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 office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed 06/08/2026 which has
been entered and made of record. Claims 1, 4, and 6-8 have been amended. Claims 2 and 3 are canceled. Claims 9-11 are newly added. Claims 1 and 4-11 are pending in the application.
Applicant’s amendments resolve the invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f), and the invocation of 112(f) is accordingly withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding the rejection of claim 1 and 5-8 under 35 USC 103 over Koseki in view of Salmani, and regarding the rejection of claims 2-4 under 35 USC 103 over Koseki in view of Salmani and Levitt in pages 7-9 of the applicant’s remarks 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 rejections set in the previous Office Action are shown to have been proper, and the claims are rejected below. New citations and parenthetical remarks can be considered new grounds of rejection and such new grounds of rejection are necessitated by the Applicant's amendments to the claims. Therefore, the present Office Action is made final.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koseki et al (US 9884248 B2), Salmani et al (US 11335077 B1, hereinafter Salmani), and Levitt et al (US 20170352188 A1, hereinafter Levitt).
Regarding claim 1, Koseki teaches an information processing device connected to or
integrated into a display device configured to receive an input via a controller (Par 20
“According to another embodiment of the invention, there is provided an image generation
device that generates an image that is displayed on a head-mounted display (HMD) that is worn
on a head of a user, the image generation device comprising: a captured image-receiving
section that receives data that represents a captured image from an imaging section, the
imaging section being provided so as to capture a real space that includes the HMD, and a
controller that is held and operated by the user; a controller position calculation section that
calculates a virtual position of the controller within a virtual space using the captured image,
the virtual space being a display image space of the HMD; and a first guide display control
section that displays a first guide display on the HMD using the virtual position, the first
guide display indicating a position within the virtual space that corresponds to a position of
the controller within the real space.”)
the information processing device comprising: a processor (Col 6 Line 10-11 “The control board 1050 includes 1) a microprocessor (e.g., central processing unit (CPU) ”); anda memory storing a program which, when executed by the processor, causes the information processing apparatus to (Col 6 Line 23-24 “The game device main body 1002 reads a program and data stored in the IC memory 1052”):
perform display control processing to control the display device to display a virtual object (Par 20 “there is provided an image generation device that generates an image that is displayed on a head-mounted display (HMD) that is worn on a head of a user”)
perform first obtaining processing to obtain a first amount of change as an amount of change in one of a position and orientation of the controller based on information detected by a first sensor included in the controller (Par 80 “It is possible to determine the posture of the game controller 1200 and a change in the posture of the game controller 1200 at the position Pc using the 6-axis sensor 1208 included in the game controller 1200.”)
perform second obtaining processing to obtain a second amount of change as an amount of change in one of a position and an orientation of the display device based on information detected by a second sensor included in the display device; (Col 14 Line 25-35 “The head posture change detection section 102 detects the posture of the head of the player 2 and a change in the posture of the head of the player 2, and outputs a detection signal to the processing section 200. For example, the head posture change detection section 102 may be implemented by utilizing a gyro sensor or an acceleration sensor, or utilizing known head tracking technology that recognizes a human head from an image captured by an image sensor. The HMD 1310 (i.e., 6-axis sensor 1308 and IC chip 1309) included in the headset 1300 (see FIG. 3A) corresponds to the head posture change detection section 102”)
perform image obtaining processing to obtain a captured image; (Par 19 “causing the computer to receive data that represents a captured image from an imaging section”)
wherein in the display control processing, the virtual object is displayed based on a fourth amount of change (Par 136 “The direction guide object control section 224 disposes the direction guide object 13 in the virtual space, and controls the position (movement) and the posture of the direction guide object 13. Specifically, the direction guide object control section 224 controls the position of the direction guide object 13 so that the direction guide object 13 is always situated at a given position within the field of view (game screen) of the HMD 1310, and controls the posture of the direction guide object 13 so that the direction guide object 13 faces in the direction of the game controller 1200 with respect to (when viewed from) the HMD 1310.”)
Regarding claim 1, Koseki fails to explicitly teach perform estimation processing to estimate one of the position and the orientation of the display device based on the captured image. In related endeavor, Salmani teaches an estimation unit configured to estimate one of the position and the orientation of the display device based on the captured image (Par 17 “The data generated by the IMU, along with the stereo imagery captured by the external-facing cameras 105A-B, allow the system 100 to compute the pose of the HMD using, for example, SLAM (simultaneous localization and mapping) or other suitable techniques.”)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Koseki to include an estimation unit configured to estimate one of the position and the orientation of the display device based on the captured image as taught by Salmani. Doing so would allow an appropriate display to be rendered for the user (Par 17 “For example, in order to render an appropriate display for the user 102 while he is moving about in a virtual or augmented reality environment, the system 100 would need to determine his position and orientation at any moment”).
