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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgement is made of receipt of Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO-1449) filed 06/28/2024 and 12/06/2024. An initialed copy is attached to this Office Action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “one virtual wall” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The limitation “one virtual wall” is not defined in the Specification nor the claim. For examination purpose, the limitation “one virtual wall” will not be examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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(s) 1-4, 6 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Osterhoutet al., (hereafter Osterhout) (US 2021/0173480 A1).
With respect to Claim 1, Osterhoutet discloses a wearable electronic device (Figure 21), comprising: a housing (2116, Figure 21); an external dial (control knob, ¶[0345]) rotatable (turning a control knob, ¶[0345]) relative to the housing (2116, Figure 21); an optical module (2132, Figure 21) secured within the housing (2116, Figure 21), the optical module (2132, Figure 21) comprising: an optical sensor (2130, Figure 21; see also ¶[0342]) configured to detect a facial feature (¶[0342]) of a user (¶[0342]) donning the wearable electronic device (Figure 21); and a display (waveguide, ¶[0295]) configured to project light (transmit light, ¶[0286]) to an eye of the user (eyepiece implies and eye of a user, ¶[0286]) when donning the wearable electronic device (Figure 21); a processor (2130, Figure 21) electrically coupled to the optical module (2132, Figure 21) and the dial (control knob, ¶[0345]), the processor (2130, Figure 21) configured to cause the display (waveguide, ¶[0295]) to present content including a level of virtual immersion (virtual screen producing video, ¶[0397]) based on at least one of a rotation or a position (physically turning a control knob, ¶[0345]) of the dial (control knob, ¶[0345]) relative to the housing (2116, Figure 21).
With respect to Claim 2, Osterhoutet further discloses wherein the level of virtual immersion (virtual screen producing video, ¶[0397]) includes an amount of virtual content (¶[0339]) generated by the processor (2130, Figure 21) and superimposed over video passthrough content (¶[0397]).
With respect to Claim 3, Osterhoutet further discloses wherein a rotation of the dial (control knob, ¶[0345]) is configured to change the amount (physically turning a control knob, ¶[0345]) of virtual content (electrically-adjustable lenses may be controlled by the controls of the glasses, ¶[0345]).
With respect to Claim 4, Osterhoutet further discloses wherein the facial feature (¶[0342]) includes a gaze direction of the eye (eye-gaze detection system, ¶[0455]).
With respect to Claim 6, Osterhoutet discloses a head-mountable electronic device (Figure 21), comprising: a housing (2116, Figure 21) defining an external surface; a dial (control knob, ¶[0345]) manipulatable relative to the housing (2116, Figure 21), the dial (control knob, ¶[0345]) defining the external surface; a display (waveguide, ¶[0295]) integrated with the housing (2116, Figure 21); an optical sensor (2130, Figure 21) disposed within the housing (2116, Figure 21), the optical sensor (2130, Figure 21) oriented inward to face a user (¶[0342]) when the head-mountable electronic device (Figure 21) is donned; a processor (2130, Figure 21) communicatively coupled to the dial (control knob, ¶[0345]), the display (waveguide, ¶[0295]), and the optical sensor (2130, Figure 21); and a memory device storing instructions that, when executed by the processor (2130, Figure 21), cause the processor (2130, Figure 21) to: receive an input in response to a manipulation (physically turning a control knob, ¶[0345]) of the dial (control knob, ¶[0345]); identify sensor data from the optical sensor (2130, Figure 21); and control user (¶[0342]) interface content presented by the display (waveguide, ¶[0295]) based on the input and the sensor data.
With respect to Claim 9, Osterhoutet further discloses wherein the sensor data includes eye-tracking data (¶[0454]).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 5, 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osterhoutet (US 2021/0173480 A1).
With respect to Claim 5, Embodiment One of Osterhoutet teaches the wearable electronic device of claim 1, wherein the optical sensor (2130, Figure 21) comprises: a visual camera (front portion of frame may be used to mount a camera, ¶[0295]).
Embodiment One of Osterhoutet fails to teach a light-emitting diode.
All Embodiments of Osterhoutet teach a wearable device but vary in versions.
Embodiment Two of Osterhoutet teaches a light-emitting diode (200 projector makes use of optical display technology such as an organic light emitting diode (OLED), ¶[0225]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Embodiment One of Osterhoutet having the wearable device with the teachings of Embodiment Two of Osterhoutet having the LED for the purpose of compact illumination.
With respect to Claim 7, Osterhoutet teaches the head-mountable electronic device of claim 6, wherein: the optical sensor (2130, Figure 21) is a first optical sensor and is positioned adjacent to the display (waveguide, ¶[0295]).
Osterhoutet fails to teach a second optical sensor; and the second optical sensor is positioned adjacent to the display.
Osterhoutet discloses the claimed invention except for the duplication of the optical sensor (first optical sensor). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to duplicate the first optical sensor, since it has been held that a mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to duplicate the first optical sensor and its disposition for the purpose of having a way for movement to be interpreted as a command, ¶[0416]. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) The court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
With respect to Claim 8, Osterhoutet teaches the head-mountable electronic device of claim 7, wherein: the first optical sensor (2130, Figure 21) is positioned adjacent a first side of the display (waveguide, ¶[0295]).
Osterhoutet fails to teach the second optical sensor is positioned adjacent to a second side of the display.
Osterhoutet discloses the claimed invention except for the duplication of the optical sensor (first optical sensor). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to duplicate the first optical sensor, since it has been held that a mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to duplicate the first optical sensor positioned adjacent to a second side of the display for the purpose of having a way for movement to be interpreted as a command, ¶[0416]. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) The court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
Claim(s) 10, 11 and 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osterhoutet (US 2021/0173480 A1) in further view of Burns et al., (hereafter Burns) (US 2016/0027215 A1).
With respect to Claim 10, Osterhoutet teaches the head-mountable electronic device of claim 6, wherein controlling the user (¶[0342]) interface content comprises changing the display (waveguide, ¶[0295]) and virtual content (¶[0339]).
Osterhoutet fails to teach how the display presents virtual content with respect to display real world content.
Osterhoutet teaches an interactive head-mounted eyepiece and Burns teaches a head-mountable device.
Burns teaches how the display (104, Figure 5) presents virtual content (mixed reality, ¶[0027]) with respect to display (¶[0027]) real world content (200, Figure 5).
Therefore it should have been obvious to on skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Osterhoutet having the head-mountable electronic device with the teachings of Burns having how the display presents virtual content with respect to display real world content for the purpose of supporting various functionalities, (¶[0027]).
With respect to Claim 11, Osterhoutet teaches the head-mountable electronic device of claim 10, wherein controlling the user (¶[0342]) interface content comprises causing the display (waveguide, ¶[0295]) to: adjust at least one of a size, orientation, or position (¶[0342]) of the virtual content (¶[0339]); remove at least a portion of the virtual content (¶[0339]); or increase an amount of the virtual content (¶[0339]).
Osterhoutet fails to teach real world content.
Osterhoutet teaches an interactive head-mounted eyepiece and Burns teaches a head-mountable device.
Burns teaches real world content (200, Figure 5).
Therefore it should have been obvious to on skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Osterhoutet having the head-mountable electronic device with the teachings of Burns having to display real world content for the purpose of supporting various functionalities, (¶[0027]).
With respect to Claim 13, Osterhoutet further teaches, as best understood, the head-mountable electronic device of claim 10, and a three-dimensional space (¶[0339]); and the virtual content (¶[0339]).
With respect to Claim 14, Osterhoutet teaches the head-mountable electronic device of claim 10; the three-dimensional space includes at least one wall visually bounding a portion of the virtual content (¶[0339]).
Osterhoutet fails to teach wherein: the real world content includes a three-dimensional space.
Osterhoutet teaches an interactive head-mounted eyepiece and Burns teaches a head-mountable device.
Burns teaches real world content (200, Figure 5).
