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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/7/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that neither Stafford nor Silverstein discloses an ecosystem device that provides a capability distinct from the streamed application and that transmits a radar signal toward a wearable display in response to the wearable display receiving a video stream representing an application. Examiner respectfully disagree. Stafford discloses a head mounted display that receives and renders interactive game scenes transmitted from a game console or from a remote game server using cloud gaming infrastructure. Stafford further discloses that image and depth sensors, which may include radar or laser radar, track the user and the head mounted display while the user is interacting with that content. See Stafford, [0065], [0082]; Figs. 9, 12. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitation “in response to a wearable display receiving a video stream representing an application” does not require a discrete trigger packet that is distinct from the existence of an active streaming session. It is satisfied by transmitting the radar signal while the wearable display is receiving and rendering the streamed application content. That is the operating condition disclosed by Stafford.
Stafford does not expressly place the radar circuitry in an ecosystem device that also provides a home-automation capability distinct from the streamed application. That limitation is taught by Silverstein. Silverstein discloses a smart home environment that includes a group of devices (smart hub, smart thermostat, smart hazard detector, cameras, and other smart devices) that provide lighting, HVAC, security, occupancy, and anomaly-detection capabilities independent of any particular gaming application, and that include radar modules that transmit radar signals and determine location and movement of people in the environment. See Silverstein, [0013], [0063], [0066], [0069], [0165], [0175], [0320], [0325], [0452], [0462]. Combining Stafford’s radar-capable external tracking of an HMD user during cloud or console streaming with Silverstein’s radar-equipped ecosystem devices yields the recited arrangement.
Applicant further argues that Stafford begins tracking when the user puts on the headset, “regardless of whether the head mounted display is receiving a game stream.” Stafford’s tracking and content-adjustment operations are described in the context of game play in which interactive scenes are transmitted to the HMD. See Stafford, [0065]-[0069], [0082] (claim 1). The argument therefore does not distinguish the claim as written.
Applicant argues that Silverstein’s radar systems detect home anomalies and do not act in response to a wearable display receiving a video stream, and do not generate application inputs from motion data of a wearable-display user. This argument attacks the references individually. Stafford is relied upon for streaming an application to a wearable display, determining motion data of the HMD user from radar-capable sensors, and generating inputs and content adjustments from that motion data. Silverstein is relied upon for placing radar circuitry in ecosystem devices that already provide unrelated home capabilities and for collecting radar data from those devices over a smart-home network. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues that the proposed combination would render Stafford unfit for its intended purpose because Stafford confines the user to a single camera field of view (“scene”) for safety, whereas using Silverstein’s home-wide radar infrastructure would “untether” the user. Examiner respectfully disagree. The combination does not require elimination of Stafford’s safety function. Stafford already contemplates sensors arranged apart from the user and not connected to the HMD, and combinations of HMD-mounted and external sensors. See Stafford, [0007] (“image sensor(s) and/or depth sensor(s) secured to either the head mounted display, arranged within or outside of the scene and not secured to the head mounted display, or a combination of both”). Substituting or supplementing Stafford’s external radar-capable sensor with radar circuitry already present in Silverstein’s distributed smart devices does not prevent definition of a play space or generation of proximity warnings. Additional spatially distributed radar sources can still detect approach to a boundary or obstacle. Expanding coverage of the monitored area does not destroy Stafford’s warning purpose. It is consistent with that purpose.
Applicant argues that the stated motivation (leveraging existing smart-home infrastructure that already performs radar-based motion detection) is not found in Stafford or Silverstein and is hindsight drawn from Applicant’s specification. Examiner respectfully disagree. The motivation need not be expressly articulated in the references. The examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Stafford already uses external sensors coupled to a console and expressly contemplates radar and laser radar as image-generating sensor systems. Silverstein already deploys radar modules in multiple smart-home devices for presence, motion, and anomaly detection and shares that radar data over the home network. Using an existing radar-equipped smart-home device as the external tracking sensor for Stafford’s HMD session is a predictable use of a known device according to its established function (motion and position sensing), with the expected benefits of reducing dedicated gaming hardware and reusing sensors already installed in the same physical space. That rationale does not depend on Applicant’s specification.
Applicant argues that amended claim 11 requires receiving, from each ecosystem device of a plurality of ecosystem devices, respective radar data associated with corresponding radar signals transmitted toward the user, and that Stafford discloses only a single control device. Stafford is not relied upon for the plurality of ecosystem devices. Silverstein discloses multiple radar-equipped smart devices in the same environment and aggregation of radar data from multiple radar sources. See Silverstein, [0250] (server system receives radar data from multiple radar sources and aggregates the radar data); Silverstein, [0311] (combining radar data from a first device and a second device); Silverstein, Figs. 1-2, [0063], [0320], [0325], [0452], [0462]. Applying that multi-device radar network to Stafford’s HMD motion-input pipeline teaches receiving respective radar data from each of a plurality of ecosystem devices and determining application inputs from the aggregated radar data together with wearable-display sensor data.