Koseki as modified by Salmani fails to explicitly teach perform third obtaining processing to obtain a third amount of change as an amount of change in one of the position and the orientation of the display device relative to a moving body based on a result of the estimationa fourth amount of change that does not depend on a movement of the moving body, the fourth amount of change being an amount of change obtained by subtracting the second amount of change from a sum of the first amount of change and the third amount of change.
In related field of endeavor, Levitt teaches obtain a third amount of change as an amount of change in one of the position and the orientation of the display device relative to a moving body based on a result of the estimation ([0133] “For example, movement can be calculated relative to the virtual features (anchor point & plane) rather than to real world coordinates. As such, if Display Device 100 were held in a moving vehicle and turned on a corner of Display Device 100, the determined orientation would optionally only consider the motion of the turn on the corner and not the vehicle movement”, [0082] “the algorithm can estimate the axis of rotation by comparing the accelerations and angular motions ”) and a fourth amount of change that does not depend on a movement of the moving body, the fourth amount of change being an amount of change obtained by subtracting the second amount of change from a sum of the first amount of change and the third amount of change ([0172] “ In embodiments including three or more wearable devices, an iterative process may be used to refine motion calculations. For example, first relative motion of device A to device B may be calculated, then relative motion of device B to device C, finally to confirm the first two calculations the relative motion of device C to device A is calculated. This third relative motion should be the sum of the first two. ”, [0175] “By requiring that the relevant movement be around an anchor point, the vehicle motion can be subtracted from the anatomical motion.”)
Regarding claim 4, Koseki as modified by Salmani and Levitt fail to explicitly teach wherein a case where a user riding in a moving body uses the display device, the fourth amount of change is an amount of change of the controller relative to the moving body. In related field of endeavor, Levitt teaches an amount of change of the controller relative to the moving body. (Par 11 “Various embodiments include detecting relative motion associated with a user's head or limbs, and at times ignoring absolute motion such results from walking or riding in a vehicle”, Par 175 “Some of the movements detected by Motion Sensing Device 120 include motions of the car and some motions detected by Motion Sensing Device 120 include motions resulting from turning of the user's wrist and/or elbow. Those motions that are inconsistent with the turning of the user's wrist and/or elbow can be discounted by Anchor Point Logic 1130 and/or Image Generation Logic 1140 such that the motion of the wrist and/or elbow controls the images presented at Display 110. The motion of the car does not significantly (or not at all) impact the images presented at Display 110.”)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Koseki as modified by Salmani to include
an amount of change of a controller relative to a moving body as taught by Levitt. Doing so
would allow vehicle motion to be ignored and excluded from movement calculations (Par 11
“Various embodiments include detecting relative motion associated with a user's head or limbs,
and at times ignoring absolute motion such results from walking or riding in a vehicle.”)
Regarding claim 5, Koseki as modified by Salmani and Levitt teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, and Koseki further teaches wherein the display device is a device to be worn on a user's head (par 20 “there is provided an image generation device that generates an image that is displayed on a head-mounted display (HMD) that is worn on a head of a user”)
Regarding claim 6, Koseki as modified by Salmani and Levitt teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, and Koseki further teaches wherein the display control unit processing controls the display device to display a background image based on the third amount of change. (Par 24 “The method may further comprise: causing the computer to determine a position and/or a posture of the HMD in the real space; causing the computer to generate an image of the virtual space that is displayed on the HMD, the image of the virtual space that is displayed on the HMD changing in field of view corresponding to the determined position and/or the determined posture of the HMD”).
Regarding claim 7, the method claim 7 is similar in scope to claim 1, and is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 8, the non-transitory computer readable medium claim 8 is similar in scope to claim 1, and is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 9, Koseki as modified by Salmani and Levitt teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, and Koseki further teaches wherein in the display control processing, a second virtual object different from the virtual object displayed based on the first amount of change of the controller is further displayed, and the second virtual object is displayed based on the third amount of change (Col 17 Line 25-31 “The selection target control section 228 controls the position of the selection target 24 so that the selection target 24 is always situated at a given position within the field of view (game screen) of the HMD 1310, and controls the selection target 24 so that the selection target 24 faces the virtual stereo camera 10”, Col 17 Line 44 “The selection target 24 may be a character”, where selection target corresponds to a second virtual object.).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koseki, Salmani, and Levitt as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Du Bois et al (US 10345925 B2, hereinafter Du Bois).
