DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 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 8,9, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8,9, and 18 recites the limitation "the gyroscope" in line 1 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 1-4,6-7,10-14,16-17,19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by von STUMBERG (US 2019/0301871).
Regarding claim 1, von STUMBERG discloses a method (abstract) comprising: turning on a 3 degrees of freedom (3DOF) tracking device (paragraph 33); in response to turning on the 3DOF tracking device, detecting a dynamic and non-stationary condition of the 3DOF tracking device (paragraph 33, 56-60; any sensor readings after powered including IMU, camera, determination of pose, linear or angular velocity, etc.); and operating the 3DOF tracking device based on the dynamic and non-stationary condition of the 3DOF tracking device (paragraph 56-60; operation of device based on any sensor readings).
Regarding claim 2, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. von STUMBERG further discloses performing a dynamic initialization process of the 3DOF tracking device by detecting the dynamic and non-stationary condition of the 3DOF tracking device after turning on the 3DOF tracking device, wherein the 3DOF tracking device is operated after the dynamic initialization process (paragraph 8, 33, 56-60).
Regarding claim 3, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. von STUMBERG further discloses determining an initial state that indicates the dynamic and non-stationary condition of the 3DOF tracking device, the initial state associated with turning on the 3DOF tracking device (paragraph 33).
Regarding claim 4, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. von STUMBERG further discloses wherein the initial state comprises a combination of an initial orientation of the 3DOF tracking device, an initial position of the 3DOF tracking device, and an initial velocity of the 3DOF tracking device, wherein the 3DOF tracking device is part of a mixed reality device (paragraph 33, 52, 56-60).
Regarding claim 6, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. von STUMBERG further discloses wherein determining the initial state comprises: determining the initial state is based on the accelerometer signal without requesting a user of the 3DOF tracking device to remain in stationary conditions (paragraph 8, 33).
Regarding claim 7, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. von STUMBERG further discloses wherein determining the initial state comprises: using previously estimated orientation and positional signals of the 3DOF tracking device (paragraph 33).
Regarding claim 10, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. von STUMBERG further discloses further comprising: detecting that the 3DOF tracking device is switched on (paragraph 33); and in response to detecting that the 3DOF tracking device is switched on, initializing the 3DOF tracking device without waiting to detect a stationary condition of the 3DOF tracking device (paragraph 33, 52, 56-60).
Regarding claim 11, von STUMBERG discloses a computing apparatus (abstract) comprising: a processor (Figure 4); and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, configure the apparatus to perform operations comprising: turning on a 3 degrees of freedom (3DOF) tracking device (paragraph 33); in response to turning on the 3DOF tracking device, detecting a dynamic and non-stationary condition of the 3DOF tracking device (paragraph 33, 56-60; any sensor readings after powered including IMU, camera, determination of pose, linear or angular velocity, etc.); and operating the 3DOF tracking device based on the dynamic and non-stationary condition of the 3DOF tracking device (paragraph 56-60; operation of device based on any sensor readings).
Regarding claim 12, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. von STUMBERG further discloses performing a dynamic initialization process of the 3DOF tracking device by detecting the dynamic and non-stationary condition of the 3DOF tracking device after turning on the 3DOF tracking device, wherein the 3DOF tracking device is operated after the dynamic initialization process (paragraph 8, 33, 56-60).
Regarding claim 13, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. von STUMBERG further discloses determining an initial state that indicates the dynamic and non-stationary condition of the 3DOF tracking device, the initial state associated with turning on the 3DOF tracking device (paragraph 33).
Regarding claim 14, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. von STUMBERG further discloses wherein the initial state comprises a combination of an initial orientation of the 3DOF tracking device, an initial position of the 3DOF tracking device, and an initial velocity of the 3DOF tracking device, wherein the 3DOF tracking device is part of a mixed reality device (paragraph 33, 52, 56-60).
Regarding claim 16, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. von STUMBERG further discloses wherein determining the initial state comprises: determining the initial state is based on the accelerometer signal without requesting a user of the 3DOF tracking device to remain in stationary conditions (paragraph 8, 33).
Regarding claim 17, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. von STUMBERG further discloses wherein determining the initial state comprises: using previously estimated orientation and positional signals of the 3DOF tracking device (paragraph 33).
Regarding claim 19, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. von STUMBERG further discloses detecting that the 3DOF tracking device is switched on (paragraph 33); and in response to detecting that the 3DOF tracking device is switched on, initializing the 3DOF tracking device without waiting to detect a stationary condition of the 3DOF tracking device (paragraph 33, 52, 56-60).
Regarding claim 20, von STUMBERG discloses a a-transitory computer-readable storage medium, the computer-readable storage medium including instructions that when executed by a computer (abstract; Figure 4), cause the computer to perform operations comprising: turning on a 3 degrees of freedom (3DOF) tracking device (paragraph 33); in response to turning on the 3DOF tracking device, detecting a dynamic and non-stationary condition of the 3DOF tracking device (paragraph 33, 56-60; any sensor readings after powered including IMU, camera, determination of pose, linear or angular velocity, etc.); and operating the 3DOF tracking device based on the dynamic and non-stationary condition of the 3DOF tracking device (paragraph 56-60; operation of device based on any sensor readings).
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) 5, 8, 9, 15, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over STUMBERG (US 2019/0301871) in view of SANG et al (US 2014/0062881).
Regarding claim 5, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. von STUMBERG further discloses wherein determining the initial state further comprises: in response to turning on the 3DOF tracking device, accessing a gyroscope signal from a gyroscope of the 3DOF tracking device; in response to turning on the 3DOF tracking device, accessing an accelerometer signal from an accelerometer of the 3DOF tracking device (paragraph 33, 101, 102); integrating the gyroscope signal and the accelerometer signal to obtain an orientation signal and a position signal using the initial state (paragraph 33, 101, 102). However, von STUMBERG does not expressly disclose refining an inclination signal of the orientation signal using the position signal; and constraining the position signal to remain substantially close to the initial position of the 3DOF tracking device. In a similar field of endeavor, SANG discloses wherein determining the initial state further comprises: in response to the 3DOF tracking device, accessing a gyroscope signal from a gyroscope of the 3DOF tracking device (paragraph 83-95); in response to the 3DOF tracking device, accessing an accelerometer signal from an accelerometer of the 3DOF tracking device (paragraph 83-95); integrating the gyroscope signal and the accelerometer signal to obtain an orientation signal and a position signal using the initial state (paragraph 83-95); refining an inclination signal of the orientation signal using the position signal (paragraph 83-95); and constraining the position signal to remain substantially close to the initial position of the 3DOF tracking device (paragraph 83-95). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify von STUMBERG to include the teachings of SANG, since SANG states that such a modification would increase precision by removing effects caused by rotation. Furthermore, as both inventions are analogous, such a modification would provide additional position determination based on those disclosed by SANG.
Regarding claim 8, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. However, von STUMBERG does not expressly disclose wherein integrating the gyroscope signal and the accelerometer signal comprise: integrating the gyroscope signal to determine the orientation signal starting from the initial orientation; rotating the accelerometer signal from the accelerometer using the orientation signal; subtracting gravity; and performing a double integration starting from the initial position to determine the position signal. In a similar field of endeavor, SANG discloses wherein integrating the gyroscope signal and the accelerometer signal comprise: integrating the gyroscope signal to determine the orientation signal starting from the initial orientation; rotating the accelerometer signal from the accelerometer using the orientation signal; and performing a double integration starting from the initial position to determine the position signal (paragraph 83-95). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify von STUMBERG to include the teachings of SANG, since SANG states that such a modification would increase precision by removing effects caused by rotation. Furthermore, as both inventions are analogous, such a modification would provide additional position determination based on those disclosed by SANG. Although STUMBERG and SANG disclose determination of gravity, the combination of STUMBERG and SANG does not expressly disclose subtracting gravity. The Examiner takes Official Notice that subtraction of gravity related acceleration within inertial measurements is well known and conventional in the art and would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Such a modification would remove error from raw acceleration based on gravity vectors.
Regarding claim 9, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. The combination of von STUMBERG and SANG further discloses after integrating only the gyroscope signal and the accelerometer signal, correcting the gyroscope signal and the accelerometer signal with biases (SANG - paragraph 83-95); and refining the inclination signal and biases using the position signal (SANG - paragraph 83-95).
Regarding claim 15, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. von STUMBERG further discloses wherein determining the initial state further comprises: in response to turning on the 3DOF tracking device, accessing a gyroscope signal from a gyroscope of the 3DOF tracking device; in response to turning on the 3DOF tracking device, accessing an accelerometer signal from an accelerometer of the 3DOF tracking device (paragraph 33, 101, 102); integrating the gyroscope signal and the accelerometer signal to obtain an orientation signal and a position signal using the initial state (paragraph 33, 101, 102). However, von STUMBERG does not expressly disclose refining an inclination signal of the orientation signal using the position signal; and constraining the position signal to remain substantially close to the initial position of the 3DOF tracking device. In a similar field of endeavor, SANG discloses wherein determining the initial state further comprises: in response to the 3DOF tracking device, accessing a gyroscope signal from a gyroscope of the 3DOF tracking device (paragraph 83-95); in response to the 3DOF tracking device, accessing an accelerometer signal from an accelerometer of the 3DOF tracking device (paragraph 83-95); integrating the gyroscope signal and the accelerometer signal to obtain an orientation signal and a position signal using the initial state (paragraph 83-95); refining an inclination signal of the orientation signal using the position signal (paragraph 83-95); and constraining the position signal to remain substantially close to the initial position of the 3DOF tracking device (paragraph 83-95). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify von STUMBERG to include the teachings of SANG, since SANG states that such a modification would increase precision by removing effects caused by rotation. Furthermore, as both inventions are analogous, such a modification would provide additional position determination based on those disclosed by SANG.
Regarding claim 18, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. However, von STUMBERG does not expressly disclose wherein integrating the gyroscope signal and the accelerometer signal comprise: integrating the gyroscope signal to determine the orientation signal starting from the initial orientation; rotating the accelerometer signal from the accelerometer using the orientation signal; subtracting gravity; and performing a double integration starting from the initial position to determine the position signal. In a similar field of endeavor, SANG discloses wherein integrating the gyroscope signal and the accelerometer signal comprise: integrating the gyroscope signal to determine the orientation signal starting from the initial orientation; rotating the accelerometer signal from the accelerometer using the orientation signal; and performing a double integration starting from the initial position to determine the position signal (paragraph 83-95). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify von STUMBERG to include the teachings of SANG, since SANG states that such a modification would increase precision by removing effects caused by rotation. Furthermore, as both inventions are analogous, such a modification would provide additional position determination based on those disclosed by SANG. Although STUMBERG and SANG disclose determination of gravity, the combination of STUMBERG and SANG does not expressly disclose subtracting gravity. The Examiner takes Official Notice that subtraction of gravity related acceleration within inertial measurements is well known and conventional in the art and would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Such a modification would remove error from raw acceleration based on gravity vectors.
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 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,941,184. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claims of the instant Application are a broader version of those in the patent and therefore overlap in scope.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARIEL A BALAOING whose telephone number is (571)272-7317. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-4AM M-F.
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, Matthew Eason can be reached at (571) 270-7230. 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.
/ARIEL A BALAOING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2624