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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in REPUBLIC OF KOREA on 07/25/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the KR10-2023-0096681 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1-3, 8-13, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lalonde (US20170372499A1) and Fisher-Stawinski (US20230081225A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lalonde teaches a wearable electronic device comprising:
at least one sensor (Lalonde; ¶0014, describes a head mounted display (HMD) capable of capturing 3D image, depth, and/or distance information (sensor)) at least one processor comprising processing circuitry and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the wearable electronic device to (¶0005, describes a processor and memory storing executable instructions) detect a plurality of objects capable of detecting through the at least one sensor, of the wearable electronic device or an external electronic device (̬¶0022-0023, describes detecting when the user is within a defined distance/proximity/zone of virtual objects and, ¶0019, real, physical objects in the ambient environment (detected)) recognize a type of a first object among the plurality of objects (¶0019, describes distinguishing different kinds of displayed objects (table, chair, application window). This teaches recognizing a type of a first object among the plurality of objects) identify whether the first object is a real object or a virtual object (¶0019-0020, describes some displayed objects are not physically present in the ambient environment (virtual), while other displayed objects correspond to physical objects present in the environment (bookcase/cabinet shown as passthrough of real objects). This teaches identifying whether the first object is real or virtual) determine a first risk level of the first object, based on the recognized type of the first object and whether the first object is the real object or the virtual object (¶0020-0021, describes determining whether a detected object poses a “not-there hazard, or support hazard” based on whether it is not physically present in the environment (virtual-only) and whether it has characteristics a user would interpret as capable of providing physical support (table/chair versus application window). This teaches determining a risk based on the type and real-vs-virtual.) provide feedback based on the first risk level of the first object, based on a distance between the first object and a user's body being less than or equal to the first distance (¶0023-0024, describes generating a cue when the object is within the defined proximity/zone/area D and determined to pose a support hazard. This teaches providing feedback based on the hazard/risk determination when the distance is within the threshold.)
However, Lalonde does not explicitly disclose to determine a first distance related to the first object, based on the first risk level of the first object.
Fisher-Stawinski describes, ¶0003, generating a dynamic threshold distance for a detected target and transmitting an alert when the target’s distance to the user falls below the threshold where the dynamic threshold is generated/updated based on characteristics used to assess risk. Fisher-Stawinski further describes, ¶0055, the dynamic threshold distance may be calculated to be proportional to an individualized risk score (risk-based threshold distance). This teaches determining a threshold distance based on a risk level.
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Lalonde’s fixed proximity/zone/area D with Fisher-Stawinski’s risk-based dynamic threshold distance in order to improve safety and user experience.
Claim 11, has similar limitations as of claim 1, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
Claim 20, has similar limitations as of claim 1, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, except claim 20 further recites One or more non-transitory computer readable storage media storing computer-executable instructions. Lalonde; ¶0005, describes “memory storing executable instructions, and a processor configured to execute the instructions”. This teaches one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media storing computer-executable instructions.
Regarding claim 2, Lalonde in view of Fisher-Stawinski teaches the wearable electronic device of claim 1, wherein the instructions, executed by the at least one processor, cause the wearable electronic device to: detect at least one real object included in a first field of view (FOV) through the at least one sensor (Lalonde; ¶0014, describes the HMD capturing images and/or depth information and/or distance information related to features in the ambient environment using an imaging device and, ¶0019, real, physical objects in the ambient environment (bookcase/cabinet) are captured and displayed to the user as a passthrough view. This teaches detecting at least one real object included in a first FOV (imaging device’s field of view) through the at least one sensor) and detect at least one virtual object included in a second FOV corresponding to an area displayed on the display and included in the first FOV (Lalonde; ¶0014, describes that the HMD may display rendered images of the ambient environment on the display, together with virtual images or objects, so that the user may maintain situational awareness with respect to the ambient environment while in the virtual environment. Lalonde, ¶0019, further describes displaying virtual objects (virtual chair/table/application window) to the user in the virtual environment. Because the virtual object objects are displayed overlaid on or together with the rendered/pass-passthrough view of the captured ambient environment, the area displayed on the display (second FOV) corresponds to, and is included in, the FOV of the imaging device (first FOV) that captured the ambient environment(¶0014). This teaches detecting at least one virtual object included in a second FOV corresponding to an area displayed on the display and included in the first FOV.)
Claim 12, has similar limitations as of claim 2, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, Lalonde in view of Fisher-Stawinski teaches the wearable electronic device of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the wearable electronic device to determine that a value of the first distance to be greater as the first risk level of the first object is higher (Fisher-Stawinski; ¶0055, describes generating a dynamic threshold distance based on assessed risk, including that the threshold distance may be calculated such that it is proportional to an individualized risk score (higher risk means larger threshold distance). This teaches determining that the value of the first distance is greater as the first risk level is higher.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the proximity-based feedback system of Lalonde with Fisher-Stawinski’s proportional risk to distance relationship with the benefit of increasing safety and minimizing unnecessary alerts.
Claim 13, has similar limitations as of claim 3, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 3.
Regarding claim 8, Lalonde in view of Fisher-Stawinski teaches the wearable electronic device of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the wearable electronic device to determine a risk level of the first object based on a user's usage environment related to the first object, when the first object is a virtual object (Lalonde; ¶0021, describes determining whether a detected virtual object poses a “not-there hazard”/support hazard (risk level) based on context/conditions of the user’s environment and interaction context and the hazard determination may be made based on “numerous different attributes” including the position of the virtual object relative to the user and relative to other objects in the virtual environment. Lalonde; ¶0022-0023, further describes tracking the user’s movement and detecting when the user is within a defined distance/proximity/zone/area D of virtual objects. The proximity/position-based hazard assessment reads on determining the virtual object’s risk level based on the user’s usage environment.)