Regarding claim 10, Koseki as modified by Salmani and Levitt teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, and Koseki further teaches wherein the information detected by the first sensor is acceleration of the controller (Col 7 Line 29-31 “The game controller 1200 includes a speaker 1204, a vibrator 1206, a 6-axis sensor 1208”, Col 7 Line 41-42 “the 6-axis sensor 1208 detects accelerations in the triaxial directions”). Koseki, Salmani, and Levitt fail to explicitly teach in the first obtaining processing, the first amount of change is obtained by integrating the acceleration twice, but in related field of endeavor Du Bois teaches an amount of change obtained by integrating the acceleration twice (Col 15 Line 49-55 “device 104 can determine a relative orientation of device 102 by retrieving accelerometer and gyroscope data from the device 102 and using such data to obtain an acceleration associated with movements carried out by device 102. The process 400 can then double integrate the acceleration over time to obtain a position for the device 102”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified Koseki, Salmani, and Levitt to include the first amount of change is obtained by integrating the acceleration twice as taught by Du Bois. Doing so would provide a proper viewpoint of VR content (Col 7 Line 46-55 “the tracking system 110 can correlate three degrees of freedom of positional data of the mobile device 102 and six degrees of positional data of the controller 107 and can stream (e.g., transmit) the six degrees of freedom positional data to the mobile device 102 so that device 102 can display the same VR content that a user accessing VR headset 105 is currently viewing. The tracking system 110 can determine a proper viewpoint for the VR content and can adjust the VR content to provide the proper view in mobile device 102.”)
Regarding claim 11, Koseki as modified by Salmani and Levitt teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, and Koseki further teaches wherein the information detected by the second sensor is acceleration of the display device (Col 8 Line 6-14 “For example, the HMD 1310 includes a communication IC that receives an image signal from the headset board 1350, an image display device and an optical element that present an image based on the received image signal to the eyes of the wearer at a viewing angle that corresponds to the naked-eye viewing angle, a 6-axis sensor 1308, an IC chip 1309 that calculates information about the acceleration and the posture of the head detected by the 6-axis sensor 1308”). Koseki, Salmani, and Levitt fail to explicitly teach in the second obtaining processing, the second amount of change is obtained by integrating the acceleration twice, but in related field of endeavor Du Bois teaches an amount of change obtained by integrating the acceleration twice (Col 15 Line 49-55 “device 104 can determine a relative orientation of device 102 by retrieving accelerometer and gyroscope data from the device 102 and using such data to obtain an acceleration associated with movements carried out by device 102. The process 400 can then double integrate the acceleration over time to obtain a position for the device 102”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified Koseki, Salmani, and Levitt to include the second amount of change is obtained by integrating the acceleration twice as taught by Du Bois. Doing so would provide a proper viewpoint of VR content (Col 7 Line 46-55 “the tracking system 110 can correlate three degrees of freedom of positional data of the mobile device 102 and six degrees of positional data of the controller 107 and can stream (e.g., transmit) the six degrees of freedom positional data to the mobile device 102 so that device 102 can display the same VR content that a user accessing VR headset 105 is currently viewing. The tracking system 110 can determine a proper viewpoint for the VR content and can adjust the VR content to provide the proper view in mobile device 102.”)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Gullicksen et al (US 20190383897 A1, hereinafter Gullicksen) teaches methods of correcting motion and pose tracking in virtual reality ([0035] "a user 110 in the space 102 wears a head-mounted display (HMD) 120 and holds a device 130. The HMD 120 may be VR (Virtual Reality) goggles, AR (Augmented Reality) goggles, MR (Mixed Reality) goggles, or the like", [0069] " the server 170 adds the offset, which may be averaged, to the local magnetic yaw 140a obtained at 610, to provide a corrected yaw direction 660").
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 JOHN PATRICK GOCO whose telephone number is (571)272-5872. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 7:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Kee Tung can be reached at (571)272-7794. 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.
/J.P.G./ Examiner, Art Unit 2611
/KEE M TUNG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Prosecution Insights