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 .
This action is in response to the CON filed on 06/24/2025
This is a CON of 18/542,122, now a PAT 12,368,973 B2 which is a CON of 17/428,948, now a PAT 11,889,209 B2 which is a 371 of PCT /US2020/017119 02/07/2020
Application Claims DP date of 02/07/2019
Claims 21, 31 and 37 are independent
Claims 21-40 are pending
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 06/24/2025, 07/14/2025 and 08/13/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98(a)(4). Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 21-23, 26, 28, 30-32, 35-28 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chavez et al. (U. S. Patent Publication Number 2017/0127051 A1).
Regarding Claim 21, Chavez discloses a wearable display system (Fig 5 illustrates an exemplary system configured to implement various embodiments. Eyewear 140 is an example of wearable display system), comprising:
a first camera (At least two cameras 160 as disclosed in ¶0070 or 4 cameras in ¶0073);
a second camera (At least two cameras 160 as disclosed in ¶0070 or 4 cameras in ¶0073) , wherein the first camera and the second camera are positioned so as to provide overlapping views of a central view field (In ¶0093, Chavez discloses that each camera in the array may capture a slightly different perspective view of the scene. However, there may be some overlap in the views of the cameras in the camera array);
a processor operatively coupled to the first camera and the second camera (In ¶0038 and throughout, Chavez discloses the use of at least one processor that executes instructions), and
is configured to track an object by performing operations comprising receiving from at least one camera in the first and the second cameras (In ¶0070, Chavez discloses that the eyewear 140 may be used to track the user view), light field information including information on angle of arrival of light from the object (In Fig 7 and in ¶0082, Chavez discloses that camera array 700 may be used to capture light field type data of object 710; in ¶0089 he also discloses that light field type data may be the input of head tracking; In ¶0099, Chavez discloses that the light field type data may be received from an array of camera and may provide data corresponding to the scene from a unique perspective – and/or from multiple vantage point – which could be interpreted as “angle of arrival of light”); and
tracking the object by using the light field information received from the at least one camera rather than using image data produced by the at least one camera (Fig 10 and ¶0098-¶0013 discloses this feature).
Regarding Claim 22, Chavez discloses wherein the object is tracked by using the light field information received from the first camera in response to determining that the object is at the central view field (Since Chavez discloses in ¶0070 that the eyewear 140 may be used as a position input device to track the users view – POV – of a user viewing a scene – it is clear that Chavez discloses “central view field”).
Regarding Claim 23, Chavez discloses wherein the first camera consumes less power to provide the light field information than the second camera does (Since Chavez discloses using multiple cameras – in the array of cameras – some cameras are used to track users movement or eye movement, and the others may be used to sense user input. It is therefore clear that the power consumed by the cameras will be different where one will consume less power than the other.).
Regarding Claim 26, Chavez discloses wherein the object is tracked by using the light field information received from the second camera in response to determining that the object is at a peripheral view field of the second camera outside the central view field (In ¶0094, Chavez discloses that high resolution image of image associated with viewer’s POV or gaze direction and peripheral view may be transmitted at lower resolution thus reducing the amount of data transmitted and bandwidth required to transmit the data.).
Regarding Claim 28, Chavez discloses wherein the first camera is a grayscale camera and the second camera is a red-green-blue (RGB) camera (Chavez discloses that the cameras may be charge coupled CCD or CMOS cameras).
Regarding Claim 30, Chavez discloses wherein tracking the object includes using the light field information to update a position of the object in a world model that was created by using information stereoscopically determined from images acquired from the first camera and the second camera (In ¶0069 and throughout, Chavez discloses that the displays 150A and 150B may present stereoscopic images for viewing by the user – and in order to provide this the users may wear eye ware and the images. In ¶0077 he also discloses that the 3D scene may be stereoscopic.).
Regarding Claim 31, this claim is a methods claim that has limitations similar to claim 21. Claim 31 is rejected on the same grounds as Claim 21.
Regarding Claim 32, this claim is a methods claim that has limitations similar to claim 22. Claim 32 is rejected on the same grounds as Claim 22.
Regarding Claim 35, this claim is a methods claim that has limitations similar to claim 26. Claim 35 is rejected on the same grounds as Claim 26.
Regarding Claim 36, this claim is a methods claim that has limitations similar to claim 30. Claim 36 is rejected on the same grounds as Claim 30.
Regarding Claim 37, this claim is a program claim that has limitations similar to claim 1. Claim 37 is rejected on the same grounds as Claim 21.
Regarding Claim 38, this claim is a program claim that has limitations similar to claims 22 and 23. Claim 38 is rejected on the same grounds as Claims 22 and 23.
Regarding Claim 40, this claim is a program claim that has limitations similar to claim 26. Claim 40 is rejected on the same grounds as Claim 26.
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 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 24-25, 27, 29, 33-34 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chavez et al. (U. S. Patent Publication Number 2017/0127051 A1) in view of Venkataraman et al. (U. S. Patent Publication Number 2016/0309134 A1).
Regarding Claim 24, Chavez fails to clearly discloses wherein the operations further comprise determining that the object is within a maximum distance from the first camera beyond which the processor does not accurately distinguish differing distances between objects wherein the object is tracked by using the light field information received from the first camera, in response to determining that the object is within the maximum distance.
Instead in a similar endeavor, Venkataraman discloses wherein the operations further comprise determining that the object is within a maximum distance from the first camera beyond which the processor does not accurately distinguish differing distances between objects wherein the object is tracked by using the light field information received from the first camera, in response to determining that the object is within the maximum distance (Venkataraman teaches this in ¶0112-¶0116 and in Fig 5 where he teaches about operational mode and depth accuracy).
Chavez and Venkataraman are combinable because both are related to imaging device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the correction methods as taught by Venkataraman in the imaging module disclosed by Chavez.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to ensure that the baseline distance between the cameras is less than a baseline distance between the cameras in the far-field array in order to increase the accuracy of the depth map as disclosed by Venkataraman in the Abstract.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Chavez and Venkataraman to obtain the invention as specified in claim 24.
Regarding Claim 25, Chavez in view of Venkataraman discloses further comprising: determining whether the tracking satisfies a specific tracking criterion (In ¶0112 Venkataraman teaches that the camera array system is designed to work over a fairly large depth of field. However, far field objects at distances greater than 1m and up to 4m may require a large operating baseline between the cameras to get a high geometric depth accuracy); and in response to determining that tracking does not satisfy the specific tracking criterion, enabling the second camera, and stereoscopically determining depth information of the object by using image data received from the first camera and image data received from the second camera (Venkataraman also teaches in ¶0113 to use cameras with larger fields of view. Intensity constancy which refers to the assumption that the image of a point in object space in two different cameras positioned at different viewpoints is of roughly equal intensity.).
Regarding Claim 27, this claim has limitations similar to claim 24. Claim 27 is rejected on the same grounds as Claim 24.
Regarding Claim 29, Chavez in view of Venkataraman discloses wherein a field of view of the second camera is larger than a field of view of the first camera (Venkataraman: see ¶0106 where he teaches the use of cameras with different field of view).
Regarding Claim 33, this claim is a methods claim that has limitations similar to claim 24. Claim 33 is rejected on the same grounds as Claim 24.
Regarding Claim 34, this claim is a methods claim that has limitations similar to claim 25. Claim 34 is rejected on the same grounds as Claim 25.
Regarding Claim 39, this claim is a program claim that has limitations similar to claim 25. Claim 39 is rejected on the same grounds as Claim 25.
Reference Cited
The following prior art made of record but not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Smith et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2019/0289284 A1) discloses Systems and methods for capturing and rendering light fields for head-mounted displays are disclosed. A mediated-reality visualization system includes a head-mounted display assembly comprising a frame configured to be mounted to a user's head and a display device coupled to the frame. An imaging assembly separate and spaced apart :from the head-mounted display assembly is configured to capture light-field data. A computing device in communication with the imaging assembly and the display device is configured to receive light-field data from the imaging assembly and render one or more virtual cameras. Images from the one or more virtual cameras are presented to a user via the display device
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PADMA HALIYUR whose telephone number is (571)272-3287. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7AM - 4PM.
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, Twyler Haskins can be reached at 571-272-7406. 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.
/PADMA HALIYUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2639 September 21, 2026
Prosecution Insights