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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/19/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Received 02/19/2026
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-15, and 17-22 are pending.
Claim(s) 1, 7-9, 12, and 19 have been amended.
Claim(s) 6 and 16 have been cancelled.
Claim(s) 21 and 22 have been added.
The 35 U.S.C § 103 rejection to claim(s) -5, 7-15, and 1720 have been fully considered in view of the amendments received on 02/19/2026 and are fully addressed in the prior art rejection below.
Response to Arguments
Received 02/19/2026
Applicant's arguments filed 02/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive; as expressed below.
Regarding independent claim(s) 1, 12, and 19:
Applicant argues (Remarks, Page 6, ¶ 1-2), that “… claim 1 recites ‘in response to detecting the resolution constraint and in accordance with a determination that the first resolution function ... does not satisfy the resolution constraint, generating 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 less than a corresponding one of the first set of values and others of the second set of values are the same as the corresponding others of the first set of values.’ Applicant respectfully submits that the applied references fail to disclose such a feature. Indeed, as this feature was added by this reply, the Office has not suggested otherwise. Nevertheless, in the spirit of compact prosecution, Applicant submits the following remarks.
Eble discloses a ‘rendering resolution function’ that ‘is a maximum over a field of focus (where the user is gazing) and falls off in an inverse linear fashion as the angle increases from the optical axis.’ (Eble at [ 0072].) Eble further discloses that ‘the rendering resolution function’ may be ‘based on a number of factors, including ... various constraints (such as constraints imposed by the hardware of the HMD).’ (Eble at [ 0077].) However, Eble fails to disclose generating a second resolution function in response to detecting a resolution constraint by decreasing one of the parameters used to generate the first resolution function.”
The Examiner disagrees. Applicant’s arguments fail to view the teaching of Eble et al. (US PGPUB No. 20210142443 A1). Wherein, the second resolution function corresponds to a capped rendering resolution function that is responsive to a constraint corresponding to eyepiece resolution function (Eble; [¶ 0107], as illustrated within Fig. 10A; additionally, the functions of 10A further corresponds to a stepwise function as illustrated within Figs. 3A-B [¶ 0072-0075]).
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments fail to be persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments (Remarks, Page 6, ¶ 3), filed 02/19/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 12, and 19 under 35 U.S.C § 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive due to claim 12’s and claim 19’s similarity to claim 1. Therefore, the rejection is maintained for reasons as addressed above.
Regarding dependent claims 2-5, 7-11, 13-15, 17, 18, and 20:
Applicant’s arguments (Remarks, Page 6, ¶ 3), filed 02/19/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 2-5, 7-11, 13-15, 17, 18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C § 103 have been fully considered, due the dependency upon claims 1, 12, and 19 respectively. Wherein, the arguments are not persuasive, regarding reasons as addressed above.
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, and further in view of Eble et al., US PGPUB No. 20210142443 A1, hereinafter Eble.
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; and
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 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 satisfies the resolution constraint.
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 ¶ 0107-0108]);
detect a resolution constraint (Eble; detecting a resolution constraint corresponding to an eyepiece resolution function [¶ 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 [¶ 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) [¶ 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) [¶ 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]).
Regarding claim 13, Rai-Kurlethimar in view of Eble 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, 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 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, 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]).
Regarding claim 15, Rai-Kurlethimar in view of Eble 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]).
Regarding claim 17, Rai-Kurlethimar in view of Eble further discloses the device of claim 12, wherein the one or more processors are to generate the second image is performed 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)] is performed 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 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 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, 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]).
Regarding claim 7, Rai-Kurlethimar in view of Eble 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, 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 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 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 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 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]).
Conclusion
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.
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