DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see application, filed 08/17/2026, with respect to the 112 rejections (in partial) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112 rejections (in partial) have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-7, 9, 11-15, 17-18 and 20 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.
Applicant's arguments filed 08/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The arguments in regards to the 112a are not persuasive. The specification does not disclose using multiple conditions for changing the projection plane.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The independent claims define the limitation in part “determine a condition corresponding to at least one of:”. However, the examiner could not locate support where multiple conditions have support (i.e. via the term “at least one”). This introduces the interpretation of multiple or more than one of the conditions are utilized. However, from the examiner’s understanding, it appears that only one of the conditions are used in the process. Please clarify or provide support for where multiple conditions are used in the process of changing the projection plane.
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 1, 13-15, 17 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (herein after will be referred to as Kim) (US 20210218946) in view of Mccombe et al. (herein after will be referred to as Mccombe) (US 20200357128).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a head-mounted display system comprising:
one or more storage media storing instructions; and one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to cause the head-mounted display system to: [See Kim [Fig. 1] Processor/Memory. Also, see 0157, HMD.]
acquire data of a first image captured by a camera mounted on the head-mounted display system at a first physical position; [See Kim [0005]. Also, see 0157-0158.]
display the first image on a projection plane set in a virtual three-dimensional space as a display target; [See Kim [0005]. Also, see 0157-0158. Also, see abstract, virtual image plane.]
determine a condition corresponding to at least one: an object that is a focus of gaze, a game play area being set, a specific object detected from a set of objects capable of being detected, a detected position and structure of a surface of the object, or a display mode; change the projection plane according to the condition; and [See Kim [Fig. 4 and 0081] Set location of virtual image plane according to depth location sensed by the eye tracking sensor. Also, see 0080, a region in that the observer is likely to observe, such as an object, is considered.]
output the display image. [See Kim [0005]. Also, see 0157-0158.]
Kim does not explicitly disclose
generate a display image corresponding to the first image viewed from a virtual camera, wherein a field of view of the virtual camera corresponds to a point of view and a line of sight of a user, the point of view being at a second physical position that is offset from the first physical position of the camera mounted on the head-mounted display system;
However, Mccombe does disclose
generate a display image corresponding to the first image viewed from a virtual camera, wherein a field of view of the virtual camera corresponds to a point of view and a line of sight of a user, the point of view being at a second physical position that is offset from the first physical position of the camera mounted on the head-mounted display system; [See Mccombe [0010] Two physical cameras having physical positions. Generated a synthetic image of the scene from the perspective of a virtual camera having a selected virtual camera position, the selected virtual camera position being unconstrained by the physical position of the cameras (i.e. the virtual camera having different position than real camera). Also, see 0038, the selected virtual camera positions correspond to right/let eye positions of a stereo display device. Also, see 0040, HMD.]
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the device by Kim to add the teachings of Mccombe, in order to enable reconstruction of virtual images of a scene from the perspective of a virtual camera having a selected virtual camera position based on images of the scene captured by physical cameras [See Mccombe [0003]].
Regarding claim 13, see examiners rejection for claim 1 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, see examiners rejection for claim 1 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 14.
Regarding claim 15, Kim (modified by Mccombe) disclose the display of claim 1. Furthermore, Kim discloses
wherein determining the condition includes determining the object that is the focus of gaze. [See Kim [Fig. 4 and 0081] Set location of virtual image plane according to depth location sensed by the eye tracking sensor. Also, see 0080, a region in that the observer is likely to observe, such as an object, is considered.]
Regarding claim 17, Kim (modified by Mccombe) disclose the display of claim 1. Furthermore, Kim discloses
wherein determining the condition includes detecting the specific object from the set of objects capable of being detected. [See Kim [Fig. 4 and 0081] Set location of virtual image plane according to depth location sensed by the eye tracking sensor. Also, see 0080, a region having a large object size (i.e. only large objects are considered).]
Regarding claim 20, Kim (modified by Mccombe) disclose the display of claim 1. Furthermore, Kim discloses
wherein the instructions further cause the head-mounted display system to adjust a dimension of the projection plane according to the condition. [See Kim [Fig. 4 and 0081] Set location of virtual image plane according to depth location sensed by the eye tracking sensor (i.e. depth dimension is adjusted).]
