DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on January 21, 2026 in response to the previous Office Action (11/25/2025) is acknowledged and has been entered.
Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending.
Claims 3 –4, 8 – 9 and 11 – 13 are withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment overcomes the following objections/rejections in the last Office Action:
Objection to Specification
Rejection under 112(b)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 18 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 18 recites the limitation "the second degree" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
(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 – 2, 5 – 7 and 14 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Marks (US 2017/0269713).
Regarding claim 1, Marks discloses a display control device comprising: a processor (106); and, a memory (106) storing a program which, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to: (1) acquire a VR video captured by an imaging device (108) (¶70-72, 79: camera captures images, HMD user participates in VR environment); (2) detect movement of the imaging device (¶85, 112: motion input 318 can be processed from a motion sensor 300 included in the HMD 102, or from image capture device 108 as it captures images of the HMD 102); perform, on a live view image of the VR video, reducing processing to reduce probability of generating a specific symptom to a user viewing the live view image displayed on the display (¶96, 100: using dynamic gearing, the movement of the virtual camera view can be smoothed out, so as to provide a more pleasant viewing experience for the spectator view, even when the HMD moves fast or erratic); (4) determine whether the user is (a) an operator that operates the imaging device and captures the VR video or (b) a viewer of the VR video other than the operator (fig. 7; ¶80-82, 107, 120-121: use of virtual rubber band is an example); (5) control a degree of the reducing processing on the live view image based on whether or not the user is the operator or the viewer in a case where movement of the imaging device is detected (¶100, 121: The gearing may be modified, for instance, faster in some games, some scenes, some situations, some levels, for some users, etc., or slower in other instances. By using dynamic gearing, the movement of the virtual camera view can be smoothed out, so as to provide a more pleasant viewing experience for the spectator view, even when the HMD moves fast or erratic.); and (6) control a display to display an image obtained after the reducing processing is performed on the live view image, in a case where the reducing processing is performed on the live view image detected (¶100, 121: The gearing may be modified, for instance, faster in some games, some scenes, some situations, some levels, for some users, etc., or slower in other instances. By using dynamic gearing, the movement of the virtual camera view can be smoothed out, so as to provide a more pleasant viewing experience for the spectator view, even when the HMD moves fast or erratic.)
Regarding claim 2, Marks disclose the limitations of claim 1. Marks also teaches wherein in the case where the movement of the imaging device is detected, the program when executed by the processor causes the processor to set a degree of the reducing processing on the live view image to be higher in a case where the user is not an operator of the imaging device than in a case where the user is an operator of the imaging device (¶115-117: the gearing profile can be defined so that the virtual camera 602 will move slightly slower than the movements of the HMD 102 of the HMD player 100.).
Regarding claim 5, Marks disclose the limitations of claim 1. Marks also teaches wherein the program when executed by the processor causes the processor to perform, as the reducing processing on the live view image, processing of replacing at least a part of the live view image with a specific image (¶59-60, 97:viewing spots; the views provided to spectators can also be provided in such a way that prevents fast movements of the content to the spectators, as would be typical if the same exact view generated by the HMD player were to be shown to the spectator).
Regarding claim 6, Marks disclose the limitations of claim 1. Marks also teaches wherein as the reducing processing on the live view image, the program when executed by the processor causes the processor to perform processing of continuously displaying a still image of the live view image at a specific timing, or processing of reducing a frame rate of the live view image (¶59-60; 115-117).
Regarding claim 7, Marks disclose the limitations of claim 1. Marks also teaches wherein in a case where the movement of the imaging device is not detected, the program when executed by the processor causes the processor not to perform the reducing processing on the live view image (¶100: gearing ratio applied to movement of virtual camera view…if not moving, then not applied).
Claims 14 – 15 are rejected as applied to claim 1 above. The method steps as claimed would have been implied by the apparatus of Marks.
Regarding claim 16, Marks disclose the limitations of claim 1. Marks also teaches wherein whether the user is the operator or the viewer is determined based on information acquired from the imaging device (¶53, 54,100).
Regarding claim 17, Marks disclose the limitations of claim 1. Marks also teaches wherein whether the user is the operator or the viewer is set by the user (¶117).
Regarding claim 18, Marks disclose the limitations of claim 1. Marks also teaches wherein in a case where movement of the imaging device is not detected, the program causes the processor to perform the reducing processing on the live view image with a third degree lower than the second degree (¶100: gearing ratio applied to movement of virtual camera view…if not moving, then not applied).
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) 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marks in view of Watanabe (US 2017/0072305).
Regarding claim 10, Marks disclose the limitations of claim 1. Marks fails to explicitly disclose wherein the program when executed by the processor causes the processor to control the display to display specific setting information along with the live view image, and not to perform the reducing processing on the specific setting information, even in the case of performing the reducing processing on the live view image.
In a similar field of endeavor, Watanabe teaches VR system that provide user information that does not significantly reduce the sense of immersion in the virtual space. Specifically, an information provision display 111 or 120, which provides the user with information, is displayed with the live image (fig. 6-7; ¶60-62, 73-76). In light of the teaching of Watanabe, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Watanabe’s teaching in Marks’ system because an artisan of ordinarily skill would recognize that this would result in information can be provided while reducing the loss of a sense of immersion in the virtual space.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19 – 20 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTOINETTE SPINKS whose telephone number is (571)270-3749. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am - 5pm 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, Twyler Haskins can be reached at 571-272-7406. 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.
/ANTOINETTE T SPINKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2639
Prosecution Insights