DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments regarding claims 1 – 5, filed 20 February 2026, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous grounds of rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 6 – 20, filed 20 February 2026, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The double patenting rejections are maintained.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 recites “the the”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 6, 10, 15, and 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7, 8, and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 10,389,992 in view of Lee et al. (US 2014/0118498). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 7, 8, and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 10,389,992 in view of Lee et al. (US 2014/0118498) anticipate claims 6, 10, 15, and 16 as follows:
AN 18/234,322 (Claim 6)
US 10,389,992 (Claim 1)
an immersive display apparatus, comprising:
an apparatus body;
at least one input device operably connected to the apparatus body for detecting objects in at least one region outside the apparatus body;
a display coupled to the apparatus body for displaying at least one virtual reality image thereon; and
a processor coupled to the input device and to the display and operable to:
An opaque immersive display comprising:
a body;
at least one input device coupled to the body for detecting objects in at least one region outside the body;
a display on the inside of the body for displaying a virtual image thereon; and
a processor coupled to the input device and to the display and operable to:
receive information from the at least one input device;
receive information from the at least one input device;
determine attributes of a real-world object, including at least a first distance from a body part to the real-world object;
determine attributes of a real-world object including a distance of the real-world object to the immersive display or at least one input device coupled to the immersive display; and
determine a range of motion of the body part based at least in part on information received from a peripheral accessory worn on the body part;
in response to determining that the first distance to the real-world object is within a threshold distance of the range of motion of the body part, display, on the display, a wireframe representation of the real-world object at a location on the display that corresponds with a location of the real-world object relative to the at least one input device, wherein the wireframe representation is displayed with a display attribute that distinguishes the wireframe representation from the at least one virtual reality image.
in response to determining that the distance of the real-world object is within a threshold distance,
(Claim 8) wherein displaying the representation of the object comprises displaying as a wireframe representation that is superimposed on the images displayed on the display.
AN: 18/234,322
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
US 10,389,992
1, 7
10
7
8
The system of US 10,389,992 does not expressly disclose determine a range of motion of the body part based at least in part on information received from a peripheral accessory worn on the body part. Lee discloses the danger warning system 100 (hereinafter the system 100) can be applied in a wearable device that includes an acceleration sensor 10, at least one camera 20, a storage device 30, a microprocessor 40, at least one alarm device 50, and a power supply 60 (paragraph 13) and if the distance falls within the preset alarm range and the movement direction of the user is approaching the dangerous object, the data analysis module 32 triggers the warning module 33, and the warning module 33 triggers the alarm device 50 to send out an alarm ( e.g., an audible alarm), to warn the user to avoid the dangerous object (paragraph 15). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the time of the effective filing date of the application (AIA ) to modify the system of US 10,389,992 to achieve a predictable result of providing an audible haptic warning when a dangerous object is within a predefined range of a user with modifying to the system of Burns that dim/fade a portion of the display of a dangerous object is within a predefined range of the user, by adding along an audible haptic warning when a dangerous object is within a predefined range of the user as taught by Lee, and the result would have been predictable.
Claims 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 13, 17, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 10,389,992. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 13, 17, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 10,389,992 anticipate claims 17 as follows:
AN 18/234,322 (Claim 17)
US 10,389,992 (Claim 13)
an immersive display apparatus, comprising:
an apparatus body;
at least one input device operably connected to the apparatus body for imaging at least one region outside the apparatus body, wherein the at least one input device comprises at least one external camera;
a display coupled to the apparatus body for displaying at least one image thereon; and
a processor coupled to the input device and to the display and operable to:
An opaque immersive display comprising:
a body;
at least one input device coupled to the body for detecting objects in at least one region outside the body;
(claim 19) wherein at least one of the at least one input devices is a forward looking infrared camera;
a display on the inside of the body for displaying a virtual image thereon; and
a processor coupled to the input device and to the display and operable to:
receive imaged information from the at least one input device, the imaged information comprising images of a real-world environment outside the apparatus body captured by the at least one external camera; and
receive information from the at least one input device;
(Claim 17) wherein the processor is operable to control the display to interrupt the virtual image displayed on the display of the immersive display by discontinuing displaying the virtual image and displaying an image of the object in response to detecting that the object is within a second threshold distance of the input device
determine attributes of a real-world object including a distance of the real-world object to the immersive display or at least one input device coupled to the immersive display; and
in response to determining that the distance of the real-world object is within a threshold distance, display a representation of the real-world object on the virtual image displayed on the display by superimposing the representation of the real-world object on the virtual image such that attributes of the representation distinguish the representation of the real-world object from the virtual image displayed on the display;
display the imaged information, within the at least one virtual image, in a defined area of the display.
in response to determining that the distance of the real-world object is outside the threshold distance, continue displaying the virtual image absent display of the representation of the real-world object, wherein the representation is displayed at a location on the display that corresponds with a location of the real-world object.
AN: 18/234,322
17
18
19
20
US 10,389,992
1
13, 17, 19
Claims 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,765,331. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 2, and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 11,765,331 anticipate claims 17 as follows:
AN 18/234,322 (Claim 17)
US 11,765,331 (Claim 1)
an immersive display apparatus, comprising:
an apparatus body;
at least one input device operably connected to the apparatus body for imaging at least one region outside the apparatus body, wherein the at least one input device comprises at least one external camera;
a display coupled to the apparatus body for displaying at least one image thereon; and
a processor coupled to the input device and to the display and operable to:
an immersive display apparatus, comprising:
an apparatus body;
at least one input device operably connected to the apparatus body for detecting objects in at least one region outside the apparatus body;
a display inside the apparatus body for displaying a virtual image thereon; and
a processor coupled to the input device and to the display and operable to:
receive imaged information from the at least one input device, the imaged information comprising images of a real-world environment outside the apparatus body captured by the at least one external camera; and
receive information from the at least one input device;
determine attributes of a real-world object, including at least a first distance to the real-world object; and
in response to determining that the first distance to the real-world object is within a threshold distance,
display a wire frame representation of the real-world object
display the imaged information, within the at least one virtual image, in a defined area of the display.
a display inside the apparatus body for displaying a virtual image thereon;
AN: 18/234,322
17
18
19
20
US 11,765,331
1
The system of 11,765,331 does not expressly disclose comprising images of a real-world environment outside the apparatus body captured by the at least one external camera. Burns discloses a mixed reality display system, instead of incorporating a see-through display subsystem, may display mixed reality images through a viewfinder mode for an outward-facing image sensor (paragraph 39). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the time of the effective filing date of the application (AIA ) to modify the system of US 11,765,331 to include an outward facing camera for displaying the captured image with virtual image superimposed onto.
Claims 6 – 9 and 11 - 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, and 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,765,331 in view of Lee et al. (US 2014/0118498) in view of Burns et al. (US 2016/0025981). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 2, and 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,765,331 in view of Lee et al. (US 2014/0118498) in view of Burns et al. (US 2016/0025981) anticipate claims 6 – 9 and 11 - 16 as follows:
AN 18/234,322 (Claim 6)
US 11,765,331 (Claim 1)
an immersive display apparatus, comprising:
an apparatus body;
at least one input device operably connected to the apparatus body for detecting objects in at least one region outside the apparatus body;
a display coupled to the apparatus body for displaying at least one virtual reality image thereon; and
a processor coupled to the input device and to the display and operable to:
an immersive display apparatus, comprising:
an apparatus body;
at least one input device operably connected to the apparatus body for detecting objects in at least one region outside the apparatus body;
a display inside the apparatus body for displaying a virtual image thereon; and
a processor coupled to the input device and to the display and operable to:
receive information from the at least one input device;
receive information from the at least one input device;
determine attributes of a real-world object, including at least a first distance from a body part to the real-world object;
determine attributes of a real-world object, including at least a first distance to the real-world object; and
determine a range of motion of the body part based at least in part on information received from a peripheral accessory worn on the body part;
in response to determining that the first distance to the real-world object is within a threshold distance of the range of motion of the body part, display, on the display, a wireframe representation of the real-world object at a location on the display that corresponds with a location of the real-world object relative to the at least one input device, wherein the wireframe representation is displayed with a display attribute that distinguishes the wireframe representation from the at least one virtual reality image.
