This invention relates to a viewing system and to a method of viewing content.
A personal computer usually has a stand-alone screen in the form of a laptop screen or a separate screen that is connected to a central processing unit. Applications that display images, such as browsers that display browser windows and content in web pages, word processing applications that display windows with text in the windows, or the like, are designed to display such content so that the user can typically read the content comfortably between a distance 0.25 meters and 1 meters. When the user moves further away from the display, the content simply becomes smaller within the view of the user.
Three-dimensional viewing systems are also sometimes used for viewing content. A three-dimensional viewing system may have a head-mountable frame and left and right displays in front of left and right eyes of a user. The displays may create images or project images that are slightly different from one another to give the user the impression of depth. Alternatively, or additionally, a respective display may adjust a focal length to various depths.
The user can, for example, receive a browser window with a web page at a distance of 2 meters from the user. In addition, the browser window can move towards the user or away from the user following user interaction with sensors that are usually located on the head-mountable unit and track movement of the head of the user and/or body parts of the user.
The invention provides a viewing system including a content source to hold image data, an application engine, forming part of an application, communicatively connected to the content source to receive the image data and render an image based on the image data, a display engine communicatively connected to the application engine to display the image to a user, the image having a first size, the image being adjustable to a second size that is smaller than the first size, and a detection system that detects a measure indicative of adjustment of the image from the first size to the second size, wherein the application, in response to the detection, executes a clarification routine to maintain sharpness of the image.
The invention also provides a method of viewing content including rendering, with an application engine, an image based on image data from a content source, displaying, with a display engine, the image to a user and the image having a first size, the image being adjustable to a second size that is smaller than the first size, detecting, with a detection system, a measure indicative of adjustment of the image from the first size to the second size and executing, with an application, based on the detection, a clarification routine to maintain sharpness of the image.
The invention is further described by way of examples with reference to the accompanying drawings, wherein:
The display engine 16 and the application 20 are software systems that reside on a computer-readable storage medium and are executable by a processor of the viewing system 10. The display engine 16 and the application 20 are communicatively connected to one another through calls and subroutines as will be commonly understood by one of skill in the art.
The stereoscopic viewer 18 is a hardware component that is connected to the processor via a physical or wireless connection. The stereoscopic viewer 18 is also communicatively connected to the display engine 16.
The application 20 includes an application engine 14, an application compositor 30 and a frame size determinator 32.
The content source 12 is a hardware component that is connected to the processor. The content source 12 is also communicatively connected to the application engine 14. The content source 12 is capable of carrying image data. Such image data may for example be a still image such as a photograph or a document. The image data may alternatively be a moving image such as a document or a web page that moves when a user scrolls the document or web page, or may be successive frames of images that form a movie.
The application engine 14 may for example be a picture viewer, a document editing application, a browser, a movie viewer or the like that is capable of rendering an image based on the image data.
The display engine 16 determines a height (H) and width (W) of a field-of-view 22 that is specific to the stereoscopic viewer 18. The field-of-view 22 has a buffer texture 24 having a frame size. A “frame size” is a term that is generally used in the art for indicating the combination of a number of horizontal pixels (X′) and a number of vertical pixels (Y′).
The application compositor 30 has an application buffer 28. The application compositor 30 draws an image into the application buffer 28. The display engine 16 stretches the image in the application buffer 28 using the coordinates of the buffer texture 24, and then displays the image to the user.
The stereoscopic viewer 18 may have a frame that is mountable to a head of a viewer with left and right displays in front of left and right eyes of the viewer. Depending on the configuration, the display in front of the eyes may appear as a single display but may be configured to project two different images, one per eye. The stereoscopic viewer 18 receives the image from the display engine 16 and displays the image to the viewer within the field-of-view 22. The display engine 16 may display images that are slightly different to left and right eyes of the user to give the user a perception of depth. The display engine 16 may display each image at an adjustable field of depth to also give the user a perception of depth while accommodating sight-related enhancements such as “vergence accommodation”. The image that is displayed within the buffer texture 24 is thus perceived by the user to be at a particular virtual distance from the user.
The frame size determinator 32 includes a texture size calculator 26, a look-up table 34 and a look-up algorithm 36. The look-up table 34 has a plurality of distances in an X-column and a plurality of frame sizes in a Y-column with each frame size corresponding to a respective distance. The frame size may, for example, be represented by a number of pixels in a single direction (e.g. frame width, or frame height, or diagonal). The frame size may then be a simply calculated by applying, for example, a fixed aspect ratio. The frame sizes decrease with increasing distance between the user and the virtual content. The look-up algorithm 36 receives a virtual distance between the user and the virtual content as an input and determines a select distance among the distances in the X-column corresponding to the virtual distance. The look-up algorithm 36 then determines a frame size corresponding to the select distance.
The look-up table 34 may have been created by first displaying an image on the viewing system 10, and then measuring the number of pixels that the image occupies on the stereoscopic viewer 18. The image may be incrementally moved away from the user and the new frame sizes measured. The distance and corresponding number of pixels may be aggregated and placed in a table to form the look-up table 34. Other suitable methods of creating the look-up table may be used. The look-up table 34 and look-up algorithm 36 may alternatively be replaced with an interpolation algorithm that may serve the same function as look-up table 34 and look-up algorithm 36, but may use one or more interpolation algorithms, such as a spline interpolation algorithm, or the like.
At 56, the application buffer 28 receives the image from the application engine 14. The application buffer 28 has a predetermined size and the image from the application engine 14 fills the application buffer 28.
At 60, the display engine 16 displays the image to the user at a first virtual distance relative to the user wherein the image has a first size. The display engine 16 may for example display a browser window or a document viewer window at a default location and with a pre-set maximum surface. The default location may be a preselected, user-friendly location where it is easy for the user to view the image. The image may comprise text, pictures, and/or other visual content. If the image comprises text, the image is preferably displayed at a default distance from the user so that the user can easily read the text.
The maximum surface may be the largest possible texture that the viewing system 10 assigns to the image. The stereoscopic viewer 18 may have a resolution of 1280-960 pixels. The viewing system 10 may assign a maximum frame size for a given application, window, or type of content, (e.g., a browser window). A browser application may be a landscape application (which means that it can be simultaneously displayed with other application windows). A browser application may not be an immersive application (wherein one application window takes over the entire field-of-view), and the assumption may therefore be made that the browser window will never take up the entire field-of-view (e.g. 1280×960), and thus a value of 1120 pixels may be chosen (e.g. with a fixed aspect ratio) because it is slightly smaller than 1280 pixels, which may allow for a border or a small portion of the field-of-view that will not contain the browser window. Choosing a maximum surface frame size of larger than 1280 pixels will exceed the resolution of the stereoscopic viewer 18, in which case the viewing system 10 may apply a minimal filter to match the display resolution when displaying the content to the user, which in turn may result in unnecessary processing power to display an image of equivalent resolution (i.e. maximum surface of 1280 pixels being equivalent to 1120 pixels after the minimal filter is applied to the 1280 pixels).
The stereoscopic viewer 18 may have a number of systems that detect movement of the stereoscopic viewer 18 relative to real world objects. For example, the stereoscopic viewer 18 may have an inertial measurement unit with one or more accelerometers that detect acceleration and a gyroscope the detects rotation of the stereoscopic viewer 18. In addition, the stereoscopic viewer 18 may have a camera system that captures images of real world objects and can track the movement of the real world objects within the view of the stereoscopic viewer 18. These systems provide “intelligence” that permit detection of movement of the stereoscopic viewer 18 relative to the real world objects. When the stereoscopic viewer 18 moves relative to the real world objects, the image that is displayed by the display engine 16 may also move within the view of the stereoscopic viewer 18. For example, if the image is displayed to the user that gives the user the impression that the image is located on a wall, and if the user walks closer to the wall, the depth that the image is displayed also moves closer to the user to give the impression to the user that the image remains on the wall. The image will also become larger within the field of view of the user.
It is also possible for the user to interact with the display engine 16 to increase the size of the image. The stereoscopic viewer 18 may, for example, have one or more cameras that can capture gestures made by a hand of a user and the viewing system 10 may interpret such gestures to increase the size of the image. The user may increase the size of the image by moving the image closer to the user or may increase the size of the image while the image remains at a stationary virtual distance relative to the user.
If the image becomes larger (e.g. the user walks towards the image), the rendered resolution may change (e.g. increase), but the size of the application buffer 28 may remain the same. Traditional systems may use a built-in re-sizing feature, broadly called “mipmapping” that may cause blurriness of the image. Mipmapping may include the use of filters that are well known in the art, for example a “mean filter”, a “Gaussian smoothing filter”, a ‘bilinear filter”, etc. For example, if a browser window moves further away and fewer pixels are available to the browser window, an averaging method may be used wherein four adjacent pixels in the first image are displayed as a single pixel in a second image. The single pixel may be given an average pixel value between 0 and 255 representing the average of the four pixels that were originally displayed (in the first image), resulting in blurriness in the second image.
At 62, the image is moved to a second virtual distance relative to the user wherein the image has a second size that is smaller than the first size. In the given example, the user may move further away from the wall and the display engine 16 may maintain the impression that the image remains on the wall by moving the image further away from the user within the view of the user which consequently also makes the image smaller. Fewer pixels are now available to display the image. Traditional mipmapping techniques may take four originally-displayed pixels, average their pixel value and display the averaged value as a single pixel. Such averaging of pixel values may result in blurriness.
