Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 15 are objected to because of a minor informality: each of these claims recites, “…determining arrangement information according to the first layout or the second layout whether the specified object is the first type or the second type, respectively, and based on…” This should be amended to read --…determining arrangement information according to the first layout or the second layout based on whether the specified object is the first type or the second type, respectively, and based on…--. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-4, 7, 8, 15-18, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kahan et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0237192), referred herein as Kahan, in view of Wu et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0360264), referred herein as Wu.
Regarding claim 1, Kahan teaches an electronic device (figs 2 and 4, XR unit 204), comprising: a display module (fig 4, display 452); at least one processor (fig 4, processor 460); and a memory electrically connected to the processor and configured to store instructions executable by the processor, wherein, when the instructions are executed by the processor, the electronic device is configured to (fig 4, memory 411; paragraph 107, lines 7-16):
obtain an image comprising a real space from the outside using a camera module (fig 4, camera 472; figs 6A/6B, the real space; paragraph 115; paragraph 101, lines 1-13; paragraph 147, lines 1-14),
determine that there is a specified object in the real space from the image, determine whether the specified object present in the real space results in a first layout, or if a second layout is utilized that differs from the first layout, and determine arrangement information according to the first layout or the second layout based on a position of the specified object for positioning of at least one virtual object (first layout shown in fig 6A – specified object 610; any of virtual objects 612, 614, 616, or 622; paragraph 147, lines 5-14; paragraph 148, lines 1-16; paragraph 149, the last 15 lines; paragraph 151; a specified object 610 is identified in the real space from the image, and in its presence the virtual objects are arranged and positioned in a layout accordingly; second layout shown in fig 7 – any of virtual objects 612, 614, or 616; paragraph 152, lines 1-7 and 15-21; paragraph 153; in a second layout where a specified object 610 is not identified, the virtual objects are arranged and positioned in another layout that is different from the first layout),
control the display module to display the at least one virtual object in the real space, based on the arrangement information, and wherein the arrangement information comprises the position at which the at least one virtual object is displayed in the real space (figs 6A and 7; paragraph 148, lines 1-16; paragraph 152, lines 1-21).
Kahan teaches modifying the layouts for different display devices based on different types of display devices (see, for example, Kahan, paragraph 148, the last 21 lines; paragraph 152, the last 12 lines). However, Kahan does not explicitly teach determining whether the object is one of a first type associated with a first layout or a second type associated with a second layout, and determining arrangement information according to the first layout or the second layout based on whether the specified object is the first type or the second type.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Wu teaches a device for obtaining an image comprising a real space (fig 1A; paragraph 36, lines 1-8; paragraph 49, the last 10 lines), determining that there is a specified object in a real space, and determining whether the specified object present in the real space is one of a first type associated with a first layout or a second type associated with a second layout that differs from the first layout (figs 1A-1E; figs 4D, 5, and 7; paragraph 42, lines 1-6; paragraph 43, lines 1-14; paragraph 49, the last 10 lines; paragraphs 51 and 54), and determining arrangement information according to the first layout or the second layout based on whether the specified object is the first type or the second type, respectively, and based on a position of the specified object for positioning of at least one virtual object (figs 4D, 5, and 7; paragraph 50, lines 1-9; paragraph 57, lines 1-12 and the last 12 lines; paragraph 69; paragraph 70, the last 8 lines; paragraphs 71 and 73).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine layout determination based on object type, as disclosed by Wu, with the layout determination of Kahan because this helps to readily recognize varying types of specified objects and apply user interface layouts appropriate for each particular type of device, and does so while increasing the efficiency of recognizing specified objects (see, for example, Wu, paragraph 2, the last 6 lines; paragraph 3; paragraph 30, the last 7 lines).
Regarding claim 2, Kahan in view of Wu teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the electronic device is further configured to analyze the image and determine the presence of the specified object in the real space (Kahan, paragraph 76, lines 1-18; paragraph 132, lines 1-12; Wu, paragraph 42, lines 1-6; paragraph 49, the last 10 lines; paragraph 69; the motivation to combine is similar to that discussed above in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 3, Kahan in view of Wu teaches the electronic device of claim 2, wherein the electronic device is further configured to: identify a communicatively connected external electronic device; and determine a presence or an absence of the communicatively connected external electronic device, wherein the communicatively connected external electronic device is the specified object in the real space (Kahan, paragraph 76, lines 1-18; paragraph 147, lines 5-14; paragraph 151; Wu, paragraph 69; paragraph 70, the last 8 lines; paragraphs 71 and 73; the motivation to combine is similar to that discussed above in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 4, Kahan in view of Wu teaches the electronic device of claim 3, wherein the first layout comprises: a first position of the at least one virtual object determined near a first object comprised in the specified object, and a second position of the at least one virtual object determined at a third position of a second object comprised in the specified object (Kahan, fig 6A, first object 612 or 614, for example; second object 616 or 622, for example; paragraph 148, lines 1-16; paragraph 152, lines 1-21; paragraph 170, the last 13 lines; Wu, figs 4D and 7; paragraph 70, the last 8 lines; paragraph 73; the motivation to combine is similar to that discussed above in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 7, Kahan in view of Wu teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the electronic device is further configured to: communicatively connect the electronic device and the specified object; receive information on a screen displayed on a second display module comprised in the specified object; and control the display module such that the second virtual object displays the information on the screen (Kahan, figs 6A/6B; paragraph 147, lines 1-23; paragraph 151; Wu, fig 5; paragraph 71; the motivation to combine is similar to that discussed above in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 8, Kahan in view of Wu teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the electronic device is configured to: determine the arrangement information of the at least one virtual object according to the second layout; and based on the specified object being identified in the real space, change the arrangement information according to the first layout (Kahan, paragraph 91, the last 8 lines; paragraph 147, lines 1-5; paragraph 152, lines 1-7 and 15-21; paragraph 153; paragraph 163, lines 1-5; Wu, paragraph 50, lines 1-9; paragraph 57, lines 1-12 and the last 12 lines; paragraph 69; the motivation to combine is similar to that discussed above in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claims 15-18, the limitations of these claims substantially correspond to the limitations of claims 1-4, respectively; thus they are rejected on similar grounds as their corresponding claims.
Regarding claim 21, Kahan in view of Wu teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the first type of specified object is a laptop PC, and the second type of specified object is a television (TV) (Kahan, figs 6; paragraph 78, lines 1-13; paragraph 293, lines 1-11; Wu, fig 5; paragraphs 40 and 71; the motivation to combine is similar to that discussed above in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 22, Kahan in view of Wu teaches the electronic device of claim 21, wherein the first layout associated with the laptop PC includes three positions that are separated by set distances from the left, top, and right sides of the laptop PC (Kahan, fig 6B; paragraph 90, lines 1-11; paragraphs 163 and 165; paragraph 172, the last 9 lines; paragraph 347; the position of object 624 is a set distance from the left of the laptop PC, the position of the menu object is a set distance from the top of the laptop PC, and the position of object 604A is a set distance from the right of the laptop PC, and the three objects are separated from the sides; see also Wu, fig 4D; paragraph 40; paragraph 70, the last 8 lines, which disclose virtual objects disposed to the left of the laptop PC; the motivation to combine is similar to that discussed above in the rejection of claim 1), and
wherein the second layout associated with the TV includes four positions that are separated by set distances from the left and right sides of the TV (Kahan, fig 6A; paragraph 147, lines 5-14; paragraph 148, lines 1-18; paragraph 151; the positions of objects 612 and 614 are set distances from the left side of the screen, the positions of objects 616 and 622 are set distances from the right side of the screen, and the four objects are separated from the sides; Wu, fig 5; paragraphs 40 and 71, which discloses virtual objects positioned near the TV; the motivation to combine is similar to that discussed above in the rejection of claim 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument with respect to the claim object has been fully considered and is persuasive. The claim amendments resolved this objection; thus it is withdrawn. It is noted that the claim amendments introduced a new claim objection, outlined above.
Applicant’s argument with respect to the 102 rejections has been fully considered, but is moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented above.
Conclusion
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 DAVID T WELCH whose telephone number is (571)270-5364. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:30-5:30 EST, and alternate Fridays, 9:00-2:30 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, Xiao Wu can be reached at 571-272-7761. 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.
DAVID T. WELCH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2613
/DAVID T WELCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2613