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 3/5/2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are pending in this Office Action.
Claims 1, 10, 12, and 19 are amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 10, and 19 have been considered but, are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8, 10, 13-15, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mullins (US 2018/0330531).
Regarding claims 1, 10, and 19, Mullins teaches: A method comprising:
at an electronic device with one or more processors, a non-transitory memory, and a display [viewing device 102 is a computing device with a display (par. 21-22, Fig. 1, 2, and 8)]:
displaying, on the display, a representation of a media object according to a first resource utilization value, wherein the first resource utilization value characterizes a utilization of a respective resource by the electronic device [the display may be a screen that displays what is captured with a camera of the viewing device 102. The viewing device 102 can present virtual content, such as objects, on the display of the viewing device 102 that the user 106 can view in addition to physical objects 104 that are in the line of sight of the user 106, utilizing various resources. The virtual content is presented according to rendering/display parameters, such as presentation size on the display (par. 16-17, 22-23 and 25, Fig. 6A, 8)]
while displaying the representation of the media object according to the first resource utilization value, obtaining a sensed depth utilizing a sensor, the sensed depth measured between a physical location in a physical environment at which the representation of the media object is presented and the electronic device [The viewing device 102 continuously updates the presentation of the virtual content based on depth, such as by rendering and re-rendering the virtual content utilizing resources according to the presentation size (par. 32 and 35, Fig. 6A-6C). The viewing device 102 includes sensors 202 including a depth sensor that measures depth between the viewing device and a physical object (par. 40, 53, and 69)]
associating the sensed depth with a first depth, the first depth characterizing a distance between the electronic device and the physical location at which the representation of the media object is presented [determining a depth of physical object 104 that indicates a distance of the physical object from viewing device 102. For example, a depth of the building 602 where virtual item 606 is presented (par. 68 and 93, Fig. 6A-6C)] and
changing the utilization of the respective resource from the first resource utilization value to a second resource utilization value based on determining a change from the first depth to a second depth [To create the appearance that virtual content is a part of the user's real world environment, the viewing device 102 can present the virtual content based on a depth of a physical object 104 corresponding the virtual content. For example, the viewing device 102 can adjust a presentation size of the virtual content based on the distance between the viewing device and the physical object 104 corresponding to the virtual content. The viewing device 102 continuously updates the presentation of the virtual content based on the depth and location of the physical object 104 in relation to the vehicle and/or the user 106 operating the vehicle by re-rendering the virtual content based on changes of the depth. For example, the updated presentation size may be larger or smaller than the initial presentation size (par. 32-35, 86, and 93-95, Fig. 6A-6C)].
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Mullins teaches the method of claim 1; Mullins further teaches: determining the change from the first depth to the second depth includes detecting a positional change of the electronic device [identify tracking data including GPS location of the viewing device 102 and distance to the physical object 104 and continuously updating the virtual content based on the depth and location (par. 28, 35, and 85)].
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Mullins teaches the method of claim 1; Mullins further teaches: the electronic device includes the sensor that provides depth data regarding the electronic device and the representation of the media object, and wherein the depth data indicates a plurality of distinct depths including the first depth and the second depth [The viewing device 102 includes sensors 202 including a depth sensor that measures depth between the viewing device and a physical object and determining a plurality of depths (par. 40, 53, 69, and 93-95, Fig. 6A-6C)].
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Mullins teaches the method of claim 1; Mullins further teaches: changing the utilization of the respective resource from the first resource utilization value to the second resource utilization value is further based on: determining that the first depth does not exceed a threshold; and determining that the second depth exceeds the threshold [comparing based on updated sensor data an updated distance of the physical object 104 to an initial distance (i.e., depth). When the updated distance is less than the initial distance (i.e., the physical object 104 is closer to the vehicle) the updated presentation size is larger than the initial presentation size and when the updated distance is greater than the initial distance (i.e., the physical object 104 is farther away from the vehicle) the updated presentation size is smaller than the initial presentation size (par. 81 and 85-86)].
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Mullins teaches the method of claim 1; Mullins further teaches: changing the utilization of the respective resource from the first resource utilization value to the second resource utilization value is further based on a change of display position of the representation of the media object [adjust one or more rendering/display parameters of the virtual content, such as presentation size of the object and also adjust the display position of the object (par. 49-52, Fig. 6A-6C)].
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.
Claims 2, 11, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mullins (US 2018/0330531) in view of Anand et al. (US 2020/0327350).
Regarding claims 2, 11, and 20, Mullins teaches the method of claim 1; Mullins does not explicitly disclose: changing the utilization of the respective resource from the first resource utilization value to the second resource utilization value includes ceasing to display the representation of the media object entirely.
Anand teaches: changing the utilization of the respective resource from the first resource utilization value to the second resource utilization value includes ceasing to display the representation of the media object entirely [filter objects from the image that are of less interest to reduce the amount of processing (par. 34, Fig. 2). When the object is within the threshold distance, it is not filtered, but when the object is no longer within the threshold distance, the object is filtered out of the image (par. 37-38, Fig. 3B and 5)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Mullins and Anand before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Mullins by incorporating the teaching of Anand for changing the utilization of the respective resource from the first resource utilization value to the second resource utilization value includes ceasing to display the representation of the media object entirely. The motivation for doing so would have been to significantly reduce the processing needed to encode the image (Anand – par. 34). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teaching of Mullins with Anand to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mullins (US 2018/0330531) in view of Yang et al. (US 2014/0071241).
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Mullins teaches the method of claim 1; Mullins does not explicitly disclose: changing the utilization of the respective resource from the first resource utilization value to the second resource utilization value includes changing a display resolution of the representation of the media object.
Yang teaches: changing the utilization of the respective resource from the first resource utilization value to the second resource utilization value includes changing a display resolution of the representation of the media object [increase or decrease resolution of objects in the image 630 based on the depth by controlling amount of processing resources (par. 84-87, Fig. 7)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Mullins and Yang before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Mullins by incorporating the teaching of Yang for changing the utilization of the respective resource from the first resource utilization value to the second resource utilization value includes changing a display resolution of the representation of the media object. The motivation for doing so would have been to selectively change image resolution and quality and to provide additional processing resources to portions of more interest (e.g., foreground portions) and less processing resources to other portions (e.g., background portions) (Yang – par. 85). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teaching of Mullins with Yang to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mullins (US 2018/0330531) in view of Yeoh et al. (US 2018/0275410).
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Mullins teaches the method of claim 1; Mullins does not explicitly disclose: changing the utilization of the respective resource from the first resource utilization value to the second resource utilization value is further based on a distance between the representation of the media object and a gaze position.
Yeoh teaches: changing the utilization of the respective resource from the first resource utilization value to the second resource utilization value is further based on a distance between the representation of the media object and a gaze position [The display system may determine a distance in three-dimensional space between content to be presented to the user and the user's fixation point, and may reduce a resolution of the content based on the determined distance including adjusting resources invested in rendering the content (par. 189-219, Fig. 10A-10C)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Mullins and Yeoh before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Mullins by incorporating the teaching of Yeoh for changing the utilization of the respective resource from the first resource utilization value to the second resource utilization value is further based on a distance between the representation of the media object and a gaze position. The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce the use of computational and energy resources by the display system, while preferably having low impact on the perceived image quality of the virtual content (Yeoh – par. 236). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teaching of Mullins with Yeoh to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mullins (US 2018/0330531) in view of Pharr (US 2017/0178395).
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Mullins teaches the method of claim 8; Mullins does not explicitly disclose: displaying the representation of the media object according to the first resource utilization value occurs when the display position is less than a threshold distance from the center of the display, and wherein changing the utilization of the respective resource from the first resource utilization value to the second resource utilization is based on the display position changing to being not less than the threshold distance from the center of the display.
Pharr teaches: displaying the representation of the media object according to the first resource utilization value occurs when the display position is less than a threshold distance from the center of the display, and wherein changing the utilization of the respective resource from the first resource utilization value to the second resource utilization is based on the display position changing to being not less than the threshold distance from the center of the display [When the pixels are within a threshold distance from the center of the display, such as in the center portion 204, a higher level of computational complexity may be used to generate the pixels. When the pixels are greater than the threshold distance from the center of the display, a progressively lower computational complexity may be used to generate pixels of groups that are progressively farther from a center 206 (par. 30-33, Fig. 2A)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Mullins and Pharr before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Mullins by incorporating the teaching of Pharr for displaying the representation of the media object according to the first resource utilization value occurs when the display position is less than a threshold distance from the center of the display, and wherein changing the utilization of the respective resource from the first resource utilization value to the second resource utilization is based on the display position changing to being not less than the threshold distance from the center of the display. The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce the overall computational workload (Pharr – par. 32). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teaching of Mullins with Pharr to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
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 Alexander Boyd whose telephone number is (571)270-0676. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am-5pm PST.
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, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached at 571-272-3982. 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.
/ALEXANDER BOYD/ Examiner, Art Unit 2424
/BENJAMIN R BRUCKART/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2424
Prosecution Insights