Claim 18, has similar limitations as of claim 8, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, Lalonde in view of Fisher-Stawinski teaches the wearable electronic device of claim 1, further comprising a communication module (Lalonde; ¶0038, describes “a communication module”) wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the wearable electronic device to transmit a command for providing the feedback to an external device connected through the communication module (Lalonde; ¶0038-0039, describes the HMD (wearable) in communication with an external device via the communication module and, ¶0063, an external device provides output/feedback to the user. This teaches to transmit a command for providing the feedback to an external device.)
Regarding claim 10, Lalonde in view of Fisher-Stawinski teaches the wearable electronic device of claim 1, further comprising a communication module (Lalonde; ¶0038, describes “a communication module”), wherein the instructions, executed by the at least one processor, when cause the wearable electronic device to identify the distance between the first object and the user's body based on a detection value received from an external device connected through the communication module (Fisher-Stawinski; ¶0048-0049, describes gathering proximity data from sensors and identifying the position and distance relative to the user based on the proximity data and, ¶0016, the sensors may be in communication with the into a wearable/mobile device (mixed reality headset/HMD). This teaches identifying distance based on a detection value received from a connected external device.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system of Lalonde with Fisher-Stawinski’s external sensor data for distance determination with the benefit of improving accuracy from external sensors at different locations.
Claim 19, has similar limitations as of claim 10, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 10.
Claims 4-6 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lalonde (US20170372499A1), Fisher-Stawinski (US20230081225A1), and Chaurasia (US20210304502A1).
Regarding claim 4, Lalonde in view of Fisher-Stawinski teaches the wearable electronic device of claim 1, but does not explicitly describe wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the wearable electronic device to determine an intensity of the feedback based on the first risk level.
Chaurasia describes, ¶0009, once an intruding object is determined, the user may be alerted “in a number of visual or audio manners involving varying degrees of disrupting the media” and, ¶0052, “Safety considerations may dictate a more intrusive alert… the game may be paused when an alert is issued”. This reads on selecting a more intrusive/stronger alert versus a less intrusive/weaker alert (determine intensity of feedback) based on safety/hazard considerations, which corresponds to the assessed risk level.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the proximity-risk feedback system of Lalonde in view of Fisher-Stawinski with Chaurasia’s safety-based alert intensity selection technique with the benefit of maintaining/improving safety while maintaining/increasing immersion.
Claim 14, has similar limitations as of claim 4, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, Lalonde in view of Fisher-Stawinski teaches the wearable electronic device of claim 1, but does not explicitly describe wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the wearable electronic device to determine a number of feedback based on the first risk level.
Chaurasia; ¶0009, describes once an intruding object is determined, the user may be alerted “in a number of visual or audio manners” and “ Safety considerations may be used to determine how much to take the user out of the game” and, ¶0052, describes providing additional feedback actions when safety warrants; the game may be paused when an alert is issued and, additionally or alternatively, a portal effect may be opened in the game and a visual and/or audible alert may be issued. This reads on providing one versus multiple concurrent feedback outputs/actions based on risk level.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the proximity-risk feedback system of Lalonde in view of Fisher-Stawinski with Chaurasia’s safety-based selection of one versus multiple feedback outputs/actions with the benefit of improving safety while maintaining immersion.
Claim 15, has similar limitations as of claim 5, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, Lalonde in view of Fisher-Stawinski teaches the wearable electronic device of claim 1, including determining a first distance based on the first risk level and providing feedback when the distance to the object is less than/equal to the first distance (Fisher-Stawinski; ¶0055, describes the dynamic threshold may be a threshold measure of distance and the program may calculate a dynamic threshold distance that is proportional to the individualized risk score, where, ¶0054, the individualized risk score represents the likelihood a risk will harm the user.)
However, Lalonde in view of Fisher-Stawinski does not explicitly disclose wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the wearable electronic device to further determine a second distance that is longer than the first distance based on the first risk level.
Chaurasia; ¶0048, describes that “distance ranges may be set to control when it is appropriate to issue an alert”, meaning multiple distance thresholds are used for alert control and, ¶0049, “a threshold distance may be set surrounding the user” describes setting an inner threshold distance surrounding the user. This reads on determining both a first distance (inner threshold) and a second distance that is longer than the first distance (outer alert range).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the proximity-risk feedback system of Lalonde in view of Fisher-Stawinski with Chaurasia’s multi-distance threshold alerting technique in order to provide tiered proximity handling.
Claim 16, has similar limitations as of claim 6, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 6.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lalonde (US20170372499A1), Fisher-Stawinski (US20230081225A1), and Li (US20160070343A1).
Regarding claim 7, Lalonde in view of Fisher-Stawinski teaches the wearable electronic device of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the wearable electronic device to change the first distance, based on a speed at which the user's body approaches the first object.
Li; ¶0126, describes the distance threshold can be set in accordance with the current movement status of the user and provides the example “when the current movement speed of the user is 0.05 m/s, the predetermined distance is a distance the user can reach within 0.5 min, i.e., 1.5 m.” This reads on changing/setting a threshold distance based on the user’s movement speed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the risk-responsive threshold distance of Lalonde in view of Fisher-Stawinski to change the first distance based on the user’s approach speed as taught by Li to improve safety and immersion by giving earlier warnings and avoiding/reducing unnecessary warnings.
Claim 17, has similar limitations as of claim 7, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAN F KALHORI whose telephone number is (571)272-5475. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:30 ET.
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, DEVONA E FAULK can be reached at (571) 272-7515. 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.
/DAN F KALHORI/Examiner, Art Unit 2618
/DEVONA E FAULK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2618