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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Paragraph 111 is repetitive “In this way, the first XR device 506 receives the pose of the second XR device 508 and the first XR device 506 receives the pose of the second XR device 508 over the communication link.”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 6 and 12 objected to because of the following informalities: each of the first lines: “wherein the tracking performed by the XR device” should read “wherein the tracking performed by the first XR device”. 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.
Claims 4, 6-9 and 12-13 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.
Claims 4, 6 and 12 recites the limitation "wherein the tracking performed by the XR device" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This is because it’s unclear if the XR device is referring to the first XR device from claim 1 or the second XR device from claim 1. See claim objections above for examiner’s interpretation on how the claims should be read (to overcome the objection) and are being interpreted.
Claims 7-9 and 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) since they depend on a claim that is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Note. Most likely these claims depend on some dependent claim or are missing elements.
In order to fix this issue, dependency should be reviewed and any first instance of an element
should be made clear that it’s a first instance and should be referred to as “a” or “an” instead of
“the”, and if multiple instances exist, further instances should be further distinguished for example by saying “first”, “second”, and/or “third” etc.
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) 1-3 and 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sommer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0349676), hereinafter referenced as Sommer, in view of Finney et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0306097), hereinafter referenced as Finney.
Regarding claim 1, Sommer teaches A method performed by a first extended reality (XR) device of a first user, the method comprising: (abstract teaches “ a method of providing display device sharing and interactivity in simulated reality is performed at a first electronic device”); the simulated reality (SR) is a type of XR; establishing a communication link with a second XR device of a second user (paragraph 75 teaches “the first display device is in communication with the first SR device; transmitting an SR representation of the first display device to a second SR device in response to obtaining the gesture input” and paragraph 39 teaches “the one or more communication buses 204 include circuitry that interconnects and controls communications between system components”); communication buses act as communication link established since they interconnect and control communication, also, second device of second user communicating shows communication link established with it; receiving, from the second XR device and via the communication link, hand tracking data for the second hand of the second user (paragraph 62 teaches “the second SR device 405-2 obtains hand tracking, body poses, and/or movements of the second user 410-1.”); this shows receiving hand tracking data for second hand which would be of second user and must be done via the communication link aforementioned; and while the first XR device and the second XR device are participating in a shared XR experience, controlling tracking performed by the first XR device based on the images captured by the first XR device and the hand tracking data received from the second XR device (Sommer, paragraph 22 teaches “sharing a real-world device in a simulated reality (SR) setting between users…method additionally includes receiving an input message directed to the first display device from the second SR device, wherein the input message includes an input directive obtained by the second SR device from a second user. The method also includes transmitting the input message to the first display device for execution by the first display device” and paragraph 63 teaches “in addition to detecting the gesture inputs…The input directives from the second user 410-2 are directed to manipulations of the first display device 420-1 in the SR setting, e.g., touching, toggling, voice commands, and/or movements directed at a representation of the first display device 420-1 in the SR setting. The input directives are packaged as the input messages and sent to the first SR device 405-1 over the network. The first SR device 405-1 then forwards the input messages to the first display device 420-1 through its pairing to the first display device 420-1 for local execution by the first display device 420-1.”); this shows during a shared experience (that the aforementioned two devices would be participating in), controlling tracking of first SR device (based on captured images thereof since happen in a step after detecting gesture inputs) by including input directive from second SR device (thus also based on the hand tracking data received from second SR device).
However, Sommer fails to explicitly teach capturing images that include a first hand of the first user and a second hand of the second user;
However, Finney teaches capturing images that include a first hand of the first user and a second hand of the second user (Finney, paragraph 14 teaches “sensor data capturing a surrounding environment may be used to extract hand features. In some embodiments, a 2D image frame may be used to extract hand features, which may be used for hand tracking”); this explicitly shows that the aforementioned first and second hands of respective users would be captured and included in images. Finney is considered to be analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of capturing images of hands for an XR shared experience. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sommer's invention with the capturing images techniques of Finney to determine whether an action associated with the gesture is authorized for the identity of the user performing the gesture (Finney, paragraph 13). This would add security to the device and would be due to the captured images and hand recognition/identification thereof.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Sommer and Finney teaches wherein the first XR device is a first head-wearable device that is worn by the first user, and the second XR device is a second head-wearable device that is worn by the second user (Sommer, paragraph 27 teaches “In some implementations, each SR device 104 corresponds to a head-mountable device (HMD)” and paragraph 30 teaches “the user 10 wears the SR device 104 on his/her head (e.g., as shown in FIG. 1A)”); this shows head-wearable devices for both first/second XR/SR device that are worn by the respective users.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Sommer and Finney teaches wherein the hand tracking data received from the second XR device comprises second hand tracking data for the second hand, and the method further comprises, while the shared XR experience is in progress: transmitting, via the communication link, first hand tracking data for the first hand to the second XR device (Sommer, paragraph 62 teaches “the second SR device 405-2 obtains hand tracking, body poses, and/or movements of the second user 410-1…gesture inputs are detected by the respective display device 420 and transmitted to the paired SR device 405 through the respective pairing” and paragraph 82 teaches “the SR representation of the first display device is transmitted to the second SR device through a peer-to-peer connection”); movement along with hand tracking shows second hand tracking data, the connection indicates using the aforementioned communication link, and this shows transmit inputs such as first hand tracking data (since comes from first SR device) to the second device which would be while shared XR experience is in progress due to the two interconnected devices being used.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Sommer and Finney teaches comprising: using the hand tracking data received from the second XR device to identify the second hand in at least one of the images (Finney, paragraph 92 teaches “detect a second hand in the scene; extract, for the second hand, a second set of hand features… based on comparison of the second set of hand features with the set of registered hand features, that the second hand does not belong to a known user; and generate a first anonymous user record for the second hand based on the second set of hand features.”); user record and features here for second hand shows to identify the second hand and since it’s using the detection of second hand, the hand tracking data received from second XR is used for such. The same motivations used in claim 1 apply here in claim 14.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Sommer and Finney teaches comprising: mapping the hand tracking data received from the second XR device to a coordinate system used by the first XR device, (Finney, paragraph 65 teaches “the bounding box includes a set of 2D or 3D coordinates within which the hand is located. The coordinates may be represented, for example, in a coordinate system specific to the device, a global coordinate system, or the like”); global coordinate system shows the bounding box with hand tracking data (inclusive of second) is mapped to coordinate system used by first XR device (same coordinate system since it is a global coordinate system); wherein the mapped hand tracking data is used to identify the second hand (Finney, paragraph 65 teaches “keypoints 840 may include coordinates at which particular features of the hand are located. These features may be features that allow for the hand to be tracked”); particular features are what identify second hand as aforementioned in claim 14 explanation above, thus the mapped hand tracking data (mapped coordinate at which particular features are located) are used to identify the second hand. The same motivations used in claim 1 apply here in claim 15.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Sommer and Finney teaches wherein the controlling of the tracking performed by the first XR device comprises using the hand tracking data received from the second XR device to estimate a spatial relationship between the first hand and the second hand while the shared XR experience is in progress (Sommer, paragraph 81 teaches “based on the absolute and/or relative position of the SR representation of the first display device and/or the spatial and/or angular coordinates of body parts/joints, the second SR device calculates the input location(s) on the display SR representation”); second SR device calculating based on relative position of first device and spatial coordinates shows hand tracking data received from second XR device would be used to estimate a spatial relationship between the two hands while the aforementioned shared XR experience is in progress because the calculation takes into account a spatial relationship by estimating it due to the use of spatial coordinates.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Sommer and Finney teaches wherein the hand tracking data comprises at least one of: hand pose data, hand landmark data, hand motion data, an identifier of the second hand, or an identifier of the second user (Sommer, paragraph 68 teaches “so that movements of the right hand of the first user in real-world, e.g., tapping, pinching, flicking, swiping, grabbing, pressing, can be detected and emulated in the SR setting 500E”); this shows hand motion data since movement of hand is detected and emulated.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Sommer and Finney teaches further comprising: establishing a shared coordinate system for alignment of common virtual content to be simultaneously presented by the first XR device and the second XR device, (Finney, paragraph 65 teaches “the bounding box includes a set of 2D or 3D coordinates within which the hand is located. The coordinates may be represented, for example, in a coordinate system specific to the device, a global coordinate system, or the like”); global coordinate system would be shared coordinate system for aligning virtual content to be simultaneously presented by first/second XR devices (since global is shared system); wherein the first XR device uses the hand tracking data received from the second XR device to position the common virtual content for presentation to the first user (Finney, paragraph 65 teaches “electronic systems for presenting MR settings may monitor orientation and/or location with respect to the physical setting to enable interaction between virtual objects and real objects (which are physical elements from the physical setting or representations thereof) For example, a system may monitor movements”); real object would be hand and MR(first XR device when viewed in combination) uses the hand tracking data since interaction between real object and virtual object is enabled, thus the interaction would lead to positioning common virtual content (virtual object) for presentation to user such as first user. The same motivations used in claim 1 apply here in claim 18.
Regarding claim 19, the device claim 19 recites similar limitations as method claim 1, and thus is rejected under similar rationale. In addition, Soomer, fig. 3 teaches XR device 104 with processor 302, and memory 320 and paragraph 23 teaches “storage medium has stored therein instructions, which, when executed by one or more processors of a device, cause the device to perform or cause performance of any of the methods”.
Regarding claim 20, the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim 20 recites similar limitations as method claim 1, and thus is rejected under similar rationale. In addition, Soomer, paragraph 23 teaches “non-transitory computer readable storage medium has stored therein instructions, which, when executed by one or more processors of a device, cause the device to perform or cause performance of any of the methods described herein”.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Sommer and Finney as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Koo et al. (EP 3859490), hereinafter referenced as Koo.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Sommer and Finney teaches wherein the tracking performed by the XR device comprises hand tracking, and the controlling of the hand tracking performed by the first XR device comprises: detecting presence of the second hand in at least one of the images (Finney, paragraph 92 teaches “detect a second hand in the scene; extract, for the second hand, a second set of hand features”); this shows detect second hand in images and would be from the tracking performed and controlling of hand tracking aforementioned in claim 1 when viewed in combination; identifying, based at least partially on the hand tracking data received from the second XR device, that the second hand belongs to the second user (Finney, paragraph 92 teaches “based on comparison of the second set of hand features with the set of registered hand features, that the second hand does not belong to a known user; and generate a first anonymous user record for the second hand based on the second set of hand features”); user record for second hand shows identifying second hand belongs to second user and since this uses hand features it’s based on the hand tracking;
However, the combination of Sommer and Finney fails to teach
and in response to identifying that the second hand belongs to the second user, excluding the second hand from the hand tracking performed by the first XR device.
However, Koo teaches and in response to identifying that the second hand belongs to the second user, excluding the second hand from the hand tracking performed by the first XR device (Koo, paragraph 62 teaches “a second left hand of someone else may come into the detection area 100 of the wearable device 1000 while that other person is standing on the left of the genuine user… In this case, as the second probability value is 0%, the wearable device 1000 may determine that the second left hand is a hand of someone else and ignore a gesture of the second left hand.”); ignoring gesture by first device shows excluding second hand from the hand tracking performed by the first XR device and this is in response to identifying that the second hand belongs to second user. Koo is considered to be analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of multiple hands of multiple users present and detected selectively in XR environment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Sommer and Finney with the detection and exclusion of hand tracking techniques of Koo to ensure identifying a hand of a genuine user wearing a wearable device (Koo, abstract). This would lead to more accurate data and less erroneous data by using a genuine user’s hand and not accidentally including another user’s hand tracking/gesture in an XR device used by the genuine user.
