DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to communications filed 12/19/2023:
Claims 1-14 are pending
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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of copending Application No. 18545187 in view of Lipman (US20210312940). For example:
Regarding claim 1, 18545187 teaches a display control apparatus that controls display of a display device wearable by a user (claim 1, a display control apparatus for controlling display of a display device; claim 13, wherein the display device is a glass type display device that can be worn by the user), the display control apparatus comprising:
a memory that stores codes (claim 1, a memory that stores codes); and
a processor that executes the codes stored in the memory (claim 1, a processor that executes the codes stored in the memory) to:
acquire speech collected by a plurality of microphones (claim 1, acquire speech collected by a plurality of microphones);
estimate a sound-arrival direction of the acquired speech (claim 1, estimate a sound-arrival direction of the acquired speech);
generate a text image corresponding to the acquired speech (claim 1, display a text image corresponding to the acquired speech);
and
display the generated text image at a display position in the display unit, the display position being determined according to the estimated sound-arrival direction and the determined adjustment amount (claim 1, display a symbol image associated with the text image at a display position in the display unit, the display position corresponding to the estimated sound-arrival direction).
18545187 fails to explicitly teach determine an adjustment amount of a display position of a text image on a display unit of the display device based on a detection result of at least one of an operation by the user and a state of the display device;
Lipman teaches determine an adjustment amount of a display position of a text image on a display unit of the display device based on a detection result of at least one of an operation by the user and a state of the display device (¶41, display parameters can be determined by a user input);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the display apparatus (as taught by 18545187) with the user adjustment capabilities (as taught by Lipman). The rationale to do so is to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of adjusting one or more display parameters according to a user’s desires (Lipman, ¶41).
The remaining independent and/or dependent claims are similarly rejected using one or more claims of the reference application and Lipman (whether alone or in combination).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of copending Application No. 18808209 in view of Lipman (US20210312940). See above as an example.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lipman (US20210312940).
Regarding claim 1, Lipman teaches a display control apparatus that controls display of a display device wearable by a user (abstract, glasses with display), the display control apparatus comprising:
a memory that stores codes; and
a processor that executes the codes stored in the memory (¶7, glasses including a processor that also requires a form of memory for storing processing instructions) to:
acquire speech collected by a plurality of microphones (¶7, speech collected using a microphone array);
estimate a sound-arrival direction of the acquired speech (¶22, directional microphones for determining a direction of arrival of the collected sound signals);
generate a text image corresponding to the acquired speech (Fig. 3B, text image corresponding to the collected speech signals);
determine an adjustment amount of a display position of a text image on a display unit of the display device based on a detection result of at least one of an operation by the user and a state of the display device (¶41, user can provide one or more adjustments to the display parameters); and
display the generated text image at a display position in the display unit, the display position being determined according to the estimated sound-arrival direction and the determined adjustment amount (Fig. 3B, text image generated is displayed in accordance to the direction of arrival of the detected speech signals in addition to being modified by the user settings (¶41)).
Regarding claim 2, Lipman teaches wherein the display device is a glass type display device that can be worn by the user (Fig. 1, head worn device can be a glass type display device).
Regarding claim 3, Lipman teaches wherein an elevation angle with respect to a horizontal direction of a direction in which the text image displayed on the display unit is seen from a viewpoint of the user wearing the display device is determined according to the determined adjustment amount (¶41, the user can apply adjustments to the displayed contents with respect to his/her viewpoint).
Regarding claim 4, Lipman teaches wherein the state of the display device includes a tilt of the display device detected by a sensor included in the display device (¶26, one or more sensors capable of detecting a movement (including rotation) of the head worn device).
Regarding claim 11, Lipman teaches wherein the operation by the user includes a touch operation on the display device (¶44, one or more switches for actuation by a user).
Regarding claim 12, Lipman teaches wherein the processor generates a text image corresponding to the acquired speech by performing speech recognition processing on the speech (Fig. 3B, ¶31, performing speech recognition).
Regarding claim 13, it is rejected similarly as claim 1. The medium can be found in Lipman (Fig. 2, digital processor requires a storage medium for including computing instructions).
Regarding claim 14, it is rejected similarly as claim 1. The method can be found in Lipman (¶8,method).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 5-6 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lipman (US20210312940) in view of Lang (US20190333480).
Regarding claim 5, Lipman fails to explicitly teach wherein the processor determines the adjustment amount related to the display position of the text image in the vertical direction on the display unit based on the inclination of the display device in an elevation angle direction.
Lang teaches wherein the processor determines the adjustment amount related to the display position of the text image in the vertical direction on the display unit based on the inclination of the display device in an elevation angle direction (¶324, Fig. 3, applying one or more alterations to the display in accordance with the detected movement of the head mounted device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of modifying the display apparatus in accordance with a movement (as taught by Lang) to the display apparatus (as taught by Lipman). The rationale to do so is to apply a known technique to a known apparatus ready for improvement to yield the predictable result of improving a comfort level of the user by adapting a display change in response to a user movement (Lang, ¶174).
Regarding claim 6, Lipman in view of Lang wherein the processor increases a downward adjustment amount of the display position of the text image on the display unit in accordance with an increase in a depression angle of the inclination of the display device (Lang, ¶276, amount of change can be with respect to the user’s head).
Regarding claim 9, Lipman in view of Lang teaches wherein
a display position in a vertical direction of the text image displayed on the display unit is determined in accordance with the determined adjustment amount and an orientation of the display device (Lang, ¶324, Fig. 3, display adjustment can be based on a movement of the head mounted device including a rotational movement), and
a display position in the horizontal direction of the text image displayed on the display unit is determined according to the estimated sound-arrival direction and the orientation of the display device (Lipman, Fig. 3B, ¶34, displayed text image is in accordance with a sound arrival direction as well as orientation of the user’s head/head mounted device).
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lipman (US20210312940) in view of Lang (US20190333480) in further view of Forutanpour et al (US20180047396, hereinafter “Forutanpour”).
Regarding claim 7, Lipman in view of Lang fail to explicitly teach wherein the processor does not change the adjustment amount related to the display position of the text image in the vertical direction on the display unit when the inclination of the display device in an elevation direction is within a predetermined range, and changes the adjustment amount when the inclination of the display device in the elevation direction exceeds the predetermined range.
Forutanpour teaches wherein the processor does not change the adjustment amount related to the display position of the text image in the vertical direction on the display unit when the inclination of the display device in an elevation direction is within a predetermined range, and changes the adjustment amount when the inclination of the display device in the elevation direction exceeds the predetermined range (¶36, displayed content may change if the user’s head exceeds a threshold angle from the horizon).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of providing a threshold limit prior to altering display content in accordance with a user’s head movement (as taught by Forutanpour) to the display apparatus (as taught by Lipman in view of Lang). The rationale to do so is to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Regarding claim 8, Lipman in view of Lang in further view of Forutanpour teaches wherein the predetermined range is determined based on an elevation angle with respect to a horizontal direction of a direction in which the text image displayed on the display unit is seen from a viewpoint of a user wearing the display device (Forutanpour, ¶36, the deviation threshold is calculated based on the horizon).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lipman (US20210312940) in view of Forutanpour et al (US20180047396, hereinafter “Forutanpour”).
Regarding claim 10, Lipman fails to explicitly teach the processor identifies a target direction, and wherein
when a difference between the identified target direction and the estimated sound-arrival direction is less than a threshold value, the processor determines the adjustment amount of the display position of the text image corresponding to the sound-arrival direction based on the detection result.
Forutanpour teaches the processor identifies a target direction (¶52, speech bubble graphic may be anchored/attached to the person that is speaking such that the identified direction is the identified speaker), and wherein
when a difference between the identified target direction and the estimated sound-arrival direction is less than a threshold value, the processor determines the adjustment amount of the display position of the text image corresponding to the sound-arrival direction based on the detection result (¶52, in identifying the speaker, a speaker direction is determined as well as a sound-arrival direction such that when the user turns away from the speaker (including the speaker direction and the sound arrival direction) the corresponding text image is similarly altered).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the display apparatus (as taught by Lipman) with the text association technique (as taught by Forutanpour). The rationale to do so is to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of clearly associating text with the person that spoke it (Forutanpour, Fig. 3).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to PTO-892, Notice of References Cited for a listing of analogous art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QIN ZHU whose telephone number is (571)270-1304. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6AM-4PM 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, Duc Nguyen can be reached on 571-272-7503. 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.
/QIN ZHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2691