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
The Amendment filed February 19th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-15, and 17-23 are pending in the application. Claims 6, 12, and 16 are cancelled. Claims 21-23 are newly added. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims 1-4, 13-15, and 17-20 have overcome the rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed September 25th 2025. A second search has been performed to address the material amended in the aforementioned claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-15, and 17-23 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 8, and 22 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 7:
Eble in view of Jarvenpaa teaches:
The method of claim 1 (as shown above), further comprising detecting a resolution constraint (see Note 7A),
Note 7A: Eble teaches generating a capped resolution function: “in order to avoid the computational expense and delay in rendering those details, in various implementations, the rendering module 210 generates a capped rendering resolution function 1030 (in bold), [0107]. “capping” a function is analogous to constraining it, and therefore, the capped resolution function is analogous to a resolution constraint.
However, Eble fails to teach the limitations “wherein a sum of a first summation value of the first resolution function and a second summation value of the second resolution function satisfies the resolution constraint,” because the capped resolution function is “equal to the lesser of the eyepiece resolution function 1010 and the unconstrained rendering resolution function” rather than a sum of the two functions.
Jarvenpaa also teaches resolution constraints comprising “network bandwidth, processing power, battery level being below a threshold level; each of which may negatively affect the gaze dependent foveated rendering process,” [0083], however, Jarvenpaa also does not teach that a summation of one or more resolution functions may be summed to “satisfy” the constraints.
Meng, Martinez, Liu, Wikipedia, and Mihali are cited in order to teach other limitations, and also do not teach a sum of the summations of one or more resolution functions.
Therefore, none of the prior art searched or on the record appear to disclose or render obvious the limitations of claim 7 of the present application.
Claims 8 and 22 are dependent on claim 7 and are therefore allowable for the same reason presented 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 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eble (US 20210142443 A1) in view of Jarvenpaa (US 20210174768 A1), and Meng (NPL: Eye-dominance-guided Foveated Rendering).
Regarding claim 1:
Eble teaches:
A method comprising:
at a device including one or more processors, non-transitory memory (Eble: a device includes one or more processors, a non-transitory memory [0047]), and a display (Eble: The method includes receiving a warped image representing simulated reality (SR) content to be displayed in a display space, [0045]):
obtaining a first resolution function (Eble: the rendering module generates the rendering resolution function [0127]) and a second resolution function (Eble: second rendering resolution function [0132]), wherein the second resolution function is different than the first resolution function (Eble: generating the second rendering resolution function includes generating the second rendering resolution function with a peak maximum at a location displaced toward the center as compared to a peak maximum of the rendering resolution function [0132]);
generating a first rendered image based on content and the first resolution function (Eble: generating a rendered image based on the SR content and the rendering resolution function [0088]) and a second rendered image based on the content and the second resolution function (Eble: generates a second rendered image based on the SR content and the second rendering resolution function [0130]); and
Eble fails to explicitly teach:
simultaneously displaying a first displayed image based on the first rendered image on a first portion of the display and a second displayed image based on the second rendered image on a second portion of the display.
Jarvenpaa teaches:
simultaneously displaying a first displayed image based on the first rendered image on a first portion of the display and a second displayed image based on the second rendered image on a second portion of the display (Jarvenpaa: FIG. 7 illustrates an example of binocular gaze dependent foveated rendering. A gaze position 703 on an image 700 displayed on a binocular display is determined (and tracked, i.e. the gaze position is repeatedly determined at a particular rate/frequency) for each of a user's eyes [0036]; see Note 1A).
Note 1A: In [0036] cited above, Jarvenpaa teaches that a gaze position is tracked in an image displayed for each of a user’s eyes. This would require that a) an image is displayed for each eye, as Jarvenpaa teaches that the display is “binocular”, such as in Figure 7 of Jarvenpaa, where there are views designated for each eye. Therefore, Jarvenpaa teaches displaying a first displayed image based on the first rendered image on a first portion of the binocular display and a second displayed image based on the second rendered image on a second portion of the binocular display. Furthermore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to display the images simultaneously, as displaying each image one at a time may result in flickering that would disorient or disturb the user.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Eble with Jarvenpaa. Simultaneously displaying a first displayed image based on the first rendered image on a first portion of the display and a second displayed image based on the second rendered image on a second portion of the display, as in Jarvenpaa, would benefit the Eble teachings by enabling the system to specifically generate and optimize visual content for each eye.
Eble in view of Jarvenpaa still fails to teach:
selecting between a left eye of a user or a right eye of a user;
obtaining a first resolution function for the left eye and a second resolution function for the right eye, wherein the second resolution function is different than the first resolution function and a value of the resolution function for the selected eye at a particular angle is less than a value of the resolution function for the unselected eye at the particular angle;
Meng teaches:
selecting between a left eye of a user or a right eye of a user (Meng: we use the Miles Test [31] to measure the eye dominance for each participant before the start of the study, Pg. 3, Section 4.2: Pre-experiment: Dominant Eye Identification; see Note 1C);
obtaining a first resolution function for the left eye and a second resolution function for the right eye (Meng: In our EFR framework, for the baseline rendering, the system uses a KFR renderer with foveation parameter σd for the dominant eye and a KFR renderer with σnd for the non-dominant eye, Pg. 3, Section 3.2, Eye-dominance-guided Foveated Rendering), wherein the second resolution function is different than the first resolution function and a value of the resolution function for the selected eye at a particular angle (see Note 1B) is less than a value of the resolution function for the unselected eye (Meng: For the dominant eye, we choose the foveation parameter σd which results in an acceptable foveation level for both eyes. For the non-dominant eye, we choose σnd ≥ σd, which corresponds to a higher foveation level, Pg. 3, Fig. 2) at the particular angle (see Note 1B).
Note 1B: Meng teaches that the KFR renderers utilize log-polar coordinates to determine the foveation level of a pixel in the image: “A pixel with log-polar coordinates (u,v) is transformed back to (x ,y ) in Cartesian coordinates as shown in Equation5: According to [24], the kernel function parameter is suggested as α=4. Therefore, we can control the level of foveation by only altering the parameter σ.” (Pg. 2, Section 3.1: Foveation Model). Meng teaches that variables σd and σnd may be set for each eye, where σnd ≥ σd.
Log-Polar coordinates are well known in the art to include a logarithm and angle parameter: “In mathematics, log-polar coordinates (or logarithmic polar coordinates) is a coordinate system in two dimensions, where a point is identified by two numbers, one for the logarithm of the distance to a certain point, and one for an angle.” (Wikipedia, Log-polar coordinates). Therefore, when Meng teaches “log-polar coordinates (u,v)”, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that u or v represents a particular angle.
Because each eye may have the σ parameter adjusted to be higher or lower based on the selected dominant eye, and because the function for transforming pixels (e.g., Equation 5 on Pg. 2 of Meng) for foveation depends on a particular angle and the foveation parameter, the Examiner understands Meng to teach “the second resolution function is different than the first resolution function and a value of the resolution function for the selected eye at a particular angle is less than a value of the resolution function for the unselected eye at the particular angle.”
Note 1C: Because only one of the left or right eye can be dominant, the Examiner interprets the selecting of the dominant eye in Meng to be analogous to selecting either the left or right eye.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Meng with Eble in view of Jarvenpaa. selecting between a left eye of a user or a right eye of a user and obtaining a first resolution function for the left eye and a second resolution function for the right eye, wherein the second resolution function is different than the first resolution function and a value of the resolution function for the selected eye at a particular angle is less than a value of the resolution function for the unselected eye at the particular angle, as in Meng, would benefit the Eble in view of Jarvenpaa teachings by enabling the system to optimize displayed content based on which eye is dominant: “This formulation allows us to save more in the rendering budget for the non-dominant eye” (Meng, Pg. 1, col. 2).
Regarding claim 2:
Eble in view of Jarvenpaa and Meng teaches:
The method of claim 1 (as shown above), wherein the value of the resolution function for the selected eye is a maximum of the resolution function (Eble: Smax is the maximum of the rendering resolution function (e.g., approximately 60 PPD), [0073]) for the selected eye and less than a maximum of the resolution function for the unselected eye (see Note 2A).
