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
Applicant’s amendments filed on 29 April 2026 have been entered. Claims 1-20 are still pending in this application with claims 1, 8 and 15 being independent.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 29 April 2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US 12100080 B2, US 11367230 B2 and US 10839576 B2 have been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
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) 1-4, 6-11, 13-18, 20 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)] as being anticipated by Ballard et al. (US 20150153826 A1), referred herein as Ballard.
Regarding Claim 1, Ballard teaches a system comprising:
a sensor configured to obtain an orientation of a head and/or eyes of a user of the system (Ballard [0006] The wearable device may include a display; at least one sensor configured to provide an output indicative of an orientation of a head of the user);
non-transitory memory configured to store orientation data (Ballard [0081] AR device 200 may include a number of features relating to sensory input and sensory output. AR device 200 may include at least a front facing camera 203 to provide visual (e.g., video) input, a display (e.g., a translucent or a stereoscopic translucent display) 204 to provide a medium for displaying computer-generated information to the user, a microphone 205 to provide sound input and audio buds/speakers 206 to provide sound output. In some embodiments, the visually conveyed digital data may be received by AR device 200 through the front facing camera 203);
a display configured to be positioned in front of an eye of a user, and configured to project a virtual reticle toward the eye of the user within a field of view (FOV) of the user, wherein the FOV changes as a head pose of the user changes (Ballard [0084] Additionally, in this embodiment, AR device 200 may rely on a computer software application to instruct the glasses to render virtual objects on the display field of view. Virtual objects include, but are not limited to, text, images, models, icons. The user may view or interact with virtual objects using the hardware and software application associated with the AR glasses 200; [0186] FIG. 10 illustrates an example of accessing a nested menu that is displayed by an AR device consistent with disclosed embodiments. As shown in FIG. 10, a reticle 1001 may be shown on display 204. Reticle 1001 may constitute a virtual reticle shown on display 204 whose position on display 204 may be changed in response to user input. For example, one or more eye tracking sensors, as described above, may enable tracking of a user's gaze direction, and the position of reticle 1001 on display 204 may be changed with determined changes in the user's gaze direction);
a hardware processor in communication with the sensor, the display, and the non-transitory memory, the hardware processor programmed to (Ballard [0069] The processor device 123 may be configured to execute software instructions to perform aspects of the disclosed embodiments. User system 120 may be configured in the form of an AR device, such as a head mounted display (HMD).):
recognize an orientation of the user's head and/or eyes (Ballard [0007] monitoring, based on output of at least one sensor, an orientation of a head of the user; determining based on the monitored orientation of the head whether the user is looking upward or downward with respect to a predetermined horizontal threshold);
determine whether the orientation of the user's head and/or eyes are outside of a range of acceptable head and/or eye poses (Ballard [0007] determining based on the monitored orientation of the head whether the user is looking upward or downward with respect to a predetermined horizontal threshold; and causing the virtual menu to be shown on a display of the wearable device if the user is determined to be looking upward or downward with respect to the predetermined horizontal threshold); and
at least partly in response to determining that the orientation of the user's head and/or eyes are outside of the range of acceptable head and/or eye poses, shifting movement of the virtual reticle away from a default position and toward a position in a direction of the user's head and/or eye movement (Ballard [0245] FIG. 17A, a cursor 1702 is also displayed within graphical display 1700a. Cursor 1702 may be an icon, a trackable reticle, a pointer, or any other such cursor known in the art of computer graphics; [0246] in FIG. 17B, user 1501 has moved cursor 1702 over one of the points displayed in graphical display 1700b).
Regarding Claim 2, Ballard teaches the system of claim 1, and further teaches wherein determining whether the orientation of the user's head and/or eyes are outside of a range of acceptable head and/or eye poses comprises determining whether the acceptable head and/or eye poses satisfies a first orientation threshold (Ballard [0105] determine whether the user is looking upward or downward with respect to a predetermined horizontal threshold. If the user is determined to be looking upward or downward with respect to the predetermined horizontal threshold).
Regarding Claim 3, Ballard teaches the system of claim 1, and further teaches wherein while the orientation of the user's head and/or eyes are outside of a range of acceptable head and/or eye poses, a location of the virtual reticle is based at least in part on an offset and pose data (Ballard [0245] Detection of user movement and translation of the movement into cursor motion on display 204 may be processed by rendering services module 370, visual processing module 374, and positional processing module 378. To enter the password to unlock AR device 200, user 1501 may move or orient cursor 1702 over specific points within graphical display 1700a for specific periods of time). Move from position in FIG. 17A to the position in FIG. 17B.
Regarding Claim 4, Ballard teaches the system of claim 1, and further teaches wherein when the orientation of the user's head and/or eyes are outside of a range of acceptable head and/or eye poses, a location of the virtual reticle is based at least in part on an easing function and pose data (Ballard [0110] the processing device may be configured to monitor both the orientation of the head of user 401 and the time duration that the head of user 401 stays in that orientation based on output received from the sensor. For example, if the time duration that the head of user 401 stays in a detected orientation is less than a predetermined time threshold, the processing device may determine that user 401 does not intend the detected orientation to cause AR device 200 to take an action. On the other hand, if the time duration that the head of user 401 stays in a detected orientation is greater than or equal to the predetermined time threshold, the processing device may determine that user 401 intends the detected orientation to cause AR device 200 to take an action).
Regarding Claim 6, Ballard teaches the system of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the virtual reticle comprises a movable indicator identifying a position within the FOV (Ballard [0110] enable tracking of a user's gaze direction, and the position of reticle 1001 on display 204 may be changed with determined changes in the user's gaze direction).
Regarding Claim 7, Ballard teaches the system of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the head pose is determined in an axial plane of the user, a coronal plane of the user, and a sagittal plane of the user (Ballard [0106] the orientation of the head of user 401 may be defined according to a coordinate system, such as a three-dimensional coordinate system (x, y, z) having the origin at a point on AR device 200, such as a central point of display 204, the position at which IMU 201 is located, or any other reference point on AR device 200; [0236] In the example illustrated in FIG. 15, user 1501's head (and by extension, AR device 200) is initially oriented at position 1502. As described above, position 1502 may be detected and processed in many ways within AR device 200, including as an angle relative to horizontal or vertical planes, or as a set of coordinates denoting the position of AR device 200 within a three-dimensional coordinate system, as in the example shown in FIG. 15. As AR device 200 progressively samples the orientation and position of the device, user 1501 changes the orientation of his or her head).
Regarding Claims 8-11, 13 and 14, Ballard teaches a system comprising:
at least partly in response to determining that the orientation of the user's head and/or eyes are within the range of acceptable head and/or eye poses causing the display to render a virtual reticle at a fixed location within the FOV (Ballard [0111] If the detected orientation of the head of user 401 is greater than or equal to the predetermined horizontal threshold, the processing device may be configured to determine that the user is looking upward. On the other hand, if the detected orientation of the head of user 401 is less than the predetermined horizontal threshold, the processing device may be configured to determine that the user is not looking upward).
The metes and bounds of the rest of the claims substantially correspond to the limitations set forth in claims 1-4, 6 and 7; thus they are rejected on similar grounds and rationale as their corresponding limitations.
Regarding Claims 15-18, 20 and 21, Ballard teaches a method.
The metes and bounds of the claims substantially correspond to the limitations set forth in claims 8-11, 13 and 14; thus they are rejected on similar grounds and rationale as their corresponding limitations.
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 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 of this title, 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) 5, 12 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ballard et al. (US 20150153826 A1), referred herein as Ballard in view of Naganawa (US 20140184641 A1), referred herein as Naganawa.
Regarding Claim 5, Ballard teaches the system of claim 1, but does not teach the limitations herein. However, Naganawa teaches wherein while the orientation of the user's head and/or eyes are outside of a far end limit of the range of acceptable head and/or eye poses, the hardware processor is programmed to cause the display to maintain the virtual reticle at a fixed offset position within the FOV that is offset from the default position (Naganawa [0059] Further, in the state that it has been decided in the step S403 that the client apparatus is in the high-speed movement (e.g., equal to or higher than 6 cm per second), the control unit 303 considers the marker detection area 102b as an area which is further narrower than that illustrated in FIG. 7. Besides, in the case of the high-speed movement, it is also possible to consider that the user does not keep close watch on the screen 102a and thus not to display any content information; [0060] In a step S407, it is detected whether or not the marker exists in the marker detection area (target area) 102b in the image which has been imaged by the imaging device 209. When it is detected that the marker exists in the marker detection area, then, in a step S408, the content information corresponding or related to the detected marker is superposed on the imaged image). The moving distance can be derived from the speed.
Naganawa discloses an information display apparatus which superposes information on an imaged image and displays them, which is analogous to the present patent application.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ballard to incorporate the teachings of Naganawa, and apply the determination of marker’s shape by viewing distance/speed of a user’s view to the moving threshold of user’s head of Ballard.
Doing so would be able to reduce process loads by limiting the content information to be displayed.
Regarding Claim 12, Ballard teaches the system of claim 8. The metes and bounds of the of the claims substantially correspond to the limitations set forth in claim 5; thus they are rejected on similar grounds and rationale as their corresponding limitations.
Regarding Claim 19, Ballard teaches the method of claim 15. The metes and bounds of the of the claims substantially correspond to the limitations set forth in claim 5; thus they are rejected on similar grounds and rationale as their corresponding limitations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed on 29 April 2026, with respect to double patenting rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of 11 February has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed on 29 April 2026 with respect to 102 rejection on claim 1 has been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 8, Applicant's Remarks, with respect to claim 1, the applicant argues there is no shifting away from a default position (e.g., center of pose or center of gaze) in response to exceeding a range of acceptable head and/or eye poses (in Ballard). The Examiner respectfully disagrees with this argument. Ballard first disclosed a predetermined horizontal and horizontal threshold of a user’s viewing direction (see [0105]-[0114]), and then presented an embodiment of moving a cursor based on the direction of the gaze of the user’s eye (see FIG. 17A and [0245]). The gaze direction would follow the same threshold as described in paragraph [0105]-[0114], as both situation utilizes the same augmented reality devices and techniques. Therefore, Ballard teaches “at least partly in response to determining that the orientation of the user's head and/or eyes are outside of the range of acceptable head and/or eye poses”, as claimed.
In addition, the term default position refers to the state or condition that is assumed or applied when no specific instructions or changes are made. It is the baseline or starting point from which any modifications or adjustments are made. Cursor 1702 in FIG. 17A appeared to be located at the center of the graphical display 1700a, and it would be moved around according user’s head/eye direction, so the location of cursor 1702 in FIG. 17A is a default location. Therefore, Ballard teaches “ shifting movement of the virtual reticle away from a default position and toward a position in a direction of the user's head and/or eye movement”, as claimed.
On page 10 of Applicant’s Remarks, the Applicant argues the independent claims 8 and 15 are not taught by the prior art for reasons similar to those discussed in regard to claim 1, and the dependent claims are not taught by the prior art, insomuch as they depend from claims that are not taught by the prior art. Examiner respectfully disagrees with these arguments, for the reasons discussed above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Samantha (Yuehan) Wang whose telephone number is (571)270-5011. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-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, King Poon can be reached on (571)272-7440. 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.
/Samantha (YUEHAN) WANG/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2617
Prosecution Insights