Applicant’s arguments as to claims 2-7, 9, 10, 12-23 rest on dependence from claims 1 and 11 and are unpersuasive for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 11, as amended, recites receiving radar data “from each ecosystem device of a plurality of ecosystem devices.” Claim 14 depends from claim 11 and recites “wherein the ecosystem device includes radar circuitry configured to transmit an ultra-wideband radar signal.” It is unclear which of the plurality of ecosystem devices is “the ecosystem device,” or whether every device of the plurality must include UWB radar circuitry. Clarification is required.
For purposes of applying prior art, claim 14 is construed as requiring that at least one ecosystem device of the plurality include UWB radar circuitry.
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 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) 1-7, 9, 11-13, 15-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stafford (US 2019/0070506 A1) in view of Silverstein (US 2017/0328997 A1).
1. Stafford discloses a method for cloud-based video streaming (Fig. 9, 12), [0023], [0065] comprising:
in response to a wearable display receiving a video stream representing an application [0065], transmitting, by radar circuitry, a radar signal toward the wearable display (i.e. the sensor can be a radar or laser radar), [0048], [0082];
determining, from the radar signal, motion data of a user of the wearable display [0082]; and
generating one or more inputs interpretable by the application based on the motion data of the user of the wearable display (Fig. 9, 12), [0082].
Stafford does not expressly recite that the radar circuitry is “of an ecosystem device of an ecosystem” wherein “the ecosystem including a group of ecosystem devices each configured to provide a respective capability to users of the ecosystem distinct from the application.”
Silverstein discloses a smart home ecosystem (smart home environment 100) comprising a group of ecosystem devices (e.g., smart hub 180, smart hazard detector 104, smart thermostat 102, camera 118, and other smart devices; see Figs. 1-2, [0063], [0066], [0069], [0165], [0175]) each configured to provide a respective capability to users of the ecosystem distinct from any particular streaming/gaming application (general home automation, presence/motion detection, anomaly detection, security, environmental monitoring, etc.). These devices include radar circuitry (radar module with low-power radar transmitters and receivers, [0013], [0320], [0325], [0462]; radio(s) 940/950 configured for radar operations across various bands, [0175], [0177]) that transmits radar signals to determine location and/or movement of detected objects/users in the home environment ([0452], [0462]). The radar data is generated for general ecosystem use but can be shared/communicated via the smart home network.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the application was filed to modify Stafford’s radar-based (or radar-capable) tracking of the HMD user by incorporating the radar circuitry into an ecosystem device of a smart home ecosystem as taught by Silverstein. The motivation is to leverage existing, widely-deployed smart home infrastructure (hubs, sensors, displays) that already performs radar-based motion/position detection for unrelated ecosystem capabilities (lighting, HVAC, security, presence sensing) to provide supplementary or alternative motion inputs to the cloud-based gaming application. This avoids the need for dedicated gaming-console sensors, reduces cost, and enables seamless integration of home-wide tracking with VR/AR streaming, especially since Stafford already uses external sensors coupled to the console and contemplates radar variants.
2. Stafford and Silverstein disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising: modifying the video stream based on the one or more inputs; and sending the modified video stream to the wearable display, Stafford [0068], [0072], [0082], [0108].
3. Stafford and Silverstein disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising: generating, at the wearable display, sensor data associated with the user, wherein the one or more inputs are further determined based on the sensor data associated with the user (i.e. HMD also generate/processes its own sensor data form sensors 280/290), Stafford (110: Fig. 4), [0050].
4. Stafford and Silverstein disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, at an input device, one or more interactions, wherein the one or more inputs are further determined based on input data representing the one or more interactions (i.e. game controller), Stafford [0090]-[0091], [0102].
5. Stafford and Silverstein disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising: sending the one or more inputs to a cloud-based server associated with the video stream, Stafford [0065], [0082].
6. Stafford and Silverstein disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the motion data indicates a position of the user of the wearable display, Stafford [0068]-[0070], [0082].
7. Stafford and Silverstein disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the motion data indicates a position of the wearable display, Stafford [0068]-[0070], [0082].
9. Stafford and Silverstein disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the ecosystem device comprises at least one of a smart hub, display, or sensor, Silverstein [0063], [0066], [0069], [0165], [0175].
11-13, 15, 17, 19, 20, 23. Stafford and Silverstein disclose a method for cloud-based video streaming, comprising: in response to initiating a client session associated with an application, receiving: from a wearable display, sensor data associated with a user of the wearable display, and, from each ecosystem device of a plurality of ecosystem devices of an ecosystem, respective radar data associated with corresponding radar signals transmitted toward the user of the wearable display, the ecosystem including a group of ecosystem devices each configured to provide a respective capability to users of the ecosystem distinct from the application; determining one or more inputs interpretable by the application based on the sensor data and the radar data from the plurality of ecosystem devices; and in response to sending the one or more inputs to a cloud-based server associated with the client session, receiving a modified video stream based on the one or more inputs as similarly discussed above.
More specifically, Silverstein teaches a smart-home ecosystem including a plurality of ecosystem devices (hub 180, thermostat 102, hazard detector 104, camera 118, and other smart devices), each providing a capability distinct from a gaming/streaming application, and each capable of including radar circuitry that transmits radar signals and produces radar data regarding location and movement of people in the environment. That radar data is shared over the smart-home network and aggregated for processing. See Silverstein Figs. 1-2, [0013], [0063], [0069], [0175], [0320], [0325], [0452], [0462]. Networked one-dimensional radar systems across multiple devices are taught to improve precision relative to a single device. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to receive, in Stafford’s cloud-streamed HMD session, respective radar data from each of a plurality of Silverstein ecosystem devices and to determine application inputs from the HMD sensor data together with that plurality of radar data. Stafford already combines on-HMD sensors with one or more external sensors dispersed in the scene. Silverstein teaches multiple in-home devices that already emit radar toward occupants and already share the resulting motion data. Using several such devices as Stafford’s external trackers would have provided multi-viewpoint coverage of the user, improved robustness if one device’s field of view is occluded, and reused hardware already deployed for unrelated home functions which results in predictable advantages with a reasonable expectation of success.
16. Stafford and Silverstein disclose the method of claim 11, wherein Stafford teaches external radar/image sensors that transmit toward the user and determine tracking data from the returned sensing energy, but does not expressly teach that each of a plurality of ecosystem devices independently transmits a respective radar signal and determines respective radar data from the echo. Silverstein teaches that each radar-equipped smart device includes transmitters and receivers, sends out pulses of high-frequency electromagnetic waves that reflect off objects/people, and determines presence, direction, distance, and/or speed from the returns. Multiple such devices operate in the same home and contribute radar data. See Silverstein [0013], [0175], [0320], [0452], [0462]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have each of the plurality of ecosystem devices transmit its own radar signal and determine its own radar data from the echo, as Silverstein already operates each radar-equipped node. Doing so is how Silverstein’s devices generate the respective radar data that the combination receives. Independent per-device transmit/receive is the ordinary way to obtain multi-viewpoint radar coverage of Stafford’s HMD user.
18. Stafford and Silverstein disclose the method of claim 11, wherein Stafford determines user motion from external sensor data. Stafford does not expressly teach determining that motion from respective radar data from each of a plurality of ecosystem devices. Silverstein teaches aggregating radar (and other) data from multiple smart devices to determine location and movement of people and to detect events. See [0320], [0452], [0462]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to determine Stafford’s user motion data from the respective radar data of each Silverstein ecosystem device. Combining multiple radar views of the same occupant is the reason Silverstein deploys more than one radar-equipped node and is the reason the claim 11 combination uses a plurality of devices. The resulting motion data is then used, as in Stafford, as application input.
21. Stafford and Silverstein disclose a cloud-based system comprising: one or more cloud-based servers communicatively coupled to one or more client systems, each client system including: a wearable display including one or more processors; and one or more ecosystem devices, wherein at least one ecosystem device includes one or more processors and a memory coupled to the one or more processors and storing executable instructions configured to manipulate the one or more processors to perform the method of claim 1 as discussed above.
22. Stafford and Silverstein disclose a cloud-based system comprising: one or more cloud-based servers communicatively coupled to one or more smart ecosystems, each smart ecosystem including: a wearable display including one or more processors; and one or more ecosystem devices, wherein at least one ecosystem device includes one or more processors and a memory coupled to the one or more processors and storing executable instructions configured to manipulate the one or more processors to perform the method of claim 1 as discussed above.
Claim(s) 10, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stafford (US 2019/0070506 A1) and Silverstein (US 2017/0328997 A1) as applied above and further in view of Choi (US 2023/0068927 A1).
10, 14. Stafford and Silverstein disclose the invention above, but does not expressly disclose wherein the radar signal comprises an ultra-wideband radar signal; however, utilizing a ultra-wideband radar signal protocol is known in the art as evidenced by Choi [0264]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Stafford 's cloud-based VR system (which already uses RADAR for motion tracking) by incorporating Choi's UWB-specific radar implementation for motion determination. The motivation would be to enhance precision in motion tracking for immersive VR experiences, as UWB may provide more accuracy for location and orientation in AR/VR, which aligns with Stafford 's goal of real-time, low-bandwidth virtual interactions using ranging technologies. Substituting Stafford 's general RADAR with Choi’s UWB radar is a predictable use of known techniques for the same purpose (precise motion data in virtual environments), yielding expected results of improved responsiveness in cloud-streamed VR gaming without dedicated hardware.
Filing of New or Amended Claims
The examiner has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasoning to explain why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the original disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims. See Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 263, 191 USPQ at 97 (“[T]he PTO has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasons why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims.”). However, when filing an amendment an applicant should show support in the original disclosure for new or amended claims. See MPEP § 714.02 and § 2163.06 (“Applicant should specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure.”). Please see MPEP 2163 (II) 3. (b)
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SENG H LIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3301. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9-5).
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, Xuan Thai can be reached at (571) 272-7147. 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.
/Seng H Lim/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