Regarding claim 21, Kim (modified by Mccombe) disclose the display of claim 1. Furthermore, Kim discloses
wherein determining the condition includes determining a spatial boundary or an operating mode. [See Kim [Fig. 4 and 0081] Set location of virtual image plane according to depth location sensed by the eye tracking sensor. Also, see 0080, a region in that the observer is likely to observe, such as an object, is considered. The claimed “operating mode” is very broad. Eye tracking sensor for detecting user’s eye information is considered an operating mode.]
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20210218946) in view of Mccombe (US 20200357128) and in further view of Kuroda et al. (herein after will be referred to as Kuroda) (US 20090058856).
Regarding claim 9, Kim (modified by Mccombe) disclose the display of claim 1. Furthermore, Kim does not explicitly disclose
wherein the instructions further cause the head-mounted display system to use at least part of the projection plane as an inner plane of a virtual sphere and changes a radius of the virtual sphere according to the condition.
However, Kuroda does disclose
wherein the instructions further cause the head-mounted display system to use at least part of the projection plane as an inner plane of a virtual sphere and changes a radius of the virtual sphere according to the condition. [See Kuroda [0024] Change the radius of the sphere for a virtual camera in accordance with distance between the position of the viewing point of the virtual camera in the virtual three-dimensional space and the position of the specific subject.]
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the device by Kim (modified by Mccombe) to add the teachings of Kuroda, in order to improve upon displaying images in relation to a virtual camera.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20210218946) in view of Mccombe (US 20200357128) and in further view of Xu et al. (herein after will be referred to as Xu) (US 20250067978).
Regarding claim 11, Kim (modified by Mccombe) disclose the display of claim 1. Furthermore, Kim does not explicitly disclose
wherein the instructions further cause the head-mounted display system to provide a transition period in which, when the projection plane is to be switched, the switching is gradually reflected on the display image.
However, Xu does disclose
wherein the instructions further cause the head-mounted display system to provide a transition period in which, when the projection plane is to be switched, the switching is gradually reflected over time on the display image. [See Xu [0070] Gradually adjusting the object distance in regards to a virtual image.]
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the device by Kim (modified by Mccombe) to add the teachings of Xu, in order to improve upon the display of images by incorporating a fade in/out effect. The advantages of a fade in/fade out effect for image display is obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20210218946) in view of Mccombe (US 20200357128) and in further view of Chang et al. (herein after will be referred to as Chang) (US 20210011305).
Regarding claim 12, Kim (modified by Mccombe) disclose the display of claim 1. Furthermore, Kim does not explicitly disclose
wherein the instructions further cause the head-mounted display system to detect a start of a blink of a user on a basis of a captured image of an eyeball of the user and changes the projection plane while the user blinks.
However, Chang does disclose
wherein the instructions further cause the head-mounted display system to detect a start of a blink of a user on a basis of a captured image of an eyeball of the user and changes the projection plane while the user blinks. [See Chang [0108] Virtual content is shifted to a different depth plane when a user blinks.]
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the device by Kim (modified by Mccombe) to add the teachings of Chang, in order to improve upon the display of images being presented to a user.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20210218946) in view of Mccombe (US 20200357128) and in further view of Rudman et al. (herein after will be referred to as Rudman) (US 20240119682).
Regarding claim 18, Kim (modified by Mccombe) disclose the display of claim 1. Furthermore, Kim does not explicitly disclose
wherein determining the condition includes detecting the position and structure of the surface of the object.
However, Rudman does disclose
wherein determining the condition includes detecting the position and structure of the surface of the object. [See Rudman [0155] Overlaying virtual information on the physical object (i.e. setting a virtual image plane) for displaying information within a boundary of a physical object. The physical objects include an object including a surface of a desk, shelf, etc., and a floor. Also, see 0151, position of a physical object is detected/determined.]
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the device by Kim (modified by Mccombe) to add the teachings of Rudman, in order to incorporate multiple projection planes based upon where the objects need to be presented in the virtual display.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-8, 10, 16, and 19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 1st paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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.
[See Cheng [0008] Adjust virtual camera rendering parameters based on the 3D camera physical position and shooting angle relationship. Also, see 0018, the virtual camera related parameters include camera position/virtual camera position to simulate a real camera position.]
[See Chen [0022] Adjust the virtual camera from the initial position or orientation to a refined position or orientation that reflects the actual position of orientation of the real camera more closely.]
[See Armstrong [0026] Adjust the virtual camera locations to correspond to the locations and orientations of the user’s eyes.]
US 20250157134 (date invalid to qualify as prior art)
US 20140267584
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 JAMES T BOYLAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-3pm.
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, JAMIE ATALA can be reached at 571-272-7384. 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.
/JAMES T BOYLAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights