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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims below have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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)(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 2, 4, 5, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Marra et al. (hereinafter “Marra”), US Pub. No. 2022/0207816.
Regarding claim 2, Marra teaches a method for visually displaying 3D data (fig. 9, [0057-0061]), the method comprising intrinsically determining a field of view of a head-mounted display (Fig. 1A, [0037-0038]), at recurring times ([0062]) and displaying information that moves concomitantly with the field of view in the head-mounted display ([0033, 0057-0061], Fig. 9), and ascertaining and matching a capture pose that predefines the field of view of the head-mounted display ([0038, 0057-0059]; Fig. 9, steps 940-960) with the field of view ([0058-0060]; Fig. 9, steps 950-980).
Regarding claim 4, Marra teaches Marra teaches wherein the capture pose is ascertained using a measuring device that moves concomitantly of the determination of the field of view (Fig. 1A, [0037-0038, 0057-0058]).
Regarding claim 5, Marra teaches carrying out the intrinsic determination using at least one concomitantly moving sensor (Fig. 1A, [0037-0038, 0057-0058]).
Regarding claim 9, Marra teaches measuring the intrinsic determination of the capture pose [using] concomitantly moving cameras (Fig. 1A, [0037-0038, 0058]).
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagano et al. (hereinafter “Nagano”), US Pub. No. 2021/0287330, in view of Clark-Lindh et al. (hereinafter “Clark”), US Patent No. 11,238,159.
Nagano teaches a method of producing a virtual view of a 3D model of an installation ([0109-0111]), producing a virtual view of the 3D model ([0112]).
Nagano fails to explicitly teach producing the virtual view of the 3D model in head mounted display using a 3D measuring devices operating independently of the head mounted display, wherein individual virtual objects correspond to real models detected by the 3D measuring device.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Clark teaches an artificial reality system comprising HMDs (112) and external cameras (102), wherein the external cameras capture three dimensional information within the real world environment concerning objects (108, [0028]), captured image data is processed to identify objects and object poses ([0032] and virtual objects 128 are spatially overlaid upon corresponding real world objects 108, [0028]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the 3D visualization system of Nagano to employ the head mounted display and external 3D image capture arrangement taught by Clark. As such, a person having ordinary skill in the art would appreciate the motivation for doing so would have been to provide environmental/object tracking information for spatially registering virtual content with corresponding real world objects.
Claims 3 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marra (see above), in view of Chiou, US Patent No. 12,053,247.
Regarding claim 3, Marra fails to explicitly teach wherein the capture pose is ascertained using a 3D measuring device comprising one or more cameras that is configured independently of the head-mounted display and/or is stationary.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Chiou teaches outside-in tracking of a head mounted display using one or more external sensors or cameras installed in a stationary location, such as on a ceiling, wall, or stand (col. 35, lines 27-63, col. 36, lines 55-67). Chiou teaches that the external sensors or cameras capture movement of the HMD, including through detection of markers attached to the HMD or user’s head, and that the resulting sensor data or camera images are processed to obtain tracking information used to compute the view projection for the HMD (col. 35, lines 27-63, col. 36, lines 55-67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pose determination method of Marra to include the stationary external camera based tracking arrangement taught by Chiou. As such, a person having ordinary skill in the art would appreciate the motivation for doing so would have been to provide an alternative known technique for determining and tracking the pose of the head-mounted display.
Regarding claim 6, Chiou teaches measuring the capture pose using active markers on the head mounted display (col. 35, lines 46-50).
Regarding claim 7, Chiou teaches measuring the capture pose using passive markers on the head mounted display (col. 35, lines 46-50).
Regarding claim 8, Chiou teaches measuring the capture pose a stationary measuring device (col. 35, lines 46-50).
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marra (see above), in view of Nagano (see above).
Regarding claim 10, Marra teaches a method for visually displaying information using a head-mounted display, including determining a viewpoint/field of view of the head-mounted display and rendering and displaying output information based on the determined viewpoint ([0038, 0058-0061], Fig. 9).
Marra fails to explicitly teach that the information visually displayed comprises an air flow represented as concomitantly moving 3D data.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Nagano teaches determining an image showing a result of an air flow simulation for a particular wind direction as 3D data ([0027, 0082], Fig. 12B, [0109-0112]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the information displayed by th head mounted display of Marra to include the air flow simulation information taught by Nagano. As such, a person having ordinary skill in the art would appreciate the motivation for doing so would have been to permit a user to visualize airflow conditions relative to the environment while viewing the environment through the head mounted display.
Regarding claim 11, Nagano teaches wherein the 3D data comprise a 3D model (39) of an installation and/or wherein the 3D data comprise AR metadata for components of the installation ([0109-0112]).
Regarding claim 12, Marra teaches wherein the head mounted display is used to shield a real environment ([0037, 0057-0061]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-37 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: None of the prior art, either singularly or in combination, teaches or fairly suggests comprising: providing a real model for at least one of the virtual objects; aligning a virtual body with the real model at recurring times using a 3D position measurement and linking the at least one virtual object to the virtual body and putting the at least one virtual object into a desired positional relationship with the virtual body, and a user altering the link between the virtual body and the at least one virtual object.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Bleyer et al. (US Pub. No. 2023/0274384) teaches a head mounted device including a mixed reality system including a system camera and external cameras.
Germer et al. (US Patent No. 11,099,634) teaches manipulation of virtual objects using tracked physical objects.
Kaehler et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0005034) teaches estimating poses in 3D spaces.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH B LEE JR whose telephone number is (571)270-3147. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9am-5pm.
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, William Boddie can be reached at 571-272-0666. 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.
/KENNETH B LEE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2625
