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 .
Claim Rejection Notes
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
The applicant alleges that Peterka does not teach “responsive to the latency, switching presentation of the XR computer simulation to a two dimensional (2D) presentation”. However, the citation of Peterka, 0034, clearly relates system latency to converting a display to 2D.
The examiner recognizes that the applicant was attempting a “gotcha” to the examiner. This method may sometimes work, but never actually advances prosecution, which is the goal of at least the office.
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, 2, 6, 7, 13, 14, 16, 19, and 20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Peterka et al. (US 20080143895 A1, published: 6/19/2008).
Claim 1: Peterka teaches a method comprising: presenting an extended reality (XR) computer simulation on an XR display (autostereoscopic parallax virtual reality system comprising a liquid crystal display [Peterka, 0014]); identifying a latency associated with presenting the XR computer simulation (the purpose of rapid steering mode is to relax the sensitivity of parallax barrier AS VR to overall system latency [Peterka, 0087]); and responsive to the latency, switching presentation of the XR computer simulation to a two dimensional (2D) presentation (example dynamic barrier systems address many shortcomings of typical static parallax barrier virtual reality display systems, by providing for an expanded view distance working range, reduced sensitivity to system latency during head movement, eliminated physical barrier registration, the ability to disable the barrier and convert the display to 2D, and the affordance of two independently tracked users, each with their own AS perspective of the virtual world [Peterka, 0034]).
Claims 13 and 19, sharing similar elements to claim 1, are likewise rejected.
Claim 2: Peterka teaches the method of Claim 1. Peterka further teaches comprising switching presentation of the XR computer simulation to the 2D presentation and presenting the 2D presentation on the XR display (example dynamic barrier systems address many shortcomings of typical static parallax barrier virtual reality display systems, by providing for an expanded view distance working range, reduced sensitivity to system latency during head movement, eliminated physical barrier registration, the ability to disable the barrier and convert the display to 2D, and the affordance of two independently tracked users, each with their own AS perspective of the virtual world [Peterka, 0034]).
Claim 6: Peterka teaches the method of Claim 1. Peterka further teaches comprising switching presentation of the XR computer simulation to the 2D presentation responsive to the latency at least equaling a first latency (example dynamic barrier systems address many shortcomings of typical static parallax barrier virtual reality display systems, by providing for an expanded view distance working range, reduced sensitivity to system latency during head movement, eliminated physical barrier registration, the ability to disable the barrier and convert the display to 2D, and the affordance of two independently tracked users, each with their own AS perspective of the virtual world [Peterka, 0034]).
Claim 16, having similar elements to claim 6, is likewise rejected.
Claim 7: Peterka teaches the method of Claim 6. Peterka further teaches comprising presenting a prompt to switch presentation of the computer simulation back to XR responsive to the latency reducing below the first latency ([Peterka, 0034]).
Claim 14: Peterka teaches the processor system of Claim 13, wherein the display on which the 2D video is rendered comprises the display on which the XR computer game was rendered (Examiner's Note: video displays can inherently display anything sourced to them: DVD players, cable boxes, video game systems, and computers).
Claim 20: Peterka teaches the device of Claim 19. Peterka further teaches comprising the at least one processor system (one or more processor based devices [0031]).
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) 3-5 and 15, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterka et al. (US 20080143895 A1, published: 6/19/2008), in view of Berliner et al. (US 20230139626 A1, published: 5/4/2023).
Claim 3: Peterka teaches the method of Claim 1. Peterka does not teach comprising switching presentation of the XR computer simulation to the 2D presentation and presenting the 2D presentation on a display other than the XR display.
However, Berliner teaches comprising switching presentation of the XR computer simulation to the 2D presentation and presenting the 2D presentation on a display other than the XR display (the specific virtual object (e.g., displayed inside the virtual display) may be a simplified representation of the virtual object (e.g., such as an icon or 2D drawing) and the version of the specific virtual object displayed external to the virtual display may include additional details and resolution (e.g., based on one or more high resolution images acquired of a physical object representative of the icon or 2D drawing) [Berliner, 0296]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the invention was filed, to modify the extended reality computer simulation display invention of Peterka to include the external display feature of Berliner.
One would have been motivated to make this modification to enable the use of a second, user preferred, display.
Claim 15, having similar elements to claim 3, is likewise rejected.
Claim 4: The combination of Peterka of Berliner, teaches the method of Claim 3. Berliner further teaches wherein the display other than the XR display comprises a display of a mobile computing device (a virtual tablet screen or a virtual smartphone screen [Berliner, 0083]).