Traditional systems may have been used for purposes of displaying images on stand-alone computer displays. For example, a browser window may be displayed on a traditional stand-alone computer display. A user may then use controls to zoom in to or out of a web page. Such zooming in to and out of a web page may trigger a mipmapping filtering technique. When the user moves away from the stand-alone computer display, the browser window becomes smaller within the view of the user, because it becomes smaller within the field of the view of the eye of the user. The window is not, additionally, made smaller and there is no zooming out within the window as a result of the user moving away from the stand-alone computer display. The window remains static relative to the stand-alone computer display and only becomes smaller within the field-of-view of the eye of the user. As a consequence, the image in the display does not become more blurry when the user moves away from the stand-alone computer display.
At 64, a movement detection system of the application 20 detects movement of the image to the second virtual distance relative to the user. The detection of the movement is a detection of a measure indicative that the image has become smaller. A change in a size of the image (smaller or larger) may necessitate a clarification routine to maintain sharpness (as opposed to blurriness) of the image.
At 66, the user, additionally, may interact with the display engine 16 to change the size of the image from a first size to a second size. At 68, a detection system detects a measure indicative of adjustment from the first size to the second size. At 70, in response to the detection at 68, a scale factor may be determined to account for the adjustment at 66. The scale factor may ultimately be sent to subroutine 82 (optionally, via subroutines 64, 74, 76, and/or 78), where determining the frame size may, at least in part, be determined by the scale factor. The scale factor may, for example, be determined by calculating the ratio of the displayed image before and after user manipulation. For example, an image may initially be displayed at 1280 pixels (e.g. full resolution/full buffer). The image may move away from the user, and thus be at 640 pixels (which may be determined by look-up table 34 based on the distance of the image from the user). The user may then stretch the image to make it bigger, by a scale factor of 1.5 (i.e. the image is now 50% larger than it was), resulting in a post-adjusted image having 960 pixels at the same distance as the pre-adjusted image having 640 pixels. The user may now walk towards the image. The look-up table 34 may determine that the image should be 750 pixels, based on the distance between the browser window and the user, and after the scale ratio is applied, the screen should actually be 1100 pixels. The scale factor from the look-up table 34 and given by the look-up algorithm 36, is thus multiplied by the scale ratio. Depending on the particular situation, the image may become smaller at 60 and larger at 66, smaller at 60 and smaller at 66, remain unchanged at 60 and enlarges or becomes smaller at 66, etc. For purposes of further discussion, the effect of user interaction at 66 is ignored in favor of the detection at 64 of the change in the virtual distance, wherein the virtual distance may be the distance between the user and the virtual content/image.
At 74, a determination is (optionally) made whether the movement from the first virtual distance to the second virtual distance is more than a predetermined minimum threshold distance. At 76, a determination is (optionally) made whether a predetermined minimum threshold amount of time has passed between the movement from the first virtual distance and the movement of the second virtual distance. The predetermined minimum threshold distance may, for example, be 0.25 meters. The predetermined minimum amount of time may be, for example, one second or one minute. The thresholds referred to at 74 and 76 may be set to avoid a jittery experience due to clarification updates that may be too frequent.
At 78, a determination is (optionally) made whether the movement from the first virtual distance to the second virtual distance is less than a predetermined maximum threshold distance. A predetermined maximum threshold distance may, for example, be 4 meters. If the second virtual distance is more than 4 meters, there may be no need for a clarification routine to be carried out because the image may be too small for the user to read. In particular, text on a web page or in a document may be too small for the user to see. Any image adjustment due to traditional mipmapping techniques are thus acceptable because the blurriness resulting from such techniques will not negatively effect user experience. One or more of the thresholds at 74, 76, and 78, may be determined through user testing. It may be possible to execute 74, 76, and 78 in another order or eliminate one or more of the operations.
In the described embodiment, if a determination is made that 74, 76 and 78 are all positive, then the system proceeds to 82 wherein the frame size determinator 32 determines a select frame size that corresponds to the second virtual distance. Various techniques may be employed to do the determination at 82, for example techniques based on the second virtual distance, techniques based on a match with an appropriate render size, techniques based on a final render resolution, techniques based on the number of pixels available for content display, etc. The determination at 82 includes a determination, at 84, wherein the look-up algorithm 36 (I) selects a select distance from the look-up table 34 based on the second virtual distance and (II) determines a select frame size which is the frame size corresponding to the selected distance. The selected frame size then forms the basis for a clarification routine.
Block 94 indicates that the buffer size remains unchanged from the buffer size referred to at block 56.
At 98, the application 20 executes a clarification routine that maintains sharpness of the image based on the frame size allocated to the image when displayed to the user through the stereoscopic viewer 18. It can be noted that the clarification routine is in response to the detection at 64 of the movement of the image to the second virtual distance. At 100, the application compositor 30 receives the select frame size from the frame size determinator 32. In the present example, the frame size determinator 32 has provided a selected frame size of 700.
At 102, the texture size calculator 26 calculates coordinates of the image based on the frame size. Vertical and horizontal coordinates may be adjusted by the same amount to maintain a fixed aspect ratio of the image.
At 104, the application compositor 30 draws a new image at the new image size within the application buffer 28. The size of the application buffer 28 still remains unchanged, as indicated by block 94. In the given example where the frame size reduces from 1120 to 1000, only 1000 pixels are drawn in the application buffer 28 and a proportional adjustment is made on the vertical axis of the image. The updated image thus has fewer pixels than if the entire buffer is used. By drawing fewer pixels in the application buffer 28, fewer processing cycles are required and less power is consumed than if the image fills the entire buffer.
At 105, the updated image information, such as number of pixels, size, and/or resolution, is sent to content associated with the application. Some examples of content associated with the application are application previews (e.g. a screenshot of an application that may appear upon hover of an application icon), dialogue boxes (e.g. a box that states application content can't be accessed, or a request for a user name and/or password), a control box, an information box, other pop-ups, and/or any other widgets, or views, or secondary windows that may be at least partially based on the resolution and/or size and/or number of pixels of the application or application window. The content associated with the application may, for example, be a dialogue box allowing the user to navigate files. The content associated with the application may not be content within the application window, but may be a secondary window, such as a child to the parent application window, which may be triggered and controlled by the application window. The content associated with the application window may be a preview of the application window, such as a browser application displaying a preview of a browser window. A preview may be created for use by an application history feature, and/or as a screenshot of the application window that may be displayed when a cursor hovers over an application icon. At 106, the application compositor 30 provides of the entire buffer with the updated image (and corresponding texture/UV coordinates) to the display engine 16 for display to the user.
It may in certain implementations be useful to skip the routine at 105, which may result in a preview (e.g. screen shot image) that displays the entire buffer, including the portion of the buffer that the image was not drawn into. Skipping routine 105 may thus result in the system not applying the UV coordinates to the content associated with the application window, and the preview therefore copying the full buffer frame (e.g. 1000×1000 pixels) and then drawing the full buffer frame at a smaller size (e.g. 50×50 pixels). The inclusion of routine 105 may enable the preview to only copy the portion of the buffer frame that contains the updated image, thus preventing the preview from comprising the portion of the buffer that the image was not drawn into.
In applications where the content associated with the application is a dialogue box, and the application is a browser application that displays one or more browser windows, skipping routine 105 may result in the dialogue box moving relative to the browser window every time the browser window size and/or resolution is updated. For example, the dialogue box may start in the upper right hand corner of the application window, but may appear at the center of the browser window if the distance between the user and the browser window increases. By way of example, the browser window may have a first size of 1000×1000 pixels, and the dialogue box may start at 200,200 pixels. If the 1000×1000 pixel browser window were resized to 500×500 by all or part of the routines described in
At 88, the display engine 16 executes a stretching operation. A stretching operation may be executed when the image is made larger or when the image is made smaller. The stretching operation may be performed when the display engine 16 stretches the updated image to fit the final display size as viewed by the user, by utilizing the texture coordinates to extract the portion of the application buffer that the updated image fills. If asynchronous frame updating is carried out, the process of executing the clarification routine at 98 occurs during a first frame update of the display engine, and the process of executing the stretching operation at 88 occurs during a different frame update of the display engine. In this case of asynchronous frame updates, the user may notice visual abnormalities, such as jerkiness of jitter in the image. To avoid jerkiness, the process of executing the stretching operation at 88 and executing the clarification routine at 98 may occur within a single frame update of the display engine, i.e. synchronous frame updates. Synchronous frame updates result in smoother visual transitions when the displayed image updates from a first image at a first resolution to a second image at a second resolution, when compared to asynchronous frame updating.
After the display engine stretches the updated image, at 90, the updated image may be displayed to the user.
At 92, a new virtual distance or change in virtual distance is detected, and the process loops back to step 74.
In
As discussed with reference to
The frame size determinator 32A does not have a look-up table or a look-up algorithm that determines a texture size based on a user distance. Instead, the texture size calculator 26A uses the screen size received from the display engine 16A to determine a desired texture size.