in response to determining that the first distance to the real-world object is within a threshold distance,
display a wire frame representation of the real-world object
AN: 18/234,322
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
US 11,765,331
1
2, 4
2, 4
2, 4
2, 4
2, 4
2, 4
2, 4
2, 4
2, 4
The system of US 11,765,331 does not expressly disclose determine a range of motion of the body part based at least in part on information received from a peripheral accessory worn on the body part. Lee discloses the danger warning system 100 (hereinafter the system 100) can be applied in a wearable device that includes an acceleration sensor 10, at least one camera 20, a storage device 30, a microprocessor 40, at least one alarm device 50, and a power supply 60 (paragraph 13) and if the distance falls within the preset alarm range and the movement direction of the user is approaching the dangerous object, the data analysis module 32 triggers the warning module 33, and the warning module 33 triggers the alarm device 50 to send out an alarm ( e.g., an audible alarm), to warn the user to avoid the dangerous object (paragraph 15). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the time of the effective filing date of the application (AIA ) to modify the system of US 11,765,331 to achieve a predictable result of providing an audible haptic warning when a dangerous object is within a predefined range of a user with modifying to the system of Burns that dim/fade a portion of the display of a dangerous object is within a predefined range of the user, by adding along an audible haptic warning when a dangerous object is within a predefined range of the user as taught by Lee, and the result would have been predictable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 17 – 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Burns et al. (US 2016/0025981).
Regarding independent claim 17, Burns teaches an immersive display apparatus (Figure 17), comprising:
an apparatus body (Figure 16);
at least one input device operably connected to the apparatus body for imaging at least one region outside the apparatus body (Figure 17: Outward facing image sensors 1606), wherein the at least one input device comprises at least one external camera (paragraph 37: In step 1405, surface reconstruction data is generated using a sensor package that is incorporated into the HMD device which may include a depth sensor or camera system);
a display coupled to the apparatus body for displaying at least one virtual image thereon (Figure 17: See-through display subsystem 1604); and
a processor coupled to the input device and to the display (Figure 17: Controller 1670) and operable to:
receive imaged information from the at least one input device (paragraph 25: in view of the user's head position and orientation (and gaze direction in some implementations) tracked using the sensor package, the HMD device 104 is configured to perform a check to confirm that the new object's intended location is significantly within the field of view 110 so as to be readily discoverable), the imaged information comprising images of a real-world environment outside the apparatus body captured by the at least one external camera (paragraph 39: a mixed reality display system, instead of incorporating a see-through display subsystem, may display mixed reality images through a viewfinder mode for an outward-facing image sensor); and
display the imaged information, within the at least one virtual image, in a defined area of the display (paragraph 26: the virtual object 405 is a free-floating interactive element that is rendered in full when the user's head is in a neutral orientation where the user is looking forward in some arbitrary direction).
Regarding dependent claim 18, Burns teaches wherein the defined area of the display is in a corner of the display (paragraph 26: From the neutral orientation, the user can rotate his head to look left and right, tilt his head forward and backwards (i.e., chin down and chin up) to look down and up, and employ various combinations of tilt and rotation; Figures 8, 9: virtual object 405 is at a corner of the display device; paragraph 30 and Figure 10: Highlights including colors, graphics, animations, text, and the like (representatively indicated by reference numeral 1010) can be applied to the virtual object to gather the user's attention and/or provide information or guidance in some scenarios, wherein separate graphic or text indicators 1015 can also be utilized).
Regarding dependent claim 19, Burns teaches wherein the defined area of the display is within a virtual heads-up element shown on the display (Figures 7 – 10, virtual object 405 and indicator 1015 is within specified places of the display device).
Regarding dependent claim 20, Burns teaches wherein the defined area of the display is shown on a virtual image of a mirror (paragraph 50: The visor includes see-through front and rear shields 1804 and 1806 respectively that can be molded using transparent materials to facilitate unobstructed vision to the optical displays and the surrounding real world environment. Treatments may be applied to the front and rear shields such as tinting, mirroring, anti-reflective, anti-fog, and other coatings, and various colors and finishes may also be utilized).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 6 – 9 and 11 – 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burns et al. (US 2016/0027215) in view of Nogami et al. (US 2008/0094351) and Ambrus et al. (US 2013/0342568).
Regarding independent claim 6, Burns teaches an immersive display apparatus (Figure 12), comprising:
an apparatus body (Figure 11);
at least one input device operably connected to the apparatus body for detecting objects in at least one region outside the apparatus body (Figure 12: Outward facing image sensors 1108; paragraph 44: to identify location and movements of a user, to identify real objects);
a display coupled to the apparatus body for displaying at least one virtual reality image thereon (Figure 12: See-through display subsystem 1104); and
a processor coupled to the input device and to the display (Figure 12: Controller 1120) and operable to:
receive information from the at least one input device (paragraph 44: to receive and interpret inputs from the sensors, to identify location and movements of a user);
determine attributes of a real-world object, including at least a first distance from a body part to the real-world object (paragraph 44: to identify location and movements of a user, to identify real objects using surface reconstruction and other techniques, and dim/fade the display based on distance to objects so as to enable the objects to be seen by the user, among other tasks).
Burns does not expressly disclose determine a range of motion of the body part based at least in part on information received from a peripheral accessory worn on the body part. Nogami discloses a wearable unit being a glove (paragraph 61) that determines collision between the hand of a human body and a physical object (paragraph 81). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the time of the effective filing date of the application (AIA ) to modify Burn’s system to utilize a proximity device, such as a glove for determining distances from objects. One would be motivated to do so because this would further help user to avoid obstacles.
Burns does not expressly disclose in response to determining that the first distance to the real-world object is within a threshold distance of the range of motion of the body part, display, on the display, a wireframe representation of the real-world object at a location on the display that corresponds with a location of the real-world object relative to the at least one input device, wherein the wireframe representation is displayed with a display attribute that distinguishes the wireframe representation from the at least one virtual reality image, however Burns does disclose to identify location and movements of a user, to identify real objects using surface reconstruction and other techniques, and dim/fade the display based on distance to objects so as to enable the objects to be seen by the user, among other tasks (paragraph 44). Ambrus discloses a highlight 116 of door 110 is thinner than a highlight 118 of sofa 114 to illustrate a greater depth differential between sofa 114 and the surrounding environment as compared to that between door 110 and its surrounding environment. As another example, a thickness of the outline may be inversely proportional to the depth difference, or may have any other suitable relationship relative to the geometric feature (paragraph 16). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the time of the effective filing date of the application (AIA ) to further modify the combination of Burns’s and Nogami’s systems to identify objects in a real-world environment by highlight/wireframe the border of the object based on the distance of the object relative to the user. One would be motivated to do so because this would help the user to avoid hazardous scenarios, such as tripping or falling on the detected objects.
Regarding dependent claim 7, the combination of Burns’s, Nogami’s, and Ambrus’s systems teaches wherein the display attribute comprises a change in color for at least a portion of the wireframe representation (Burns, paragraph 44: to identify location and movements of a user, to identify real objects using surface reconstruction and other techniques, and dim/fade the display based on distance to objects so as to enable the objects to be seen by the user, among other tasks; Ambrus, paragraph 17: Although illustrated in FIG. 1 as a solid outline coextensive with the edges of a physical object, it will be appreciated that the term "highlight" as used herein refers to any visual augmentation of an object configured to aid a user in seeing and understanding the object. The visual augmentation may comprise any suitable color, shape, thickness, and/or style (e.g., dashed line, double line, edge "glowing edges", etc.)).
