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 Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 17 describes “A computer readable storage medium”.
Further, Applicant's specification fails to explicitly define the scope of A computer readable storage medium. Thus, in giving the term its plain meaning (see MPEP 2111.01), the claimed computer readable storage medium is considered to include data signals per se. Data signals per se are not statutory as they fail to fall into one of the four statutory categories of invention.
As an additional note, a non-transitory computer readable medium having executable programming instructions stored thereon is considered statutory as non-transitory computer readable media excludes transitory data signals.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 1-6, 8-14, and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Small et al. (US 20130147687 A1), and in view of Smith et al. (US 20190384406 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Small discloses A computer system (¶4 reciting “A see-through, near-eye, mixed reality display device ” Figs. 1A-1C), comprising:
a display generation component; (Figs. 1A-1C showing an HMD 2)
one or more input devices; (Fig. 1C showing a mobile device 4; and ¶53 reciting “A display 7 of the mobile device 4 may also display data, for example menus, for executing applications and be touch sensitive for accepting user input. ”)
one or more processors; (Fig. 1A showing processing Unit 4 and computing system 12) and
memory (Figs. 2A-2B showing an HMD having memory 244. Fig. 15 showing a computing system 12 having memory 804; and Fig. 16 showing a mobile device having memory 1010) storing one or more programs, wherein the one or more programs are configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including instructions for: (¶9 reciting “The technology provides an embodiment of one or more processor readable storage devices having instructions encoded thereon which instructions cause one or more processors to execute a method for displaying virtual data as printed content using a see-through, near eye, mixed reality display device system.”)
displaying, via the display generation component, a view of a first portion of a three-dimensional environment and at least a first selectable virtual object that corresponds to a first computer-generated experience; (ABST reciting “One or more literary content items registered to a reading object in a field of view of the display device system . . . The reading object has a type like a magazine, book, journal or newspaper and may be . . . a virtual object displayed by the display device system.” Fig. 6A, steps 242 and 246 showing the virtual object is selectable.)
while displaying the view of the first portion of the three-dimensional environment, detecting, by the one or more input devices, a first input directed to the first selectable virtual object that meets first criteria; (¶106 reciting “FIG. 6A is a flowchart of an embodiment of a method for selecting a reading object in the field of view. . . The user selection based on physical action may be based on a position of the object in relation to a position of a user's hand identified by another set of object metadata as determined by the object recognition engine 192 from field of view image data from cameras 113. For a physical action of a gesture, the gesture recognition engine 193 may have also identified a selection gesture of the reading object in the field of view image data. Furthermore a point of gaze position in the field of view as determined by the eye tracking software based on eye image data, data identifying what is being displayed on the display, and the field of view image data may also have identified selection of the real reading object. Voice data may be used in separately but typically in conjunction with a gesture or gaze to confirm or clarify a selection.” In addition, Fig. 11C and ¶143 disclosing identifying a content object as the user content selection based on a user input.)
in response to detecting the first input directed to the first selectable virtual object that meets the first criteria, starting a preview of the first computer-generated experience (¶129 reciting “displaying personalized virtual augmentation data registered to a user content selection within a literary content item based on physical action user input.”),
while displaying at least a portion of the preview of the first computer-generated experience, detecting a second input that meets second criteria, (ABST reciting “Virtual augmentation data registered to a literary content item is displayed responsive to detecting user physical action in image data. An example of a physical action is a page flipping gesture.”) and
in response to detecting the second input that meets the second criteria, displaying a view of the first computer-generated experience that occupies a greater spatial extent of the view of the three-dimensional environment than was occupied by the preview of the first computer-generated experience.
