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 Objections
Claims 1-6, 8-13 and 15-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 1-20 use the acronyms “EMF” and “IMU” but do not define them. In light of the specification, the terms “EMF” and “IMU” were interpreted as “Electromagnetic field” (par.21) and “Inertial Measurement Unit” (par. 19) Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claims 1, 8 and 15 recite “receiving EMF tracking data comprising position and orientation information from an EMF tracking sensor; receiving IMU tracking data comprising acceleration and rotation information from an IMU sensor; detecting metal interference by comparing orientation information from the EMF tracking data to rotation information from the IMU tracking data; when interference is detected, determining corrected position information using the IMU tracking data and a prediction model trained on previous EMF tracking data; and when no interference is detected, using the position information from the EMF tracking data”. The underlined limitations do not find support in the instant disclosure or in the parent case disclosure as follows:
The instant disclosure Figs. 6-7 and par. 87-88 explain that “[0087] … For instance, the pose tracking system determines an EMF quaternion based on EMF tracking data 430 (of FIG. 4A) and an IMU quaternion based on IMU tracking data 436 (of FIG. 4A). [0088] In operation 704, the pose tracking system determines if there is metal interference with the measurements of the EMF tracking system 414 (of FIG. 4A) based on the EMF quaternion and the IMU quaternion”, but there is no explicit comparison of orientation information from the EMF tracking data with rotation information from the IMU tracking data, instead, both data appear to be used in conjunction to determine the metal interference.
The instant disclosure par. 90-91 provides an example of using the IMU tracking data to correct measured data, and Figs. 8-9 and par. 92 provide another example where a prediction model trained on previous EMF data is used to correct measured data. But there is no explicit support for combining the two embodiments.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 inherit the issues of their respective independent claims.
Regarding claims 2, 9 and 16, the disclosure fails to support “comparing the EMF quaternion to the IMU quaternion”. The quaternions are described in the specification par. 88, but the comparing is not described explicitly in the disclosure.
Regarding claims 5, 12 and 19, the disclosure fails to support “wherein detecting metal interference comprises: calculating an orientation difference between orientation information from the EMF tracking data and angular momentum information from the IMU tracking data; and detecting metal interference when the orientation difference exceeds a threshold”. The specification par. 88 describes an error threshold “e” for an intrinsic geodesic distance “d” between given two angles. However, the EMF sensor orientation information is described as Φ, the IMU angular momentum [rotation] is described as ΔΦ which is used to approximate the coordinate Φ, but it is not described as used in the equation for thresholding the geodesic distance of par. 88, or in calculating a difference as claimed.
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 3, 10 and 17 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.
Claims 3, 10 and 17 recite “forecast future EMF position tracking data for a short period”. One of ordinary skill in the art cannot ascertain the meets and bounds of what is intended by a “short period” vs. for example, a period. The disclosure does not provide any explanation to determine when a period is considered “short”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because Claims 15-20 are directed toward a machine-readable medium, however, the disclosure explains that a machine-readable medium includes carrier waves/modulated data signals (par. 174). Consequently, the office gave the broadest reasonable interpretation to include embodiments such as a carrier wave, which is not a tangible article and therefore it is non-statutory. Please note that the memo "Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Medium" (dated 1/27/2010), which can be found on the USPTO website under patents/law/notices, suggests that a claim drawn to a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments can be optionally amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 USC 101 by adding the limitation "non-transitory" to the claim.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6, 8, 10-11, 13, 15, 17-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung et al. in US 2019/0086428 (hereinafter Chung) in view of Osborn et al. in US 2023/0072423 (hereinafter Osborn).
Regarding claim 1, Chung disclose a computer-implemented method (Chung’s Figs. 7-8 and par. 60-61) comprising: receiving EMF tracking data (Chung’s Fig. 7 and par. 51: step 702) comprising position (Chung’s par. 13: EM position) and orientation information (Chung’s par. 50) from an EMF tracking sensor (Chung’s Figs. 1-3 and par. 13: EM position tracking system); receiving IMU tracking data (Chung’s Fig. 7 and par. 50: step 708) comprising acceleration (Chung’s par. 26: accelerometer) and rotation information (Chung’s par. 26: gyroscope) from an IMU sensor (Chung’s par. 26: IMU); detecting metal interference (Chung’s par. 2: metallic object causing distortion) by comparing (Chung’s Fig. 7 and par. 20, 52: at step 714) orientation information from the EMF tracking data (Chung’s Fig. 7: steps 704-706) to rotation information from the IMU tracking data (Chung’s Fig. 7: steps 710-712, where IMU orientation includes rotation from use of gyroscope per par. 26); when interference is detected (Chung’s Fig. 7: output Yes from 714), determining corrected position (Chung’s Fig. 7 and par. 50, 53: step 718) information using the IMU tracking data (Chung’s Fig. 7: step 718 and par. 19: correction weights to IMU data); and when no interference is detected (Chung’s Fig. 7: output No from 714), using the position information from the EMF tracking data (Chung’s Fig. 7 and par. 50, 52: step 716).
