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 .
For reissue applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the current provisions.
DETAILED ACTION
A request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s RCE Response filed on 05/26/2026 has been entered and made of record.
Applicant’s RCE Response includes an Amendment to the Claims and Remarks.
This is a Non-Final Action.
In light of the Amendment to the Claims, claims 20-22 and 30 have been newly amended. Therefore, claims 1-32 are currently pending in the application. Claims 1, 8, 9, 16, 20, and 30 are independent claims.
The rejection of claims 21 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) (see: Final Action, pp. 4-5) has been withdrawn as necessitated by the Amendment to the Claims.
The various rejections of claims 20-32 under 35 U.S.C. 103 (see: Final Action, pp. 5-23) have been withdrawn as necessitated by the Amendment to the Claims.
Reissue
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceed-ing in which Patent No. 11,211,030 B2 is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, and litigation.
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is mate-rial to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue appli-cation.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Applicant is notified that any subsequent amendment to the specification and/or claims must comply with 37 CFR 1.173.
As noted in MPEP 1453(V)(D), regarding amendments to new claims in reissue applications, “Although the presentation of the amended claim does not contain any indication of what is changed from the previous version of the claim, applicant must point out what is changed in the ‘Remarks’ portion of the amendment. Also, per 37 CFR 1.173(c), each change made in the claim must be accompanied by an explanation of the support in the disclosure of the patent for the change” (emphasis added). Any future amendment must comply with 37 CFR 1.173(c) or it may be deemed non-compliant/not completely responsive (see: MPEP 1453(II)).
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 04/20/2026 has been considered by the Examiner.
Consideration by an examiner of the information submitted in an IDS means nothing more than considering the documents in the same manner as other documents in Office search files are considered by the examiner while conducting a search of the prior art in a proper field of search. The initials of the examiner placed adjacent to the citations on the PTO/SB/08 or its equivalent mean that the information has been considered by the examiner to the extent noted above (see: MPEP 609).
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.
Claims 20, 21, 24, 27, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gil et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,055,887 - published 08/21/2018 and filed 02/19/2015) in view of McCulloch et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,752,963, published 06/17/2014) and in further view of Takahashi (U.S. Patent No. 9,316,831, published 04/19/2016).
-In regard to independent claim 20, Gil teaches a head-mounted device (Fig. 1B), comprising:
an ambient light sensor that measures a brightness of ambient light (column 5, lines 4-19: “the sensing system 160 may include a light sensor 162…on the housing 110, to sense an ambient light level”; Fig. 1B: 162)
a display that presents display content (column 1, lines 49-52: “a display system”; column 4, line 59: “a display 140”; Fig. 1B: 140); and
control circuitry configured to gradually adjust (e.g., linearly, non-linearly, step-wise, etc.) a brightness of the display from a first brightness level to a second brightness level based on the measured brightness of the ambient light, wherein the first brightness level is greater than the second brightness level (column 1, lines 40-48: “incrementally adjusting the virtual brightness level toward the ambient brightness level until the difference between the ambient brightness level and the virtual brightness level is less than or equal to the preset brightness threshold”; column 3, lines 50-67: “these adjustments may be accomplished over a given period of time”; column 4, lines 6-25: “accomplished somewhat gradually…until a desired level is achieved”; column 7, lines 62-65: “automatically control the sensing device 160 to sense an ambient light level, and may brighten (e.g., gradually brighten) the content displayed on the screen(s) to allow the user's eyes to adjust”; column 9, lines 52-58; column 10, lines 60-65; column 12, lines 24-48: “may, for example, increase or decrease a brightness level of the virtual environment…may gradually adjust a brightness level and/or a sound level of the virtual environment based on a brightness level and/or a sound level of the ambient environment”).
