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 Amendment
Received 06/16/2026
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-15, 17-19, and 21-23 are pending.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 12, 14, 15, 17, 19, and 22 have been amended.
Claim(s) 6, 16, and 20 have been cancelled.
Claim(s) 23 have been added.
The 35 U.S.C § 103 rejection to claim(s) 1-5, 7-15, and 17-22 have been fully considered in view of the amendments received on 06/16/2026 and are fully addressed in the prior art rejection below.
Response to Arguments
Received 06/16/2026
Regarding independent claim(s) 1, 12, and 19:
Applicant’s arguments (Remarks, Page 9: ¶ 2-4), filed 06/16/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn, necessitated by Applicant's amendments. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Rai Kurlethimar et al. (US PGPUB No. 20210287633 A1), in view of Eble et al. (US PGPUB No. 20210142443 A1), and further in view of Spitzer (US PGPUB No. 20180136720 A1).
Applicant’s arguments (Remarks, Page 9: ¶ 3), filed 06/16/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 12 and 19 under 35 U.S.C § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive due claim 12's and claim 19's similarity to claim 1. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn, necessitated by Applicant's amendments. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the prior art as mentioned above.
Regarding dependent claim(s) 2-5, 7-11, 13-15, 17-18, and 21-23:
Applicant’s arguments (Remarks, Page 12: ¶ 4), filed 06/30/2022, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 2-5, 7-11, 13-15, 17-18, and 21-23 under 35 U.S.C § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive due the dependency upon claims 1, 12, and 19 respectively. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn, necessitated by Applicant's amendments. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the prior art as mentioned above.
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).
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-15 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rai Kurlethimar et al., US PGPUB No. 20210287633 A1, hereinafter Rai-Kurlethimar, in view of Eble et al., US PGPUB No. 20210142443 A1, hereinafter Eble, and further in view of Spitzer, US PGPUB No. 20180136720 A1, hereinafter Spitzer.
Regarding claim 12, Rai-Kurlethimar discloses a device (Rai-Kurlethimar; a device [¶ 0028], as illustrated within Fig. 1 and Fig. 2) comprising:
a non-transitory memory (Rai-Kurlethimar; the device [as addressed above] comprises a non-transitory memory [¶ 0029, ¶ 0031, and ¶ 0033], as illustrated within Fig. 1); and
one or more processors (Rai-Kurlethimar; the device [as addressed above] comprises one or more processors [¶ 0029-0033], as illustrated within Fig. 1) to:
generate a first resolution function based on a function of location with a set of variables having a first set of values (Rai-Kurlethimar; one or more processors [as addressed above] to generate a 1st resolution function based on an implicit function of location (given a utilization of a rendering technique and/or an applied modification to content in relation with foveation and eye tracking) with a set of variables (i.e. resolution values, PPDs, and/or sizes) having a 1st set of values (i.e. high, medium, and low) [¶ 0049-0053]; wherein, a resolution function is implicitly based on an formula given applied modifications to the resolution of an image/content (via a display) according to one or more schemes [¶ 0003, ¶ 0101, and ¶ 0105-0107], as illustrated Figs. 15A-D; additionally, static foveation [¶ 0051-0052] and/or dynamic foveation [¶ 0053-0054]; still further, adjusting resolution in relation with the foveation (based on one or more determined events) [¶ 0062-0064], such that size of one or more foveal areas are also adjusted [¶ 0064-0067]);
generate a first image based on first content and the first resolution function (Rai-Kurlethimar; one or more processors [as addressed above] to generate a 1st image (e.g. rendering) based on 1st content and the 1st resolution function [¶ 0049-0052]);
detect a resolution constraint (Rai-Kurlethimar; one or more processors [as addressed above] to detect a resolution constraint (i.e. constraint on bandwidth or resources available for rendering) [¶ 0068]; additionally, resource usage [¶ 0069-0070]);
generate a second resolution function based on the formula with the set of variables having a second set of values (Rai-Kurlethimar; one or more processors [as addressed above] to generate a 2nd resolution function (i.e. dynamic foveation and/or size reduction of a prior foveation) based on the implicit formula with the set of variables (i.e. resolution values, PPDs, and/or sizes) having a 2nd set of values (i.e. updated/modified high, medium, and low) [¶ 0049-0050 and ¶ 0053-0055]; wherein, a resolution function is implicitly based on an formula given applied modifications to the resolution of an image/content (via a display) according to one or more schemes [¶ 0003, ¶ 0101, and ¶ 0105-0107], as illustrated Fig. 14A-D and Figs. 15A-D; moreover, a function with a set of variables having a set of values [as addressed above]; additionally, a dynamic foveation can be transitioned to when reducing sizing associated with the static foveation [¶ 0003-0005, ¶ 0064-0066, and ¶ 0071]), wherein the second resolution function that satisfies the resolution constraint (Rai-Kurlethimar; the 2nd resolution function (i.e. dynamic foveation and/or size reduction of a prior foveation) implicitly that satisfies the resolution constraint (given that one or more large high resolution area(s) are bandwidth/resource intensive) [¶ 0068-0070]; moreover, control of size, shape, and location of foveated areas [¶ 0086] in relation with an increase in processing power is mitigated by reducing a size or resolution of the high resolution area [¶ 0089-0092], as illustrated within Figs. 10A-G); and
generate a second image based on second content and the second resolution function (Rai-Kurlethimar; one or more processors [as addressed above] to generate a 2nd image (e.g. rendering) based on 2nd content (i.e. subsequent image/frame) and the 2nd resolution function (i.e. dynamic foveation and/or size reduction of a prior foveation) [¶ 0049-0050 and ¶ 0053-0055]).
Rai-Kurlethimar fails to explicitly disclose generate a first resolution function based on a function of location with a set of variables having a first set of values;
detecting an available image-processing throughput of an image-processing pipeline for a frame period, the available image-processing throughput corresponding to an amount of image information processable by the image-processing pipeline during the frame period; and
in response to detecting the available image-processing throughtput and in accordance with a determination that the first resolution function has a first summation value based on an area under the first resolution function over location that does not satisfy the resolution constraint, generate a second resolution function based on the function with the set of variables having a second set of values, wherein the second resolution function has a second summation value based on an area under the second resolution function that does not exceed the available image-processing throughput.
However, Eble teaches to:
generate a first resolution function based on a function of location with a set of variables having a first set of values (Eble; generating a 1st resolution function based on a function of location with a set of variables having a 1st set of values [¶ 0106-0108], as illustrated within Fig. 10A; wherein, the 1st resolution function corresponds to unconstrained rendering resolution function 1010 [id.]; moreover, performing static foveation and/or dynamic foveation [¶ 0082], as illustrated within Figs. 6A-B, in relation with a stepwise function associated with maximum of the rendering resolution function [¶ 0072-0075]);
generate a first image based on first content and the first resolution function (Eble; generating a 1st image based on 1st content and the 1st resolution function [¶ 0071 and ¶ 0106-0108]);
in response to detecting the resolution constraint and in accordance with a determination that the first resolution function has a first summation value based on an area under the first resolution function over location that does not satisfy the resolution constraint, generate a second resolution function based on the function of location with the set of variables having a second set of values (Eble; generate a 2nd resolution function based on the function of location with the set of variables having a 2nd set of values [¶ 0106-0108], as illustrated within Fig. 10A, in response to detecting the resolution constraint (corresponding to eyepiece resolution function) and in accordance with a determination that the 1st resolution function has a 1st summation value based on an area under the 1st resolution function over location that does not satisfy the resolution constraint [¶ 0072-0073 and ¶ 0106-0109], as illustrated within Fig. 10A; wherein, the 2nd resolution function corresponds to caped rendering resolution function 1030 [id.]; and wherein, Fig. 10A illustrates the area of the 2nd function (1030) is less-than and under the overlapping location of the 1st function (1010); such that, “The summation value of the capped rendering resolution function 1030 is less than the summation value of the unconstrained rendering resolution function 1010” [¶ 0109]; moreover, performing static foveation and/or dynamic foveation [¶ 0082], as illustrated within Figs. 6A-B, in relation with a stepwise function associated with asymptote of the rendering resolution function [¶ 0071-0074]; additionally, the rendering module generated the rendering resolution based on a number of factors including various constraints [¶ 0077]), wherein one of the second set of values is different than a corresponding one of the first set of values and others of the second set of values are the same as corresponding others of the first set of values (Eble; one of the 2nd set of values is implicitly different than a corresponding one of the 1st set of values and others of the 2nd set of values are implicitly the same as corresponding others of the 1st set of values (given the mapping space of the functions) [¶ 0072-0073 and ¶ 0107-0109], as illustrated within Figs. 10A-C; wherein, Figs. 10A-C illustrate the mapping space for the rendering functions; in other words, some values of the 2nd function map to different values than the 1st function, and some values of the 2nd and 1st functions have the same mapping), wherein the second resolution function has a second summation value based on an area under the second resolution function that satisfies the resolution constraint (Eble; the 2nd resolution function (i.e. caped rendering resolution function) has a 2nd summation value based on an area under the 2nd resolution function (i.e. caped rendering resolution function) that satisfies the resolution constraint (i.e. eyepiece resolution function) [¶ 0072-0073 and ¶ 0107-0109]).
