DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 09/17/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,020,458. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because this instant application is broader in claim scope.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,227,172. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because this instant application is broader in claim scope.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 10,366,297. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because this instant application is broader in claim scope.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,037,474. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because this instant application is broader in claim scope.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 9-13, and 18-20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lou et al. (herein after will be referred to as Lou) (US 20060024041) in view of Chen et al. (herein after will be referred to as Chen) (US 20070076977).
Regarding claim 1, Lou discloses a method, comprising:
observing, by a first frame of reference and a second frame of reference, three-dimensional (3D) motion of an object of interest in a space as the object of interest passes through overlapping fields of view of the first frame of reference and the second frame of reference; and [See Lou [0009] Scenes that include 3D objects that are reconstructed from real captured imagery. Also, see Fig. 5, Master/Slave camera setup. Also, see 0059, cameras form an image of a common plane.]
calibrating the second frame of reference by, at least, calculating a transformation based, at least in part, on a capture from the first frame of reference and a capture from the second frame of reference, [See Lou [0058] Pattern-free calibration is based on correspondences between image points (i.e. feature points) between different cameras (i.e. master and slave).]
Lou does not explicitly disclose
wherein the calculating of the transformation is based, at least in part, on a shift in the object of interest, the shift being determined based, at least in part, on the capture from the first frame of reference and the capture from the second frame of reference.
However, Chen does disclose
wherein the calculating of the transformation is based, at least in part, on a shift in the object of interest, the shift being determined based, at least in part, on the capture from the first frame of reference and the capture from the second frame of reference. [See Chen [Abstract] Calibrating camera parameters on a basis of a moving calibration object. Also, see Fig. 3, object moving between two cameras.]
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the method by Lou to add the teachings of Chen, in order to perform a calibrate a master-slave camera setup utilizing feature points in Lou by use of a moving object [See Chen [0013]].
Regarding claim 2, Lou (modified by Chen) disclose the method of claim 1. Furthermore, Lou discloses
comprising calibrating the first frame of reference, wherein the calibration is based, at least in part, on the second frame of reference. [See Lou [0058] Pattern-free calibration is based on correspondences between image points (i.e. feature points) between different cameras (i.e. master and slave).]
Regarding claim 3, Lou (modified by Chen) disclose the method of claim 1. Furthermore, Lou discloses
comprising calibrating a third frame of reference, wherein the calibration is based, at least in part, on the first frame of reference. [See Lou [0058] Pattern-free calibration is based on correspondences between image points (i.e. feature points) between different cameras (i.e. master and slave). Also, see Fig. 5, a second slave camera is provided.]
Regarding claim 9, Lou (modified by Chen) disclose the method of claim 1. Furthermore, Lou discloses
comprising calibrating at least one of the second frame of reference or first frame of reference, wherein the calibration is based, at least in part, on a third frame of reference. [See Lou [0058] Pattern-free calibration is based on correspondences between image points (i.e. feature points) between different cameras (i.e. master and slave). Also, see Fig. 5, a second slave camera is provided.]
Regarding claim 10, Lou (modified by Chen) disclose the method of claim 1. Furthermore, Lou discloses
comprising analyzing a capture from at least one of the first frame of reference or the second frame of reference through a sensor interface to perform the calibrating of the second frame of reference. [See Lou [Fig. 1] Camera interface (194).]
Regarding claim 11, see examiners rejection for claim 1 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, see examiners rejection for claim 2 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, see examiners rejection for claim 3 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 13.
Regarding claim 18, see examiners rejection for claim 9 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 18.
Regarding claim 19, see examiners rejection for claim 10 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 19.
Regarding claim 20, see examiners rejection for claim 1 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 20.
Claim 4 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lou (US 20060024041) in view of Chen (US 20070076977) and in further view of Vinayak et al. (herein after will be referred to as Vinayak) (US Patent No. 9,383,895).