Regarding dependent claim 8, the combination of Burns’s, Nogami’s, and Ambrus’s systems teaches wherein the display attribute comprises a change in color saturation for at least a portion of the wireframe representation (Burns, paragraph 44: to identify location and movements of a user, to identify real objects using surface reconstruction and other techniques, and dim/fade the display based on distance to objects so as to enable the objects to be seen by the user, among other tasks; Ambrus, paragraph 17: Although illustrated in FIG. 1 as a solid outline coextensive with the edges of a physical object, it will be appreciated that the term "highlight" as used herein refers to any visual augmentation of an object configured to aid a user in seeing and understanding the object. The visual augmentation may comprise any suitable color, shape, thickness, and/or style (e.g., dashed line, double line, edge "glowing edges", etc.)).
Regarding dependent claim 9, the combination of Burns’s, Nogami’s, and Ambrus’s systems teaches wherein the display attribute comprises a change in brightness for at least a portion of the wireframe representation (Burns, paragraph 44: to identify location and movements of a user, to identify real objects using surface reconstruction and other techniques, and dim/fade the display based on distance to objects so as to enable the objects to be seen by the user, among other tasks; Ambrus, paragraph 17: Although illustrated in FIG. 1 as a solid outline coextensive with the edges of a physical object, it will be appreciated that the term "highlight" as used herein refers to any visual augmentation of an object configured to aid a user in seeing and understanding the object. The visual augmentation may comprise any suitable color, shape, thickness, and/or style (e.g., dashed line, double line, edge "glowing edges", etc.)).
Regarding dependent claim 11, the combination of Burns’s, Nogami’s, and Ambrus’s systems teaches wherein the display attribute comprises a reduced amount of color saturation for at least a portion of the wireframe representation (Burns, paragraph 44: to identify location and movements of a user, to identify real objects using surface reconstruction and other techniques, and dim/fade the display based on distance to objects so as to enable the objects to be seen by the user, among other tasks; Ambrus, paragraph 17: Although illustrated in FIG. 1 as a solid outline coextensive with the edges of a physical object, it will be appreciated that the term "highlight" as used herein refers to any visual augmentation of an object configured to aid a user in seeing and understanding the object. The visual augmentation may comprise any suitable color, shape, thickness, and/or style (e.g., dashed line, double line, edge "glowing edges", etc.)).
Regarding dependent claim 12, the combination of Burns’s, Nogami’s, and Ambrus’s systems teaches wherein the reduced amount of color saturation further comprises no color saturation (Burns, paragraph 44: to identify location and movements of a user, to identify real objects using surface reconstruction and other techniques, and dim/fade the display based on distance to objects so as to enable the objects to be seen by the user, among other tasks; Ambrus, paragraph 17: Although illustrated in FIG. 1 as a solid outline coextensive with the edges of a physical object, it will be appreciated that the term "highlight" as used herein refers to any visual augmentation of an object configured to aid a user in seeing and understanding the object. The visual augmentation may comprise any suitable color, shape, thickness, and/or style (e.g., dashed line, double line, edge "glowing edges", etc.)).
Regarding dependent claim 13, the combination of Burns’s, Nogami’s, and Ambrus’s systems teaches wherein the image of the real-world object is a different brightness compared to nearby visual elements on the display (Burns, paragraph 44: to identify location and movements of a user, to identify real objects using surface reconstruction and other techniques, and dim/fade the display based on distance to objects so as to enable the objects to be seen by the user, among other tasks; Ambrus, paragraph 17: Although illustrated in FIG. 1 as a solid outline coextensive with the edges of a physical object, it will be appreciated that the term "highlight" as used herein refers to any visual augmentation of an object configured to aid a user in seeing and understanding the object. The visual augmentation may comprise any suitable color, shape, thickness, and/or style (e.g., dashed line, double line, edge "glowing edges", etc.)).
