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 .
Preliminary Amendment
Applicant’s submission of a Preliminary Amendment on 3/2/2026 has been received and considered. In the amendment, Applicant canceled claims 1 – 18 and added new claims 19 – 38. Therefore, claims 19 – 38 are pending. Further, Applicant amended the specification, which has been approved for entry.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 33 – 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 33 recites the limitation "the one or more processors" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
All dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of the claim(s) from which they depend and are similarly rejected for the same reason.
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 19, 20, 22 – 24, 26, 27, 29 – 31, 33, 34, 36 – 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steyskal et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0043167 A1) in view of Nakayama et al. (US Pub. No. 2013/0215024 A1).
As per claim 19, Steyskal et al. discloses a computer-implemented method comprising:
providing, for output to a user, a sequence of images, at least some of the images having
lower-resolution regions that are rendered with a lower image resolution and higher-resolution
regions that are rendered with a higher image resolution (foveated image rendering in which “full resolution (e.g., high-resolution) image data” is rendered “in a region of focus of an image frame, and … lower resolution image data outside the region of focus”. As shown in Fig. 2 and the accompanying description, a foveated image frame 205 rendered on the display 165 of the head-mounted display device 105 includes a high-resolution region 210 corresponding to a region of focus and a low-resolution region 215 corresponding to a peripheral region around the region of focus, the low-resolution region being rendered from downsized image data 225 having a 4:1 down-sizing ratio (1000×1000 pixels) relative to the full 2000×2000 pixel frame. Fig. 4–6 and the accompanying description disclose a further embodiment in which the frame 420 includes a highest-resolution region 405, an intermediate-resolution region 410 rendered from data downsized at 4:1, and a lowest-resolution region 415 rendered from data downsized at 16:1. That such frames are provided as a sequence is disclosed in connection with Fig. 7, which describes data pipelines over which “the corresponding image data for successive image frames can be transmitted from the host device 110 to the head-mounted display device 105.” The frames are output to a user by way of the display 165 of the head-mounted display device 105 (see Fig. 1 and 7), generating, based at least on the particular image, an image having a uniform image
resolution (the display device controller 155 “up-samples the received image data of the second example image 225 by a factor of 4 to generate up-sampled image data having a resolution corresponding to the full resolution of the image (e.g., 2000×2000 pixels),” and then “combines the image data of the first example image 220 and the up-sampled image data of the second example image 225” to produce the frame (see Fig. 2). The same operation is disclosed for the three-region embodiment at FIGS. 5–6, and is set forth as method steps at Fig. 15: 1505–1540, where the up-sampler 705 up-samples the downsized image data “to generate corresponding up-sampled image data associated with the low-resolution region(s)” such that “the up-sampled image data may correspond to the full resolution of the display 165,” and the renderer 710 combines the up-sampled data with the high-resolution data. The resulting combined image is at a single, uniform pixel resolution corresponding to the full resolution of the display).
Steyskal et al. does not expressly disclose receiving data indicating a selection by the user of an image recording command; selecting a particular image of the sequence that is associated with the selection by the user of the image recording command, the selected image having a lower-resolution region that is rendered with the lower image resolution and a higher-resolution region that is rendered with the higher image resolution; and recording the image having the uniform image resolution.
Nekayama et al. teaches a gaming controller, wherein a controller device 100 including a share button 120 that “can provide access to a sharing interface for sharing a user’s gameplay to a social network, such as sharing screenshots or video clips of the user’s gameplay” (see Fig. 11A). Nakayama further teaches that “the controller share button can be configured to capture a screenshot of the user’s gameplay when pressed” (see Fig. 11A–11B). Depression of the share button by the user constitutes a selection by the user of an image recording command, and the resulting input signal received by the system unit 700 (see Fig. 12) constitutes the received data indicating that selection. pressing the share button captures “a screenshot of the user’s gameplay,” i.e., the frame of the gameplay image sequence associated in time with the button press. Nakayama further discloses that “the share button provides access to buffered video of the user’s recent gameplay, from which the user may select a portion or a screenshot for sharing,” and that an interface may be presented allowing the user to perform operations including “selecting a representative screenshot for the video” (see [0082]), “portions of gameplay can comprise screenshots or prescribed durations of video capture” and that “portions of the gameplay can be stored locally on the game console in either temporary or permanent storage,” and alternatively transmitted over a network and stored remotely. Nakayama further discloses that the captured screenshot “can then be automatically uploaded and shared to the user’s social graph.” (see [0084] – [0086]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the head-mounted display system of Steyskal to include the user-actuated image recording command and the associated screenshot capture and storage operations of Nakayama in order to store a screenshot in response to a user command.