The Gil reference does not specifically teach further comprising a sensor that gathers eye information. In the related art, the McCulloch reference teaches a sensor that gathers eye information and control circuitry configured to adjust the brightness of a display based on the eye information (column 1, lines 24-34: “The wearer's pupil size may be determined and used to adjust the brightness used to display images (‘image brightness’), as well as the opacity of the display”; column 9, line 1 – column 10, line 27: “a system for adjusting brightness based on gaze estimation and pupil size. The system includes one or more camera systems 252. Any of the camera systems, image sensors, photodetectors…brightness of the see-through display is adjusted based on the light intensity of the region and the pupil size”; Figs. 1F, 1G, and 5C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the HMD and control circuitry of Gil to have further included the sensor and configured control circuitry, respectively, as taught in McCulloch, because McCulloch taught that said functionality provided the benefit of saving power as well as protecting a user’s eyes while still allowing the user to see objects properly (column 1, lines 15-34: “allows real and virtual objects to be seen clearly, while not causing damage or discomfort to the wearer's eyes”; column 9, line 1 – column 10, lines 27: “controlling image brightness may help to save power, as well as extend the lifetime of the see-through display…allow virtual objects to more realistically integrate with real objects, protect the user's eye from damage and discomfort, save power, and extend the lifetime of the display, among other advantages”).
The modified Gil reference also does not specifically teach wherein its control circuitry was further configured such that the first brightness level is used when the display is placed on a user’s head and the second brightness level is used a predetermined period of time after the display is placed on a user’s head. In the related art, the Takahashi reference teaches adjusting a brightness of a display from a first brightness level to a second brightness level, wherein the first brightness level is greater than the second brightness level, and wherein the first brightness level is used when the display is placed on a user’s head and the second brightness level is used a predetermined period of time after the display is placed on a user’s head (column 5, lines 24-33: “A mounting sensor 204 detects that a viewer has mounted the head mounted display 10 and that the viewer has demounted the head mounted display 10”; column 6, line 33 – column 7, line 41: “when the mounting sensor 204 detects that a viewer has mounted the head mounted display 10, the luminance adjusting and still image detecting unit 313 performs a luminance adjusting process in response to elapsed times since the mounting, as a process corresponding to the dark adaptation…before being mounted by the viewer (the light adaptation is occurring in the eyes), the head mounted display 10 puts the displaying units 208, 209 in a high luminance state, and waits…once the mounting sensor 204 detects the mounting by the viewer, the head mounted display 10 gradually (in response to elapsed times since the mounting) decreases the luminance of the displaying units 208, 209, in accordance with the dark adaptation”; column 8, lines 19-41: “luminance adjustment is performed in response to elapsed times since the viewer has mounted the head mounted display 10 (since a detection by the mounting sensor 204). In the example shown in the figure, in consideration of the sensitivity rise of the cone, the luminance is controlled so as to be drastically suppressed till about 5 minutes and thereafter gently suppressed from 5 minutes to 10 minutes. On this occasion, the target luminance value after 10 minutes can be set to, for example, 46 cd/m2; column 9, lines 1-21”; Figs. 4, 6a, and 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the control circuitry of the modified Gil reference to have been further configured to include the control circuitry functionality as taught in Takahashi, because Takahashi taught that said functionality provided the benefit of “suppress[ing] the dazzle feeling of the viewer. As a result, it is possible to perform a long period of viewing such as a movie viewing or a game playing, with the head mounted display” (column 3, line 54 – column 4, line 9; column 7, lines 21-39; and column 9, lines 51-65).
-In regard to dependent claim 21, the Gil reference teaches wherein the ambient light sensor is configured to measure a brightness of the ambient light when the display is turned on (column 5, lines 29-31: “activating, for example the power on/off device”; column 13, lines 23-38: “transition command may simply involve placing the HMD 100 on the user's head and applying power to the HMD…pushing a button on the HMD…gradually adjust brightness”).
-In regard to dependent claim 24, the modified Gil reference teaches wherein the sensor comprises gaze detection circuitry configured to measure a gaze position (McCulloch – Abstract: “controlling brightness…display device based on light intensity of what the user is gazing at”; column 1, lines 24-34: “The wearer's pupil size may be determined and used to adjust the brightness”; column 4, lines 11-43: “gaze estimation is used to determine how to adjust display brightness”; column 9, line 1 – column 10, line 27: “gaze estimation logic 254 determines gaze vectors…a system for adjusting brightness based on gaze estimation and pupil size. The system includes one or more camera systems 252. Any of the camera systems, image sensors, photodetectors…brightness of the see-through display is adjusted based on the light intensity of the region and the pupil size”; Figs. 1F: 254 and 256, 1G: 402-410, and 5C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined said gaze detection functionality of McCulloch with the modified Gil reference for substantially the same rationale as disclosed above for independent claim 20.
-In regard to dependent claim 27, the modified Gil reference teaches wherein the eye information is selected from the group consisting of: blink rate, pupil size, and eye openness (McCulloch - column 1, lines 24-34: “The wearer's pupil size may be determined and used to adjust the brightness”; column 9, line 1 – column 10, line 27: “a system for adjusting brightness based on gaze estimation and pupil size. The system includes one or more camera systems 252. Any of the camera systems, image sensors, photodetectors…brightness of the see-through display is adjusted based on the light intensity of the region and the pupil size”; Figs. 1F: 256, 1G: 404 and 410, and 5C: 436).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined said functionality of McCulloch with the modified Gil reference for substantially the same rationale as disclosed above for independent claim 20.
-In regard to dependent claim 28, the modified Gil reference teaches wherein the sensor comprises a camera (McCulloch – column 7, lines 16- 47: “The system also has one or more cameras that are able to determine pupil size”; column 9, lines 1-10: “The system includes one or more camera systems 252…camera systems 252 provide data for…pupil size determination logic 256”; Figs. 1F: 252 and 256, 1G: 404, and 4A: 134).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined said camera functionality of McCulloch with the modified Gil reference for substantially the same rationale as disclosed above for independent claim 20.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gil et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,055,887 - published 08/21/2018 and filed 02/19/2015) in view of McCulloch et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,752,963, published 06/17/2014) and Takahashi (U.S. Patent No. 9,316,831, published 04/19/2016) and in further view of Jung et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0103059, published 04/16/2015).
-In regard to dependent claim 22, the modified Gil reference does not specifically teach wherein the ambient light sensor is configured to measure a brightness of the ambient light prior to the display being turned on.
In the related art, the Jung reference teaches wherein an ambient light sensor is configured to measure the brightness of ambient light prior to a display being turned on (Paragraphs 59-60: “detect that a change amount in brightness of an ambient environment of the apparatus…may detect that the change amount in the brightness of the ambient environment…while the display 130 is turned off”; Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the ambient light sensor of the modified Gil reference to have also been configured to measure the brightness of ambient light as taught in Jung, because Jung taught that said functionality provided the benefit of a user optimally seeing the display when the display is turned on without being blinded (Paragraph 7: “the user may be sensitive to the brightness of the display”; Paragraph 47: “when the display 130 is turned on, the user may see the display 130 optimally”; Paragraph 71: “the brightness of the turned-on display 130 corresponds to a brightness with which the user's eyes may optimally see”).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gil et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,055,887 - published 08/21/2018 and filed 02/19/2015) in view of McCulloch et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,752,963, published 06/17/2014) and Takahashi (U.S. Patent No. 9,316,831, published 04/19/2016) and in further view of Bell et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0070337, published 03/12/2015).
-In regard to dependent claim 23, the Gil reference teaches wherein the control circuitry is configured to increase or decrease the brightness of the content displayed based on the measured brightness of the ambient light (column 7, lines 61-66). However, the modified Gil reference does not specifically teach wherein the control circuitry is configured to determine a tone mapping for the display content based on the measured ambient light.
In the related art, the Bell reference teaches control circuitry configured to determine a tone mapping for display content based on the measured brightness of ambient light (Paragraph 6: “systems and methods for adjusting a display to account for ambient light…adjusting a manner in which the display-ready image is displayed on the portable electronic device by color-shifting at least a subset of the plurality of pixels based on the plurality of ambient light color conditions”; Paragraphs 24-33: “configured to receive ambient light data 24 from at least one of the light sensors 20…pixels may be further adjusted based on the luminance data in the ambient light…may include a white point mapping tool, a tonescale shaping tool, a color reproduction adjusting tool, and a peak luminance adjusting tool…passes the color modified image 36 to the display 12…Modified display settings 40 may be further passed to the display…an image dominated by dark tones may be mapped through a different gamma table set for outdoor ambient light conditions than for indoor ambient light conditions. An outdoor gamma table may boost the luminance of darker tones in proportion to the estimated ambient brightness”; Fig. 4: 14, 24, 34, 36, 38, 39, and 40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the control circuitry of the modified Gil reference to have further included the tone mapping functionality as taught in Bell, because Bell taught that said functionality provided the benefits of improving a user’s perception of the display content (Paragraph 1: “in bright ambient light a dim display may be hard to see”; Paragraphs 5-6: “the user's experience with the portable electronic device may be degraded, potentially frustrating both the user…To address these issues, systems and methods for adjusting a display to account for ambient light are provided”; Paragraphs 42-44: “the image continue to appear vivid, accurate, and easily perceptible in the environment…may be done to maintain visibility”).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gil et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,055,887 - published 08/21/2018 and filed 02/19/2015) in view of McCulloch et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,752,963, published 06/17/2014) and Takahashi (U.S. Patent No. 9,316,831, published 04/19/2016) and in further view of Newman (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0075744, published 04/22/2004).
-In regard to dependent claim 25, the modified Gil reference does not specifically teach wherein the control circuitry is configured to apply a first tone mapping to a first portion of the display content that aligns with the gaze position and a second tone mapping to a second portion of the display content that is not aligned with the gaze position, and wherein the second tone mapping is different from the first tone mapping.
In the related art, the Newman reference teaches control circuitry that is configured to apply a first tone mapping to a first portion of display content that aligns with a gaze position and a second tone mapping to a second portion of display content that is not aligned with the gaze position, and wherein the second tone mapping is different from the first tone mapping (Paragraph 12: “automatic determination of regions within an image that would be of interest to a viewer, and to use those regions of interest in determination of tonal mapping parameters for the image”; Paragraphs 40-41: “obtaining eye-tracking data from an eye-tracking means”; Paragraph 47: “using appropriate eye-tracking hardware, it is possible to track a viewer's eye fixations and measure the scanpath of the viewer…while viewing an image. This provides actual regions of interest corresponding to portions of the image that the photographer found to be interesting or important”; Paragraph 75: “a determination is made as to whether the obtained image portion…a region of interest. If not, flow passes to step S904, in which tonal values of the obtained image portion are adjusted in order to obtain an optimal appearance of the obtained image portion”; Paragraph 77: “If it is determined…constitutes a region of interest, the flow moves to step S905 where the determined tone-mapping parameters for the obtained region of interest from step S506 of FIG. 5 are obtained. Tone-mapping parameters obtained in step S905 are applied to the image data for the region of interest in order to create a tone-mapped image”; Paragraph 78: “different regions…tone-mapped according to different tone-mapping techniques”; Figs. 5, 8, and 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the control circuitry of the modified Gil reference to have included the ROI-based tone mapping functionality as taught in Newman, because Newman taught that said functionality provided the benefit of creating an image that is “more pleasing to a viewer because tone values for regions within an image that contain objects a viewer would find most interesting are set to optimal levels for definition and contrast with respect to the remainder of the image” (Paragraph 2: “tone-mapping of luminance levels… for improved appearance of the image”; Paragraph 11: “providing aesthetic pleasure to the viewer”; Paragraph 15: “more pleasing…optimal levels”; Paragraph 78: “for optimal appearance of the overall tone-mapped image”).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gil et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,055,887 - published 08/21/2018 and filed 02/19/2015) in view of McCulloch et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,752,963, published 06/17/2014) and Takahashi (U.S. Patent No. 9,316,831, published 04/19/2016) and in further view of Nobori et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0235427, published 08/20/2015).
-In regard to dependent claim 26, the modified Gil reference does not specifically teach wherein the control circuitry is configured to determine an average pixel brightness at a location of the display that aligns with the gaze position.
In the related art, the Nobori reference teaches wherein control circuitry is configured to determine an average pixel brightness at a location of a display that aligns with a gaze position (Paragraphs 100-104: “calculates gaze point positions of the user on the basis of the distance information and the eye position information…generate correction images”; Paragraphs 209-211: “in the correction image generation step S405…an average luminance of luminances of a gaze point and the vicinity thereof on the visual field image…is set as a representative value representing a brightness of the gaze point, and if k is increased as the gaze point is darkened, a difference image and a correction image become brighter”; Figs. 2 and 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the control circuitry of modified Gil reference to have also been configured to determine the average pixel brightness as taught in Nobori, because Nobori taught that said functionality provided the benefit of helping a user see an object more clearly (Paragraph 1: “invention relates to an image display device, and particularly to a head mounted type or spectacle type image display device…so as to enable the user to see an object clearly”; Paragraph 102: “the user can see a subject on the gaze points clearly”; Paragraph 212: “Through the above-described operation in the correction image generation step S405, there is an effect in which, in a case where a subject at which the user gazes is dark, the subject is displayed bright, and thus the user can easily see the subject”).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gil et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,055,887 - published 08/21/2018 and filed 02/19/2015) in view of McCulloch et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,752,963, published 06/17/2014), Takahashi (U.S. Patent No. 9,316,831, published 04/19/2016), and Nobori et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0235427, published 08/20/2015) and in further view of Toda (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0129214, published 05/23/2013).
