DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 7 recites an image generating method comprising: predicting a first amount of movement of a head-mounted display between a first time and a second time. The limitation of an image generating method comprising: predicting a first amount of movement of a head-mounted display between a first time and a second time, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “head-mounted display,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “head-mounted display” language, “predicting” in the context of this claim encompasses a user watching another user playing a game and predicting their head movement. Similarly, the limitations of: deriving, predicting, generating and determining are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. The same interpretation is applied to the remaining steps in claim 7. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – head-mounted display. The head-mounted display is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor implementing a step) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a head-mounted display amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Similar reasoning is applied to claims 1-6 and 8.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Publication No. 2019/0243472 A1 to Stafford et al. (hereinafter “Stafford”) in view of US Publication No. 2018/0005387 A1 to Lee et al. (hereinafter “Lee”).
Concerning claim 1, Stafford discloses an information processing apparatus (Abstract) comprising:
at least one processor including hardware, wherein the at least one processor predicts a first amount of movement of a head-mounted display between a first time and a second time, by using images captured of a periphery of the head-mounted display respectively at the first time and the second time (paragraphs [0045], [0046], [0069], [0074]-[0079] – head movement of a HMD is predicted between multiple times and timestamped using images captured of a periphery of the HMD),
derives a degree of reliability of the predicted first amount of movement (paragraphs [0069], [0085]-[0087] – reliability is determined of the predicted movements),
predicts a second amount of movement of the head-mounted display between the first time and the second time, by using sensor data acquired by a posture sensor incorporated in the head-mounted display between the first time and the second time (paragraphs [0069], [0085]-[0087] – sensor data including posture sensors are used to determine movement of the HMD),
generates a display image to be displayed on a display different from the head-mounted display (paragraphs [0086], [0102]-[0104] – display images are displayed on multiple displays), and
determines whether or not to generate a display image including still image, according to a difference between the first amount of movement and the second amount of movement and the degree of reliability of the first amount of movement (paragraphs [0088]-[0090], [0136] – determination to display images including still images is made based on the data collected including movement of the HMD and the degree of reliability).
Stafford lacks specifically disclosing, however, Lee discloses a display image including a pattern representing a still image (Fig. 2, paragraphs [0001], [0016] – images are displayed including a pattern representing a still image). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the display of still images as disclosed by Lee in the system of Stafford in order to allow the display of videos without rescaling regardless of the original resolution.
Concerning claim 2, Stafford discloses wherein the at least one processor determines whether or not to generate the display image including the pattern, according to a covariance matrix representing the degree of reliability of the first amount of movement (paragraphs [0069], [0085]-[0087], [0136] – images are displayed based on a matrix determining the degree of reliability of the movement).
Concerning claim 5, Stafford discloses wherein the at least one processor determines that the images are not suitable for deriving the first amount of movement, according to the difference between the first amount of movement and the second amount of movement and the degree of reliability of the first amount of movement (paragraphs [0069], [0085]-[0087] – suitable images are displayed based on the difference of movement of the HMD).
Concerning claim 6, Stafford discloses wherein the at least one processor generates the display image in linked relation to the movement of the head-mounted display (paragraphs [0045], [0046], [0069], [0074]-[0079] – images are displayed based on the movement of the HMD).
Concerning claims 7 and 8, see the rejection of claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 4 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed in the PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MALINA D BLAISE whose telephone number is (571)270-3398. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thurs. 7:00 am - 5:00 pm (PT).
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, Xuan Thai can be reached at 571-272-7147. 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.
MALINA D. BLAISE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3715
/MALINA D. BLAISE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715