As per claim 20, Steyskal et al. discloses generating the image having the uniform image resolution comprises increasing an image resolution of the lower-resolution region that is rendered with the lower-image resolution (the display device controller 155 includes an up-sampler 705 that “up-samples the downsized image data received for the C region and retrieved from the frame buffer 160 for the B region based on the ratio/resolution metadata received from the host device”, see Fig. 7, further the low-resolution image data is up-sampled “by a factor of 4 to generate up-sampled image data having a resolution corresponding to the full resolution of the image (e.g., 2000×2000 pixels)”, see Fig. 2, and by “a factor of 16 to generate up-sampled image data corresponding to the full size and resolution of the rendered image 420 (e.g., 7200×7200 pixels)” (FIG. 6 and accompanying description). Up-sampling the lower-resolution region so that it attains the full resolution of the frame is an increase in the image resolution of that region (see [0044] – [0047]).
As per claim 22, Steyskal et al. discloses generating the image having the uniform image resolution comprises reducing an image resolution of the higher-resolution region that is rendered with the higher image resolution (see [0045]).
As per claim 23, Steyskal et al. discloses the higher-resolution regions correspond to areas within a line of sight of the user, and the lower-resolution regions correspond to areas
outside of the line of sight of the user (ss shown in Figs. 3–4 and the accompanying description, acuity zone 305 “corresponds to a human’s field of focus, which is also referred to as the viewing focal point, center of gaze, fixation point,” and maps to region 405 of the foveated image frame 420, which “has the highest resolution among the regions 405–415” and “may have the full resolution supported by the display 165.” Acuity zones 310 and 315, corresponding to near and far peripheral vision lying outside the field of focus, map respectively to regions 410 and 415, which “may have lower resolution than the image data in region 405”).
As per claim 24, Steyskal et al. discloses the sequence of images include left-eye images and right-eye images (see Fig. 7 and [0051]).
As per claims 26, 27, 29 - 31, the instant claims are a system in which corresponds to the method of claims 19, 20, 22- 24. Therefore, it is rejected for the reasons set forth above.
As per claims 33, 34 and 36 - 38, the instant claims are a system in which corresponds to the method of claims 19, 20, 22- 24. Therefore, it is rejected for the reasons set forth above.
Examiner’s Note
Claims 21, 25, 28, 32 and 35 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 21, 28, and 35 recite that generating the image having the uniform image resolution comprises cropping the lower-resolution region that is rendered with the lower image resolution. The prior art of record does not teach or reasonably suggest producing the uniform-resolution recorded image by removing the lower-resolution region from the selected foveated image. Steyskal is directed throughout to preserving the full field of view of the foveated frame by up-sampling and combining the multi-resolution image data, and neither Steyskal nor Nakayama teaches discarding the peripheral, lower-resolution portion of the frame in order to arrive at an image of uniform resolution.
Claims 25 and 32 recite that selecting the particular image comprises selecting one of a left-eye image or a right-eye image that was displayed proximate in time to the selection being received. While Steyskal discloses the rendering of paired left-eye and right-eye foveated frames, neither Steyskal nor Nakayama teaches or suggests selecting only one image of a stereoscopic left-eye/right-eye pair as the image to be recorded in response to a user recording command. Nakayama’s screenshot capture is directed to a single, non-stereoscopic gameplay image, and provides no teaching regarding selection between the two images of a stereoscopic pair.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANKIT B DOSHI whose telephone number is (571)270-7863. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri. ~9 - ~5:30.
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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at 571-272-4430. 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.
ANKIT B. DOSHI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights