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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/18/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of the amendment filed 12/18/2023. Claims 1-17 are amended and claims 1-15 are currently pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 11-14 are objected to because of the following informalities: the use of a comma after recited verbs comprising the steps of the claimed method is improper. For example in Claim 11, “providing, the left visual stimulus” should be replaced with “providing the left visual stimulus”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 10, 14-16 are 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 10 recites the limitation "the visual stimulus" in Lines 3-4 and 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art would not understand the metes and bounds of the claim defining the output from a display as “a visual stimulus” despite the light only impinging on that which is stimulated (i.e. the eye) through further optical elements. It would be understood if the claim recited that the display output light or an image and subsequently that the filter is configured to alter a property of the output light or image.
Claim 14 recites language such as “a method according to claim 11”, “providing, a left visual stimulus … modifying, at least one of the left visual stimulus and the right visual stimulus…”, “measuring, the body posture” and further analogous limitations muddled the dependence and antecedence of this dependent claim. It is unclear if the claim seeks to further limit the method of claim 11 or establish a wholly distinct, second method with further steps of providing, modifying, measuring, producing, and determining. Additionally, interpreted as including the limitations of the base claim 11, Claim 14 does not provide clear antecedent basis for elements when plural elements are required in the claim (e.g. “the left visual stimulus”, “the right visual stimulus”, “the body posture”, etc.). Appropriate correction is required.
Dependent Claim 15 is indefinite for failing to cure the deficiencies of the base claim.
Further, Claim 15 recites “a non-transitory computer-readable medium on which is stored a computer program comprising instructions that, when executed by a computing system, cause the computing system to execute the steps of the method of claim 14” and includes, by dependence, steps such as “providing, a left visual stimulus via a left side of an eyewear and a right visual stimulus via a right side of the eyewear” and “providing, a sensor for measuring a body posture of a subject's body when the subject is wearing the eyewear” that do not clearly limit a non-transitory computer-readable medium in light of the Specifications. The metes and bounds of the computer-readable medium cannot be determined as recited as a person having ordinary skill in the art would not understand the computer instructions for providing stimuli and the sensor.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the modification in visual balance" in Line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examination on the merits Is preempted as changing the dependence of the claim to recite “system of claim 2”, for example, would then provide a duplicate claim when compared to the limitations of Claim 3.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1-4, 6-9, 11-13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Pat. No. 10,684,469 to Smith et al. (hereinafter Smith).
Regarding claim 1, Smith discloses a system (e.g. Figs. 2-4) for detecting a body response to a visual stimulus, comprising: an eyewear (head-mounted display, Figs. 2-4) delivering a left visual stimulus via a left side of the eyewear and a right visual stimulus via a right side of the eyewear (display area 323-1 and display area 323-2, Fig. 3); a sensor (inertial measurement unit 326 and eye tracking sensors 324-1 and 324-2, Fig. 3) configured to measure a body posture of a subject's body when the subject is wearing the eyewear (“eye tracking sensor 324-1 may capture eye tracking information associated with the user's right eye and eye tracking sensor 324-2 may capture eye tracking information associated with the user's left eye. The eye tracking information may include one or more of a position of an eye, a location of an eye, a pupil location of an eye, an ocular center of an eye, an angle of an eye, and a direction of gaze of an eye (sometimes referred to herein as eye gaze tracking data), and other types of eye tracking information” and “inertial measurement unit 326 may include an accelerometer, a gyroscope, a magnetometer, an optical sensor, a global position system (GPS) device, or other types of devices. In various embodiments, the information provided by inertial measurement unit 326 may include a position of head-mounted display device 300, an orientation of head-mounted display device 300, a respective linear acceleration of head-mounted display device 300 in each of six degrees of freedom or axes, and/or an angular velocity of head-mounted display device 300”; col. 13, ll. 30-67); and a controlling circuit (information handling system 102 and SLAM subsystem 428, Figs. 2-5) operably coupleable to the eyewear and to the sensor (Figs. 2-4), so that when operably coupled, the controlling circuit: receives measurements of the body posture from the sensor (e.g. Step 504 and calibraton; col. 13, ll. 30-67 and col 15, ln. 29-col. 16, ln. 35); provides a body posture response information based on the measurements of the body posture (gradient threshold; col. 13, ll. 30-67 and col 15, ln. 29-col. 16, ln. 35); and determines a deviation of the body posture response information to a reference (gradient threshold based on calibration; col. 13, ll. 30-67 and col 15, ln. 29-col. 16, ln. 35), wherein the reference is based on the left visual stimulus and the right visual stimulus (eye-tracking and orientation analyzed with deviations from axes aligned with stimuli; col 15, ln. 29-col. 16, ln. 35).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Smith discloses the eyewear is configured to modify a visual balance between the left visual stimulus via the left side of the eyewear and the right visual stimulus via the right side of the eyewear (“modifying, in response to detecting a condition associated with motion sickness or visual fatigue, an operating parameter for the head-mounted display to, at least partially, mitigate the detected condition”; col. 16, ll. 36-col. 17, ln. 18), wherein the sensor further measures the body posture of the subject in response to the modification of the visual balance by the eyewear (col. 15, ln. 29-col. 17, ln. 18).
Regarding claim 3, Smith discloses the modification in visual balance comprises a translation (“expanding the field of view (810) may reduce the perception of speed and decrease motion sickness… to determine motion parallax on augmented and real world objects and, in response, a motion sickness controller, such as motion sickness controller 460 illustrated in FIG. 4… may modify the effective field of view of the head-mounted display device to mitigate any motion sickness or visual fatigue induced or enhanced due to motion parallax”; col. 19, ll. 39-55), a rotation, a slant, or a combination thereof, of at least one of the left visual stimulus and the right visual stimulus.
Regarding claims 4 and 17, Smith discloses the modification in visual balance comprises a change in luminance, of at least one of the left visual stimulus and the right visual stimulus (“a certain degree of movement (e.g., movement with respect to six degrees of freedom: fore-aft (x-axis), lateral (y-axis), vertical (z-axis), yaw, pitch, and roll) … sudden and/or oscillatory changes in pitch and roll (independently or combined) can lead to motion sickness in a head-mounted display device wearer. Also, sudden and/or oscillatory changes in fore-aft (x-axis), lateral (y-axis), vertical (z-axis) movement can lead to motion sickness”; col. 9, ln. 56-col. 10, ln. 7). Moving images presented by the display areas 323-1 and 323-2 of display 322 necessarily change luminance in left and right stimuli.
Regarding claim 6, Smith discloses wherein the modification in visual balance comprises a change in spatial frequency content, of at least one of the left visual stimulus and the right visual stimulus (“calculating, dependent on the timing data, frame rates for the head-mounted display device in terms of frames per second, applying a hysteresis-based averaging of the frame rates, and determining that the hysteresis-based average of the frame rates is less than a predetermined target frame rate”, “by narrowing the effective field of view, the spatial quality and/or the refresh rate of the displayed content may be improved, which may mitigate against any motion parallax that is happening”, “if it is determined that the IMU data with respect to one or more of the six degrees of freedom or axes is changing at a rate faster than the rate corresponding to their respective gradient threshold values, this may indicate the existence of a condition associated with motion sickness or visual fatigue”; col. 11, ll. 43-47 & col. 19, ll. 23-28).
Regarding claim 7, Smith discloses measurements of the body posture comprise a set of measurements of a first displacement in a first direction and a second displacement in a second direction (“inertial measurement unit 426 including six-degree-of-freedom sensors 430” and “this technique may be used to determine the gradient thresholds to be associated with each of the six degrees of freedom or with other measurements”; col. 15, ln. 29-col. 16, ln. 35), wherein the first direction is medial-lateral, wherein the second direction is anterior-posterior and perpendicular to the first direction (col. 15, ln. 29-col. 16, ln. 35).
Regarding claim 8, Smith discloses the body posture response information is based on: (i) the first displacement ; (ii) the second displacement; (iii) a ratio between the first displacement and the second displacement; or (iv) a combination thereof (“inertial measurement unit 426 including six-degree-of-freedom sensors 430” and “this technique may be used to determine the gradient thresholds to be associated with each of the six degrees of freedom or with other measurements”; col. 15, ln. 29-col. 16, ln. 35).