Claim(s) 5 and 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Sommer and Finney as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Himane (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0263584), hereinafter referenced as Himane.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Sommer and Finney fails to teach wherein the controlling of the tracking performed by the first XR device comprises using the hand tracking data to adjust an estimated pose of the second XR device relative to the first XR device.
However, Himane teaches wherein the controlling of the tracking performed by the first XR device comprises using the hand tracking data to adjust an estimated pose of the second XR device relative to the first XR device (Himane, paragraph 6 teaches “the relative position and orientation of the second device to the first device is adjusted over time based on motion tracking on the first device and the second device over time”, paragraph 50 teaches “the physical first device 120 may determine the position or orientation of the physical second device 130, the user 110, or the physical appendage 115 by collecting image data with the image sensor 122 of the physical first device” and paragraph 92 teaches “determines a relative position and orientation of the second device to the first device based on the marker”); this shows adjusting determined/estimated pose of second XR device relative to first. Himane is considered to be analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of tracking and drift correction. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Sommer and Finney with the relative positioning techniques of Himane to ensure improving the virtual experience of the user (Himane, paragraph 56). This would be from the increased amount of data to get the adjusted pose leading to a more accurate result.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Sommer, Finney and Himane teaches further comprising, while the shared XR experience is in progress: transmitting, to the second XR device, first device pose data that describes a pose of the first XR device (Sommer, paragraph 45 teaches “the data transmitting unit 248 is configured to transmit data (e.g., presentation data, location data, etc.) to at least the HMD 104”); this shows transmitting to second XR device (when data transmitting and tracking unit are in first XR device), first pose/location data that describes pose of first XR device; and receiving, from the second XR device, second device pose data that describes a pose of the second XR device (Himane, paragraph 92 teaches “paragraph 92 teaches “determines a relative position and orientation of the second device to the first device based on the marker”); this shows second device pose data must be received from second XR device to describe pose of second XR device and accurately position it (due to determination of position and orientation of second device). The same motivations used in claim 5 apply here in claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Sommer, Finney and Himane teaches further comprising: causing presentation, to the first user, of common virtual content within a context of the shared XR experience, wherein the second XR device simultaneously causes presentation, to the second user, of the common virtual content (Himane, paragraph 45 teaches “each device combines information from the respective device's motion sensing hardware with analysis of the scene visible to the respective device's camera to create a correspondence between real and virtual spaces, e.g., via visual-inertial odometry (VIO). For example, each device (e.g., physical first device 120 and physical second device 130) may recognize notable features in the virtual environment”); combining information from two XR devices to create correspondence and recognizing notable features in virtual environment shows common virtual content recognized within context of shared XR experience and this would be presented to each respective user of each device since the scene is visible. The same motivations used in claim 5 apply here in claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Sommer, Finney and Himane teaches wherein the tracking performed by the XR device comprises hand tracking, and the controlling of the hand tracking performed by the first XR device comprises determining a pose of the second hand based at least partially on the hand tracking data received from the second XR device, the method further comprising: using the pose of the second hand to cause presentation, (Finney, paragraph 29 teaches “device may prompt the user to present the user's hands in a field of view of a camera. In some embodiments, the electronic device may prompt the user to perform a particular pose or gesture with the hand”); this shows determining pose (for presentation) of second hand by prompting a particular pose and would be based on hand tracking received from second device since is of second hand (due to plural mention of hands); to the first user, of common virtual content relative to the second hand in a context of the shared XR experience, wherein the second XR device simultaneously causes presentation, to the second user, of the common virtual content (Himane, paragraph 45 teaches “each device combines information from the respective device's motion sensing hardware with analysis of the scene visible to the respective device's camera to create a correspondence between real and virtual spaces, e.g., via visual-inertial odometry (VIO). For example, each device (e.g., physical first device 120 and physical second device 130) may recognize notable features in the virtual environment”); combining information from two XR devices to create correspondence and recognizing notable features in virtual environment shows common virtual content recognized (which would include virtual content