The application engine 14A receives the texture size from the frame size determinator 32A. The application compositor 30A writes the image size in the application buffer 28A. The display engine 16A retrieves the image from the application buffer 28A and display the image to the user within the buffer texture 24A.
The viewing system 10 of
The exemplary computer system 900 includes a processor 902 (e.g., a central processing unit (CPU), a graphics processing unit (GPU) or both), a main memory 904 (e.g., read only memory (ROM), flash memory, dynamic random access memory (DRAM) such as synchronous DRAM (SDRAM) or Rambus DRAM (RDRAM), etc.), and a static memory 906 (e.g., flash memory, static random access memory (SRAM), etc.), which communicate with each other via a bus 908.
The computer system 900 may further include a disk drive unit 916, and a network interface device 920.
The disk drive unit 916 includes a machine-readable medium 922 on which is stored one or more sets of instructions 924 (e.g., software) embodying any one or more of the methodologies or functions described herein. The software may also reside, completely or at least partially, within the main memory 904 and/or within the processor 902 during execution thereof by the computer system 900, the main memory 904 and the processor 902 also constituting machine-readable media.
The software may further be transmitted or received over a network 928 via the network interface device 920.
The computer system 900 includes a laser driver chip 950 that is used to drive projectors to generate laser light. The laser driver chip 950 includes its own data store 960 and its own processor 962.
In some embodiments, the computer system 900 and/or the viewing system 10 may be all or part of the mixed reality system as described in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/331,218 which is incorporated by reference herein.
While certain exemplary embodiments have been described and shown in the accompanying drawings, it is to be understood that such embodiments are merely illustrative and not restrictive of the current invention, and that this invention is not restricted to the specific constructions and arrangements shown and described since modifications may occur to those ordinarily skilled in the art.
This application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 16/682,911, filed on Nov. 13, 2019, which claims priority from U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 62/768,705, filed on Nov. 16, 2018 and U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 62/842,844, filed on May 3, 2019, all of which are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
4344092 | Miller | Aug 1982 | A |
4652930 | Crawford | Mar 1987 | A |
4810080 | Grendol et al. | Mar 1989 | A |
4997268 | Dauvergne | Mar 1991 | A |
5007727 | Kahaney et al. | Apr 1991 | A |
5074295 | Willis | Dec 1991 | A |
5240220 | Elberbaum | Aug 1993 | A |
5251635 | Dumoulin et al. | Oct 1993 | A |
5410763 | Bolle | May 1995 | A |
5455625 | Englander | Oct 1995 | A |
5495286 | Adair | Feb 1996 | A |
5497463 | Stein et al. | Mar 1996 | A |
5682255 | Friesem et al. | Oct 1997 | A |
5826092 | Flannery | Oct 1998 | A |
5854872 | Tai | Dec 1998 | A |
5864365 | Sramek et al. | Jan 1999 | A |
5937202 | Crosetto | Aug 1999 | A |
6012811 | Chao et al. | Jan 2000 | A |
6016160 | Coombs et al. | Jan 2000 | A |
6076927 | Owens | Jun 2000 | A |
6117923 | Amagai et al. | Sep 2000 | A |
6124977 | Takahashi | Sep 2000 | A |
6191809 | Hori et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6375369 | Schneider et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6385735 | Wilson | May 2002 | B1 |
6538655 | Kubota | Mar 2003 | B1 |
6541736 | Huang et al. | Apr 2003 | B1 |
6757068 | Foxlin | Jun 2004 | B2 |
7046515 | Wyatt | May 2006 | B1 |
7051219 | Hwang | May 2006 | B2 |
7076674 | Cervantes | Jul 2006 | B2 |
7111290 | Yates, Jr. | Sep 2006 | B1 |
7119819 | Robertson et al. | Oct 2006 | B1 |
7219245 | Raghuvanshi | May 2007 | B1 |
7431453 | Hogan | Oct 2008 | B2 |
7542040 | Templeman | Jun 2009 | B2 |
7573640 | Nivon et al. | Aug 2009 | B2 |
7724980 | Shenzhi | May 2010 | B1 |
7751662 | Kleemann | Jul 2010 | B2 |
7758185 | Lewis | Jul 2010 | B2 |
8060759 | Arnan et al. | Nov 2011 | B1 |
8120851 | Iwasa | Feb 2012 | B2 |
8214660 | Capps, Jr. | Jul 2012 | B2 |
8246408 | Elliot | Aug 2012 | B2 |
8353594 | Lewis | Jan 2013 | B2 |
8508676 | Silverstein et al. | Aug 2013 | B2 |
8547638 | Levola | Oct 2013 | B2 |
8605764 | Rothaar et al. | Oct 2013 | B1 |
8619365 | Harris et al. | Dec 2013 | B2 |
8696113 | Lewis | Apr 2014 | B2 |
8698701 | Margulis | Apr 2014 | B2 |
8733927 | Lewis | May 2014 | B1 |
8736636 | Kang | May 2014 | B2 |
8759929 | Shiozawa et al. | Jun 2014 | B2 |
8793770 | Lim | Jul 2014 | B2 |
8823855 | Hwang | Sep 2014 | B2 |
8847988 | Geisner et al. | Sep 2014 | B2 |
8874673 | Kim | Oct 2014 | B2 |
9010929 | Lewis | Apr 2015 | B2 |
9015501 | Gee | Apr 2015 | B2 |
9086537 | Iwasa et al. | Jul 2015 | B2 |
9095437 | Boyden et al. | Aug 2015 | B2 |
9239473 | Lewis | Jan 2016 | B2 |
9244293 | Lewis | Jan 2016 | B2 |
9244533 | Friend et al. | Jan 2016 | B2 |
9383823 | Geisner et al. | Jul 2016 | B2 |
9489027 | Ogletree | Nov 2016 | B1 |
9519305 | Wolfe | Dec 2016 | B2 |
9581820 | Robbins | Feb 2017 | B2 |
9582060 | Balatsos | Feb 2017 | B2 |
9658473 | Lewis | May 2017 | B2 |
9671566 | Abovitz et al. | Jun 2017 | B2 |
9671615 | Vallius et al. | Jun 2017 | B1 |
9696795 | Marcolina et al. | Jul 2017 | B2 |
9798144 | Sako et al. | Oct 2017 | B2 |
9874664 | Stevens et al. | Jan 2018 | B2 |
9918058 | Takahas et al. | Mar 2018 | B2 |
9955862 | Freeman et al. | May 2018 | B2 |
9978118 | Ozgumer et al. | May 2018 | B1 |
9996797 | Holz et al. | Jun 2018 | B1 |
10018844 | Levola et al. | Jul 2018 | B2 |
10082865 | Raynal et al. | Sep 2018 | B1 |
10151937 | Lewis | Dec 2018 | B2 |
10185147 | Lewis | Jan 2019 | B2 |
10218679 | Jawahar | Feb 2019 | B1 |
10241545 | Richards et al. | Mar 2019 | B1 |
10317680 | Richards et al. | Jun 2019 | B1 |
10436594 | Belt et al. | Oct 2019 | B2 |
10516853 | Gibson et al. | Dec 2019 | B1 |
10551879 | Richards et al. | Feb 2020 | B1 |
10578870 | Kimmel | Mar 2020 | B2 |
10698202 | Kimmel et al. | Jun 2020 | B2 |
10856107 | Mycek et al. | Oct 2020 | B2 |
10825424 | Zhang | Nov 2020 | B2 |
10987176 | Poltaretskyi et al. | Apr 2021 | B2 |
11190681 | Brook et al. | Nov 2021 | B1 |
11209656 | Choi et al. | Dec 2021 | B1 |
11236993 | Hall et al. | Feb 2022 | B1 |
20010010598 | Aritake et al. | Aug 2001 | A1 |
20020007463 | Fung | Jan 2002 | A1 |
20020108064 | Nunally | Feb 2002 | A1 |
20020063913 | Nakamura et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
20020071050 | Homberg | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020122648 | Mule′ et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020140848 | Cooper et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20030028816 | Bacon | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030048456 | Hill | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030067685 | Niv | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030077458 | Korenaga et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030115494 | Cervantes | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030218614 | Lavelle et al. | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20030219992 | Schaper | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20030226047 | Park | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20040001533 | Tran et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040021600 | Wittenberg | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040025069 | Gary et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040042377 | Nikoloai et al. | Mar 2004 | A1 |
20040073822 | Greco | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040073825 | Itoh | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040111248 | Granny et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040174496 | Ji et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040186902 | Stewart | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040201857 | Foxlin | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040238732 | State et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20040240072 | Schindler et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20040246391 | Travis | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20040268159 | Aasheim et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20050001977 | Zelman | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050034002 | Flautner | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050157159 | Komiya et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050177385 | Hull | Aug 2005 | A1 |
