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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see the remarks, filed 08/05/2025, with respect to the amended claim(s) 1, 14, and 19 have been fully considered and moot in view of new grounds of rejection by relying on the teachings of Venkataraman et al. (US 20160309134 A1) in view of Price et al. (US 20220335637 A1), Sadi et al. (US 20160088287 A1), and Bleyer (US 20210160441 A1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-3, 5, 8-13, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venkataraman et al. (US 20160309134 A1) in view of Price et al. (US 20220335637 A1), Sadi et al. (US 20160088287 A1), and Bleyer (US 20210160441 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Venkataraman teaches a head-mounted device (HMD) (figs. 1A, 1B, and 10) that enables switching between close range navigation and far range detection ([0023] the field of view is selected from the group consisting of 70 degrees and 90 degrees, [0073] the characteristics of the cameras utilized in the array can be selected to provide depth accuracy across a field of view and operating range of distances appropriate to the requirements of a specific application, [0114] near-field cameras and far-field cameras, [0006 and 0136] the near-field portions of the scene are at a distance less than a certain threshold and the far-field portions of the scene are at a distance greater than the certain threshold), said HMD comprising:
a first pair of stereoscopic cameras, the first pair of stereoscopic cameras comprising a first camera and a second camera (#1002 and #1005 of fig. 10, [0133] a stereo pair of cameras),
wherein the first pair of stereoscopic cameras are structured to facilitate close range navigation ([0114] the near-field cameras, 403, 404, 405, and 406 of FIG. 4, handle the near-field objects, so the cameras #1002 and #1005 of figure 10 would obviously be modified by the near-field cameras);
a second pair of stereoscopic cameras, the second pair of stereoscopic cameras comprising a third camera and a fourth camera (#1001 and #1006 of fig. 10, [0133] a stereo pair of cameras),
wherein the second pair of stereoscopic cameras are also structured to facilitate close range navigation ([0114] the near-field cameras, 403, 404, 405, and 406 of FIG. 4, handle the near-field objects, so the cameras #1001 and #1006 of figure 10 would obviously be modified by the near-field cameras);
a fifth camera (#1003 of fig. 10), wherein the fifth camera is structured to facilitate far range detection (#1003 of fig. 10, [0114] the far-field cameras, 401, 402, 403, 404, and 406 of FIG.4, handle the far-field objects; so the camera #1003 of figure 10 would be modified by one of the far-field cameras); and
a sixth camera (#1004 of fig. 10), wherein the sixth camera is also structured to facilitate far range detection (#1004 of fig. 10, [0114] the far-field cameras, 401, 402, 403, 404, and 406, handle the far-field objects, so the camera #1004 of figure 10 would be modified by one of the far-field cameras),
wherein a first separation distance between the first camera and the second camera is set to an interpupillary distance (IPD) of an average adult user or an actual user of the HMD (#1002 and #1005 of fig. 10, the distance between camera #1001 and camera #1005 is 6.4 cm that is considered an interpupillary distance (IPD)),
a second separation distance between the third camera and the fourth camera (a distance between the camera #1001 and camera #1006 is set).
It is noted that Venkataraman does not the first, second, and fifth cameras of a first modality and the third, fourth, and sixth cameras of a second modality.
Price teaches the first, second, and fifth cameras of a first modality ([0050] visible light cameras) and the third, fourth, and sixth cameras of a second modality ([0050 and 0070] thermal cameras).
Taking the teachings of Venkataraman and Price together as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cameras of the first modality and the cameras of the second modality of Price into the cameras Venkataraman to allow the outward-facing cameras to be mounted on the front of the head mount display to reduce power consumption in a variety of ways ([0210] of Price) and the processor has low compute high-resolution depth map generation using low-resolution cameras ([0014] of Price).
It is noted that Venkataraman and Price do not teach the second separation distance between the third camera and the fourth camera is set to the IPD of the user.