Therefore it should have been obvious to on skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Osterhoutet having the head-mountable electronic device with the teachings of Burns having to display real world content for the purpose of supporting various functionalities, (¶[0027]).
With respect to Claim 15, Osterhoutet teaches a wearable electronic device (Figure 21), comprising: a display frame (waveguide, ¶[0295]); a dial (control knob, ¶[0345]) assembly carried by the display frame (waveguide, ¶[0295]), the dial (control knob, ¶[0345]) assembly comprising: a dial (control knob, ¶[0345]) accessible from an exterior (physically turning a control knob, ¶[0345]) of the display frame (waveguide, ¶[0295]); a shaft (physically turning a control knob, ¶[0345]) extending from the dial (control knob, ¶[0345]) into the display frame (waveguide, ¶[0295]), wherein the shaft (¶[0345]) and the dial (control knob, ¶[0345]) are configured to move together relative to the display frame (waveguide, ¶[0295]); and a dial (control knob, ¶[0345]) sensor positioned inside (¶[0416]) the display frame (waveguide, ¶[0295]), the dial (control knob, ¶[0345]) sensor configured to generate dial (control knob, ¶[0345]) sensor data (2130, Figure 21; see also ¶[0342]) in response to movement of the shaft; an internal display (2106, Figure 21) carried by the display frame (waveguide, ¶[0295]) and configured to present virtual content (¶[0339]); and an optical component (2152, Figure 21) positioned adjacent to the internal display (2106, Figure 21) and configured to generate facial data (¶[0342]); wherein the virtual content (¶[0339]) is configured to be changed based on the facial data (¶[0342]) and the dial (control knob, ¶[0345]) sensor data (2130, Figure 21; see also ¶[0342]).
Osterhoutet fails to teach real world content.
Osterhoutet teaches an interactive head-mounted eyepiece and Burns teaches a head-mountable device.
Burns teaches real world content (200, Figure 5).
Therefore it should have been obvious to on skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Osterhoutet having the head-mountable electronic device with the teachings of Burns having to display real world content and simultaneously present real world content and virtual content for the purpose of supporting various functionalities, (¶[0027]).
With respect to Claim 16, Osterhoutet further teaches wherein at least one of a rotation or a depression of the dial (control knob, ¶[0345]) is detectable by the dial (control knob, ¶[0345]) sensor to: manually control a change of the virtual content (¶[0339]); or modify a user (¶[0342]) interface setting that automatically changes the virtual content (¶[0339]).
With respect to Claim 17, Osterhoutet further teaches wherein the optical component (2152, Figure 21) comprises at least one of a camera (2152, Figure 21), a light emitting diode, or an infrared sensor.
With respect to Claim 18, Osterhoutet further teaches wherein the facial data (¶[0342]) comprises at least one of an eye measurement or a gaze estimation (eye-gaze detection system, ¶[0455]).
With respect to Claim 19, Osterhoutet teaches the wearable electronic device of claim 15, wherein the change of the virtual content (¶[0339]) comprises altering a level of virtual immersion (virtual screen producing video, ¶[0397]), the virtual immersion (virtual screen producing video, ¶[0397]) including a first amount of the virtual content (¶[0339]) and a second amount of the real world content.
Osterhoutet fails to teach real world content.
Osterhoutet teaches an interactive head-mounted eyepiece and Burns teaches a head-mountable device.
Burns teaches real world content (200, Figure 5).
Therefore it should have been obvious to on skilled in the art before the effective date of the invention to modify the teachings of Osterhoutet having the head-mountable electronic device with the teachings of Burns having to display real world content for the purpose of supporting various functionalities, (¶[0027]).
With respect to Claim 20, Osterhoutet further teaches wherein the change of the virtual content (¶[0339]) comprises changing a detection setting for the optical component (2152, Figure 21).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is 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.
With respect to Claim 12, the prior art fails to teach “a first immersion limit of 0 % of the virtual content and 100% of the real world content; and a second immersion limit of 100 % of the virtual content and 0% of the real world content.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAMARA Y WASHINGTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3887. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur 730-530 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, Stephone Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
/TYW/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872