(¶131 reciting “ FIG. 9B is a flowchart of another embodiment of a method for displaying virtual augmentation data registered to at least one of the one or more literary content items responsive to physical action user input. In step 359, the virtual printed content application 202 determines a task related to the literary content item based on physical action user input, and in step 360, performs the task. Virtual augmentation data related to the literary content item is displayed in accordance with the task in step 361. . . Another example of a task described below is a page flipping task for a virtual book which also displays an indicator of augmentation data available for each page as it is flipping. ”)
However, Small does not explicitly disclose:
wherein a spatial extent of the preview of the first computer-generated experience includes a first portion of the preview of the first computer-generated experience within the view of the first portion of the three-dimensional environment and at least a second portion of the preview of the first computer-generated experience outside of the view of the first portion of the three-dimensional environment;
while displaying the first portion of the preview of the first computer-generated experience within the view of the first portion of the three-dimensional environment, detecting relative movement of at least a portion of the computer system and at least a portion of a physical environment surrounding the portion of the computer system;
in response to detecting the relative movement of the portion of the computer system and the at least the portion of the physical environment:
displaying a view of a second portion of the three-dimensional environment in accordance with the relative movement of at least the portion of the computer system and at least the portion of the physical environment; and
displaying the second portion of the preview of the first computer-generated experience in the view of the second portion of the three-dimensional environment, the second portion of the preview not having been displayed prior to detecting the relative movement of at least the portion of the computer system and at least the portion of the physical environment;
and
a view of the first computer-generated experience that occupies a greater spatial extent of the view of the three-dimensional environment than was occupied by the preview of the first computer-generated experience.
Smith teaches “Systems and methods for enabling one-handed gesture sequences in virtual, augmented, and mixed reality (xR) applications” (ABST); and Fig. 1 shows an example of an environment where a virtual, augmented, or mixed reality (xR) application may be executed. More specifically, Smith teaches “In environment 100, the xR application may include a subset of components or objects operated by HMD 102 and another subset of components or objects operated by host IHS 103. Particularly, host IHS 103 may be used to generate digital images to be displayed by HMD 102. HMD 102 transmits information to host IHS 103 regarding the state of user 101, such as physical position, pose or head orientation, gaze focus, etc., which in turn enables host IHS 103 to determine which image or frame to display to the user next, and from which perspective.” (¶46); “As user 101 moves about environment 100, changes in: (i) physical location (e.g., Euclidian or Cartesian coordinates x, y, and z) or translation; and/or (ii) orientation (e.g., pitch, yaw, and roll) or rotation, cause host IHS 103 to effect a corresponding change in the picture or symbols displayed to user 101 via HMD 102, in the form of one or more rendered video frames.” (¶47); and “Movement of the user's head and gaze may be detected by HMD 102 and processed by host IHS 103, for example, to render video frames that maintain visual congruence with the outside world and/or to allow user 101 to look around a consistent virtual reality environment.” (¶48).
In addition, Fig. 13E and ¶128 teach a preview (1321) with only a workspace placeholder 1333, and a view (1325) of the first computer-generated experience that occupies a greater spatial extent of the view of the three-dimensional environment than the preview.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system (taught by Small) to track the HMD movement to display the xR environment accordingly and the first computer-generated experience occupies a greater spatial extent of the environment than the preview (taught by Smith). The suggestions/motivations would have been “to render video frames that maintain visual congruence with the outside world and/or to allow user 101 to look around a consistent virtual reality environment.” (¶48), and to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 10, Small in view of Smith discloses The computer system of claim 9, wherein:
the first input directed to the first selectable virtual object that meets the first criteria includes movement of a hand in the physical environment; and
the first criteria require that the movement of the hand in the physical environment has a first predefined direction in order for the first criteria to be met. (Small, ¶143 disclosing a hand movement gesture to select a reading object. Swiping gesture is well known in the art to interact with an xR environment. In addition, Smith, ¶60 reciting “to recognize gestures (e.g., swipes, clicking, tapping, grab and release, etc.) usable to control or otherwise interact with xR applications executed by HMD 102”.)
Regarding Claim 11. Small in view of Smith discloses The computer system of claim 9, including:
in response to detecting the relative movement of the portion of the computer system and the at least the portion of the physical environment:
continuously updating a first viewpoint corresponding to the view of the three-dimensional environment in accordance with the relative movement of at least the portion of the computer system and at least the portion of the physical environment; and
continuously updating a second viewpoint corresponding to the preview of the first computer-generated experience within a currently displayed view of the three-dimensional environment in accordance with the relative movement of at least the portion of the computer system and at least the portion of the physical environment.
(Smith, ¶48 reciting “Movement of the user's head and gaze may be detected by HMD 102 and processed by host IHS 103, for example, to render video frames that maintain visual congruence with the outside world and/or to allow user 101 to look around a consistent virtual reality environment.” The suggestions/motivations would have been the same as that of Claim 9 rejections.)