Rai-Kurlethimar and Eble are considered to be analogous art because both pertain to generating and/or managing data in relation with providing media data to a user, wherein one or more computerized units are utilized in order to produce a visualization effect.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Rai-Kurlethimar, to incorporate to: generate a first resolution function based on a function of location with a set of variables having a first set of values; generate a first image based on first content and the first resolution function; detect a resolution constraint; in response to detecting the resolution constraint and in accordance with a determination that the first resolution function has a first summation value based on an area under the first resolution function over location that does not satisfy the resolution constraint, generate a second resolution function based on the function of location with the set of variables having a second set of values, wherein one of the second set of values is different than a corresponding one of the first set of values and others of the second set of values are the same as corresponding others of the first set of values, wherein the second resolution function has a second summation value based on an area under the second resolution function that satisfies the resolution constraint (as taught by Eble), in order to provide high resolution imaging while reducing resource consumption (Eble; [¶ 0012]).
Rai-Kurlethimar as modified by Eble fails to disclose detecting an available image-processing throughput of an image-processing pipeline for a frame period, the available image-processing throughput corresponding to an amount of image information processable by the image-processing pipeline during the frame period;
in response to detecting the available image-processing throughtput and in accordance with a determination that the first resolution function has a first summation value based on an area under the first resolution function over location that does not satisfy the resolution constraint; and
wherein the second resolution function has a second summation value based on an area under the second resolution function that does not exceed the available image-processing throughput.
However, Spitzer teaches detecting an available image-processing throughput of an image-processing pipeline for a frame period (Spitzer; detecting an available image-processing throughput of an image-processing pipeline for a frame period [¶ 0059-0060 and ¶ 0062]; wherein, data stream is assessed and configured based on factors of resolution and bandwidth [¶ 0046 and ¶ 0066-0068], as illustrated within Fig. 8; moreover, dual-path or multi-path foveated graphics pipeline [¶ 0039-0040]), the available image-processing throughput corresponding to an amount of image information processable by the image-processing pipeline during the frame period (Spitzer; the available image-processing throughput corresponding to an amount of image information processable by the image-processing pipeline during the frame period [¶ 0046 and ¶ 0049-0051]; moreover, pixel steam based on size info [¶ 0067-0068 and ¶ 0073-0074] in volving a clock associated with transmission sequence [¶ 0077-0078]);
in response to detecting the available image-processing throughput and in accordance with a determination that the first resolution function has a first summation value based on an area under the first resolution function over location that exceeds the available image-processing throughput, generating a second resolution function based on the function of location with the set of variables having a second set of values (Spitzer; generating a 2nd resolution function based on the function of location with the set of variables having a 2nd set of values in response to detecting the available image-processing throughput and in accordance with a determination that the 1st resolution function has a 1st summation value (corresponding to combined pixel) based on an area under the 1st resolution function over location that exceeds the available image-processing throughput [¶ 0072-0074 and ¶ 0079]; wherein, a 1st resolution function corresponds to one configuration of the pixel stream combination (i.e. no need to reshape image regions) and a 2nd resolution function corresponds to another configuration of the pixel stream combination (i.e. need to reshape image regions) [¶ 0072-0074], as illustrated within Fig. 8 and Fig. 11; still further, the pixel stream combination module is able to determine whether to reshape or not [¶ 0069-0071]; additionally a 1st and 2nd resolution function can corresponds to the pixel stream combination module and the pixel stream separation module [¶ 0066]), wherein the second resolution function has a second summation value based on an area under the second resolution function over location that does not exceed the available image-processing throughput (Spitzer; the 2nd resolution function has a 2nd summation value (corresponding to another combined pixel) based on an area under the 2nd resolution function over location that does not exceed the available image-processing throughput [¶ 0072-0074 and ¶ 0079]).
Rai-Kurlethimar in view of Eble and Spitzer are considered to be analogous art because they pertain to generating and/or managing data in relation with providing media data to a user, wherein one or more computerized units are utilized in order to produce a visualization effect.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Rai-Kurlethimar as modified Eble, to incorporate detecting an available image-processing throughput of an image-processing pipeline for a frame period, the available image-processing throughput corresponding to an amount of image information processable by the image-processing pipeline during the frame period; in response to detecting the available image-processing throughput and in accordance with a determination that the first resolution function has a first summation value based on an area under the first resolution function over location that exceeds the available image-processing throughput, generating a second resolution function based on the function of location with the set of variables having a second set of values, wherein the second resolution function has a second summation value based on an area under the second resolution function over location that does not exceed the available image-processing throughput (as taught by Spitzer), in order to provide high resolution imaging while reducing resource consumption (Spitzer; [¶ 0004-0005]).
Regarding claim 13, Rai-Kurlethimar in view of Eble and Spitzer further discloses the device of claim 12, wherein the set of variables includes at least one of a maximum, a minimum, an asymptote, or a width (Rai-Kurlethimar; the set of variables (i.e. resolution values, PPDs, and/or sizes) [as addressed within the parent claim(s)] includes at least one of a maximum, a minimum, an asymptote, or a width [¶ 0066-0067, ¶ 0069-0070, and ¶ 0072], as illustrated within Fig. 9; additionally, PPD in relation with sizing [¶ 0106-0112], as illustrated within Figs. 15A-D).
Eble further teaches the set of variables includes at least one of a maximum, a minimum, an asymptote, or a width (Eble; the set of variables [as addressed within the parent claim(s)] includes at least one of a maximum, a minimum, an asymptote, or a width [¶ 0074-0076 and ¶ 0078-0080], as illustrated within Figs. 3A-D and Figs. 5A-C; moreover, rendering function structure [¶ 0071-0073]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Rai-Kurlethimar as modified by Eble and Spitzer, to incorporate the set of variables includes at least one of a maximum, a minimum, an asymptote, or a width (as taught by Eble), in order to provide high resolution imaging while reducing resource consumption (Eble; [¶ 0012]).
Regarding claim 14, Rai-Kurlethimar in view of Eble and Spitzer further discloses the device of claim 12, wherein the resolution constraint indicates a number of pixels and the resolution constraint when the second image has less than the number of pixels (Rai-Kurlethimar; the resolution constraint [as addressed within the parent claim(s)] indicates a number of pixels [¶ 0106-0112] and the resolution constraint [as addressed within the parent claim(s)] when the 2nd image has less than the number of pixels [¶ 0106-0112]; moreover, size of resolution area(s) are associated with PPD [¶ 0069-0070]).
Eble further teaches the second summation value satisfies the resolution constraint when the second image has less than the number of pixels (Eble; the 2nd summation value [as addressed within the parent claim(s)] satisfies the resolution constraint when the 2nd image has less than the number of pixels [¶ 0074-0077]; moreover, foveated imaging associated with a maximum resolution at a field of focus and decreased resolution the farther away the distance from the field of focus [¶ 0065-0067]; moreover, rendering resolution function which reduces in an inverse linear fashion from a field of focus involving an area [¶ 0074-0076] while incorporating constraints [¶ 0071-0073 and ¶ 0077], as illustrated within Figs. 3A-D).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Rai-Kurlethimar as modified by Eble and Spitzer, to incorporate the second summation value satisfies the resolution constraint when the second image has less than the number of pixels (as taught by Eble), in order to provide high resolution imaging while reducing resource consumption (Eble; [¶ 0012]).
Spitzer further teaches available image-processing throughput (Spitzer; (wherein a constraint corresponds to) available image-processing throughput [¶ 0024-0026 and ¶ 0039]; wherein, summation of values (1212) has less number of pixels than summation of values (1222) [¶ 0079], as illustrated Fig. 12; additionally, RGB vs RGBG [¶ 0089-0091]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Rai-Kurlethimar as modified Eble and Spitzer, to incorporate the second summation value satisfies the resolution constraint when the second image has less than the number of pixels (as taught by Spitzer), in order to provide high resolution imaging while reducing resource consumption (Spitzer; [¶ 0004-0005]).
Regarding claim 15, Rai-Kurlethimar in view of Eble and Spitzer further discloses the device of claim 12, wherein the resolution constraint is generated based on an amount of available processing power (Rai-Kurlethimar; the resolution constraint [as addressed within the parent claim(s)] is generated based on an amount of available processing power (i.e. bandwidth or resources) [¶ 0068-0070]; moreover, less bandwidth, complexity, and power is required to compute and transmit the image region to the display device [¶ 0090]).
Spitzer further teaches available image-processing throughput (Spitzer; (wherein a constraint corresponds to) available image-processing throughput [¶ 0024-0026 and ¶ 0039]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Rai-Kurlethimar as modified Eble and Spitzer, to incorporate available image-processing throughput (as taught by Spitzer), in order to provide high resolution imaging while reducing resource consumption (Spitzer; [¶ 0004-0005]).
Regarding claim 17, Rai-Kurlethimar in view of Eble and Spitzer further discloses the device of claim 12, wherein the one or more processors are to generate the second image during a blink or a saccade of a user (Rai-Kurlethimar; the one or more processors are to generate the 2nd image [as addressed within the parent claim(s)] during a blink or a saccade (i.e. loss of eye tracking) of a user [¶ 0073 and ¶ 0076-0078]; wherein, rendering of an image based on loss of eye tracking (differs from eye tracking rendering) [¶ 0063-0064, ¶ 0066-0067, and ¶ 0072] via an eye tracker [¶ 0038 and ¶ 0040]; and wherein, one type of loss of eye tracking corresponds to a blink [¶ 0056-0058]).
Regarding claim 18, Rai-Kurlethimar in view of Eble and Spitzer further discloses the device of claim 12, wherein the one or more processors are to generate the second image after a plurality of frame periods and are further to decrease, at each of the plurality of frame periods, at least one of the first set of values (Rai-Kurlethimar; the one or more processors are to generate the 2nd image [as addressed within the parent claim(s)] after a plurality of frame periods [¶ 0054-0055] and are further to decrease at least one of the 1st set of values (i.e. high, medium, and low) at each of the plurality of frame periods [¶ 0101-0105], as illustrated within Figs. 14A-C; wherein, images/frames of content are of a sequence/video [¶ 0049]; additionally, PPD in relation with sizing [¶ 0106-0112], as illustrated within Figs. 15A-D).
Regarding claim 1, the rejection of claim 1 is addressed within the rejection of claim 12, due to the similarities claim 1 and claim 12 share, therefore refer to the rejection of claim 12 regarding the rejection of claim 1. Although, claim 1 and claim 12 may not be identical, they are considerably comparable or substantially equivalent given their overlapping subject matter. Thus, it is reasonable to reject claim 1 based on the teachings and rational in relation with the prior art within the rejection of claim 12.
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 2 is addressed within the rejection of claim 13, due to the similarities claim 2 and claim 13 share, therefore refer to the rejection of claim 13 regarding the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 3 is addressed within the rejection of claim 14, due to the similarities claim 3 and claim 14 share, therefore refer to the rejection of claim 14 regarding the rejection of claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 4 is addressed within the rejection of claim 15, due to the similarities claim 4 and claim 15 share, therefore refer to the rejection of claim 15 regarding the rejection of claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, Rai-Kurlethimar in view of Eble and Spitzer further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the resolution constraint is generated based on a bandwidth of a communications channel (Rai-Kurlethimar; the resolution constraint [as addressed within the parent claim(s)] is generated based on a bandwidth of an implicit communications channel [¶ 0068-0070]).
Eble further teaches a bandwidth of a communications channel (Eble; a bandwidth of a communications channel (associated with resolution) [¶ 0154-0158]; wherein, the bandwidth is in relation with transmitting an image [¶ 0149-0150]; additionally, bandwidth in relation with one or more channels [¶ 0166-0168] associated with different frequency bands (associated with resolution) [¶ 0164]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Rai-Kurlethimar as modified by Eble and Spitzer, to incorporate a bandwidth of a communications channel (as taught by Eble), in order to provide high resolution imaging while reducing resource consumption (Eble; [¶ 0012]).
Spitzer further teaches the available image-processing throughput is generated based on a bandwidth of a communications channel (Spitzer; the available image-processing throughput is generated based on a bandwidth of a communications channel [¶ 0039 and ¶ 0046]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Rai-Kurlethimar as modified Eble and Spitzer, to incorporate the available image-processing throughput is generated based on a bandwidth of a communications channel (as taught by Spitzer), in order to provide high resolution imaging while reducing resource consumption (Spitzer; [¶ 0004-0005]).
Regarding claim 7, Rai-Kurlethimar in view of Eble and Spitzer further discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising selecting the corresponding one of the first set of values from the first set of values (Rai-Kurlethimar; implicitly selecting (given the determination of a re-sizing event) the corresponding one of the 1st set of values from the 1st set of values (i.e. high, medium, and low) [¶ 0101-0105], as illustrated within Figs. 14A-C; moreover, choosing a resolution area to decrease in relation with other resolution areas [¶ 0089, ¶ 0092, and ¶ 0094]; additionally, PPD in relation with sizing [¶ 0106-0112], as illustrated within Figs. 15A-D).
Eble further teaches further comprising selecting the corresponding one of the first set of values from the first set of values (Eble; determining/selecting the corresponding one of the 1st set of values from the 1st set of values [¶ 0071-0073]; wherein, the rendering functions are stepwise functions [¶ 0074-0075]; moreover, angle based calculated values [¶ 0107-0108]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Rai-Kurlethimar as modified by Eble and Spitzer, to incorporate further comprising selecting the corresponding one of the first set of values from the first set of values (as taught by Eble), in order to provide high resolution imaging while reducing resource consumption (Eble; [¶ 0012]).
Regarding claim 8, Rai-Kurlethimar in view of Eble and Spitzer further discloses the method of claim 7, wherein selecting the corresponding one of the first set of values is based on the second content (Rai-Kurlethimar; selecting the corresponding one of the 1st set of values (i.e. high, medium, and low) [as addressed within the parent claim(s)] is based on the 2nd content [¶ 0089-0090, ¶ 0092, and ¶ 0094-0096]; wherein, (during eye tracking) dynamic foveation is based on content the user is gazing toward [¶ 0054-0056, ¶ 0079, and ¶ 0106]).
Regarding claim 9, Rai-Kurlethimar in view of Eble and Spitzer further discloses the method of claim 7, wherein selecting the corresponding one of the first set of values is based on eye tracking data indicative of a gaze of a user (Rai-Kurlethimar; selecting the corresponding one of the 1st set of values (i.e. high, medium, and low) [as addressed within the parent claim(s)] is based on eye tracking data [¶ 0086, ¶ 0089, and ¶ 0092-0094] indicative of a gaze of a user [¶ 0038-0040 and ¶ 0056]; additionally restorations [¶ 0071 and ¶ 0073]).
Regarding claim 10, the rejection of claim 10 is addressed within the rejection of claim 17, due to the similarities claim 10 and claim 17 share, therefore refer to the rejection of claim 17 regarding the rejection of claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, the rejection of claim 11 is addressed within the rejection of claim 18, due to the similarities claim 11 and claim 18 share, therefore refer to the rejection of claim 18 regarding the rejection of claim 11.
Regarding claim 19, the rejection of claim 19 is addressed within the rejection of claim 12, due to the similarities claim 19 and claim 12 share, therefore refer to the rejection of claim 12 regarding the rejection of claim 19. Although, claim 19 and claim 12 may not be identical, they are considerably comparable or substantially equivalent given their overlapping subject matter. Thus, it is reasonable to reject claim 19 based on the teachings and rational in relation with the prior art within the rejection of claim 12.
Regarding claim 20, the rejection of claim 20 is addressed within the rejection of claim 15, due to the similarities claim 20 and claim 15 share, therefore refer to the rejection of claim 15 regarding the rejection of claim 20.
Regarding claim 21, Rai-Kurlethimar in view of Eble and Spitzer further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the corresponding one of the first set of values is a maximum value (Eble; the corresponding one of the 1st set of values [as addressed within the parent claim(s)] is a maximum value [¶ 0072-0073 and ¶ 0075]).
Regarding claim 22, Rai-Kurlethimar in view of Eble and Spitzer further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the corresponding one of the 1st set of values is width value (Eble; the corresponding one of the 1st set of values [as addressed within the parent claim(s)] is width value [¶ 0072-0073 and ¶ 0075]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 23 is 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:
(regarding a resolution-based bandwidth)
Olivieri et al. (US PGPUB No. 20230051841 A1):
(Olivieri; resolution adjustment depending on available bandwidth [¶ 0111]);
Mathur et al. (US PGPUB No. 20190287495 A1);
Choi et al. (US PGPUB No. 20210134250 A1);
Jin et al. (US PGPUB No. 20190026874 A1); and
Zhang et al. (US PGPUB No. 20200058152 A1).
(regarding foveation schemes)
Hua et al. (US PGPUB No. 20240013752 A1).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to PTO-892, Notice of Reference Cited for a listing of analogous art.
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 Charles Lloyd Beard whose telephone number is (571)272-5735. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM, alternate Fridays EST.
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, Tammy Goddard can be reached at (571) 272-7773. 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.
CHARLES LLOYD. BEARD
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2611
/CHARLES L BEARD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611
