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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the present application, with claims 1, 14, and 19 being independent. Claims 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, and 20 have been amended.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 08 April 2024, 30 December 2024, and 02 October 2026 have been considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-16, filed 29 July 2026, with respect to the objections to the claims, along with accompanying amendments received on the same date, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to claim 6 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 11, filed 29 July 2026, with respect to the objections to the claims, along with accompanying amendments received on the same date, have been fully considered and are partially persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph rejection of claims 2, 4, 6, 9, 10-11, 13, 15, 17, and 20 has been maintained and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph rejection of claims 8, 11, and 19 has been withdrawn.
With respect to claims 2, 15, and 17, given the plain and ordinary meaning of the words themselves when afforded their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the corresponding disclosure, the scope of the claimed limitation remains unclear. For instance, it is not immediately clear as to how claim 2 fits with the subject matter of claim 1. Claim 1 calls for the second displaying size to be substantially the same as the first displaying size, whereas claim 2 calls for a rendering size of the content at the second depth to be bigger than the first size. Is the size at the second depth the same as the first depth (as called for in claim 1) or is it larger than the first size (as called for in claim 2)? Is applicant attempting to claim different content or is the size of the object different than the displaying size? If so, is there a specific algorithm that reduces the size to the first displaying size? The disclosure in paragraph 87 sets forth the example of enlarging the content (see fig. 4A) and paragraph 88 (fig. 4B) sets forth the example of maintaining the display size. For instance, paragraph 88 sets forth “In contrast, according to some embodiments of the disclosure, Fig. 4B illustrates an example of changing the area (or depth) in which the content 410 is displayed based on a time duration of displaying the content 410 and changing the size of the content 410 in the virtual environment based on the changed area (or depth), in order to protect eyesight of the user 400, in accordance with embodiments of the present disclosure”. Paragraph 90 does discuss changing the position and size of the content to change the focal length within a specified range. What is the difference between the displaying size and the rendering size? Taking the disclosure into account, it remains unclear as to how, as currently claimed claim 2 fits within claim 1. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph rejections of claims 2, 15, and 17 has been maintained.
With respect to claims 4, 6, 9, 10, 17, given the plain and ordinary meaning of the words themselves when afforded their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the corresponding disclosure, the scope of the claimed limitation remains unclear. For instance, it is not immediately clear as to what is meant by adjusting the focal length of the user. Is this merely displaying the content at a different depth or something else. For instance, the function set forth in claim 4 that is activated/deactivated to adjust the focal length of the user, how is the function adjusting the focal length of the user? Is it with respect to an initial focal length, etc? Does, for instance, changing the position and a rendering size of the content to adjust the focal length of a user? Also, how does rendering size fit with display size set forth in claim 1? The examiner respectfully requests the applicant clarify the scope of adjusting the focal length of the user with respect to the claims. How does adjusting a position (e.g., a lateral position) and a rendering size adjust the focal length of the user? Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph rejections of claims 4, 6, 9, 10, 17 has been maintained.
With respect to claim 6, given the plain and ordinary meaning of the words themselves when afforded their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the corresponding disclosure, the scope of the claimed limitation remains unclear. Applicant’s arguments have clarified the scope of capability information (represents a range of depths within which content displayed in the 3D environment is identified by the user) and the play speed (related to the type of content). However, it remains unclear as to how the focal length of the user is adjusted and if the adjustment is based on or if it is part of the action for the wearable device to portion. How does capability information identify the reference time? Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph rejection of claim 6 has been maintained.
With respect to claims 6, 9, and 10, given the plain and ordinary meaning of the words themselves when afforded their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the corresponding disclosure, the scope of the claimed limitation remains unclear. For instance, it is not immediately clear as to how the capability information is about adjusting a focal length of the user, wherein the capability information comprises a range of the focal length(s) and represents a range of depths within which content displayed in the environment is identified by the user. Is the range of focal lengths related to the user? Is it focal lengths corresponding to the different depths at which the user can identify displayed content? While the user will have a range of focal lengths at which they can view different objects at different depths, it is not clear as currently drafted if that is what the applicant is attempt to claim. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph rejection of claims 6, 9, and 10has been maintained.
With respect to claims 8, 11, and 19, applicant’s amendment and remarks have clarified the scope of the claimed limitation. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph rejection of claims 8 has been withdrawn.