Regarding claims 9 and 13, Smith discloses the controlling circuit is further configured to determine a set of adjustment values and to modify the visual balance between the left visual stimulus and the right visual stimulus, to minimize the deviation between the body posture response information and the reference, or to reach the reference (“in response to determining that a condition associated with motion sickness or visual fatigue exists, an operating parameter for the head-mounted display device to mitigate the detected condition”, “Detecting the condition may also include determining that, for at least one of the six degrees of freedom or axes, the gradient exceeds a gradient threshold value for the corresponding degrees of freedom or axis… the gradient threshold value may be a predetermined default value, a value set through a calibration exercise, a user-specified value, or an application- or context-specific value” and “results of the calibration, e.g., the gradient threshold values, may subsequently be biased down or up based on an indication of the stressfulness or intensity of the content being displayed or based on user preferences indicating a low, medium, or high tolerance to motion sickness input through a user interface setup or configuration menu”; col. 3, ll. 24-35 & col. 15, ln. 29-col. 16, ln. 35).
Regarding claim 11, Smith discloses a method for the detecting body response to the visual stimulus according to claim 1 comprising: providing, the left visual stimulus via the left side of the eyewear and the right visual stimulus via the right side of the eyewear (“display 322 may include a display area 323-1 associated with a right eye lens for the user's right eye and a display area 323-2 associated with a left eye lens for the user's left eye”, Figs. 2-5; col. 11, ln. 48- col. 16, ln. 35); providing, the sensor for measuring the body posture of the subject's body when the subject is wearing the eyewear (“receiving, during operation of a head-mounted display device worn by a user, sensor data from one or more sensors of an inertial measurement unit of the head-mounted display device”, Figs. 2-5; col. 11, ln. 48- col. 16, ln. 35); measuring, the body posture with the sensor (“receiving, during operation of a head-mounted display device worn by a user, sensor data from one or more sensors of an inertial measurement unit of the head-mounted display device”, Figs. 2-5; col. 11, ln. 48- col. 16, ln. 35); producing, using the controlling circuit, the body posture response information based on the measurements of the body posture (“Detecting the condition may also include determining that, for at least one of the six degrees of freedom or axes, the gradient exceeds a gradient threshold value for the corresponding degrees of freedom or axis… the gradient threshold value may be a predetermined default value, a value set through a calibration exercise, a user-specified value, or an application- or context-specific value”, Figs. 2-5; col. 11, ln. 48- col. 16, ln. 35); and determining, using the controlling circuit, the deviation of the body posture response information to the reference (“in response to determining that a condition associated with motion sickness or visual fatigue exists, an operating parameter for the head-mounted display device to mitigate the detected condition”, “Detecting the condition may also include determining that, for at least one of the six degrees of freedom or axes, the gradient exceeds a gradient threshold value for the corresponding degrees of freedom or axis… the gradient threshold value may be a predetermined default value, a value set through a calibration exercise, a user-specified value, or an application- or context-specific value” and “results of the calibration, e.g., the gradient threshold values, may subsequently be biased down or up based on an indication of the stressfulness or intensity of the content being displayed or based on user preferences indicating a low, medium, or high tolerance to motion sickness input through a user interface setup or configuration menu”; col. 3, ll. 24-35 & col. 15, ln. 29-col. 16, ln. 35).
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith as applied to claim 1, and further in view of CN 113031269 to Gao, et al. (hereinafter Gao).
Regarding claim 5, Smith discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose: wherein the modification in visual balance comprises a change in contrast, of at least one of the left visual stimulus and the right visual stimulus .
Gao discloses wherein the modification in visual balance comprises a change in contrast, of at least one of the left visual stimulus and the right visual stimulus (“modification of the image information includes: … increasing or reducing the pixel of the image information, or changing the brightness of the image information, color saturation or contrast …[t]he theory of most explaining the vertigo pathogenic is the theory of feeling the conflict and the theory of unstable posture”).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to change image contrast as taught by Gao with the system as disclosed by Smith. The motivation would have been to reduce the feeling of visual conflict and therefore posture imbalance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J STANFORD whose telephone number is (571)270-3337. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-4PM PST M-F.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at (571)272-2333. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER STANFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights