DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see application, filed 02/27/2026, 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 The 112 rejections (in partial) have been withdrawn.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 02/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The examiner requested additional clarity for the differences between “a set of conditions” and “a set of predetermined conditions” in the most previous Final Office Action dated 10/31/2025. It is unclear how these two terms differ from each. For example, independent claim 1 defines that a condition is determined according to a set of conditions (i.e. 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). Furthermore, claims 2-4 all claim “wherein the condition is selected from a set of predetermined conditions”. The claimed “a set of predetermined conditions” in the dependent claims 2 are not further defined and it is unclear how they differ from the set of conditions in claim 1.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 submission filed on 02/27/2026 has been entered.
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 1-20 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
For claims 2-4, It is unclear what “a set of predetermined conditions” refers to. For example, a set of conditions are already claimed in claim 1. Please clarify and/or provide support for the difference between the conditions and a predetermined set of conditions.
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 1-2, 6, 13-15, 17 and 20 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 Ito (US 20110304702).
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; [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 by drawing the first image when viewed from a virtual camera that represents a view from a first physical camera position that is different than a second physical camera position of the camera mounted on the head-mounted display system;
However, Ito does disclose
generate a display image by drawing the first image when viewed from a virtual camera that represents a view from a first physical camera position that is different than a second physical camera position of the camera mounted on the head-mounted display system; [See Ito [Fig. 24] Two imaging sections (i.e. cameras) mounted on device that have different positions. Also, see 0007, HMD. Also, see Figs. 25-26, generating a mixed display image with combination of real-image data from a real camera and virtual image from a virtual camera.]
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 Ito, in order to perform a simple substitution of cameras for use in a HMD for displaying AR content by superimposing a 3D virtual object onto a 3D image corresponding to the real-world [See Ito [0003]].
Regarding claim 2, Kim (modified by Ito) disclose the display of claim 1. Furthermore, Kim discloses
wherein the condition is selected from a set of predetermined conditions and the instructions further cause the head-mounted display system to make, according to the condition, at least part of the projection plane correspond to a surface of an object present in a real world. [See Kim [0080] Setting virtual image plane corresponding to object.]
Regarding claim 6, Kim (modified by Ito) disclose the display of claim 2. Furthermore, Kim discloses
wherein the instructions further cause the head-mounted display system to: detect the surface of the object based on the first image; and decide to make a portion of the projection plane to correspond to the surface of the object based on a result of the detecting of the surface of the object. [See Kim [0080] Setting virtual image plane corresponding to object.]
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 Ito) 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 Ito) 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 Ito) 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).]
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 3-4 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20210218946) in view of Ito (US 20110304702) and in further view of Rudman et al. (herein after will be referred to as Rudman) (US 20240119682).
Regarding claim 3, Kim discloses the display of claim 1. Furthermore, Kim does not explicitly disclose
wherein the condition is selected from a set of predetermined conditions and the instructions further cause the head-mounted display system to include, according to the condition, a first plane corresponding to a surface of the object present in a real world and a second plane set independently of the object.
However, Rudman does disclose
wherein the condition is selected from a set of predetermined conditions and the instructions further cause the head-mounted display system to include, according to the condition, a first plane corresponding to a surface of the object present in a real world and a second plane set independently of the object. [See Rudman [0155] Overlaying virtual information on the physical object. The physical objects include an object including a surface of a desk, shelf, etc., and a floor. Therefore, the desk would correlate to a surface of an object present in a real world and the floor would be set independently of the desk.]
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 Ito) 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.
Regarding claim 4, Kim (modified by Ito) disclose the display of claim 1. Furthermore, Kim does not explicitly disclose
wherein the condition is selected from a set of predetermined conditions and the instructions further cause the head-mounted display system to make, according to the condition, at least part of the projection plane correspond to a floor surface in a real world.
However, Rudman does disclose
wherein the condition is selected from a set of predetermined conditions and the instructions further cause the head-mounted display system to make, according to the condition, at least part of the projection plane correspond to a floor surface in a real world. [See Rudman [0155] Overlaying virtual information on the physical object. The physical object includes the floor.]
Applying the same motivation as applied in claim 3.
Regarding claim 18, Kim (modified by Ito) 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.]
Applying the same motivation as applied in claim 3.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20210218946) in view of Ito (US 20110304702) in view of Rudman (US 20240119682) and in further view of Wang et al. (herein after will be referred to as Wang) (US 20190033989).
Regarding claim 5, Kim (modified by Ito and Rudman) disclose the display of claim 4. Furthermore, Kim does not explicitly disclose
wherein the instructions further cause the head-mounted display system to: set a play area defining a movable range of a user; and superimpose a virtual object indicative of the play area on the display image including the first image displayed on the projection plane.
However, Wang does disclose
wherein the instructions further cause the head-mounted display system to: set a play area defining a movable range of a user; and superimpose a virtual object indicative of the play area on the display image including the first image displayed on the projection plane. [See Wang [Fig. 6]. Also, see 0057, the virtual bounded floor plan is visible to the user and overlaid on the display or a VR/AR application.]
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 Ito and Rudman) to add the teachings of Wang, in order to incorporate a bounded floor plan for a gaming application (which are obvious for VR/AR devices) so that the user does not damage anything within the indoor environment and/or the user itself.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20210218946) in view of Ito (US 20110304702) and in further view of Wheeler et al. (herein after will be referred to as Wheeler) (US 20150172634).
Regarding claim 7, Kim (modified by Ito) disclose the display of claim 6. Furthermore, Kim does not explicitly disclose
wherein the instructions further cause the head-mounted display system to set the portion of the projection plane based on a prescribed value previously associated with the object in a period in which the surface of the object has not been detected.
However, Wheeler does disclose
wherein the instructions further cause the head-mounted display system to set the portion of the projection plane based on a prescribed value previously associated with the object in a period in which the surface of the object has not been detected. [See Wheeler [0027] Virtual camera perspective is based on object history, wherein this history corresponds to a set of locations the object has previously been placed in a given scene.]
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 Ito) to add the teachings of Wheeler, in order to adjust virtual camera parameters based on an object’s history. This will assist the virtual camera when the object has been temporarily lost.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20210218946) in view of Ito (US 20110304702) and in further view of Kuroda et al. (herein after will be referred to as Kuroda) (US 20090058856).
Regarding claim 9, Kim (modified by Ito) 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 Ito) 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 Ito (US 20110304702) and in further view of Xu et al. (herein after will be referred to as Xu) (US 20250067978).
Regarding claim 11, Kim (modified by Ito) 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 Ito) 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 Ito (US 20110304702) and in further view of Chang et al. (herein after will be referred to as Chang) (US 20210011305).
Regarding claim 12, Kim (modified by Ito) 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 Ito) to add the teachings of Chang, in order to improve upon the display of images being presented to a user.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 10, 16 and 19 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
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