20050273792 | Inohara et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20060013435 | Rhoads | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060015821 | Jacques Parker | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060019723 | Vorenkamp | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060038880 | Starkweather et al. | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060050224 | Smith | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060090092 | Verhulst | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060126181 | Levola | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060129852 | Bonola | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060132914 | Weiss et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060179329 | Terechko | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060221448 | Nivon et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060228073 | Mukawa et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060250322 | Hall et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060259621 | Ranganathan | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060268220 | Hogan | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20070058248 | Nguyen et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070103836 | Oh | May 2007 | A1 |
20070124730 | Pytel | May 2007 | A1 |
20070159673 | Freeman et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070188837 | Shimizu et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070198886 | Saito | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070204672 | Huang et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20070213952 | Cirelli | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20070283247 | Brenneman | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20080002259 | Ishizawa et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080002260 | Arrouy et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080043334 | Itzkovitch et al. | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080046773 | Ham | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080063802 | Maula et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080068557 | Menduni et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080146942 | Dala-Krishna | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080173036 | Willaims | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080177506 | Kim | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080205838 | Crippa et al. | Aug 2008 | A1 |
20080215907 | Wilson | Sep 2008 | A1 |
20080225393 | Rinko | Sep 2008 | A1 |
20080316768 | Travis | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20090153797 | Allon et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20090224416 | Laakkonen et al. | Sep 2009 | A1 |
20090245730 | Kleemann | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20090310633 | Ikegami | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20100005326 | Archer | Jan 2010 | A1 |
20100019962 | Fujita | Jan 2010 | A1 |
20100056274 | Uusitalo et al. | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20100063854 | Purvis et al. | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20100079841 | Levola | Apr 2010 | A1 |
20100153934 | Lachner | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20100194632 | Raento et al. | Aug 2010 | A1 |
20100232016 | Landa et al. | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20100232031 | Batchko et al. | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20100244168 | Shiozawa et al. | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20100296163 | Sarikko | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20110021263 | Anderson et al. | Jan 2011 | A1 |
20110022870 | Mcgrane | Jan 2011 | A1 |
20110050655 | Mukawa | Mar 2011 | A1 |
20110122240 | Becker | May 2011 | A1 |
20110145617 | Thomson et al. | Jun 2011 | A1 |
20110170801 | Lu | Jul 2011 | A1 |
20110218733 | Hamza et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
20110286735 | Temblay | Nov 2011 | A1 |
20110291969 | Rashid et al. | Dec 2011 | A1 |
20120011389 | Driesen | Jan 2012 | A1 |
20120050535 | Densham et al. | Mar 2012 | A1 |
20120075501 | Oyagi et al. | Mar 2012 | A1 |
20120081392 | Arthur | Apr 2012 | A1 |
20120089854 | Breakstone | Apr 2012 | A1 |
20120113235 | Shintani | May 2012 | A1 |
20120127062 | Bar-Zeev et al. | May 2012 | A1 |
20120154557 | Perez et al. | Jun 2012 | A1 |
20120218301 | Miller | Aug 2012 | A1 |
20120246506 | Knight | Sep 2012 | A1 |
20120249416 | Maciocci et al. | Oct 2012 | A1 |
20120249741 | Maciocci et al. | Oct 2012 | A1 |
20120260083 | Andrews | Oct 2012 | A1 |
20120307075 | Margalitq | Dec 2012 | A1 |
20120307362 | Silverstein et al. | Dec 2012 | A1 |
20120314959 | White et al. | Dec 2012 | A1 |
20120320460 | Levola | Dec 2012 | A1 |
20120326948 | Crocco et al. | Dec 2012 | A1 |
20130021486 | Richardon | Jan 2013 | A1 |
20130050833 | Lewis et al. | Feb 2013 | A1 |
20130051730 | Travers et al. | Feb 2013 | A1 |
20130077049 | Bohn | Mar 2013 | A1 |
20130077170 | Ukuda | Mar 2013 | A1 |
20130094148 | Sloane | Apr 2013 | A1 |
20130129282 | Li | May 2013 | A1 |
20130169923 | Schnoll et al. | Jul 2013 | A1 |
20130205126 | Kruglick | Aug 2013 | A1 |
20130222386 | Tannhauser et al. | Aug 2013 | A1 |
20130268257 | Hu | Oct 2013 | A1 |
20130278633 | Ahn et al. | Oct 2013 | A1 |
20130314789 | Saarikko et al. | Nov 2013 | A1 |
20130318276 | Dalal | Nov 2013 | A1 |
20130336138 | Venkatraman et al. | Dec 2013 | A1 |
20130342564 | Kinnebrew et al. | Dec 2013 | A1 |
20130342570 | Kinnebrew et al. | Dec 2013 | A1 |
20130342571 | Kinnebrew et al. | Dec 2013 | A1 |
20130343408 | Cook | Dec 2013 | A1 |
20140013098 | Yeung | Jan 2014 | A1 |
20140016821 | Arth et al. | Jan 2014 | A1 |
20140022819 | Oh et al. | Jan 2014 | A1 |
20140078023 | Ikeda et al. | Mar 2014 | A1 |
20140082526 | Park et al. | Mar 2014 | A1 |
20140119598 | Ramachandran et al. | May 2014 | A1 |
20140126769 | Reitmayr et al. | May 2014 | A1 |
20140140653 | Brown et al. | May 2014 | A1 |
20140149573 | Tofighbakhsh et al. | May 2014 | A1 |
20140168260 | O'Brien et al. | Jun 2014 | A1 |
20140267419 | Ballard et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
20140274391 | Stafford | Sep 2014 | A1 |
20140282105 | Nordstrom | Sep 2014 | A1 |
20140359589 | Kodsky et al. | Dec 2014 | A1 |
20140375680 | Ackerman et al. | Dec 2014 | A1 |
20150005785 | Olson | Jan 2015 | A1 |
20150009099 | Queen | Jan 2015 | A1 |
20150077312 | Wang | Mar 2015 | A1 |
20150097719 | Balachandreswaran et al. | Apr 2015 | A1 |
20150123966 | Newman | May 2015 | A1 |
20150130790 | Vazquez, II et al. | May 2015 | A1 |
20150134995 | Park et al. | May 2015 | A1 |
20150138248 | Schrader | May 2015 | A1 |
20150155939 | Oshima et al. | Jun 2015 | A1 |
20150168221 | Mao et al. | Jun 2015 | A1 |
20150205126 | Schowengerdt | Jul 2015 | A1 |
20150235431 | Schowengerdt | Aug 2015 | A1 |
20150253651 | Russell et al. | Sep 2015 | A1 |
20150256484 | Cameron | Sep 2015 | A1 |
20150269784 | Miyawaki et al. | Sep 2015 | A1 |
20150294483 | Wells et al. | Oct 2015 | A1 |
20150301955 | Yakovenko et al. | Oct 2015 | A1 |
20150338915 | Publicover et al. | Nov 2015 | A1 |
20150355481 | Hilkes et al. | Dec 2015 | A1 |
20160004102 | Nisper et al. | Jan 2016 | A1 |
20160027215 | Burns et al. | Jan 2016 | A1 |
20160033770 | Fujimaki et al. | Feb 2016 | A1 |
20160077338 | Robbins et al. | Mar 2016 | A1 |
20160085285 | Mangione-Smith | Mar 2016 | A1 |
20160085300 | Robbins et al. | Mar 2016 | A1 |
20160091720 | Stafford et al. | Mar 2016 | A1 |
20160093099 | Bridges | Mar 2016 | A1 |
20160093269 | Buckley et al. | Mar 2016 | A1 |
20160123745 | Cotier et al. | May 2016 | A1 |
20160155273 | Lyren et al. | Jun 2016 | A1 |
20160180596 | Gonzalez del Rosario | Jun 2016 | A1 |
20160191887 | Casas | Jun 2016 | A1 |
20160202496 | Billetz et al. | Jul 2016 | A1 |
20160217624 | Finn et al. | Jul 2016 | A1 |
20160266412 | Yoshida | Sep 2016 | A1 |
20160267708 | Nistico et al. | Sep 2016 | A1 |
20160274733 | Hasegawa et al. | Sep 2016 | A1 |
20160287337 | Aram et al. | Oct 2016 | A1 |
20160300388 | Stafford et al. | Oct 2016 | A1 |
20160321551 | Priness et al. | Nov 2016 | A1 |
20160327798 | Xiao et al. | Nov 2016 | A1 |
20160334279 | Mittleman et al. | Nov 2016 | A1 |
20160357255 | Lindh et al. | Dec 2016 | A1 |
20160370404 | Quadrat et al. | Dec 2016 | A1 |
20160370510 | Thomas | Dec 2016 | A1 |
20170038607 | Camara | Feb 2017 | A1 |
20170060225 | Zha et al. | Mar 2017 | A1 |
20170061696 | Li et al. | Mar 2017 | A1 |
20170100664 | Osterhout et al. | Apr 2017 | A1 |
20170115487 | Travis | Apr 2017 | A1 |
20170122725 | Yeoh et al. | May 2017 | A1 |
20170123526 | Trail et al. | May 2017 | A1 |
20170127295 | Black et al. | May 2017 | A1 |
20170131569 | Aschwanden et al. | May 2017 | A1 |
20170147066 | Katz et al. | May 2017 | A1 |
20170160518 | Lanman et al. | Jun 2017 | A1 |
20170161951 | Fix et al. | Jun 2017 | A1 |
20170185261 | Perez et al. | Jun 2017 | A1 |
20170192239 | Nakamura et al. | Jul 2017 | A1 |
20170205903 | Miller et al. | Jul 2017 | A1 |
20170206668 | Poulos et al. | Jul 2017 | A1 |
20170213388 | Margolis et al. | Jul 2017 | A1 |
20170219841 | Popovich et al. | Aug 2017 | A1 |
20170232345 | Rofougaran et al. | Aug 2017 | A1 |
20170235126 | DiDomenico | Aug 2017 | A1 |
20170235142 | Wall et al. | Aug 2017 | A1 |
20170235144 | Piskunov et al. | Aug 2017 | A1 |
20170235147 | Kamakura | Aug 2017 | A1 |
20170243403 | Daniels et al. | Aug 2017 | A1 |
20170254832 | Ho et al. | Sep 2017 | A1 |
20170256096 | Faaborg et al. | Sep 2017 | A1 |
20170258526 | Lang | Sep 2017 | A1 |
20170270712 | Tyson et al. | Sep 2017 | A1 |
20170281054 | Stever et al. | Oct 2017 | A1 |
20170287376 | Bakar et al. | Oct 2017 | A1 |
20170293141 | Schowengerdt et al. | Oct 2017 | A1 |
20170307886 | Stenberg et al. | Oct 2017 | A1 |
20170307891 | Bucknor et al. | Oct 2017 | A1 |
20170312032 | Amanatullah et al. | Nov 2017 | A1 |
20170322426 | Tervo | Nov 2017 | A1 |
20170329137 | Tervo | Nov 2017 | A1 |
20170332098 | Rusanovskyy et al. | Nov 2017 | A1 |
20170357332 | Balan et al. | Dec 2017 | A1 |
20170371394 | Chan | Dec 2017 | A1 |
20170371661 | Sparling | Dec 2017 | A1 |
20180014266 | Chen | Jan 2018 | A1 |
20180024289 | Fattal | Jan 2018 | A1 |
20180044173 | Netzer | Feb 2018 | A1 |
20180052007 | Teskey et al. | Feb 2018 | A1 |
20180052501 | Jones, Jr. et al. | Feb 2018 | A1 |
20180059305 | Popovich et al. | Mar 2018 | A1 |
20180067779 | Pillalamarri et al. | Mar 2018 | A1 |
20180070855 | Eichler | Mar 2018 | A1 |
20180082480 | White et al. | Mar 2018 | A1 |
20180088185 | Woods et al. | Mar 2018 | A1 |
20180102981 | Kurtzman et al. | Apr 2018 | A1 |
20180108179 | Tomlin et al. | Apr 2018 | A1 |
20180114298 | Malaika et al. | Apr 2018 | A1 |
20180131907 | Schmirier et al. | May 2018 | A1 |
20180136466 | Ko | May 2018 | A1 |
20180144691 | Choi et al. | May 2018 | A1 |
20180151796 | Akahane | May 2018 | A1 |
20180188115 | Hsu et al. | Jul 2018 | A1 |
20180189568 | Powderly et al. | Jul 2018 | A1 |
20180190017 | Mendez et al. | Jul 2018 | A1 |
20180191990 | Motoyama et al. | Jul 2018 | A1 |
20180250589 | Cossairt et al. | Sep 2018 | A1 |
20180284877 | Klein | Oct 2018 | A1 |
20180357472 | Dreessen | Dec 2018 | A1 |
20190005069 | Filgueiras de Araujo et al. | Jan 2019 | A1 |
20190011691 | Peyman | Jan 2019 | A1 |
20190056591 | Tervo et al. | Feb 2019 | A1 |
20190087015 | Lam et al. | Mar 2019 | A1 |
20190101758 | Zhu et al. | Apr 2019 | A1 |
20190158926 | Kang et al. | May 2019 | A1 |
20190167095 | Krueger | Jun 2019 | A1 |
20190172216 | Ninan et al. | Jun 2019 | A1 |
20190178654 | Hare | Jun 2019 | A1 |
20190196690 | Chong et al. | Jun 2019 | A1 |
20190219815 | Price et al. | Jul 2019 | A1 |
20190243123 | Bohn | Aug 2019 | A1 |
20190318540 | Piemonte et al. | Oct 2019 | A1 |
20190321728 | Imai et al. | Oct 2019 | A1 |
20190347853 | Chen et al. | Nov 2019 | A1 |
20190380792 | Poltaretskyi et al. | Dec 2019 | A1 |
20200098188 | Bar-Zeev et al. | Mar 2020 | A1 |
20200110928 | Al Jazaery et al. | Apr 2020 | A1 |
20200117267 | Gibson et al. | Apr 2020 | A1 |
20200117270 | Gibson et al. | Apr 2020 | A1 |
20200202759 | Ukai et al. | Jun 2020 | A1 |
20200309944 | Thoresen et al. | Oct 2020 | A1 |
20200356161 | Wagner | Nov 2020 | A1 |
20200368616 | Delamont | Nov 2020 | A1 |
20200409528 | Lee | Dec 2020 | A1 |
20210008413 | Asikainen et al. | Jan 2021 | A1 |
20210033871 | Jacoby et al. | Feb 2021 | A1 |
20210041951 | Gibson et al. | Feb 2021 | A1 |
20210053820 | Gurin et al. | Feb 2021 | A1 |
20210093391 | Poltaretskyi et al. | Apr 2021 | A1 |
20210093410 | Gaborit et al. | Apr 2021 | A1 |
20210093414 | Moore et al. | Apr 2021 | A1 |
20210097886 | Kuester et al. | Apr 2021 | A1 |
20210142582 | Jones et al. | May 2021 | A1 |
20210158627 | Cossairt et al. | May 2021 | A1 |
20210173480 | Osterhout et al. | Jun 2021 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
0504930 | Mar 1992 | EP |
0535402 | Apr 1993 | EP |
0632360 | Jan 1995 | EP |
1215522 | Jun 2002 | EP |
1494110 | Jan 2005 | EP |
1938141 | Jul 2008 | EP |
1943556 | Jul 2008 | EP |
2290428 | Mar 2011 | EP |
2350774 | Aug 2011 | EP |
2896986 | Jul 2015 | EP |
1237067 | Jan 2016 | EP |
3139245 | Mar 2017 | EP |
3164776 | May 2017 | EP |
3236211 | Oct 2017 | EP |
2723240 | Aug 2018 | EP |
2499635 | Aug 2013 | GB |
2542853 | Apr 2017 | GB |
938DEL2004 | Jun 2006 | IN |
2002-529806 | Sep 2002 | JP |
2003-029198 | Jan 2003 | JP |
2007-012530 | Jan 2007 | JP |
2008-257127 | Oct 2008 | JP |
2009-090689 | Apr 2009 | JP |
2009-244869 | Oct 2009 | JP |
2012-015774 | Jan 2012 | JP |
2013-525872 | Jun 2013 | JP |
2016085463 | May 2016 | JP |
2016-516227 | Jun 2016 | JP |
6232763 | Nov 2017 | JP |
6333965 | May 2018 | JP |
2005-0010775 | Jan 2005 | KR |
10-1372623 | Mar 2014 | KR |
201219829 | May 2012 | TW |
201803289 | Jan 2018 | TW |
1991000565 | Jan 1991 | WO |
2000030368 | Jun 2000 | WO |
2002071315 | Sep 2002 | WO |
2004095248 | Nov 2004 | WO |
2006132614 | Dec 2006 | WO |
2007085682 | Aug 2007 | WO |
2007102144 | Sep 2007 | WO |
2008148927 | Dec 2008 | WO |
2009101238 | Aug 2009 | WO |
2012030787 | Mar 2012 | WO |
2013049012 | Apr 2013 | WO |
2013062701 | May 2013 | WO |
2015143641 | Oct 2015 | WO |
2016054092 | Apr 2016 | WO |
2017004695 | Jan 2017 | WO |
2017120475 | Jul 2017 | WO |
2018044537 | Mar 2018 | WO |
2018087408 | May 2018 | WO |
2018097831 | May 2018 | WO |
2018166921 | Sep 2018 | WO |
2019148154 | Aug 2019 | WO |
2020010226 | Jan 2020 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Chittineni, “Aingle filters for combined image geometric manipulation and enhancement”, Proc SPIE, Apr. 8, 1993, San Jose, CA. (Year: 1993). |
Communication Pursuant to Article 94(3) EPC dated Jan. 4, 2022, European Patent Application No. 20154070.5, (8 pages). |
Communication Pursuant to Article 94(3) EPC dated Oct. 21, 2021, European Patent Application No. 16207441.3, (4 pages). |
Communication Pursuant to Rule 164(1) EPC dated Jul. 27, 2021, European Patent Application No. 19833664.6, (11 pages). |
Extended European Search Report dated Jun. 30, 2021, European Patent Application No. 19811971.1, (9 pages). |
Extended European Search Report dated Mar. 4, 2021, European Patent Application No. 19768418.6, (9 pages). |
Extended European Search Report dated Jan. 4, 2022, European Patent Application No. 19815085.6, (9 pages). |
Extended European Search Report dated Jul. 16, 2021, European Patent Application No. 19810142.0, (14 pages). |
Extended European Search Report dated Jul. 30, 2021, European Patent Application No. 19839970.1, (7 pages). |
Extended European Search Report dated Oct. 27, 2021, European Patent Application No. 19833664.6, (10 pages). |
Extended European Search Report dated Sep. 20, 2021, European Patent Application No. 19851373.1 , (8 pages). |
Extended European Search Report dated Sep. 28, 2021, European Patent Application No. 19845418.3, (13 pages). |
Final Office Action dated Feb. 3, 2022, U.S. Appl. No. 16/864,721, (36 pages). |
Final Office Action dated Jun. 15, 2021, U.S. Appl. No. 16/928,313, (42 pages). |
Final Office Action dated Mar. 1, 2021, U.S. Appl. No. 16/214,575, (29 pages). |
Final Office Action dated Mar. 19, 2021, U.S. Appl. No. 16/530,776, (25 pages). |
Final Office Action dated Sep. 17, 2021, U.S. Appl. No. 16/938,782, (44 pages). |