Chung fails to disclose when interference is detected, determining corrected position information using … a prediction model trained on previous EMF tracking data.
However, in the same field of endeavor of wearable devices for XR systems, Osborn discloses using a prediction model trained on previous magnetic tracking data (Osborn’s Fig. 19E and par. 272: inference model trained to predict estimates of the position based on signals sensed and recorded by wearable sensors, which are magnetic per par. 72).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, that Chung’s Fig. 7 step 718 applying corrected weights to the IMU and EM orientation values (Chung’s par. 53) includes the EM orientation values obtained from a prediction model trained on previous magnetic tracking data (as taught by Osborn), in order to obtain the benefit of improving the accuracy of the system by using an inference model (Osborn’s par. 308).
By doing such combination, Chung in view of Osborn disclose:
A computer-implemented method (Chung’s Figs. 7-8 and par. 60-61) comprising:
receiving EMF tracking data (Chung’s Fig. 7 and par. 51: step 702) comprising position (Chung’s par. 13: EM position) and orientation information (Chung’s par. 50) from an EMF tracking sensor (Chung’s Figs. 1-3 and par. 13: EM position tracking system);
receiving IMU tracking data (Chung’s Fig. 7 and par. 50: step 708) comprising acceleration (Chung’s par. 26: accelerometer) and rotation information (Chung’s par. 26: gyroscope) from an IMU sensor (Chung’s par. 26: IMU);
detecting metal interference (Chung’s par. 2: metallic object causing distortion) by comparing (Chung’s Fig. 7 and par. 20, 52: at step 714) orientation information from the EMF tracking data (Chung’s Fig. 7: steps 704-706) to rotation information from the IMU tracking data (Chung’s Fig. 7: steps 710-712, where IMU orientation includes rotation from use of gyroscope per par. 26);
when interference is detected (Chung’s Fig. 7: output Yes from 714), determining corrected position (Chung’s Fig. 7 and par. 50, 53: step 718) information using the IMU tracking data (Chung’s Fig. 7: step 718 and par. 19, 53: correction weights to IMU data) and a prediction model trained on previous EMF tracking data (Chung’s Fig. 7: step 718 and par. 19: correction weights to EM data which upon combination is derived from an inference model trained on previous data from a magnetic sensor per Osborn’s Fig. 19E and par. 272, 72, 308); and
when no interference is detected (Chung’s Fig. 7: output No from 714), using the position information from the EMF tracking data (Chung’s Fig. 7 and par. 50, 52: step 716).
Regarding claim 8, Chung in view of Osborn disclose a machine (Chung’s Fig. 5 and par. 60-61) comprising:
at least one processor (Chung’s par. 60); and
at least one memory storing instructions (Chung’s par. 60) that, when executed by the at least one processor (Chung’s par. 60), cause the machine to perform operations comprising:
the steps as explained for claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, Chung in view of Osborn disclose a machine-readable medium (Chung’s par. 61) including instructions (Chung’s par. 61) that, when executed by a machine (Chung’s par. 61), cause the machine to perform operations comprising:
the steps as explained for claim 1.
Regarding claims 3, 10 and 17, Chung in view of Osborn disclose wherein determining corrected position information comprises:
using previous EMF position tracking data history (Osborn’s par. 272: signals sensed [previous] for inference mode, where the signals are magnetic per par. 72. Upon combination this is applied to EM data of Chung’s Figs. 6-7) to forecast future EMF position tracking data for a short (112b) period (Osborn’s par. 277, 294: spatial information [position] predicted [future] as the user moves over time [period]. Upon combination this is applied to EM data of Chung’s Figs. 6-7); and
correcting the EMF tracking data using the forecast future EMF position tracking data (Osborn’s par. 907-908: inference model includes function to reduce errors in the estimates. Upon combination this is applied to EM data of Chung’s Figs. 6-7).
Regarding claims 4, 11 and 18, Chung in view of Osborn further disclose wherein the EMF tracking sensor (Chung’s Figs. 1-3 and par. 13: EM position tracking system) is mounted on a wrist of a user (Chung’s Figs. 1-3: hand controller which upon combination is a wearable located on a wrist per Osborn’s Fig. 37D and par. 1515) and the IMU sensor is integrated with the EMF tracking sensor (Chung’s Figs. 1-3 and par. 26: IMU and EMF integrated on hand controller 132).
It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for Chung’s hand controller to include a wearable mounted on a wrist of a user (as taught by Osborn), in order to obtain the benefit of a wearable that controls augmented reality systems (Osborn’s par. 1515).
Regarding claims 6, 13 and 20, Chung in view of Osborn disclose further comprising: correcting long-term drift in the IMU tracking data (Chung’s par. 27: drift over time) using the EMF tracking data (Chung’s par. 27: IMU pose matches the EM pose) when no interference is detected (Chung’s Fig. 4A and par. 38-39: when magnitude of distortion is negligible then use EM pose data to correct pose data from mobile unit [IMU per Fig. 3]).
Claims 2, 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung in view of Osborn as applied above, in further view of Sebkhi et al. in US 2024/0082032 (hereinafter Sebkhi).
Chung in view of Osborn fail to disclose determining an EMF quaternion or an IMU quaternion.
However, in the same field of endeavor of motion tracking using magnetometer and IMUs, Sebkhi discloses that the magnetic orientation is estimated using the quaternion rotation (Sebkhi’s par. 67-68) and the IMU rotation is estimated using the quaternion rotation (Sebkhi’s par. 100-101).
Therefore, it would have been obvious that Chung’s step of comparing (Chung’s Fig. 7: step 714) is based on the EMF quaternion and the IMU quaternion (Sebkhi’s par. 67, 68: where the quaternions are orientation data), in order to obtain the benefit of representing the orientation in three dimensions (Sebkhi’s par. 54).
By doing such combination, Chung in view of Osborn and Sebkhi disclose:
wherein detecting metal interference (Chung’s par. 2: metallic object causing distortion) comprises:
determining an EMF quaternion (Chung’s Fig. 7: step 706: EM orientation which upon combination is EMF quaternion per Sebkhi’s par. 67-68) based on the orientation information from the EMF tracking data (Chung’s Fig. 7: step 704);
determining an IMU quaternion (Chung’s Fig. 7: step 710: IMU orientation which upon combination is IMU quaternion per Sebkhi’s par. 100-101) based on the rotation information from the IMU tracking data (Chung’s Fig. 7: step 710 from gyro per par. 26); and
comparing the EMF quaternion to the IMU quaternion (Chung’s Fig. 7 and par. 20, 52: at step 714: comparing orientation which upon combination is magnetic quaternion and IMU quaternion per Sebkhi’s par. 67-68 and 100-101).
Claims 5, 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung in view of Osborn as applied above, in further view of Segal in US 2025/0232535 (hereinafter Segal).
Chung in view of Osborn fail to explicitly disclose angular momentum. However, in the same field of endeavor of augmented reality using HMDs, Segal discloses that the IMU collects angular momentum data as head position data (Segal’s par. 29).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, that Chung in view of Osborn IMU data (Chung’s Fig. 6) is angular momentum (Segal’s par. 29), in order to obtain the predictable result of known data collected by an IMU (Chung’s par. 29).
By doing such combination, Chung in view of Osborn and Segal disclose wherein detecting metal interference comprises:
calculating an orientation difference between orientation information from the EMF tracking data (Chung’s Figs. 6-7: steps 704-706: calculate EM pose) and angular momentum information from the IMU tracking data (Chung’s Figs. 6-7: steps 710-712: calculate IMU pose which includes angular momentum upon combination with Segal’s par. 29); and
detecting metal interference (Chung’s par. 13: metallic object causing distortion) when the orientation difference exceeds a threshold (Chung’s Figs. 6-7: distortion > threshold).
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung in view of Osborn as applied above, in further view of Yan et al. in US 2023/0281938 (hereinafter Yan).
Chung in view of Osborn fail to disclose notifying a user via an extended Reality (XR) interface when metal interference is detected.
However, in the same field of endeavor of XR systems, Yan discloses notifying a user via an extended reality (XR) interface (Yan’s Figs. 3B-3D: see notifications) when there is degradation in performance (Yan’s par. 190).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, that Chung in view of Osborn comprise notifying a user via an extended Reality (XR) interface (Yan’s Figs. 3B-3D: see notifications which upon combination occur in the HMD of Chung’s par. 13) when metal interference is detected (Yan’s par. 190: degradation in performance which upon combination is distortion of Chung’s par. 13);
in order to obtain the benefit of informing the user of degradation (Yan’s par. 190).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Liliana Cerullo whose telephone number is (571)270-5882. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM to 3PM MT.
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, Amr Awad can be reached at 571-272-7764. 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.
/LILIANA CERULLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621