Regarding dependent claim 14, the combination of Burns’s, Nogami’s, and Ambrus’s systems teaches wherein the image of the real-world object is a different color compared to nearby visual elements on the display (Burns, paragraph 44: to identify location and movements of a user, to identify real objects using surface reconstruction and other techniques, and dim/fade the display based on distance to objects so as to enable the objects to be seen by the user, among other tasks; Ambrus, paragraph 17: Although illustrated in FIG. 1 as a solid outline coextensive with the edges of a physical object, it will be appreciated that the term "highlight" as used herein refers to any visual augmentation of an object configured to aid a user in seeing and understanding the object. The visual augmentation may comprise any suitable color, shape, thickness, and/or style (e.g., dashed line, double line, edge "glowing edges", etc.)).
Regarding dependent claim 1, the combination of Burns’s, Nogami’s, and Ambrus’s systems teaches wherein the wireframe representation is layered or superimposed on the at least one virtual reality image (Burns, paragraph 44: to identify location and movements of a user, to identify real objects using surface reconstruction and other techniques, and dim/fade the display based on distance to objects so as to enable the objects to be seen by the user, among other tasks; Ambrus, paragraph 17: Although illustrated in FIG. 1 as a solid outline coextensive with the edges of a physical object, it will be appreciated that the term "highlight" as used herein refers to any visual augmentation of an object configured to aid a user in seeing and understanding the object. The visual augmentation may comprise any suitable color, shape, thickness, and/or style (e.g., dashed line, double line, edge "glowing edges", etc.)).
Regarding dependent claim 16, the combination of Burns’s, Nogami’s, and Ambrus’s systems teaches wherein the display attribute of the wireframe representation changes as the distance between the real-world object and the range of motion of the body part changes (Burns, paragraph 44: to identify location and movements of a user, to identify real objects using surface reconstruction and other techniques, and dim/fade the display based on distance to objects so as to enable the objects to be seen by the user, among other tasks; Ambrus, paragraph 17: Although illustrated in FIG. 1 as a solid outline coextensive with the edges of a physical object, it will be appreciated that the term "highlight" as used herein refers to any visual augmentation of an object configured to aid a user in seeing and understanding the object. The visual augmentation may comprise any suitable color, shape, thickness, and/or style (e.g., dashed line, double line, edge "glowing edges", etc.)).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burns et al. (US 2016/0027215) in view of Nogami et al. (US 2008/0094351) and Ambrus et al. (US 2013/0342568) and Wong et al. (US 2013/0335301).
Regarding dependent claim 10, Burns does not expressly disclose wherein the processor is further operable to, in response to determining that the first distance to the real-world object is within a second threshold distance that is less than the threshold distance, interrupt display of the at least on virtual reality image and display, on the display, an image of the user’s surrounding including the real-world object. Wong discloses “a collision avoidance action may de-emphasize a virtual object in successive steps if initial attempts have not produced a desired affect (e.g., a wearer continues to approach a detected object in a potentially hazardous way despite an initial collision avoidance action.) For instance, an exemplary process may include receiving and indication that an object is within a first threshold distance and responsively moving one virtual object to provide a view of the object. The process may further include receiving a subsequent indication that the detected object is within a second, closer distance threshold and responsively moving all virtual objects to provide a less obstructed view of the approaching object. Upon receiving additional indications that the object continues to pose the risk of collision, the exemplary process may include applying transparency to one or all of the virtual objects, reducing the virtual objects in size, removing the virtual objects from the viewing region entirely, and finally presenting a new virtual object to highlight the physical object” (paragraph 133 and Figure 7H). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the time of the effective filing date of the application (AIA ) to modify Burns's system to highlight a real-world dangerous object that is within a threshold distance from the user. One would be motivated to do so because this would help the user to clearly see what real-world dangerous object is present within the field of the view of the user that would be mixed with the virtual environment.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 – 5 are allowed.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY J CHOW whose telephone number is (571)272-8078. The examiner can normally be reached 11AM-7PM.
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, Devona Faulk can be reached on 571-272-7515. 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.
/JEFFREY J CHOW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2612
Prosecution Insights