relative to second hand when viewed in combination with Finney above) within context of shared XR experience and this would be presented to each respective user of each device since the scene is visible. The same motivations used in claim 5 apply here in claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Sommer, Finney and Himane teaches comprising: generating further hand tracking data for the second hand using the hand tracking performed by the first XR device, (Sommer, paragraph 43 teaches “tracking unit 244 is configured to map the scene 105 and to track the position/location of at least the HMD 104” and paragraph 62 teaches “the second SR device 405-2 obtains hand tracking, body poses, and/or movements of the second user 410-1”); movement along with hand tracking shows further hand tracking (for second device/hand which would be tracked by first device when tracking unit is implemented in first device, thus this would be done using the hand tracking performed by the first XR device); wherein the pose of the second hand is determined based on both the hand tracking data received from the second XR device and the further hand tracking data generated by the first XR device (Finney, paragraph 28 teaches “block 205, where the electronic device detects the presence of the user. In one or more embodiments, the electronic device may detect that a user is initiating use of the electronic device. Additionally, or alternatively, a user may initiate a registration process to register the user's hands for identification of the user, of a gesture, or the like”); this shows the pose of second hand would be determined (pose of second hand aforementioned in claim 12 explanation above and in Finney paragraph 29), after tracking (since step 210 of paragraph 29 comes after this tracking step 205 of paragraph 28) which would include the further tracking from Sommer mentioned above when viewed in combination, therefore the pose of second hand (in paragraph 29 and step 210 of Finney), is based on the tracking data from second XR device and further hand tracking data generated by the first XR device. The same motivations used in claim 1 apply here in claim 13.
Claim(s) 6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Sommer and Finney as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of MACIOCCI et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0249741), hereinafter referenced as MACIOCCI.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Sommer and Finney teaches wherein the tracking performed by the XR device comprises hand tracking, and the controlling of the hand tracking performed by the first XR device comprises: detecting presence of the second hand in at least one of the images (Finney, paragraph 92 teaches “detect a second hand in the scene; extract, for the second hand, a second set of hand features”); this shows detect second hand in images and would be from the tracking performed and controlling of hand tracking aforementioned in claim 1 when viewed in combination; identifying, based at least partially on the hand tracking data received from the second XR device, that the second hand belongs to the second user (Finney, paragraph 92 teaches “based on comparison of the second set of hand features with the set of registered hand features, that the second hand does not belong to a known user; and generate a first anonymous user record for the second hand based on the second set of hand features”); user record for second hand shows identifying second hand belongs to second user and since this uses hand features it’s based on the hand tracking;
However, the combination of Sommer and Finney fails to teach and in response to identifying that the second hand belongs to the second user, applying the hand tracking to both the first hand and the second hand.
However, MACIOCCI teaches and in response to identifying that the second hand belongs to the second user, applying the hand tracking to both the first hand and the second hand (MACIOCCI, paragraph 259 teaches “detect the user's arm by detecting an arm and a number of fingers extending from a hand in a first orientation, or with an arm, a wrist and fingers progressing from a bottom of an image upwardly. The processor may detect the second individual's arm by detecting a second arm and a second number of fingers extending from the second hand in a second different orientation, or with an arm, a wrist and fingers progressing from a top of the image downwardly. In another embodiment, the processor may distinguish from between the user and another's body parts by reviewing the tracked images”); this shows identifying second user then reviewing tracked images meaning the identifying would occur then applying of hand tracking to both first/second hand in order to review tracked images. MACIOCCI is considered to be analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of rendering images in a virtual or augmented reality system by capturing image and spatial data of multiple users. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Sommer and Finney with the tracking in response to identifying techniques of MACIOCCI to include tracking movements of the user utilizing the body mounted camera, applying a detection algorithm to the tracked user movements to detect a predetermined gesture (MACIOCCI, paragraph 10). This would allow predetermined gesture capability meaning the tracking would be more accurate due to knowing a predetermined gesture.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Sommer, Finney and MACIOCCI teaches wherein the hand tracking performed by the first XR device comprises tracking the first hand and the second hand based on the images captured by the first XR device while providing the shared XR experience (Finney, paragraph 14 teaches “2D image frame may be used to extract hand features, which may be used for hand tracking” and paragraph 18 teaches “a multi-user communication session can include an XR environment in which two or more devices are participating.”); this shows hand tracking performed by first XR device comprising tracking hand (such as first and second hand from combination above), this is based on images captured by a first device, and would be while providing shared XR experience due to the multiple devices participating. The same motivations used in claim 1 apply here in claim 8.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Sommer, Finney and MACIOCCI as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Himane.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Sommer, Finney and MACIOCCI teaches wherein the tracking performed by the first XR device further comprises tracking the second XR device, and the method further comprises: generating further hand tracking data for the second hand using the hand tracking performed by the first XR device (Sommer, paragraph 43 teaches “tracking unit 244 is configured to map the scene 105 and to track the position/location of at least the HMD 104” and paragraph 62 teaches “the second SR device 405-2 obtains hand tracking, body poses, and/or movements of the second user 410-1”); movement along with hand tracking shows further hand tracking (for second device/hand which would be tracked by first device when tracking unit is implemented in first device, thus this would be done using the hand tracking performed by the first XR device);
However, the combination of Sommer, Finney and MACIOCCI fails to teach while the shared XR experience is in progress, determining an estimated pose of the second XR device relative to the first XR device based on device pose data received from the second XR device; and using both the hand tracking data received from the second XR device and the further hand tracking data generated by the first XR device to adjust the estimated pose of the second XR device relative to the first XR device.
However, Himane teaches while the shared XR experience is in progress, determining an estimated pose of the second XR device relative to the first XR device based on device pose data received from the second XR device (Himane, paragraph 50 teaches “the physical first device 120 may determine the position or orientation of the physical second device 130, the user 110, or the physical appendage 115 by collecting image data with the image sensor 122 of the physical first device” and paragraph 92 teaches “determines a relative position and orientation of the second device to the first device based on the marker”); this shows determining estimated pose of second XR device (in shared experience) relative to first XR device and is based on the collected data (comes after the steps of) thus also based on device pose data received from second XR device; and using both the hand tracking data received from the second XR device and the further hand tracking data generated by the first XR device to adjust the estimated pose of the second XR device relative to the first XR device (Himane, “the relative position and orientation of the second device to the first device is adjusted over time based on motion tracking on the first device and the second device over time”); since adjusted based on motion tracking data, this would include using both hand tracking data received from second XR device and further hand tracking data generated by first XR device (when viewed in combination from the above explanation) in order to adjust the pose of the second XR device relative to the first. The same motivations used in claim 5 apply here in claim 7.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Sommer, Finney and MACIOCCI as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Koo.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Sommer, Finney and MACIOCCI fails to teach
further comprising: detecting presence of a third hand in at least one of the images, the third hand belonging to a person not participating in the shared XR experience; and excluding the third hand from the hand tracking performed by the first XR device
However, Koo teaches further comprising: detecting presence of a third hand in at least one of the images, the third hand belonging to a person not participating in the shared XR experience (Koo, paragraph 63 teaches “when someone is stretching his/her arms from over the shoulders of the genuine user, a third right hand of that other person may come into the detection area 100 of the wearable device 1000. In this case, the wearable device 1000 may obtain a third image 1031 of the detection area 100 and detect the third right hand from the third image 1031… may determine that the third right hand is a hand of someone else ”); this shows third hand detected and it being of someone else (a person who is not participating in the shared XR experience); and excluding the third hand from the hand tracking performed by the first XR device (Koo, paragraph 63 teaches “ignore a gesture of the third right hand”); ignoring gesture by first device shows excluding third hand from the hand tracking performed by the first XR device. The same motivations used in claim 4 apply here in claim 9.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Baier et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0248827) fig. 5 shows two users viewing item of common virtual content within a context of shared XR experience.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAUMAN U AHMAD whose telephone number is (703)756-5306. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00am - 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, Kee Tung can be reached at (571) 272-7794. 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.
/N.U.A./Examiner, Art Unit 2611
/KEE M TUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Prosecution Insights