Note 2A: In the rejection of claim 1, it was shown that Meng teaches a foveation parameter σ that determines the level of foveation, which is larger for the non-dominant eye and lower for the dominant eye (see Note 1B above). Eble teaches a Smax parameter in paragraph [0073] (similarly to paragraph [0054] of the specification of the present application) that determines the maximum of the resolution function. When the teachings of Meng are combined with Eble, it would be obvious to lower the maximum of the resolution function for the dominant eye.
Regarding claim 3:
Eble in view of Jarvenpaa and Meng teaches:
The method of claim 1 (as shown above), wherein a summation value of the resolution function for the selected eye is less than a summation value of the resolution function for the unselected eye (Meng, Fig. 1, see Note 3A).
Note 3A: Eble teaches: “the rendering module 210 renders the rendered image using a rendering resolution function that has a fixed summation value indicative of the total amount of detail in the rendered image” [0108]. In Meng, it is visible in (for example) Figure 1 that the non-dominant eye has lower total resolution than the dominant eye (i.e., there are more blurred pixels in the non-dominant eye image than the dominant eye image). Therefore, the Examiner submits it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that Meng teaches that a summation value of the resolution function for the selected eye is less than a summation value of the resolution function for the unselected eye.
Regarding claim 4:
Eble in view of Jarvenpaa and Meng teaches:
The method of claim 1 (as shown above), wherein the resolution function for the selected eye is, at each angle, equal to the lesser of the resolution function for the unselected eye at the angle and a maximum of the resolution function for the selected eye (Meng: “Because of the non-uniform scaling effect in the transformation, details in the foveal region are preserved and details in the peripheral region are reduced” (Pg. 2, Section 3.1: Foveation Model); Meng: Fig. 1, see Note 4A).
Note 4A: In Note 1B, it was discussed that Meng uses log-polar coordinates for each pixel on the display to implement foveated rendering, which requires an angle parameter.
Meng describes that the foveation parameter maintains resolution in the center of the frame and reduces resolution in the peripheral region: “Because of the non-uniform scaling effect in the transformation, details in the foveal region are preserved and details in the peripheral region are reduced” (Pg. 2, Section 3.1: Foveation Model). In other words, depending on the screen coordinate (and by extension, view angle) and foveation level, the resolution may vary.
Meng further teaches that: “For the non-dominant eye, we choose σnd ≥ σd, which corresponds to a higher foveation level” (Pg. 3, Fig. 2). Therefore, for the dominant eye, there is less foveation (i.e., a higher resolution) and for the non-dominant eye, there is more foveation (i.e., a lower resolution).
It follows that the resolution for the non-dominant eye and dominant eye will be equal to the maximum resolution in the center region of the frame and lower than the maximum resolution in the peripheral region of the frame, and that the resolution of the non-dominant eye may be smaller than the resolution of the dominant eye in the peripheral region due to the foveation parameter.
This functionality is demonstrated in Figure 1 of Meng, where depending on view angle, the resolution of a pixel in the rendered view for the non-dominant eye may be lesser than the resolution of a pixel in the rendered view for the dominant eye, but not greater.
Accordingly, the Examiner understands Meng to teach that the resolution function for the selected eye is, at each angle, equal to the lesser of the resolution function for the unselected eye at the angle and a maximum of the resolution function for the selected eye.
Regarding claim 9:
Eble in view of Jarvenpaa and Meng teaches:
The method of claim 1 (as shown above), further comprising determining that the device is to perform monocular resolution reduction (Jarevenpaa: determination of a sub-optimal operational condition, [0137]), wherein obtaining the first resolution function and the second resolution function is performed in response to determining that the device is to perform monocular resolution reduction (Jarvenpaa: namely ceasing/stopping foveated rendering for one eye and rendering the entirety of the eye's image in high quality and rendering the entirety of the other eye's image in low quality [0137]; see Note 9A).
Note 9A: It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to obtaining the first resolution function and the second resolution function when rendering one eye image at lower quality and one eye image at high quality, as the resolution function controls the resolution of the images, as shown in Eble: “The rendering module 210 determines the rendering locations and the corresponding scaling factors based on a rendering resolution function that generally characterizes the resolution of the rendered image in the displayed space,” [0070].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Jarvenpaa with Eble. Determining that the device is to perform monocular resolution reduction, as in Jarvenpaa, would benefit the Eble teachings by enabling the display system to manage sub-optimal operational conditions or errors in a gaze dependent foveation rendering process in a manner which is minimally perceivable/noticeable to a user (Jarvenpaa, [0003]).
Regarding claim 10:
Eble in view of Jarvenpaa and Meng teaches:
The method of claim 9 (as shown above), wherein determining that the device is to perform monocular resolution reduction is based on a user preference (see Note 10A).
Note 10A: Under broadest reasonable interpretation, user gaze may be understood as a ‘preference’ of the user, as Jarvenpaa teaches: “it is probable that a user's gaze would fall upon an object of interest of the displayed content. Accordingly, where it is determined that the determined gaze position and the position of a point/object of interest in the content are not aligned/the same, then such an unusual or unexpected determined gaze position may be indicative of a misalignment or calibration error] determining one or more areas of the content that risks giving rise to user perceivable artefacts following foveated rendering…” [0082]. That is, Jarvenpaa teaches that the determination of whether to perform resolution reduction may be based on user gaze.
It is also recognized that “user preference” may be interpreted to refer to a setting or option tuned by the user. Eble teaches: “the rendering module 210 generates the rendering resolution function based on a number of factors, including […] eye tracking metadata,” [0077] and “the eye tracking metadata includes data indicative of one or more biometrics of the user, […] In particular, in various implementations, the biometrics of the user include […] input preferences or calibration,” [0125]. Because Eble teaches that the resolution function that controls the resolution of an image may be adjusted by input preferences, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine whether to perform resolution reduction of the image based on input preferences.
Regarding claim 11:
Eble in view of Jarvenpaa and Meng teaches:
The method of claim 9 (as shown above), wherein determining that the device is to perform monocular resolution reduction is based on the content (Jarvenpaa: Such a determination can be effected by applying an image/pattern recognition algorithm to the content to identify particular patterns in the image that may give rise to noticeable/perceivable artefacts following foveated rendering, [0082]).
Regarding claim 17:
Claim 17 is substantially similar to claim 1, and is therefore rejected for similar reasons. Claim 17 contains the following notable differences:
Claim 17 claims a device instead of a method. Eble teaches a device: “In accordance with some implementations, a non-transitory computer readable storage medium has stored therein instructions, which, when executed by one or more processors of a device, cause the device to perform or cause performance of any of the methods described herein” [0047].
Regarding claim 18:
Claim 18 is substantially similar to claim 2, and is therefore rejected for similar reasons. Claim 18 contains the following notable differences:
Claim 18 claims a device instead of a method. In the rejection of claim 17, it was shown that Eble teaches a device.
Regarding claim 19:
Claim 19 is substantially similar to claim 3, and is therefore rejected for similar reasons. Claim 19 contains the following notable differences:
Claim 19 claims a device instead of a method. In the rejection of claim 17, it was shown that Eble teaches a device.
Regarding claim 20:
Claim 20 is substantially similar to claim 1, and is therefore rejected for similar reasons. Claim 20 contains the following notable differences:
Claim 20 claims a non-transitory memory instead of a method. Eble teaches a non-transitory memory: “In accordance with some implementations, a non-transitory computer readable storage medium has stored therein instructions, which, when executed by one or more processors of a device, cause the device to perform or cause performance of any of the methods described herein” [0047].
Regarding claim 21:
Eble in view of Jarvenpaa and Meng teaches:
wherein one of the second set of values is different than a corresponding one of the first set of values (Meng: For the non-dominant eye, we choose σnd ≥ σd, which corresponds to a higher foveation level, Pg. 3, Fig. 2; see Note 21A) and others of the second set of values are the same as corresponding others of the first set of values (Meng: The FOVE headset is integrated with […] a 2560×1440 resolution screen (1280×1440 per eye); see Note 21B).
Note 21A: Meng teaches that at least the foveation parameter may vary between both resolution functions, most notably: “For the non-dominant eye, we choose σnd ≥ σd, which corresponds to a higher foveation level” (Pg. 3, Fig. 2). The parameter σ appears in Equation 5 (Pg. 2) and is used in the KFR model for each eye. It follows that some of the values in the second and first set of values may differ.
Note 21B: Meng teaches that the screen dimensions may be the same for both eyes on Pg. 3, Section 4.1: Apparatus. Meng uses the width and height of the screen as part of their KFR model for each eye, for example in Equations 2 and 4. It follows that some of the values in the second and first set of values may be the same.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eble (US 20210142443 A1) in view of Jarvenpaa (US 20210174768 A1), Meng (NPL: Eye-dominance-guided Foveated Rendering), and Wikipedia (NPL: Function (mathematics)).
Regarding claim 5:
Eble in view of Jarvenpaa, Meng, and Wikipedia teaches:
The method of claim 1 (as shown above), wherein obtaining the first resolution function and the second resolution function includes:
generating the first resolution function based on a formula with a set of variables having a first set of values (see Note 5A and Note 5B); and
generating the second resolution function based on the formula with the set of variables having a second set of values (see Note 5A and Note 5B).
Note 5A: Wikipedia teaches that: “In functional notation, the function is immediately given a name, such as f, and its definition is given by what f does to the explicit argument x, using a formula in terms of x.” (Pg. 2, Functional Notation, par. 1) and that “If a function is defined in this notation, its domain and codomain are implicitly taken to both be ℝ, the set of real numbers,” (Pg. 3, par. 1). That is, Wikipedia teaches that a function may be defined by a formula with a variable (x) having a value (numbers in ℝ). It is further noted that Eble teaches that the resolution functions may be written in functional notation: “the rendering module 210 generates a capped rendering resolution function 1030 (in bold), Sc(θ), […] Thus, Sc(θ) = min(E(θ), Su(θ)).” [0107].
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to generate the first resolution based on a formula with a set of variables having a first set of values. Because Eble teaches that the second resolution function may be based off of the first (unconstrained) resolution function, it would similarly be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to generate the second resolution based on a formula with a set of variables having a first set of values.
Note 5B: Meng teaches that foveation is implemented by a “KFR model” including a series of equations having sets of variables with corresponding values (e.g., Equations 1-5 on Pg. 2). The KFR model is implemented for each eye: “the system uses a KFR renderer with foveation parameter σd for the dominant eye and a KFR renderer with σnd for the non-dominant eye” (Pg. 3, Section 3.2: Eye-dominance-guided Foveated Rendering). Therefore, Meng teaches “generating the first resolution function based on a formula with a set of variables having a first set of values; and generating the second resolution function based on the formula with the set of variables having a second set of values.”
Note 5C: It is noted that claim 5 is marked as Currently Amended but does not appear to contain any amended text. “Any claim presented in clean version will constitute an assertion that it has not been changed relative to the immediate prior version except to omit markings that may have been present in the immediate prior version of the claims” (see MPEP 714C(C)).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Wikipedia with Eble in view of Jarvenpaa and Meng. Generating functions based on a formula with a set of variables having a first set of values, as in Wikipedia, would benefit the Eble in view of Jarvenpaa and Meng teachings by ensuring a resolution function is versatile enough to handle various inputs that may be received from an HMD device.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eble (US 20210142443 A1) in view of Jarvenpaa (US 20210174768 A1), Meng (NPL: Eye-dominance-guided Foveated Rendering), and Martinez (US 20120084652 A1).
Regarding claim 13:
Eble in view of Jarvenpaa and Meng teaches:
The method of claim 1,
Eble in view of Jarvenpaa and Meng fails to explicitly teach:
wherein selecting between the left eye or the right eye is based on a user preference.
Martinez teaches:
wherein selecting between the left eye or the right eye is based on a user preference (Martinez: Another example of a user preference is selecting the eye dominance. Depending on the dominant eye of a user, the synthesized image can be rendered on the left or on the right of the original image [0069]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Martinez with Eble in view of Jarvenpaa and Meng. Selecting between the left eye or the right eye is based on a user preference, as in Martinez, would benefit the Eble in view of Jarvenpaa and Meng teachings by ensuring a resolution function is versatile enough to handle various inputs that may be received from an HMD device.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eble (US 20210142443 A1) in view of Jarvenpaa (US 20210174768 A1), Meng (NPL: Eye-dominance-guided Foveated Rendering), and Liu (US 20170340205 A1).
Regarding claim 14:
Eble in view of Jarvenpaa and Meng teaches:
The method of claim 1,
Eble in view of Jarvenpaa and Meng fails to explicitly teach:
wherein selecting the first resolution function or the second resolution function between the left eye or the right eye is based on the content.
Liu teaches:
wherein selecting the first resolution function or the second resolution function between the left eye or the right eye is based on the content (Liu: During a calibration and/or validation procedure of the eye tracking system 10, calibration points and/or validation points can be shown by means of the display unit 14. During the calibration and/or validation and for example also during subsequent eye tracking, the capturing unit 16 captures images of the eyes of a user. These images are then processed by the processing unit 12, which determines according to a predefined accuracy function a left accuracy score for the left eye and a right accuracy score for the right eye and optionally a binocular accuracy score for both eyes. Based on these accuracy scores, the processing unit 12 determines if one of the left and the right eye of the user is dominant. [0074] (emphasis added); see Note 14A)
Note 14A: In other words, Liu teaches displaying a calibration pattern and records the eye positions. Based on the images captured while the eyes look at the calibration points, the system determines whether the left or right eye is dominant.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Liu with Eble in view of Jarvenpaa and Meng. Determining the user preference based on a calibration procedure, as in Liu, would benefit the Eble in view of Jarvenpaa and Meng teachings by automatically determining the dominant eye of the user without requiring the user to perform a manual test, such as the Miles test described in Meng.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eble (US 20210142443 A1) in view of Jarvenpaa (US 20210174768 A1), Meng (NPL: Eye-dominance-guided Foveated Rendering), and Mihali (WO 2021087384 A1).
Regarding claim 15:
Eble in view of Jarvenpaa and Meng teaches:
The method of claim 1 (as shown above),
Eble in view of Jarvenpaa and Meng fails to teach:
wherein selecting between the left eye or the right eye is based on a variable that alternates between sessions.
Mihali teaches:
changing a rendering algorithm based on a variable that alternates between sessions. (Mihali: Similarly, every iteration of the rendering algorithm may use a set of input variables 1104 which are expected to change either at each rendering iteration or at least between each user’s viewing session, [00114]; see Note 15A).
Note 15A: Mihali teaches that images may be rendered based on a variable that changes between sessions. In Note 1B, it was shown that resolution of a rendered image is controlled by a foveation parameter that differs between eyes. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to switch or alternate the resolution (a feature of how images are rendered) based on the variable.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Mihali with Eble in view of Jarvenpaa and Meng. Changing a rendering algorithm based on a variable that alternates between sessions, as in Mihali, would benefit the Eble in view of Jarvenpaa and Meng teachings by enabling a user to configure rendering for different individuals using the HMD who may have different preferences for resolution.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eble (US 20210142443 A1) in view of Jarvenpaa (US 20210174768 A1), Meng (NPL: Eye-dominance-guided Foveated Rendering), and Martinez (US 20120084652 A1) and Liu (US 20170340205 A1).
Regarding claim 23:
Eble in view of Jarvenpaa, Meng, and Martinez teaches:
The method of claim 13 (as shown above),
Eble in view of Jarvenpaa, Meng, and Martinez fails to explicitly teach:
wherein the user preference is determined based on a calibration procedure.
Liu teaches:
wherein the user preference is determined based on a calibration procedure (Liu: According to a preferred embodiment of the invention the determination if one of the left and the right eye of the user is dominant is performed during a calibration procedure of the eye tracking system [0015]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Liu with Eble in view of Jarvenpaa. Meng, and Martinez. Determining the user preference based on a calibration procedure, as in Liu, would benefit the Eble in view of Jarvenpaa, Meng, and Martinez teachings by automatically determining the dominant eye of the user without requiring the user to perform a manual test, such as the Miles test described in Meng.
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 VINCENT ALEXANDER PROVIDENCE whose telephone number is (571)270-5765. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30-5:00.
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, King Poon can be reached at (571)270-0728. 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.
/VINCENT ALEXANDER PROVIDENCE/Examiner, Art Unit 2617 /KING Y POON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2617
Prosecution Insights