Multi-core processor, TechTarget, 2013 , (1 page). |
Non Final Office Action dated Feb. 2, 2022, U.S. Appl. No. 16/783,866, (8 pages). |
Non Final Office Action dated Jul. 9, 2021, U.S. Appl. No. 17/002,663, (43 pages). |
Non Final Office Action dated Jul. 9, 2021, U.S. Appl. No. 16/833,093, (47 pages). |
Non Final Office Action dated Jun. 10, 2021, U.S. Appl. No. 16/938,782, (40 Pages). |
Non Final Office Action dated Jun. 29, 2021, U.S. Appl. No. 16/698,588, (58 pages). |
Non Final Office Action dated May 26, 2021, U.S. Appl. No. 16/214,575, (19 pages). |
Non Final Office Action dated Sep. 20, 2021, U.S. Appl. No. 17/105,848, (56 pages). |
Non Final Office Action dated Sep. 29, 2021, U.S. Appl. No. 16/748,193, (62 pages). |
Giuseppe, Donato , et al. , Stereoscopic helmet mounted system for real time 3D environment reconstruction and indoor ego—motion estimation, Proc. SPIE 6955, Head- and Helmet-Mounted Displays XIII: Design and Applications, 69550P. |
Molchanov, Pavlo , et al. , Short-range FMCW monopulse radar for hand-gesture sensing, 2015 IEEE Radar Conference (RadarCon) (2015), pp. 1491-1496. |
Mrad , et al. , A framework for System Level Low Power Design Space Exploration, 1991. |
Sheng, Liu , et al. , Time-multiplexed dual-focal plane head-mounted display with a liquid lens, Optics Letters, Optical Society of Amer i ca, US, vol. 34, No. 11, Jun. 1, 2009 (Jun. 1, 2009), XP001524475, ISSN: 0146-9592, pp. 1642-1644. |
“ARToolKit: Hardware”, https://web.archive.org/web/20051013062315/http://www.hitl.washingto n.edu:80/artoolkit/documentation/hardware.htm (downloaded Oct. 26, 2020), Oct. 13, 2015, (3 pages). |
Communication Pursuant to Article 94(3) EPC dated Sep. 4, 2019, European Patent Application No. 10793707.0, (4 pages). |
European Search Report dated Oct. 15, 2020, European Patent Application No. 20180623.9, (10 pages). |
Examination Report dated Jun. 19, 2020, European Patent Application No. 20154750.2, (10pages). |
Extended European Search Report dated May 20, 2020, European Patent Application No. 20154070.5, (7 pages). |
Extended European Search Report dated Jan. 22, 2021, European Patent Application No. 18890390.0, (11 pages). |
Extended European Search Report dated Nov. 3, 2020, European Patent Application No. 18885707.2, (7 pages). |
Extended European Search Report dated Nov. 4, 2020, European Patent Application No. 20190980.1, (14 pages). |
Extended European Search Report dated Jun. 12, 2017, European Patent Application No. 16207441.3, (8 pages). |
Final Office Action dated Aug. 10, 2020, U.S. Appl. No. 16/225,961, (13 pages). |
Final Office Action dated Dec. 4, 2019, U.S. Appl. No. 15/564,517, (15 pages). |
Final Office Action dated Feb. 19, 2020, U.S. Appl. No. 15/552,897, (17 pages). |
Final Office Action dated Nov. 24, 2020, U.S. Appl. No. 16/435,933, (44 pages). |
International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Feb. 12, 2021, International Application No. PCT/US20/60555, (25 pages). |
International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Mar. 12, 2020, International PCT Patent Application No. PCT/US19/67919, (14 pages). |
International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Aug. 15, 2019, International PCT Patent Application No. PCT/US19/33987, (20 pages). |
International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Jun. 15, 2020, International PCT Patent Application No. PCT/US2020/017023, (13 pages). |
International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Oct. 16, 2019, International PCT Patent Application No. PCT/US19/43097, (10 pages). |
International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Oct. 16, 2019, International PCT Patent Application No. PCT/US19/36275, (10 pages). |
International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Oct. 16, 2019, International PCT Patent Application No. PCT/US19/43099, (9 pages). |
International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Jun. 17, 2016, International PCT Patent Application No. PCT/FI2016/050172, (9 pages). |
International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Feb. 2, 2021, International PCT Patent Application No. PCT/US20/60550, (9 pages). |
International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Oct. 22, 2019, International PCT Patent Application No. PCT/US19/43751, (9 pages). |
International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Dec. 23, 2019, International PCT Patent Application No. PCT/US19/44953, (11 pages). |
International Search Report and Written Opinion dated May 23, 2019, International PCT Patent Application No. PCT/US18/66514, (17 pages). |
International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Sep. 26, 2019, International PCT Patent Application No. PCT/US19/40544, (12 pages). |
International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Aug. 27, 2019, International PCT Application No. PCT/US2019/035245, (8 pages). |
International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Dec. 27, 2019, International Application No. PCT/US19/47746, (16 pages). |
International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Dec. 3, 2020, International Patent Application No. PCT/US20/43596, (25 pages). |
International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Sep. 30, 2019, International Patent Application No. PCT/US19/40324, (7 pages). |
International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Sep. 4, 2020, International Patent Application No. PCT/US20/31036, (13 pages). |
International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Jun. 5, 2020, International Patent Application No. PCT/US20/19871, (9 pages). |
International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Aug. 8, 2019, International PCT Patent Application No. PCT/US2019/034763, (8 pages). |
International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Oct. 8, 2019, International PCT Patent Application No. PCT/US19/41151, (7 pages). |
International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Jan. 9, 2020, International Application No. PCT/US19/55185, (10 pages). |
International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Feb. 28, 2019, International Patent Application No. PCT/US18/64686, (8 pages). |
International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Feb. 7, 2020, International PCT Patent Application No. PCT/US2019/061265, (11 pages). |
International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Jun. 11, 2019, International PCT Application No. PCT/US19/22620, (7 pages). |
Invitation to Pay Additional Fees dated Aug. 15, 2019, International PCT Patent Application No. PCT/US19/36275, (2 pages). |
Invitation to Pay Additional Fees dated Sep. 24, 2020, International Patent Application No. PCT/US2020/043596, (3 pages). |
Invitation to Pay Additional Fees dated Oct. 22, 2019, International PCT Patent Application No. PCT/US19/47746, (2 pages). |
Invitation to Pay Additional Fees dated Apr. 3, 2020, International Patent Application No. PCT/US20/17023, (2 pages). |
Invitation to Pay Additional Fees dated Oct. 17, 2019, International PCT Patent Application No. PCT/US19/44953, (2 pages). |
Non Final Office Action dated Aug. 21, 2019, U.S. Appl. No. 15/564,517, (14 pages). |
Non Final Office Action dated Jan. 26, 2021, U.S. Appl. No. 16/928,313, (33 pages). |
Non Final Office Action dated Jan. 27, 2021, U.S. Appl. No. 16/225,961, (15 pages). |
Non Final Office Action dated Jul. 27, 2020, U.S. Appl. No. 16/435,933, (16 pages). |
Non Final Office Action dated Jun. 17, 2020, U.S. Appl. No. 16/682,911, (22 pages). |
Non Final Office Action dated Mar. 3, 2021, U.S. Appl. No. 16/427,337, (41 pages). |
Non Final Office Action dated Jun. 19, 2020, U.S. Appl. No. 16/225,961, (35 pages). |
Non Final Office Action dated Nov. 19, 2019, U.S. Appl. No. 16/355,611, (31 pages). |
Non Final Office Action dated Nov. 5, 2020, U.S. Appl. No. 16/530,776, (45 pages). |
Non Final Office Action dated Oct. 22, 2019, U.S. Appl. No. 15/859,277, (15 pages). |
Non Final Office Action dated Sep. 1, 2020, U.S. Appl. No. 16/214,575, (40 pages). |
Notice of Allowance dated Mar. 25, 2020, U.S. Appl. No. 15/564,517, (11 pages). |
Notice of Allowance dated Oct. 5, 2020, U.S. Appl. No. 16/682,911, (27 pages). |
Notice of Reason of Refusal dated Sep. 11, 2020 with English translation, Japanese Patent Application No. 2019-140435, (6 pages). |