With respect to claim 13, given the plain and ordinary meaning of the words themselves when afforded their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the corresponding disclosure, the scope of the claimed limitation remains unclear. For instance, it is not immediately clear as to how claim 13 fits within the scope of claim 1. As set forth in the claim and by the applicant on page 15 of their remarks, claim 13 does the adjustment based on the gaze time. If the gaze time is greater than or equal to the reference gaze time while the content is being displayed, the content is displayed having the second display size. However, claim 1 does the adjustment based on the display time not gaze time. Does applicant intend for the gaze time to replace the display time set forth in claim 1 or that the gaze time is in addition to display time? If it is the later, then how is the criteria based on both of the criteria. If it is the former, then it is unclear as to how the limitation fits within the scope of claim 1. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph rejection of claim 13 has been maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 11, filed 29 July 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 7, 12, 14-16, 18, 19, and 20, have been fully considered and are not persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 7, 12, 14-16, 18, 19, and 20 has been maintained.
Applicant argues the cited references fail to disclose or suggest the claimed elements of the independent claims. Applicant’s arguments appear to be directed at the references individually as opposed to what the combination teaches as a whole. For instance, applicant argues that Foruntanpour does not teach a feature of changing the depth of content based on display time, a feature of maintaining substantially the same displaying size when changing depth in claim. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Forutanpour teaches a head mounted display may be part of an augmented reality system, such as augmented reality glasses, may be used to superimpose information over a scene being viewed by a user, see for instance, paragraph 23. Display module 170 may serve as the output device for face superimposition module to present the virtual objects to the user. Display module 170 may be a head mounted display (HMD). For instance, display module 170 may include a projector that either projects light directly into one or both eyes of the user or projects the light onto a reflective surface that the user views. In some embodiments, the user wears glasses (or a single lens) onto which light is projected by the display module”, see for instance, paragraph 45. Virtual objects having a first size may be displayed within the scene on the HMD/glasses – see for instance, paragraph 31, 45, 63, and 72. The virtual object may be displayed for a user defined/predetermined/threshold amount of time at a first location and then move to a second location within the scene, see for instance, paragraphs 6, 31, 63, and 72.
Hyun teaches that an augmented reality scene has depth and that objects moved to different depths in a scene can have their size maintained, see for instance, paragraphs 10-15, 18-21, 39 and 41. The electronic device can be a wearable device, such as an HMD, see for instance, paragraph 44.
Edwin teaches that virtual content rendered from the perspective of a render camera associated with the viewer's left eye may be presented to the user through an eyepiece on the left side of a head-mounted display (e.g., head-mounted unit 602), and that virtual content rendered from the perspective of a render camera associated with the user's right eye may be presented to the user through an eyepiece on the right side of such a head-mounted display, see for instance, paragraph 219.
That is, Forutanpour teaches displaying a first content having a first displaying size ont eh first display and the second display, such that the content is perceived as being positioned at a first depth. And moving the virtual object to a second location in the scene based on a being displayed for more threshold time at a first location. Huyn in combination with Forutanpour teaches that an HMD is a wearable device and for the objects to be displayed at different depths and for the size of the object to be maintained when adjusted to a new depth. The addition of Edwin into the combination of Forutanpour and Huyn explicitly teaches the AR glasses/HMDS have a first display positioned with respect to a right eye and a second display positioned with respect to a left eye.
That is the combination of Foruntanpour, Huyn, and Edwin teach the broadest reasonable interpretation of claims 1, 14, and 19.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. 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).
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 appears as though it should recite “wherein the capability information comprises a range of focal engths”, since the claim currently recites “length length” and a range of focal length, should be plural since there are a range of focal lengths.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 2, 15, and 20 recite “wherein a rendering size of the content...”, whereas claim 1 recites “content having a first displaying size”. The originally filed disclosure does not appear to describe both displaying content having a first displaying size and a second displaying size and a rendering size of the content having a first size at the first depth and a second size at the second depth. The examiner respectfully requests the applicant clarify as to where support can be found for the newly amended claims.
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 2, 4, 6, 9, 10, 13, 15, 17, and 20 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.
With respect to claim 2, given the plain and ordinary meaning of the words themselves when afforded their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the corresponding disclosure, the scope of the claimed limitation is unclear. For instance, it is not immediately clear as to how claim 2 fits with the subject matter of claim 1. Claim 1 calls for the second displaying size to be substantially the same as the first displaying size, whereas claim 2 calls for a rendering size of the content at the second depth to be bigger than the first size. Is the size at the second depth the same as the first depth (as called for in claim 1) or is it larger than the first size (as called for in claim 2)? Is applicant attempting to claim different content or is the size of the object different than the displaying size? If so, is there a specific algorithm that reduces the size to the first displaying size? The disclosure in paragraph 87 sets forth the example of enlarging the content (see fig. 4A) and paragraph 88 (fig. 4B) sets forth the example of maintaining the display size. For instance, paragraph 88 sets forth “In contrast, according to some embodiments of the disclosure, Fig. 4B illustrates an example of changing the area (or depth) in which the content 410 is displayed based on a time duration of displaying the content 410 and changing the size of the content 410 in the virtual environment based on the changed area (or depth), in order to protect eyesight of the user 400, in accordance with embodiments of the present disclosure”. Paragraph 90 does discuss changing the position and size of the content to change the focal length within a specified range. What is the difference between the displaying size and the rendering size? Taking the disclosure into account, it remains unclear as to how, as currently claimed claim 2 fits within claim 1. The examiner respectfully requests the applicant clarify the scope of the claimed limitation.
Claims 15 and 20 recite substantially similar limitations as to that of claim 2 and are accordingly also rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that set forth with respect to claim 2.
With respect to claims 4, 6, 9, 10, 17, given the plain and ordinary meaning of the words themselves when afforded their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the corresponding disclosure, the scope of the claimed limitation is unclear. For instance, it is not immediately clear as to what is meant by adjusting the focal length of the user. Is this merely displaying the content at a different depth or something else. For instance, the function set forth in claim 4 that is activated/deactivated to adjust the focal length of the user, how is the function adjusting the focal length of the user? Is it with respect to an initial focal length, etc? Does, for instance, changing the position and a rendering size of the content to adjust the focal length of a user? Also, how does rendering size fit with display size set forth in claim 1? The examiner respectfully requests the applicant clarify the scope of adjusting the focal length of the user with respect to the claims. How does adjusting a position (e.g., a lateral position) and a rendering size adjust the focal length of the user? The examiner respectfully requests the applicant clarify the scope of adjusting the focal length of the user with respect to the claims. Claims depending thereon do not appear to clarify the scope of the claimed limitation and are accordingly also rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that set forth with respect to the claims from which they depend.
With respect to claim 6, given the plain and ordinary meaning of the words themselves when afforded their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the corresponding disclosure, the scope of the claimed limitation is unclear. For instance, it is not immediately clear as to how a) the focal length of the user is adjusted, is the capability information for adjusting the focal length of the user?, b) if the adjustment is part of the based on or if it is part of the action for the wearable device to portion. The examiner respectfully requests the applicant clarify the scope of the claimed limitation.
With respect to claims 6, 9, and 10, given the plain and ordinary meaning of the words themselves when afforded their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the corresponding disclosure, the scope of the claimed limitation is unclear. For instance, it is not immediately clear as to what is meant by capability information about adjusting a focal length of the user, wherein the capability information comprises a range of the focal length(s) and represents a range of depths within which content displayed in the environment is identified by the user. Is the range of focal lengths related to the user? Is it focal lengths corresponding to the different depths at which the user can identify displayed content? While the user will have a range of focal lengths at which they can view different objects at different depths, it is not clear as currently drafted if that is what the applicant is attempt to claim. The examiner respectfully requests the applicant clarify the scope of the claimed limitation.
With respect to claim 13, given the plain and ordinary meaning of the words themselves when afforded their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the corresponding disclosure, the scope of the claimed limitation is unclear. For instance, it is not immediately clear as to how claim 13 fits within the scope of claim 1. Claim 13 does the adjustment based on the gaze time, while claim 1 does the adjustment based on the display time. The examiner respectfully requests the applicant clarify the scope of the claimed limitation.
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) 1-3, 5, 7, 12, 14-16, 18, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forutanpour et al. (US PG Publication 2014/0078175) in view of Hyun et al. (Korean Publication 10-2021-0083016, citations are to the English translation) in further view of Edwin et al. (US PG Publication 2019/0222830).