Regarding claim 4, Lou (modified by Chen) disclose the method of claim 1. Furthermore, Lou does not explicitly disclose
comprising recognizing an action of the object of interest based, at least in part, on a generated 3D model of the object of interest.
However, Vinayak does disclose
comprising recognizing an action of the object of interest based, at least in part, on a generated 3D model of the object of interest. [See Vinayak [Claim 1] Visualizing the interaction space with a 3D camera system to generate and interpret a 3D hand gesture of the user.]
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the method by Lou (modified by Chen) to add the teachings of Vinayak, in order to incorporate perform a simple substitution of the imaging system such that the imaging system is incorporated with a VR system/HMD and utilizing the imaging system for interaction purposes.
Claims 5-7 and 14-16 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lou (US 20060024041) in view of Chen (US 20070076977) and in further view of Bilbrey et al. (herein after will be referred to as Bilbrey) (US 20110074931).
Regarding claim 5, Lou (modified by Chen) disclose the method of claim 1. Furthermore, Lou does not explicitly disclose
wherein the transformation is a rigid geometric transformation.
However, Bilbrey does disclose
wherein the transformation is a rigid geometric transformation. [See Bilbrey [Fig. 2 and 0007-0008, 0012, 0022, 0033 & 0045] Generating an alignment transform to calibrate the imaging system, wherein this alignment transform is affine transform.]
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the method by Lou (modified by Chen) to add the teachings of Bilbrey, in order to perform a simple substitution of the alignment transform for calibration between image sensors.
Regarding claim 6, Lou (modified by Chen) disclose the method of claim 1. Furthermore, Lou does not explicitly disclose
wherein the transformation is an affine transformation.
However, Bilbrey does disclose
wherein the transformation is an affine transformation. [See Bilbrey [Fig. 2 and 0007-0008, 0012, 0022, 0033 & 0045] Generating an alignment transform to calibrate the imaging system, wherein this alignment transform is affine transform.]
Applying the same motivation as applied in claim 5.
Regarding claim 7, Lou (modified by Chen) disclose the method of claim 1. Furthermore, Lou does not explicitly disclose
wherein the calculating of the transformation includes generating at least one of a translation parameter or a rotation parameter, and wherein the at least one of the translation parameter or the rotation parameter is associated with a geometric shift in the object of interest.
However, Bilbrey does disclose
wherein the calculating of the transformation includes generating at least one of a translation parameter or a rotation parameter, and wherein the at least one of the translation parameter or the rotation parameter is associated with a geometric shift in the object of interest. [See Bilbrey [Fig. 2 and 0007-0008, 0012, 0022, 0033 & 0045] Feature point extraction and matching for the alignment transform….affine transform includes rotation and translation.]
Applying the same motivation as applied in claim 5.
Regarding claim 14, see examiners rejection for claim 5 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 14.
Regarding claim 15, see examiners rejection for claim 7 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 15.
Regarding claim 16, see examiners rejection for claim 6 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 16.
Claims 8 and 17 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lou (US 20060024041) in view of Chen (US 20070076977) and in further view of Caligas et al. (herein after will be referred to as Caligas) (US 20130120224).
Regarding claim 8, Lou (modified by Chen) disclose the method of claim 1. Furthermore, Lou does not explicitly disclose
wherein at least one of the first frame of reference or the second frame of reference is obtained from a head mounted display.
However, Caligas does disclose
wherein at least one of the first frame of reference or the second frame of reference is obtained from a head mounted display. [See Caligas [Abstract] Calibration of cameras supported by a head mounted display system.]
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the method by Lou (modified by Chen) to add the teachings of Bilbrey, in order to perform a simple substitution of the imaging system such that the imaging system is incorporated into a HMD/VR display system.
Regarding claim 17, see examiners rejection for claim 8 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 17.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES T BOYLAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-3pm.
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, JAMIE ATALA can be reached at 571-272-7384. 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.
/JAMES T BOYLAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights