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
1. Claims 6-8 and 15-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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 of this title, 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.
3. Claims 1-5, 10-14, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaifosh et al., US 2019/0228330 in view of Sah et al., US 2016/0105761.
Regarding claim 1, Kaifosh teaches of a method for tracking at least one hand of a user immersed in an Extended Reality (XR) session (See [0002]-[0003]; [0087]-[0092]), the method comprising:
identifying a context of an operation of a head-mounted display (HMD) device and a position of the at least one hand of the user with reference to an input scene (See [0004]-[0021], [0027], [0092], [0129], and [0134] hmd device for capturing image of hand scene/image and its position wherein the context is at least of an image capturing/rendering context);
estimating a plurality of landmarks associated with the at least one hand of the user based on the context of the operation, wherein the plurality of landmarks indicates a set of key points on the at least one hand of the user (See [0004], [0027], [0087], [0097], [0109]-[0130]; and [0179]-[0185] landmarks of joints of the hand/arms based on the context of operating the hmd for capturing images);
classifying images into a first and second group (See [0120]-[0122] determines whether camera sensors are occluded based on field of view and weights/categorizes them based on whether there is occlusion or no occlusion);
predicting a position of the first group using an artificial intelligence (AI) model based on obtaining hand kinematics associated with the user and the context of the operation (See [0004], [0027], [0087], [0097], [0109]-[0130]; and [0179]-[0185] hand kinematics and learning models for prediction of the first group);
rendering the at least one hand of the user in the XR session based on the second group and the predicted position of the first group (See [0004], [0027], [0087], [0097], [0109]-[0130]; and [0179]-[0185] rendering and displaying of the hand based on the); and
tracking the at least one hand of the user based on rendering the at least one hand of the user in the XR session (See [0002]-[0003]; [0087]-[0092]; [0004], [0027], [0087], [0097], [0109]-[0130]; and [0179]).
Kaifosh is silent with respect to wherein the classified images are of landmarks are classified into a first of occluded landmarks and second group having non occluded landmarks.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Sah teaches of the classified images are of landmarks are classified into a first of occluded landmarks and second group having non occluded landmarks (See [0044] and [0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Kaifosh to have incorporated the teachings of Sah for the mere benefit of being able to better predict and display gestures despite hidden obscured key points.
Regarding claim 2, the combination teaches method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the input scene is captured by a camera of the HMD device (See Kaifosh, [0092]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the plurality of landmarks is associated with at least one of finger joints and fingertips of the at least one hand of the user (See Kaifosh, See [0002]-[0003]; [0087]-[0092]; [0004], [0027], [0087], [0097], [0109]-[0130]; and [0179] at least finger joints).
Regarding claim 4, the combination teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the hand kinematics is obtained from a corpus that includes at least a pre-calibrated hand and signature model of the user (See Kaifosh, [0002]-[0003]; [0087]-[0092]; [0004], [0027], [0087], [0097], [0109]-[0130]; and [0179] calibrating according to the users skeleton such that the hand kinematics can be obtained to the specific user).
Regarding claim 5, the combination teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the classifying the plurality of landmarks into one of the first group of the one or more occluded landmarks and the second group of the one or more non-occluded landmarks comprises: identifying a presence of at least one occluded landmark in the first group of the one or more occluded landmarks (See analysis of claim 1; Sah, [0044] and [0048]); and identifying a presence of at least one non-occluded landmark in the second group of the one or more non-occluded landmarks (See analysis of claim 1; Sah, [0044] and [0048]).
Regarding claim 10, the claim has been analyzed and rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, the claim has been analyzed and rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 12, the claim has been analyzed and rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of claim 3.
Regarding claim 13, the claim has been analyzed and rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 4.
Regarding claim 14, the claim has been analyzed and rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 5.
Regarding claim 19, the claim has been analyzed and rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, the claim has been analyzed and rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 2.
4. Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaifosh et al., US 2019/0228330 in view of Sah et al., US 2016/0105761, and in further view of Hare, US 20190178654.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Kaifosh and Sah teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the context of the operation comprises: wherein identifying the position of the at least one hand of the user with reference to the one or more real-world objects (See Kaifosh, [0002], [0172]-[0173], and [0179]); identifying one or more hand gestures based on the identified position (See Kaifosh, [0114]-[0117], [0172]-[0173]); and identifying the context of the operation based on identifying one or more hand gestures (See Kaifosh, [0004], [0114]-[0117]).
The combination is silent with respect to identifying one or more real-world objects from the input scene using a Simultaneous Localization and Mapping (SLAM) model.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Hare teaches of identifying one or more real-world objects from the input scene using a Simultaneous Localization and Mapping (SLAM) model (See Figs. 6 and Fig. 9; [0174]-[0196]; [0207], and [0285]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Kaifosh and Sah to have incorporated the teachings of Hare for the mere benefit of being able to identify a position of objects in a virtual/augmented/extended reality environment.
Regarding claim 18, the claim has been analyzed and rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 9.
Contact
5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ricky Chin whose telephone number is 571-270-3753. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-6:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached on 571-272-3982. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 703-872-9306.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Ricky Chin/
Primary Examiner
AU 2424
(571) 270-3753
Ricky.Chin@uspto.gov
Prosecution Insights