Claim 5: The combination of Peterka of Berliner, teaches the method of Claim 3. Berliner further teaches wherein the display other than the XR display comprises a movie theater display in a virtual environment (the melding may include a process of combining the rendered virtual object from the second perspective with the second image data (for example, similar to a “green screen” or “chroma key” effect in television or movies where one image is layered or composited with a second image) [Berliner, 0458]).
Claim(s) 8 and 17, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterka et al. (US 20080143895 A1, published: 6/19/2008), in view of Ramaswamy et al. (US 20080318672 A1, published: 12/25/2008).
Claim 8: Peterka teaches the method of Claim 1. Peterka does not teach comprising, responsive to the latency, switching from motion controls on a game controller to using dual-stick for navigation.
However, Ramaswamy teaches comprising, responsive to the latency, switching from motion controls on a game controller to using dual-stick for navigation (each controller 106, 108, 110 includes one or more buttons 112, switches, and/or joysticks 114 to allow a user to control game play, such as directional game character motion via the joystick [Ramaswamy, 0011]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the invention was filed, to modify the extended reality computer simulation display invention of Peterka to include the multiple control schemes feature of Ramaswamy.
One would have been motivated to make this modification so that users can use either motion or traditional game controller controls, based on preference.
Claim 17, having similar elements to claim 8, is likewise rejected.
Claim(s) 9, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterka et al. (US 20080143895 A1, published: 6/19/2008), in view of Chu et al. (US 20170257609 A1, published: 9/7/2017).
Claim 9: Peterka teaches the method of Claim 1. Peterka does not teach comprising, responsive to the latency, automatically pausing the computer simulation.
However, Chu teaches comprising, responsive to the latency, automatically pausing the computer simulation (without a buffer, a period of high latency would result in a pause in playback [Chu, 0003]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the invention was filed, to modify the extended reality computer simulation display invention of Peterka to include the pause on latency feature of Chu.
One would have been motivated to make this modification in order to buffer video and pause when latency would lead to choppy playback.
Claim(s) 10, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterka et al. (US 20080143895 A1, published: 6/19/2008), in view of Pease et al. (US 20230298281 A1, published: 9/21/2023).
Claim 10: Peterka teaches the method of Claim 1. Peterka does not teach comprising presenting a pre-loaded theater environment in the 2D presentation.
However, Pease teaches comprising presenting a pre-loaded theater environment in the 2D presentation (the XR setting may include a virtual “movie theater” room in order to enhance the viewing experience of the user viewing content on the virtual display [Pease, 0032, FIG. 4B]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the invention was filed, to modify the extended reality computer simulation display invention of Peterka to include the virtual theatre feature of Pease.
One would have been motivated to make this modification to give users the illusion of sitting in a movie theater when playing back video or playing video games. Such would give the illusion of viewing a much bigger screen.
Claim(s) 11, 12 and 18, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterka et al. (US 20080143895 A1, published: 6/19/2008), in view of Bean et al. (US 20240331716 A1, published: 10/3/2024).
Claim 11: Peterka teaches the method of Claim 1. Peterka does not teach comprising, responsive to the latency, switching control of a player character to at least one machine learning (ML) model.
However, Bean teaches comprising, responsive to the latency, switching control of a player character to at least one machine learning (ML) model (the processor(s) 1610 and/or the speech and music CODEC 1608 also include low-latency noise suppression components, such as the analysis filter bank 122, the machine-learning model(s) 126, the time-domain filter designer 130, and the time-domain filter(s) 112 [Pease, 0101]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the invention was filed, to modify the extended reality computer simulation display invention of Peterka to include the machine learning and pass-through feature of Bean.
One would have been motivated to make this modification to improve playback via artificial intelligence, and to provide users of a real-life view of their surrounding environment, while wearing a VR headset.
Claim 12: Peterka teaches the method of Claim 1. Peterka does not teach comprising, responsive to the latency, enabling video pass-through of real world images on the XR display.
However, Bean teaches comprising, responsive to the latency, enabling video pass-through of real world images on the XR display (passthrough mode… latency [Pease, 0089]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the invention was filed, to modify the extended reality computer simulation display invention of Peterka to include the machine learning and pass-through feature of Bean.
One would have been motivated to make this modification to improve playback via artificial intelligence, and to provide users of a real-life view of their surrounding environment, while wearing a VR headset.
Claim 18, having similar elements to claim 12, is likewise rejected.
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 SETH A SILVERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9783. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur, 8AM-4PM MST.
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, Adam Queler can be reached at (571)272-4140. 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.
/Seth A Silverman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Prosecution Insights