“Phototourism Challenge”, CVPR 2019 Image Matching Workshop. https://image matching-workshop. github.io., (16 pages). |
“Summons to attend oral proceedings pursuant to Rule 115(1) EPC mailed on Jul. 15, 2019”, European Patent Application No. 15162521.7, (7 pages). |
Aarik, J et al., “Effect of crystal structure on optical properties of TiO2 films grown by atomic layer deposition”, Thin Solid Films; Publication [online). May 19, 1998 [retrieved Feb. 19, 2020]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040609097001351?via%3Dihub>; DOI: 10.1016/S0040-6090(97)00135-1; see entire document, (2 pages). |
Altwaijry, et al., “Learning to Detect and Match Keypoints with Deep Architectures”, Proceedings of the British Machine Vision Conference (BMVC), BMVA Press, Sep. 2016, [retrieved on Jan. 8, 2021 (Jan. 8, 2021 )] < URL: http://www.bmva.org/bmvc/2016/papers/paper049/index.html >, en lire document, especially Abstract, pp. 1-6 and 9. |
Arandjelović, Relja et al., “Three things everyone should know to improve object retrieval”, CVPR, 2012, (8 pages). |
Azom, , “Silica—Silicon Dioxide (SiO2)”, AZO Materials; Publication [Online]. Dec. 13, 2001 [retrieved Feb. 19, 2020]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: https://www.azom.com/article.aspx?Article1D=1114>, (6 pages). |
Azuma, Ronald T. , “A Survey of Augmented Reality”, Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 6, Aug. 4, 1997, 355-385; https://web.archive.org/web/20010604100006/http://www.cs.unc.edu/˜azuma/ARpresence.pdf (downloaded Oct. 26, 2020). |
Azuma, Ronald T. , “Predictive Tracking for Augmented Reality”, Department of Computer Science, Chapel Hill NC; TR95-007, Feb. 1995, 262 pages. |
Battaglia, Peter W. et al., “Relational inductive biases, deep learning, and graph networks”, arXiv:1806.01261, Oct. 17, 2018, pp. 1-40. |
Berg, Alexander C et al., “Shape matching and object recognition using low distortion correspondences”, In CVPR, 2005, (8 pages). |
Bian, Jiawang et al., “GMS: Grid-based motion statistics for fast, ultra-robust feature correspondence.”, In CVPR (Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition), 2017, (10 pages). |
Bimber, Oliver et al., “Spatial Augmented Reality: Merging Real and Virtual Worlds”, https://web.media.mit.edu/˜raskar/book/BimberRaskarAugmentedRealityBook.pdf; published by A K Peters/CRC Press (Jul. 31, 2005); eBook (3rd Edition, 2007), (393 pages). |
Brachmann, Eric et al., “Neural-Guided RANSAC: Learning Where to Sample Model Hypotheses”, In ICCV (International Conference on Computer Vision ), arXiv:1905.04132v2 [cs.CV] Jul. 31, 2019, (17 pages). |
Butail, et al., “Putting the fish in the fish tank: Immersive VR for animal behavior experiments”, In: 2012 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. May 18, 2012 (May 18, 2012) Retrieved on Nov. 14, 2020 (Nov. 14, 2020) from (http:/lcdcl.umd.edu/papers/icra2012.pdf> entire document, (8 pages). |
Caetano, Tibério S et al., “Learning graph matching”, IEEE TPAMI, 31(6):1048-1058, 2009. |
Cech, Jan et al., “Efficient sequential correspondence selection by cosegmentation”, IEEE TPAMI, 32(9):1568-1581, Sep. 2010. |
Cuturi, Marco , “Sinkhorn distances: Lightspeed computation of optimal transport”, NIPS, 2013, (9 pages). |
Dai, Angela et al., “ScanNet: Richly-annotated 3d reconstructions of indoor scenes”, In CVPR, arXiv:1702.04405v2 [cs.CV] Apr. 11, 2017, (22 pages). |
Deng, Haowen et al., “PPFnet: Global context aware local features for robust 3d point matching”, In CVPR, arXiv:1802.02669v2 [cs.CV] Mar. 1, 2018, (12 pages). |
Detone, Daniel et al., “Deep image homography estimation”, In RSS Work-shop: Limits and Potentials of Deep Learning in Robotics, arXiv:1606.03798v1 [cs.CV] Jun. 13, 2016, (6 pages). |
Detone, Daniel et al., “Self-improving visual odometry”, arXiv:1812.03245, Dec. 8, 2018, (9 pages). |
Detone, Daniel et al., “SuperPoint: Self-supervised interest point detection and description”, In CVPR Workshop on Deep Learning for Visual SLAM, arXiv:1712.07629v4 [cs.CV] Apr. 19, 2018, (13 pages). |
Dusmanu, Mihai et al., “D2-net: A trainable CNN for joint detection and description of local features”, CVPR, arXiv:1905.03561v1 [cs.CV] May 9, 2019, (16 pages). |
Ebel, Patrick et al., “Beyond cartesian representations for local descriptors”, ICCV, arXiv:1908.05547v1 [cs.CV] Aug. 15, 2019, (11 pages). |
Fischler, Martin A et al., “Random sample consensus: a paradigm for model fitting with applications to image analysis and automated cartography”, Communications of the ACM, 24(6): 1981, pp. 381-395. |
Gilmer, Justin et al., “Neural message passing for quantum chemistry”, In ICML, arXiv:1704.01212v2 [cs.LG] Jun. 12, 2017, (14 pages). |
Goodfellow, “Titanium Dioxide—Titania (TiO2)”, AZO Materials; Publication [online]. Jan. 11, 2002 [retrieved Feb. 19, 2020]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: https://www.azom.com/article.aspx?Article1D=1179>, (9 pages). |
Hartley, Richard et al., “Multiple View Geometry in Computer Vision”, Cambridge University Press, 2003, pp. 1-673. |
Jacob, Robert J. , “Eye Tracking in Advanced Interface Design”, Human-Computer Interaction Lab, Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, D.C., date unknown. 2003, pp. 1-50. |
Lee, et al., “Self-Attention Graph Pooling”, Cornell University Library/Computer Science/ Machine Learning, Apr. 17, 2019 [retrieved on Jan. 8, 2021 from the Internet<URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/1904.08082 >, entire document. |
Lee, Juho et al., “Set transformer: A frame-work for attention-based permutation-invariant neural networks”, ICML, arXiv:1810.00825v3 [cs.LG] May 26, 2019, (17 pages). |
Leordeanu, Marius et al., “A spectral technique for correspondence problems using pairwise constraints”, Proceedings of (ICCV) International Conference on Computer Vision, vol. 2, pp. 1482-1489, Oct. 2005, (8 pages). |
Levola, T. , “Diffractive Optics for Virtual Reality Displays”, Journal of the SID EURODISPLAY 14/05, 2005, XP008093627, chapters 2-3, Figures 2 and 10, pp. 467-475. |
Levola, Tapani , “Invited Paper: Novel Diffractive Optical Components for Near to Eye Displays—Nokia Research Center”, SID 2006 Digest, 2006 SID International Symposium, Society for Information Display, vol. XXXVII, May 24, 2005, chapters 1-3, figures 1 and 3, pp. 64-67. |
Li, Yujia et al., “Graph matching networks for learning the similarity of graph structured objects”, ICML, arXiv:1904.12787v2 [cs.LG] May 12, 2019, (18 pages). |
Li, Zhengqi et al., “Megadepth: Learning single-view depth prediction from internet photos”, In CVPR, fromarXiv: 1804.00607v4 [cs.CV] Nov. 28, 2018, (10 pages). |
Libovicky, et al., “Input Combination Strategies for Multi-Source Transformer Decoder”, Proceedings of the Third Conference on Machine Translation (WMT). Volume 1: Research Papers, Belgium, Brussels, Oct. 31-Nov. 1, 2018; retrieved on Jan. 8, 2021 (Jan. 8, 2021 ) from < URL: https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/W18-64026 >, entire document, pp. 253-260. |
Loiola, Eliane M. et al., “A survey for the quadratic assignment problem”, European journal of operational research, 176(2): 2007, pp. 657-690. |
Lowe, David G. , “Distinctive image features from scale-invariant keypoints”, International Journal of Computer Vision, 60(2): 91-110, 2004, (28 pages). |
Luo, Zixin et al., “ContextDesc: Local descriptor augmentation with cross-modality context”, CVPR, arXiv:1904.04084v1 [cs.CV] Apr. 8, 2019, (14 pages). |
Memon, F. et al., “Synthesis, Characterization and Optical Constants of Silicon Oxycarbide”, EPJ Web of Conferences; Publication [online). Mar. 23, 2017 [retrieved Feb. 19, 2020).<URL: https://www.epj-conferences.org/articles/epjconf/pdf/2017/08/epjconf_nanop2017_00002.pdf>; DOI: 10.1051/epjconf/201713900002, (8 pages). |
Munkres, James , “Algorithms for the assignment and transportation problems”, Journal of the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 5(1): 1957, pp. 32-38. |
Ono, Yuki et al., “LF-Net: Learning local features from images”, 32nd Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS 2018), arXiv:1805.09662v2 [cs.CV] Nov. 22, 2018, (13 pages). |
Paszke, Adam et al., “Automatic differentiation in Pytorch”, 31st Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS 2017), Long Beach, CA, USA, (4 pages). |