Regarding Claim 12. Small in view of Smith discloses The computer system of claim 9, wherein:
the second input directed to the first selectable virtual object that meets the second criteria includes a predefined movement of a hand in the physical environment; and
the second criteria require that the movement of the hand in the physical environment has less than a first predefined duration in order for the second criteria to be met.
(Small discloses a flipping gesture as the second input)
Regarding Claim 13. Small in view of Smith discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the preview of the first computer-generated experience includes virtual content displayed at positions corresponding to respective locations in a corresponding three-dimensional environment. (Small, ¶130 reciting “ the application 202 selects augmentation data from the available augmentation data based on user profile data, and causes display in step 358 of the augmentation data in a position registered to a position of the user content selection.”)
Regarding Claim 14. Small in view of Smith discloses The computer system of claim 9, further comprising:
while displaying the view of the first computer-generated experience, detecting a third input that meets third criteria; and
in response to detecting the third input that meets the third criteria:
ceasing display of the view of the first computer-generated experience; and
redisplaying the preview within the view of the three-dimensional environment.
(Smith teaches a third gesture to remove a computer-generated 2211 in Fig. 22B, and reciting “In gesture sequence 2200B, start frame 2204 shows hands 2207 and 2208 making the same frame shape, but around an existing display overlay region 2211 that is no longer wanted. After a predetermined amount of time, such as during a motion phase shown in frame 2205, the display overlay region 2211 actively reproducing a video is dimmed and the region is highlighted with visual effect 2212. At end phase 2206, the user separates hand 2207 from hand 2208, and display overlay region 2211 is dismissed.” The suggestions/motivations would have been to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.)
Regarding Claim 16. Small in view of Smith discloses The computer system of claim 9, wherein the spatial extent of the preview of the first computer-generated experience is less than a spatial extent of the first computer-generated experience. (Smith, Fig. 13E, ¶128. The suggestions/motivations would have been the same as that of Claim 9 rejections.)
Claim 1, has similar limitations as of Claim(s) 9, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as Claim(s) 9.
Claim 2, has similar limitations as of Claim(s) 10, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as Claim(s) 10.
Claim 3, has similar limitations as of Claim(s) 11, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as Claim(s) 11.
Claim 4, has similar limitations as of Claim(s) 12, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as Claim(s) 12.
Claim 5, has similar limitations as of Claim(s) 13, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as Claim(s) 13.
Claim 6, has similar limitations as of Claim(s) 14, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as Claim(s) 14.
Claim 8, has similar limitations as of Claim(s) 16, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as Claim(s) 16.
Claim 17, has similar limitations as of Claim(s) 9, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as Claim(s) 9.
Claim(s) 7 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Small et al. (US 20130147687 A1), and in view of Smith et al. (US 20190384406 A1), and further in view of Lutter et al. (US 20190045178 A1).
Regarding Claim 15. Small in view of Smith discloses The computer system of claim 9.
However, Small in view of Smith does not explicitly disclose wherein the first computer-generated experience includes a first sequence of three-dimensional content corresponding to a first playback duration, and the preview of the first computer-generated experience includes a second sequence of three-dimensional content corresponds to a second playback duration that is shorter than the first playback duration.
Lutter teaches “providing a movable object as part of a virtual reality user interface that a user moves in front of a selectable icon of a three-dimensional video to view a three-dimensional preview of the three-dimensional video within the object.” (¶2). More specifically, Fig. 4B shows a video preview in the object 427 and a progress bar 433. Further, ¶126 recites “a user may enter the three-dimensional virtual reality video by moving the object to be located over the user's head, double clicking on the object, clicking on a button for entering the three-dimensional virtual reality video, etc.” In addition, ¶125 teaches the preview being part of the virtual reality video, and thus having a shorter playback duration than the whole virtual reality video.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system (taught by Small in view of Smith) to generate a preview of a virtual reality video with a playback duration shorter than the whole virtual reality video (taught by Lutter). The suggestions/motivations would have been to improve user experience in a 3D virtual reality environment (¶12), and to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim 7, has similar limitations as of Claim(s) 15, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as Claim(s) 15.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YI WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-6022. The examiner can normally be reached 9am - 5pm.
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, Jason Chan can be reached at (571)272-3022. 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.
/YI WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2619
Prosecution Insights