Sadi teaches the second separation distance between the third camera and the fourth camera is set to the IPD of the user (L2, R2, and ICS as IPD of fig. 4, [0057] an inter-camera spacing (ICS) between cameras 112 of a pair of cameras (e.g., L and R, an ICS may correspond to an approximate or average distance between the pupils, or the inter-pupillary distance (IPD), of a person's eyes).
Taking the teachings of Venkataraman, Price, and Sadi together as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the interpupil distance between two cameras of Sadi into the cameras of the head mount display of Venkataraman in view of Price to have enhanced 3-D characteristics when played back to a viewer ([0057] of Sadi).
It is further noted that Venkataraman, Price, and Sadi are silent about in response to user input, the HMD switches from displaying content obtained using the first pair of stereoscopic cameras of the first modality to displaying content obtained from the fifth camera of the first modality, resulting in a representation of an object transitioning from being displayed in one of a blurred state or a focused state to being displayed in a different one of the blurred state or the focused state.
Bleyer teaches in response to user input, the HMD switches from displaying content obtained using the first pair of stereoscopic cameras of the first modality to displaying content obtained from the fifth camera of the first modality, resulting in a representation of an object transitioning from being displayed in one of a blurred state or a focused state to being displayed in a different one of the blurred state or the focused state ([0058], [0098], and [0105]-[0107]).
Taking the teachings of Venkataraman, Price, Sadi, and Bleyer together as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the switching input and displaying state of Bleyer into the HMD of Venkataraman in view of Price and Sadi to allow the user enables to see the displayed object without any distortion.
Regarding claim 2, Venkataraman, Price, Sadi, and Bleyer the HMD of claim 1, Price further teaches wherein the fifth camera and the sixth camera are positioned on the HMD between the first camera and the second camera and between the third camera and the fourth camera (402 and 404 of fig. 4, between, 410 of fig. 4).
Regarding claim 3 Venkataraman, Price, Sadi, and Bleyer the HMD of claim 1, Price teaches wherein the first modality is a low light modality ([0050] the visible light cameras, the low light cameras, [0070]), and wherein the second modality is a thermal modality (High-Res Thermal Camera 404 and Low-Res Thermal Camera 406B of fig. 4, [0005] multiple camera modalities, [0050 and 0070] the thermal cameras).
Regarding claim 5, Venkataraman, Price, Sadi, and Bleyer the HMD of claim 1, Price further teaches wherein an angular resolution of the fifth camera is larger relative to angular resolutions of the first and second cameras ([0065] As illustrated in FIG. 4, the HMD includes a high-resolution low light camera 402, a high-resolution thermal camera 404, and two low-resolution thermal cameras 406A and 406B).
Regarding claim 8, Venkataraman, Price, Sadi, and Bleyer the HMD of claim 1, Price further teaches wherein: the first camera is disposed on a sensor bar of the HMD, and the second camera is disposed on the sensor bar, the first camera is disposed at a first position on the sensor bar, the first position being above a first eye of a user of the HMD, and the second camera is disposed at a second position on the sensor bar, the second position being above a second eye of the user (310 and 320 of fig. 3, [0050]).
Regarding claim 9, Venkataraman, Price, Sadi, and Bleyer the HMD of claim 1, Price further teaches wherein the first camera, the second camera, and the fifth camera are disposed in a first single row on a sensor bar of the HMD (305-325 of fig. 3).
Regarding claim 10, Smith, Price, and Sadi teach he HMD of claim 9, Venkataraman further teaches wherein the third camera, the fourth camera, and the sixth camera are disposed in a second single row on the sensor bar of the HMD (cameras 1202, 1207, 1204, and 1205 of fig. 12 are on second row).
Regarding claim 11, Venkataraman, Price, Sadi, and Bleyer the HMD of claim 1, Price further teaches wherein the first camera, the second camera, the third camera, the fourth camera, the fifth camera, and the sixth camera are all disposed in a same single row on a sensor bar of the HMD (402, 404, and 410 of fig. 4).
Regarding claim 12, Smith, Price, and Sadi teach the HMD of claim 1, Venkataraman further teaches wherein the fifth camera is positioned an equal distance between the first camera and the second camera (#1003, #1002, and #1005).
Regarding claim 13, Smith, Price, and Sadi teach the HMD of claim 12, Venkataraman further teaches wherein the sixth camera is positioned an equal distance between the third camera and the fourth camera (#1004 or 1007, #1001 and #1006 of fig. 10).
Regarding claim 21, Smith, Price, and Sadi teach the HMD of claim 1, Bleyer further teaches wherein the system switches from displaying the content obtained using the first pair of stereoscopic cameras of the first modality to displaying the content obtained from the different camera of the first modality in response to user input, and wherein the user input is received via a button that is included as a part of the HMD ([0058], [0098], and [0105]-[0107]).
Claim(s) 4 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venkataraman et al. (US 20160309134 A1) in view of Price et al. (US 20220335637 A1), Sadi et al. (US 20160088287 A1), and Bleyer (US 20210160441 A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Sharma (US 20250021168 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Venkataraman, Price, Sadi, and Bleyer teach the HMD of claim 1, Venkataraman, Price, Sadi, and Bleyer do not teach wherein the first and second cameras each has a larger field of view (FOV) relative to a FOV of the fifth camera.
Sharma teaches wherein the first and second cameras each has a larger field of view (FOV) relative to a FOV of the fifth camera ([0041] the one or more cameras may be a wide-angle camera, a narrow angle camera, or a 360 camera; and [0042] the one or more cameras may have a setting to adjust the FOV of the one or more cameras, which allows the user to customize user's FOV. This disclosure suggests that the adjustable FOV of the wide-angle cameras would obviously be used for the first and second cameras and the adjustable FOV of the narrow angle camera would obviously be used for the fifth camera).
Taking the teachings of Venkataraman, Price, Sadi, Bleyer, and Sharma together as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the adjustable FOV of the wide angle cameras of Sharma for the first and second cameras of the HMD of Venkataraman, Price, Sadi, and Bleyer, and the adjustable FOV of the narrow angle camera for the fifth camera of the HMD of Venkataraman, Price, Sadi, and Bleyer to improve the determination of one or more objects in the different field of views.
Regarding claim 7, see analysis in claim 4.
Claim(s) 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Price et al. (US 20220335637 A1) in view of Venkataraman et al. (US 20160309134 A1) and Bleyer (US 20210160441 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Price teaches a system comprising:
a first camera of a first modality (Low-Res Thermal Camera 406A of fig. 4, a first modality is thermal camera, [0069]);
a second camera of the first modality (Low-Res Thermal Camera 406B of fig. 4, [0069]),
the first camera and the second camera forming a first stereoscopic pair of cameras (Stereo Thermal Cameras 406 of fig. 4, [0069]);
a third camera of a second modality (410 of fig. 4, [0050] low light camera (s), [0072] cameras 410 for facilitating various functions associated with providing mixed-reality (MR) experiences, so the various functions would obviously encompass visible light or low light as a second modality); and
a fourth camera of the second modality (410 of fig. 4, [0077] cameras 410 for facilitating various functions associated with providing mixed-reality (MR) experiences, the various functions would obviously encompass visible light or low light as the second modality, [0050] low light camera (s)); and
a fifth camera of the first modality ([0050] visible light cameras).
It is noted that Price does not the third camera and the fourth camera forming a second stereoscopic pair of cameras; the HMD enables switching between close range navigation and far range detection; wherein the first pair of stereoscopic cameras are structured to facilitate close range navigation; wherein the fifth camera is structured to facilitate far range detection.
Venkataraman teaches the third camera and the fourth camera forming a second stereoscopic pair of cameras (#1001 and #1006 of fig. 10, [0133] a stereo pair of cameras);
the HMD enables switching between close range navigation and far range detection ([0023] the field of view is selected from the group consisting of 70 degrees and 90 degrees, [0073] the characteristics of the cameras utilized in the array can be selected to provide depth accuracy across a field of view and operating range of distances appropriate to the requirements of a specific application, [0114] for-field camera and near-field cameras),
wherein the first pair of stereoscopic cameras are structured to facilitate close range navigation ([0114] the near-field cameras, 403, 404, 405, and 406 of FIG. 4, handle the near-field objects, so the cameras #1002 and #1005 of figure 10 would obviously be modified by the near-field cameras);
wherein the fifth camera is structured to facilitate far range detection (#1003 of fig. 10, [0114] the far-field cameras, 401, 402, 403, 404, and 406 of FIG.4, handle the far-field objects; so the camera #1003 of figure 10 would be modified by one of the far-field cameras).
Taking the teachings of Price and Venkataraman together as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the stereoscopic pair of the third and fourth cameras, the close-range navigation of the first and second cameras, and the far range detection of the fifth camera into the HMD of Price thereby providing an improved user experience.
It is further noted that Price and Venkataraman are silent about wherein the system switches from displaying content obtained using the first pair of stereoscopic cameras of the first modality to displaying content obtained from the fifth camera of the first modality, resulting in a representation of an object transitioning from being displayed in one of a blurred state or a focused state to being displayed in a different one of the blurred state or the focused state.
Bleyer teaches wherein the system switches from displaying content obtained using the first pair of stereoscopic cameras of the first modality to displaying content obtained from the fifth camera of the first modality, resulting in a representation of an object transitioning from being displayed in one of a blurred state or a focused state to being displayed in a different one of the blurred state or the focused state ([0058], [0098], and [0105]-[0107]).
Taking the teachings of Price, Venkataraman, and Bleyer together as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the switching input and displaying state of Bleyer into the HMD of Price and Venkataraman to allow the user enables to see the displayed object without any distortion.
Regarding claim 15, Price, Venkataraman, and Bleyer teach the system of claim 14, Venkataraman further teaches wherein the first stereoscopic pair of cameras are arranged in a first row, wherein the second stereoscopic pair of cameras are arranged in a second, different row that is either above or below the first row (see cameras arrangement in figure 12).
Regarding 16, Price, Venkataraman, and Bleyer teach the system of claim 14, Price further teaches wherein the first stereoscopic pair of cameras and the second stereoscopic pair of cameras are all arranged on a same single row (402, 404, and 410 of fig. 4).
Claim(s) 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Price et al. (US 20220335637 A1) in view of Venkataraman et al. (US 20160309134 A1) and Bleyer (US 20210160441 A1) as applied to claim 14, and further in view of Sharma (US 20250021168 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Price, Venkataraman, and Bleyer teach the system of claim 14, Price, Venkataraman, and Bleyer do not teach wherein the first camera, the second camera, the third camera, and the fourth camera have fields of view (FOVs) that are relatively larger than FOVs of a fifth camera and a sixth camera.
Sharma teaches wherein the first camera, the second camera, the third camera, and the fourth camera have fields of view (FOVs) that are relatively larger than FOVs of a fifth camera and a sixth camera ([0041] the one or more cameras may be a wide angle camera, a narrow angle camera, or a 360 camera, and [0042] the one or more cameras may have a setting to adjust the FOV of the one or more cameras, which allows the user to customize user's FOV, [0043] FOVs of one or more cameras. This disclosure suggests the adjustable FOVs of the wide-angle cameras would obviously be used for the first and second camera, and the adjustable FOV of the narrow angle camera would obviously be used for the fifth camera).
Taking the teachings of Price, Venkataraman, Bleyer, and Sharma together as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the adjustable FOVs of the wide angle cameras of Sharma for the first, second, third, and fourth cameras of the HMD of Price, Venkataraman, and Bleyer, and the adjustable FOV of the narrow angle cameras for the fifth and sixth cameras of the HMD of Price, Venkataraman, and Bleyer to improve the determination of one or more objects in the different field of views.
Regarding claim 18, Price, Venkataraman, Bleyer, and Sharma teach the system of claim 17, Price wherein the first camera, the second camera, the third camera, and the fourth camera have angular resolutions that are relatively smaller than angular resolutions of a fifth camera and a sixth camera (402, 404, 406A and 406B of fig. 4).
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Price et al. (US 20220335637 A1) in view of Venkataraman et al. (US 20160309134 A1) and Bleyer (US 20210160441 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Price discloses a system (fig. 4) comprising:
a first camera of a first modality (406A of fig. 4);
a second camera of the first modality (406B of fig. 4), the first camera and the second camera forming a pair of stereoscopic cameras (Stereo Thermal Cameras 406 of fig. 4); and
a different camera of the first modality (404 of fig. 4, thermal camera 404);
wherein an angular resolution of the different camera is higher than angular resolutions of the pair of stereoscopic cameras (High-Res Thermal Camera 404, Low-Res Thermal Cameras 406A and 406B of fig. 4).
It is noted that Price does not teach wherein a first separation distance between the first camera and the second camera is at least initially set to an average interpupillary distance (IPD) of an adult user of the system; the HMD enables switching between close range navigation and far range detection; wherein the first pair of stereoscopic cameras are structured to facilitate close range navigation; wherein the different camera is structured to facilitate far range detection.
Venkataraman teaches wherein a first separation distance between the first camera and the second camera is set to an interpupillary distance (IPD) of an average adult user or an actual user of the HMD (#1002 and #1005 of fig. 10, the distance between camera #1001 and camera #1005 is 6.4 cm that is considered an interpupillary distance (IPD));
the HMD enables switching between close range navigation and far range detection ([0023] the field of view is selected from the group consisting of 70 degrees and 90 degrees, [0073] the characteristics of the cameras utilized in the array can be selected to provide depth accuracy across a field of view and operating range of distances appropriate to the requirements of a specific application, [0114] for-field camera and near-field cameras);
wherein the first pair of stereoscopic cameras are structured to facilitate close range navigation ([0114] the near-field cameras, 403, 404, 405, and 406 of FIG. 4, handle the near-field objects, so the cameras #1002 and #1005 of figure 10 would obviously be modified by the near-field cameras);
wherein the different camera is structured to facilitate far range detection (#1003 of fig. 10, [0114] the far-field cameras, 401, 402, 403, 404, and 406 of FIG.4, handle the far-field objects; so the camera #1003 of figure 10 would be modified by one of the far-field cameras).
Taking the teachings of Price and Venkataraman together as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the stereoscopic pair of the third and fourth cameras, the close-range navigation of the first and second cameras, and the far range detection of the fifth camera into the HMD of Price thereby providing an improved user experience.
It is further noted that Price and Venkataraman are silent about wherein the system switches from displaying content obtained using the first pair of stereoscopic cameras of the first modality to displaying content obtained from the fifth camera of the first modality, resulting in a representation of an object transitioning from being displayed in one of a blurred state or a focused state to being displayed in a different one of the blurred state or the focused state.
Bleyer teaches wherein the system switches from displaying content obtained using the first pair of stereoscopic cameras of the first modality to displaying content obtained from the fifth camera of the first modality, resulting in a representation of an object transitioning from being displayed in one of a blurred state or a focused state to being displayed in a different one of the blurred state or the focused state ([0058], [0098], and [0105]-[0107]).
Taking the teachings of Price, Venkataraman, and Bleyer together as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the switching input and displaying state of Bleyer into the HMD of Price and Venkataraman to allow the user enables to see the displayed object without any distortion.
Regarding claim 20, Price, Venkataraman, Bleyer teach the system of claim 19, Venkataraman further teaches teach wherein focal planes of the first and second cameras are set to a near distance and a focal plane of the different camera is set to a far distance ([0114]).
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUNG T VO whose telephone number is (571)272-7340. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Brian Pendleton can be reached on 571-272-7527. 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.
TUNG T. VO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2425
/TUNG T VO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425