Peyré, Gabriel et al., “Computational Optimal Transport”, Foundations and Trends in Machine Learning, 11 (5-6):355-607, 2019; arXiv:1803.00567v4 [stat.ML] Mar. 18, 2020, (209 pages). |
Qi, Charles R. et al., “Pointnet++: Deep hierarchical feature learning on point sets in a metric space.”, 31st Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS 2017), Long Beach, CA, USA., (10 pages). |
Qi, Charles R. et al., “Pointnet: Deep Learning on Point Sets for 3D Classification and Segmentation”, CVPR, arXiv:1612.00593v2 [cs.CV] Apr. 10, 201, (19 pages). |
Radenović, Filip et al., “Revisiting Oxford and Paris: Large-Scale Image Retrieval Benchmarking”, CVPR, arXiv:1803.11285v1 [cs.CV] Mar. 29, 2018, (10 pages). |
Raguram, Rahul et al., “A comparative analysis of ransac techniques leading to adaptive real-time random sample consensus”, Computer Vision—ECCV 2008, 10th European Conference on Computer Vision, Marseille, France, Oct. 12-18, 2008, Proceedings, Part I, (15 pages). |
Ranftl, René et al., “Deep fundamental matrix estimation”, European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), 2018, (17 pages). |
Revaud, Jerome et al., “R2D2: Repeatable and Reliable Detector and Descriptor”, In NeurlPS, arXiv:1906.06195v2 [cs.CV] Jun. 17, 2019, (12 pages). |
Rocco, Ignacio et al., “Neighbourhood Consensus Networks”, 32nd Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurlPS 2018), Montreal, Canada, arXiv:1810.10510v2 [cs.CV] Nov. 29, 2018, (20 pages). |
Rublee, Ethan et al., “ORB: An efficient alternative to SIFT or SURF”, Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision. 2564-2571. 2011; 10.1109/ICCV.2011.612654, (9 pages). |
Sattler, Torsten et al., “SCRAMSAC: Improving RANSAC's efficiency with a spatial consistency filter”, ICCV, 2009: 2090-2097., (8 pages). |
Schonberger, Johannes L. et al., “Pixelwise view selection for un-structured multi-view stereo”, Computer Vision—ECCV 2016: 14th European Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Oct. 11-14, 2016, Proceedings, Part III, pp. 501-518, 2016. |
Schonberger, Johannes L. et al., “Structure-from-motion revisited”, Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2016, pp. 4104-4113, (11 pages). |
Sinkhorn, Richard et al., “Concerning nonnegative matrices and doubly stochastic matrices.”, Pacific Journal of Mathematics, 1967, pp. 343-348. |
Spencer, T. et al., “Decomposition of poly(propylene carbonate) with UV sensitive iodonium 11 salts”, Polymer Degradation and Stability; (online]. Dec. 24, 2010 (retrieved Feb. 19, 2020]., <URL: http:/fkohl.chbe.gatech.edu/sites/default/files/linked_files/publications/2011Decomposition%20of%20poly(propylene%20carbonate)%20with%20UV%20sensitive%20iodonium%20salts,pdf>; DOI: 10, 1016/j.polymdegradstab.2010, 12.003, (17 pages). |
Tanriverdi, Vildan et al., “Interacting With Eye Movements in Virtual Environments”, Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Tufts University; Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Apr. 2000, pp. 1-8. |
Thomee, Bart et al., “YFCC100m: The new data in multimedia research”, Communications of the ACM, 59(2):64-73, 2016; arXiv:1503.01817v2 [cs.MM] Apr. 25, 2016, (8 pages). |
Torresani, Lorenzo et al., “Feature correspondence via graph matching: Models and global optimization”, Computer Vision—ECCV 2008, 10th European Conference on Computer Vision, Marseille, France, Oct. 12-18, 2008, Proceedings, Part II, (15 pages). |
Tuytelaars, Tinne et al., “Wide baseline stereo matching based on local, affinely invariant regions”, BMVC, 2000, pp. 1-14. |
Ulyanov, Dmitry et al., “Instance normalization: The missing ingredient for fast stylization”, arXiv:1607.08022v3 [cs.CV] Nov. 6, 2017, (6 pages). |
Vaswani, Ashish et al., “Attention is all you need”, 31st Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS 2017), Long Beach, CA, USA; arXiv:1706.03762v5 [cs.CL] Dec. 6, 2017, (15 pages). |
Veli{hacek over (c)}kovi{hacek over (c)}, Petar et al., “Graph attention networks”, ICLR, arXiv:1710.10903v3 [stat.ML] Feb. 4, 2018, (12 pages). |
Villani, Cédric , “Optimal transport: old and new”, vol. 338. Springer Science & Business Media, Jun. 2008, pp. 1-998. |
Wang, Xiaolong et al., “Non-local neural networks”, CVPR, arXiv:1711.07971v3 [cs.CV] Apr. 13, 2018, (10 pages). |
Wang, Yue et al., “Deep Closest Point: Learning representations for point cloud registration”, ICCV, arXiv:1905.03304v1 [cs.CV] May 8, 2019, (10 pages). |
Wang, Yue et al., “Dynamic Graph CNN for learning on point clouds”, ACM Transactions on Graphics, arXiv:1801.07829v2 [cs.CV] Jun. 11, 2019, (13 pages). |
Weissel, et al., “Process cruise control: event-driven clock scaling for dynamic power management”, Proceedings of the 2002 international conference on Compilers, architecture, and synthesis for embedded systems. Oct. 11, 2002 (Oct. 11, 2002) Retrieved on May 16, 2020 (May 16, 2020) from <URL: https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/581630.581668>, p. 238-246. |
Yi, Kwang M. et al., “Learning to find good correspondences”, CVPR, arXiv:1711.05971v2 [cs.CV] May 21, 2018, (13 pages). |
Yi, Kwang Moo et al., “Lift: Learned invariant feature transform”, ECCV, arXiv:1603.09114v2 [cs.CV] Jul. 29, 2016, (16 pages). |
Zaheer, Manzil et al., “Deep Sets”, 31st Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS 2017), Long Beach, CA, USA; arXiv:1703.06114v3 [cs.LG] Apr. 14, 2018, (29 pages). |
Zhang, Jiahui et al., “Learning two-view correspondences and geometry using order-aware network”, ICCV; aarXiv:1908.04964v1 [cs.CV] Aug. 14, 2019, (11 pages). |
Zhang, Li et al., “Dual graph convolutional net-work for semantic segmentation”, BMVC, 2019; arXiv:1909.06121v3 [cs.CV] Aug. 26, 2020, (18 pages). |
“Communication according to Rule 164(1) EPC dated Feb. 23, 2022”, European Patent Application No. 20753144.3, (11 pages). |
“Communication Pursuant to Article 94(3) EPC dated Apr. 25, 2022”, European Patent Application No. 18885707.2, (5 pages). |
“Extended European Search Report dated Jan. 28, 2022”, European Patent Application No. 19815876.8, (9 pages). |
“Extended European Search Report dated Jun. 19, 2020”, European Patent Application No. 20154750.2, (10 pages). |
“Extended European Search Report dated Mar. 22, 2022”, European Patent Application No. 19843487.0, (14 pages). |
“Final Office Action dated Feb. 23, 2022”, U.S. Appl. No. 16/748,193, (23 pages). |
“First Examination Report dated May 13, 2022”, Indian Patent Application No. 202047026359, (8 pages). |
“First Office Action dated Mar. 14, 2022 with English translation”, Chinese Patent Application No. 201880079474.6, (11 pages). |
“Non Final Office Action dated Apr. 1, 2022”, U.S. Appl. No. 17/256,961, (65 pages). |
“Non Final Office Action dated Apr. 11, 2022”, U.S. Appl. No. 16/938,782, (52 pages). |
“Non Final Office Action dated Apr. 12, 2022”, U.S. Appl. No. 17/262,991, (60 pages). |
“Non Final Office Action dated Aug. 4, 2021”, U.S. Appl. No. 16/864,721, (21 pages). |
“Non Final Office Action dated Mar. 31, 2022”, U.S. Appl. No. 17/257,814, (60 pages). |
“Non Final Office Action dated Mar. 9, 2022”, U.S. Appl. No. 16/870,676, (57 pages). |
“Non Final Office Action dated May 17, 2022”, U.S. Appl. No. 16/748,193, (11 pages). |
“Communication Pursuant to Article 94(3) EPC dated May 30, 2022”, European Patent Application No. 19768418.6, (6 pages). |
“Extended European Search Report dated May 16, 2022”, European Patent Application No. 19871001.4, (9 pages). |
“Extended European Search Report dated May 30, 2022”, European Patent Application No. 20753144.3, (10 pages). |
Sarlin, et al., “SuperGlue: Learning Feature Matching with Graph Neural Networks”, Cornell University Library/Computer Science/ Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Nov. 26, 2019 [retrieved on Jan. 8, 2021 from the Internet< URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/1911.11763 >, entire document. |
“Extended European Search Report dated Jul. 20, 2022”, European Patent Application No. 19885958.9, (9 pages). |
“First Examination Report dated Jul. 28, 2022”, Indian Patent Application No. 202047024232, (6 pages). |
“Non Final Office Action dated Jul. 26, 2022”, U.S. Appl. No. 17/098,059, (28 pages). |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20210149196 A1 | May 2021 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
62842844 | May 2019 | US | |
62768705 | Nov 2018 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 16682911 | Nov 2019 | US |
Child | 17140921 | US |