregated point cloud (par. 58). Consequently, a PHOSITA would incorporate the teachings of Tauber into Gruber for appropriately rendering a virtual camera view via the aggregated point cloud. Therefore, claim 6 is rendered obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gruber in view of Ambrus et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0335435 A1, hereinafter “Ambrus”).
For claim 11, depending on claim 2, Gruber does not disclose a predetermined segmentation pattern.
However, these limitations are well-known in the art as disclosed in Ambrus.
Ambrus similarly discloses a system and method for presenting augmented reality (par. 15). Ambrus explains it is known to use a predetermined segmentation pattern for segmenting an environment (par. 46, 50 and 54). It follows Gruber may be accordingly modified with the teachings of Ambrus to segment its environment based on a predetermined segmentation pattern.
A PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify Gruber with the teachings of Ambrus. Ambrus is analogous art in dealing with a system and method for presenting augmented reality (par. 15). Ambrus discloses its use of a predetermined segmentation pattern is advantageous in segmenting an environment for determination of corresponding virtual imagery to appropriately present augmented reality (par. 46, 50 and 54). Consequently, a PHOSITA would incorporate the teachings of Ambrus into Gruber for segmenting an environment for determination of corresponding virtual imagery to appropriately present augmented reality. Therefore, claim 11 is rendered obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 7, 12, 17 and 21 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 and to address any claim objections raised above in the Detailed Action.
Claim 13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 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 and to address any claim objections raised above in the Detailed Action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES TSENG whose telephone number is (571)270-3857. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5.
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, Xiao Wu can be reached at (571) 272-7761. 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.
/CHARLES TSENG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2613
Prosecution Insights