Regarding claim 1, Forutanpour teaches a wearable device (see for instance, paragraph 23) comprising:
a first display positioned with respect to a left eye of a user (A head mounted display may be part of an augmented reality system, such as augmented reality glasses, may be used to superimpose information over a scene being viewed by a user, see for instance, paragraph 23. Display module 170 may serve as the output device for face superimposition module to present the virtual objects to the user. Display module 170 may be a head mounted display (HMD). For instance, display module 170 may include a projector that either projects light directly into one or both eyes of the user or projects the light onto a reflective surface that the user views. In some embodiments, the user wears glasses (or a single lens) onto which light is projected by the display module”, see for instance, paragraph 45);
a second display positioned with respect to a right eye of the user (A head mounted display may be part of an augmented reality system, such as augmented reality glasses, may be used to superimpose information over a scene being viewed by a user, see for instance, paragraph 23. Display module 170 may serve as the output device for face superimposition module to present the virtual objects to the user. Display module 170 may be a head mounted display (HMD). For instance, display module 170 may include a projector that either projects light directly into one or both eyes of the user or projects the light onto a reflective surface that the user views. In some embodiments, the user wears glasses (or a single lens) onto which light is projected by the display module”, see for instance, paragraph 45);
at least one processor comprising processing circuitry; and memory, comprising one or more storage mediums, storing instructions, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the wearable device (see for instance, paragraphs 110-118) to:
display a content having a first displaying size on the first display and the second display, such that the content is perceived in a 3D virtual environment as being positioned at a first depth (Virtual objects having a first size may be displayed within the scene on the HMD/glasses – see for instance, paragraph 31, 45, 63, and 72), and
in a case that the content is displayed for a time period greater than or equal to a reference time, display the content as a second displaying size on the first display and the second display, which is substantially same as the first displaying size, such that the content is perceived in the 3D virtual environment as being positioned at a second depth greater than the first depth (The virtual object may be displayed for a user defined/predetermined/threshold amount of time at a first location and then move to a second location within the scene, see for instance, paragraphs 6, 31, 63, and 72).
While Forutanpour teaches displaying the object in the scene, Forutanpour does not appear to teach that the content is displayed at a first or second depth. In addition, Forutanpour does not teach that the object at the second depth greater than the first depth is displayed at substantially the same size as the first displaying size.
In the same art of augmented reality, Hyun teaches that an augmented reality scene has depth and that objects moved to different depths in a scene can have their size maintained, see for instance, paragraphs 10-15, 18-21, 39 and 41. The electronic device can be a wearable device, such as an HMD, see for instance, paragraph 44.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Forutanpour and Hyun in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate depth information as taught by Hyun into Forutanpour’s augmented reality display system, as having an augmented reality scene with depth information and displaying objects at different depth, such as described by Hyun was well known at the time of the effective filing date invention and would have yielded predictable results in combination with Forutanpour.
The modification of Forutanpour with Hyun would have explicitly allowed the objects to be displayed at different depths and for the size of the object to be maintained when adjusted to a new depth.
The motivation for combining Forutanpour with Hyun would have been to improve the user experience, enhance functionality and use known techniques for augmented reality, namely that objects are displayed at a given depth.
While Forutanpour in view of Hyun teach the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1, is being brought in to explicitly teach that AR glasses/HMDS have a first display positioned with respect to a right eye and a second display positioned with respect to a left eye.
In the same art of augmented reality, Edwin teaches that virtual content rendered from the perspective of a render camera associated with the viewer's left eye may be presented to the user through an eyepiece on the left side of a head-mounted display (e.g., head-mounted unit 602), and that virtual content rendered from the perspective of a render camera associated with the user's right eye may be presented to the user through an eyepiece on the right side of such a head-mounted display, see for instance, paragraph 219.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Forutanpour, Hyun, and Edwin in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate augmented reality as taught by Edwin into Forutanpour’s augmented reality display system, as having an a head mounted display in augmented reality that has a display for the right eye and a display for the left eye, such as described by Edwin was well known at the time of the effective filing date invention and would have yielded predictable results in combination with Forutanpour and Hyun.
The modification of Forutanpour and Hyun with Edwin would have explicitly allowed the AR glasses/HMDS have a first display positioned with respect to a right eye and a second display positioned with respect to a left eye.
The motivation for combining Forutanpour and Hyun with Edwin would have been to improve the user experience, enhance functionality and use known techniques for augmented reality, namely that HMDs have displays for both eyes.
Regarding claim 2, Forutanpour in view of Hyun in further view of Edwin teach the wearable device of claim 1 and further teach wherein a rendering size of the content in the 3D virtual environment at the first depth in the 3D virtual environment is a first size, and wherein the rendering size of the content in the 3D virtual environment at the second depth in the 3D virtual environment is a second size bigger than the first size, and wherein the rendering size of the content in the 3D virtual environment is proportional to a depth o the content in the 3D virtual environment of the wearable device (see for instance, Forutanpour, paragraphs 31, 45, 63, and 72 and Hyun, paragraphs 10-15, 18-21, 39, 81 and fig. 4b). The motivation to combine Forutanpour, Hyun, and Edwin is the same as that which was set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Forutanpour in view of Hyun in further view of Edwin teach the wearable device of claim 1 and further teach wherein the first depth represents a first position in the 3D virtual environment in which a focal length from the left eye and the right eye of the user to the content corresponds to a first length, and wherein the second depth represents a second position in the 3D virtual environment in which the focal length corresponds to a second length that is longer than the first length (see for instance, Hyun, paragraphs 10-15, 18-21, 39, 81 and fig. 4b and Edwin, paragraphs 200 and 293).
Regarding claim 5, Forutanpour in view of Hyun in further view of Edwin teach the wearable device of claim 1 and further teach wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, further cause the wearable device to: obtain, from the user, an input for displaying the content; and based on the input, display the content having the first displaying size on the first display and the second display in response to the input, and wherein the first depth is designated by the user (see for instance, Forutanpour, paragraphs40-45, and 55 ). The motivation to combine Forutanpour, Hyun, and Edwin is the same as that which was set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Forutanpour in view of Hyun in further view of Edwin teach the wearable device of claim 1 and further teach wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, further cause the wearable device to: based on a first image and a second image, display, on the first display and the second display, the content having the first displaying size, wherein the first image is displayed in a first displaying area having the first displaying size of the first display, and wherein the second image is displayed in a second displaying area having the first displaying size of the second display, and based on a third image and a fourth image, display, on the first display and the second display, the content having the second displaying size, wherein the third image is displayed in a third displaying area having the second displaying size of the first display, and wherein the fourth image is displayed in a fourth displaying area having the second displaying size of the second display (The virtual object may be displayed for a user defined/predetermined/threshold amount of time at a first location and then move to a second location within the scene, see for instance, Forutanpour paragraphs 6, 31, 63, and 72. The images can be displayed on the right lens and the left eye lens and be displayed at different depths, see for instance, Hyun, paragraphs 10-15, 18-21, 39, 81 and fig. 4b and Edwin, paragraphs 200, 219 and 293). The motivation to combine Forutanpour, Hyun, and Edwin is the same as that which was set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, Forutanpour in view of Hyun in further view of Edwin teach the wearable device of claim 1 and further teach wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, further cause the wearable device to: identify whether the content is a floated visual object on the first display and the second display; and based on identifying that the content is the floated visual object, change a position of the content in the 3D virtual environment from the first depth to the second depth (The virtual object may be displayed for a user defined/predetermined/threshold amount of time at a first location and then move to a second location within the scene, see for instance, Forutanpour paragraphs 6, 31, 63, and 72. The images can be displayed on the right lens and the left eye lens and be displayed at different depths, see for instance, Hyun, paragraphs 10-15, 18-21, 39, 81 and fig. 4b and Edwin, paragraphs 200, 219 and 293). The motivation to combine Forutanpour, Hyun, and Edwin is the same as that which was set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claims 14 and 19, claims 14 and 19 recite substantially similar subject matter as that which is set forth in claim 1 (claim 14 is a method claim and claim 19 is a CRM claim corresponding to the wearable device claim 1), and are accordingly also rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that set forth with respect to claim 1. In addition, Forutanpour in view of Hyun in further view of Edwin teach a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, when individually or collectively executed by at least one processor of a wearable device comprising a first display positioned with respect to a left eye of a user and a second display positioned with respect to a right eye of the user, stores one or more programs including instructions that cause to perform different actions (see for instance, Forutanpour, paragraph 8, and Edwin, paragraphs 219, 354, and 359).
Regarding claims 15 and 20, claims 15 and 20 recite substantially similar subject matter as that which is set forth in claim 2 (claim 15 is a method claim and claim 20 is a CRM claim corresponding to the wearable device claim 2), and are accordingly also rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that set forth with respect to claim 2.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 recites substantially similar subject matter as that which is set forth in claim 3 (claim 16 is a method claim corresponding to the wearable device claim 3), and is accordingly also rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that set forth with respect to claim 3.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 recites substantially similar subject matter as that which is set forth in claim 5 (claim 18 is a method claim corresponding to the wearable device claim 5), and is accordingly also rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that set forth with respect to claim 5.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forutanpour et al. (US PG Publication 2014/0078175) in view of Hyun et al. (Korean Publication 10-2021-0083016, citations are to the English translation) in further view of Edwin et al. (US PG Publication 2019/0222830), as applied to claim 7 above, in further view of DiVerdi et al. (US PG Publication 2019/0295280).
Regarding claim 8, Forutanpour in view of Hyun in further view of Edwin teach the wearable device of claim 1, but do not appear to mention the word disparity and thus do not teach wherein a first difference between a first coordinate for a designated position of the first image and a second coordinate for the designated position of the second image is greater than a second difference between a third coordinate for the designated position of the third image and a fourth coordinate for the designated position of the fourth image, wherein the first difference corresponds to a first disparity between a left-eye image and a right-eye image for content having the first depth, and wherein the second difference corresponds to a second disparity between a left-eye image and a right-eye image for content having the second depth.
In the same art of augmented reality, DiVerdi teaches that input video can be analyzed to identify feature points, the depth conflict reduction system can further determine depths of the identified feature points, see for instance, paragraph 39 . The term “depth” refers to a perceived distance from a user's viewing position... a user can perceive video content by way of a user client device that presents video content where some objects appear smaller and farther away in the frame than others that appear closer, see for instance, paragraph 39. “More specifically, depth can refer to screen disparity that creates the sense of depth in the view of a user. As used herein, the term “screen disparity” refers to a difference between a left view of a stereoscopic image (e.g., a video frame) and a right view of the same stereoscopic image. Indeed, the depth conflict reduction system can present stereoscopic video content to a user where the left view (e.g., the view of the user as seen through the user's left eye or as associated with a left camera) of the video content has a slightly different perspective than the right view (e.g., the view of the user as seen through the user's right eye or as associated with a right camera) of the video content. This difference in perspective can be referred to as a screen disparity, which results in the user perceiving depth within the video content. In addition, screen disparity can be represented by a distance, such as a number of pixels, inches, centimeters, etc., between the position of a feature point within a left view and a position of the same feature point within a right view”, see for instance, paragraph 39. For example, in cases where a first user interface element is in conflict with video objects, and where a second user interface element is not, the depth conflict reduction system can implement the techniques described above to adjust the frustums associated with the first user interface element while refraining from adjusting frustum associated with the second user interface element, see for instance, paragraph 87.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Forutanpour, Hyun, Edwin, and DiVerdi in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate augmented reality as taught by DiVerdi into Forutanpour’s augmented reality display system, as having an a head mounted display in augmented reality that has a display for the right eye and a display for the left eye and determining a disparity between the views, such as described by DiVerdi was well known at the time of the effective filing date invention and would have yielded predictable results in combination with Forutanpour, Hyun, and Edwin.
The modification of Forutanpour, Hyun, and Edwin with DiVerdi would have allowed a first difference between a first coordinate for a designated position of the first image and a second coordinate for the designated position of the second image is greater than a second difference between a third coordinate for the designated position of the third image and a fourth coordinate for the designated position of the fourth image, wherein the first difference corresponds to a first disparity between a left-eye image and a right-eye image for content having the first depth, and wherein the second difference corresponds to a second disparity between a left-eye image and a right-eye image for content having the second depth.
The motivation for combining Forutanpour, Hyun, and Edwin with DiVerdi would have been to improve the user experience, enhance functionality and use known techniques for augmented reality, namely determining depth for an object based on disparity.
Allowable Subject Matter
Since no prior art is being applied to the claims, claims 4, 6, 10-11, 13, and 17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J COBB whose telephone number is (571)270-3875. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 11am - 7pm ET.
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, Alicia Harrington can be reached at 571-272-2330. 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.
/MICHAEL J COBB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2615