-In regard to dependent claim 29, the modified Gil reference does not specifically teach wherein the control circuitry is configured to adjust a tone mapping for the display based on the average pixel brightness.
In the related art, the Toda reference teaches wherein control circuitry is configured to adjust a tone mapping for an image to be displayed based on an average pixel brightness (Paragraphs 54-58: “calculates an average luminance value in each rectangular region…applies tone correction to each pixel in the input image, and produces an output image”; Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the control circuitry of the modified Gil reference to have also been configured to adjust a tone mapping for an image to be displayed as taught in Toda, because Toda taught that said functionality provided the benefits of enhanced image brightness or contrast wherein tone correction can be conducted with higher quality (Paragraph 2: “To enhance brightness or contrast…in an image, there have been proposed image processing methods for applying tone remapping based on the average luminance value”; Paragraph 21: “tone correction can be conducted with higher quality”).
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gil et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,055,887 - published 08/21/2018 and filed 02/19/2015) in view of Raghoebardajal (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0033600, published 01/31/2019) and in further view of Newman (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0075744, published 04/22/2004).
-In regard to independent claim 30, Gil teaches a head-mounted device (Fig. 1B), comprising:
a display that is configured to present display content (column 1, lines 49-52: “a display system”; column 4, line 59: “a display 140”; Fig. 1B: 140); and
an optical system through which the display content is viewable (column 1, lines 49-52: “an optical system”; column 4, lines 61-63: “Lenses 150…between the user’s eyes and the display”; Fig. 1B: 150).
While the Gil reference further teaches an ambient light sensor that is configured to measure a brightness of ambient light (column 5, lines 4-19: “the sensing system 160 may include a light sensor 162…on the housing 110, to sense an ambient light level”; Fig. 1B: 162) and control circuitry configured to at least gradually increase (e.g., linearly, non-linearly, step-wise, etc.) a brightness of the display to a predetermined threshold level based on the measured brightness of ambient light (column 1, lines 40-48: “incrementally adjusting the virtual brightness level toward the ambient brightness level until the difference between the ambient brightness level and the virtual brightness level is less than or equal to the preset brightness threshold”; column 4, lines 6-25: “accomplished somewhat gradually…until a desired level is achieved”; column 7, lines 62-65: “automatically control the sensing device 160 to sense an ambient light level, and may brighten (e.g., gradually brighten) the content displayed on the screen(s) to allow the user's eyes to adjust”; column 8, lines 36-39: “an adjustment in a brightness level to, for example, a threshold brightness level”; column 9, lines 52-58; column 10, lines 60-65; column 12, lines 24-48: “may, for example, increase or decrease a brightness level of the virtual environment…may gradually adjust a brightness level and/or a sound level of the virtual environment based on a brightness level and/or a sound level of the ambient environment”), the Gil reference does not specifically teach wherein the control circuitry is further configured to impose a predetermined brightness increase in the display from a first predetermined brightness level to a second predetermined brightness level and wherein the predetermined brightness increase is imposed in response to a transition in the display content.
In the related art, the Raghoebardajal reference teaches control circuitry configured to impose a predetermined brightness increase in a display from a first predetermined brightness level to a second predetermined brightness level and wherein the predetermined brightness increase is imposed in response to a transition in display content (Paragraphs 83 and 85-88: “the detection and control steps can be carried out only in respect of periods of time at the start and/or end of gameplay…Similarly, the last period of gameplay (such as a final minute, for example during a close down sequence) can be characterised by a ramped increasing adjustment so that the degree of adjustment varies from no adjustment (one minute, or another period, before the end of gameplay) to a final, higher, level of adjustment just before or at the end of gameplay or other usage…final period of gameplay can be triggered by…the system detecting that the end of gameplay (or the end of other usage, such as the end of a video playback) is approaching…increase a degree of variation of the illumination level during a last period (for example of two minutes) of usage…The adjustments can be made relative to a base or normal value of illumination level in the ambient or in-HMD lighting”; Fig. 17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the control circuitry of Gil to have also been configured to impose the predetermined brightness increase functionality as taught by Raghoebardajal, because Raghoebardajal taught that said functionality provided the benefit of easing a user out of the HMD environment (Paragraphs 84-85: “present techniques can be useful in various scenarios…so as to ease the user into and out of the game environment by providing a closer match between ambient and in-game lighting”).
The modified Gil reference also does not specifically teach (1) gaze detection circuitry configured to measure a gaze position, and (2) wherein the control circuitry is configured to apply a first tone mapping to a first portion of the display content that aligns with the gaze position and a second tone mapping to a second portion of the display content that is not aligned with the gaze position, and wherein the second tone mapping is different from the first tone mapping.
In the related art, the Newman reference teaches (1) gaze detection circuitry configured to measure a gaze position (Paragraphs 40-41: “obtaining eye-tracking data from an eye-tracking means provided on image capture device”; Paragraph 47: “using appropriate eye-tracking hardware, it is possible to track a viewer's eye fixations and measure the scanpath of the viewer…while viewing an image. This provides actual regions of interest corresponding to portions of the image that the photographer found to be interesting or important”), and (2) control circuitry configured to apply a first tone mapping to a first portion of display content that aligns with the gaze position and a second tone mapping to a second portion of display content that is not aligned with the gaze position, and wherein the second tone mapping is different from the first tone mapping (Paragraph 12: “automatic determination of regions within an image that would be of interest to a viewer, and to use those regions of interest in determination of tonal mapping parameters for the image”; Paragraph 47: “using appropriate eye-tracking hardware, it is possible to track a viewer's eye fixations and measure the scanpath of the viewer…while viewing an image. This provides actual regions of interest corresponding to portions of the image that the photographer found to be interesting or important”; Paragraph 75: “a determination is made as to whether the obtained image portion…a region of interest. If not, flow passes to step S904, in which tonal values of the obtained image portion are adjusted in order to obtain an optimal appearance of the obtained image portion”; Paragraph 77: “If it is determined…constitutes a region of interest, the flow moves to step S905 where the determined tone-mapping parameters for the obtained region of interest from step S506 of FIG. 5 are obtained. Tone-mapping parameters obtained in step S905 are applied to the image data for the region of interest in order to create a tone-mapped image”; Paragraph 78: “different regions…tone-mapped according to different tone-mapping techniques”; Figs. 5, 8, and 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for (1) the HMD of the modified Gil reference to have included the gaze detection circuitry as taught in Newman, and for (2) the control circuitry of the modified Gil reference to have included the ROI-based tone mapping functionality as taught in Newman, because (1) Newman taught that said functionality provided the benefits of improved image appearance as well as an easy way to determine actual regions of interest that were considered interesting/important to a user (Paragraph 2: “tone-mapping of luminance levels… for improved appearance of the image”; Paragraph 11: “providing aesthetic pleasure to the viewer”; Paragraph 15: “automatically maps tone levels for optimal viewing of interesting objects within the image, without requiring the user to know and use a complex method”; Paragraph 47: “provides actual regions of interest corresponding to portions of the image that the photographer found to be interesting or important”), and (2) Newman taught that said functionality provided the benefit of creating an image that is “more pleasing to a viewer because tone values for regions within an image that contain objects a viewer would find most interesting are set to optimal levels for definition and contrast with respect to the remainder of the image” (Paragraph 2: “tone-mapping of luminance levels… for improved appearance of the image”; Paragraph 11: “providing aesthetic pleasure to the viewer”; Paragraph 15: “more pleasing…optimal levels”; Paragraph 78: “for optimal appearance of the overall tone-mapped image”).
Claims 31 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gil et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,055,887 - published 08/21/2018 and filed 02/19/2015) in view of Raghoebardajal (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0033600, published 01/31/2019) and Newman (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0075744, published 04/22/2004) and in further view of McCulloch et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,752,963, published 06/17/2014).
-In regard to dependent claim 31, the modified Gil reference does not specifically teach further comprising a sensor configured to gather physiological data, and wherein the control circuitry is configured to adjust a brightness of the display based on the physiological data.
In the related art, the McCulloch reference teaches a sensor configured to gather physiological data, and wherein control circuitry is configured to adjust a brightness of a display based on the physiological data (column 1, lines 24-34: “The wearer's pupil size may be determined and used to adjust the brightness used to display images (‘image brightness’), as well as the opacity of the display”; column 9, line 1 – column 10, line 27: “a system for adjusting brightness based on gaze estimation and pupil size. The system includes one or more camera systems 252. Any of the camera systems, image sensors, photodetectors…brightness of the see-through display is adjusted based on the light intensity of the region and the pupil size”; Figs. 1F, 1G, and 5C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the HMD and control circuitry of the modified Gil reference to have further included the sensor and configured control circuitry, respectively, as taught in McCulloch, because McCulloch taught that said functionality provided the benefit of saving power as well as protecting a user’s eyes while still allowing the user to see objects properly (column 1, lines 15-34: “allows real and virtual objects to be seen clearly, while not causing damage or discomfort to the wearer's eyes”; column 9, line 1 – column 10, lines 27: “controlling image brightness may help to save power, as well as extend the lifetime of the see-through display…allow virtual objects to more realistically integrate with real objects, protect the user's eye from damage and discomfort, save power, and extend the lifetime of the display, among other advantages”).
-In regard to dependent claim 32, the newly modified Gil reference teaches wherein the physiological data is selected from the group consisting of: blink rate, pupil size, and eye openness (McCulloch - column 1, lines 24-34: “The wearer's pupil size may be determined and used to adjust the brightness”; column 9, line 1 – column 10, line 27: “a system for adjusting brightness based on gaze estimation and pupil size. The system includes one or more camera systems 252. Any of the camera systems, image sensors, photodetectors…brightness of the see-through display is adjusted based on the light intensity of the region and the pupil size”; Figs. 1F: 256, 1G: 404 and 410, and 5C: 436).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined said functionality of McCulloch with the modified Gil reference for substantially the same rationale as disclosed directly above for dependent claim 31.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-19 are allowed.
Regarding independent claim 1, the prior art references of record, either alone or in combination, fail to explicitly teach or suggest at least:
“adjust a brightness of the virtual reality content on the display based on the ambient light reading, the physiological attributes, and the user input, wherein the control circuitry is configured to apply a first tone mapping to the virtual reality content that aligns with the gaze position and a second tone mapping to the virtuality reality content that is not aligned with the gaze position, and wherein the second tone mapping is different from the first tone mapping” in specific combination with the other claimed elements of the independent claim.
Dependent claims 2-7 depend upon allowable independent claim 1 and are therefore also deemed allowable.
Regarding independent claim 8, the prior art references of record, either alone or in combination, fail to explicitly teach or suggest at least:
“adjust a brightness of the virtual reality content on the display based on the ambient light reading and the physiological attributes, wherein the control circuitry is configured to adjust the brightness of the virtual reality content from a first brightness level to a second brightness level, wherein the first brightness level is less than the second brightness level, and wherein the first brightness level is used when the display displays a video and the second brightness level is used when the display displays a menu screen” in specific combination with the other claimed elements of the independent claim.
Regarding independent claim 9, the prior art references of record, either alone or in combination, fail to explicitly teach or suggest at least:
“adjust a brightness of the virtual reality content on the display based on the brightness adaptation state, wherein the control circuitry is configured to adjust the brightness of the display from a first brightness level to a second brightness level, wherein the first brightness level is greater than the second brightness level, and wherein the first brightness level is used when the display is turned on and the second brightness level is used a period of time after the display is turned on” in specific combination with the other claimed elements of the independent claim.
Dependent claims 10-15 depend upon allowable independent claim 9 and are therefore also deemed allowable.
Regarding independent claim 16, the prior art references of record, either alone or in combination, fail to explicitly teach or suggest at least:
“adjusting a brightness of virtual reality content based on the brightness adaptation state and based on a type of virtual reality content being displayed, wherein the control circuitry reduces the brightness before an anticipated brightness increase to increase a perceived dynamic range of the display” in specific combination with the other claimed elements of the independent claim.
Dependent claims 17-19 depend upon allowable independent claim 16 and are therefore also deemed allowable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments (see: Remarks, pp. 8-10) with respect to independent claims 20 and 30 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. Please note the relevant cited prior art listed on the accompanying Notice of References Cited (Form PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adam L Basehoar whose telephone number is (571)272-4121. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00AM - 4:30PM.
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, Alexander Kosowski can be reached on 571-272-3744. 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.
/ADAM L BASEHOAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Conferees:
/JOSHUA D CAMPBELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
/ALEXANDER J KOSOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Prosecution Insights