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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/3/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Salter et al. US 2014/0368535.
Re claim 1, Salter discloses an electronic device (head mounted display), comprising: a first camera (room facing video camera 112) to capture an image using a lens (figures 2-4; paragraphs 39, 50); a second camera (eye-tracking camera 134B) to detect movement of an eye (figures 3-4; paragraphs 44-50); and a controller (processing unit 4) coupled to the first and second cameras (112, 134B), the controller to provide a signal combining (processing unit 4 includes a wireless Wifi enabled communication device 346) (figure 5; paragraph 53): a portion of the image captured by the first camera (112); and eye movement data indicating the movement of the eye detected by the second camera (134B) (processing unit 4 gathers image data captured by cameras 112, 134B and GPU 322 renders image data from cameras 112, 134B to be displayed to a user on a head mounted display) (figures 12; paragraphs 99, 117-129).
Re claim 3, Salter further discloses that the electronic device includes a buffer to store the captured image (images are stored in camera buffer 218) (paragraph 51).
Re claim 5, Salter further discloses that the controller is to produce the signal consistent with any one of a camera link or Universal Serial Bus (processing unit 4 may includes a wireless Wifi enabled communication device 346 and USB ports 348)(figure 5; paragraph 53).
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.
Claims 2, 4, 8, 10, 12-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salter et al. US 2014/0368535 in view of Stahl et al. US 2021/0165229.
Re claim 2, Salter discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses that the head mounted display includes a processing unit (4) having a wireless Wifi enabled communication device (346)(figure 3; paragraph 53). However, although the Salter reference discloses all of the limitations above, it fails to specifically disclose that the signal does not contain all of the image.
Stahl discloses that it is well known in the imaging art to perform image compression on images wirelessly transmitted by a head mounted display in order to reduce the original amount of data of the image prior to transmission (paragraph 46). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have been motivated to include the teaching of performing compression on images wirelessly transmitted by a head mounted display as disclosed by the Stahl reference in the electronic head mounted display device disclosed by the Salter reference. Doing so would provide a means for reducing the bandwidth usage of the device while performing wireless data transmission.
Re claim 4, Salter discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses that the head mounted display includes a processing unit (4) having a wireless Wifi enabled communication device (346)(figure 3; paragraph 53). However, although the Salter reference discloses all of the limitations above, it fails to specifically disclose that the size of a portion of the image is based on a frame rate of the first camera and a frequency of the second camera.
Stahl discloses that it is well known in the imaging art to perform image compression on images wirelessly transmitted by a head mounted display in order to reduce the original amount of data of the image prior to transmission based on image frame rates and frequency (paragraph 46). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have been motivated to include the teaching of performing compression on images wirelessly transmitted by a head mounted display as disclosed by the Stahl reference in the electronic head mounted display device disclosed by the Salter reference. Doing so would provide a means for reducing the bandwidth usage of the device while performing wireless data transmission.
Re claim 8, Salter discloses a non-transitory, computer-readable medium storing executable code, which, when executed by a controller, causes a controller to: receive an image captured by a first camera (room facing video camera 112) (figures 2-4; paragraphs 39, 50); store the image to a buffer (218) (paragraph 51), receive, from a second camera (eye-tracking camera 134B), eye movement data indicating movement of an eye (figures 3-4; paragraphs 44-50); and provide a signal combining the eye movement data and a portion of the image from the buffer (218) (processing unit 4 gathers image data captured by cameras 112, 134B and GPU 322 renders image data from cameras 112, 134B to be displayed to a user on a head mounted display) (figures 12; paragraphs 99, 117-129). However, although the Salter reference discloses all of the limitations above, it fails to specifically disclose that the signal does not contain all of the image from the buffer.
Stahl discloses that it is well known in the imaging art to perform image compression on images wirelessly transmitted by a head mounted display in order to reduce the original amount of data of the image prior to transmission (paragraph 46). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have been motivated to include the teaching of performing compression on images wirelessly transmitted by a head mounted display as disclosed by the Stahl reference in the electronic head mounted display device disclosed by the Salter reference. Doing so would provide a means for reducing the bandwidth usage of the device while performing wireless data transmission.
Re claim 10, Stahl further discloses that it is well known in the imaging art to perform image compression on images wirelessly transmitted by a head mounted display in order to reduce the original amount of data of the image prior to transmission based on image frame rates and frequency (paragraph 46).
Re claim 12, Salter discloses an electronic device (head mounted display), comprising: a camera (room facing camera 112) to capture an image (figures 2-4; paragraphs 39, 50); a biometric sensor (eye-tracking camera 134B) to capture biometric data (figures 3-4; paragraphs 44-50); and a controller (processing unit 4) coupled to the camera (112) and the biometric sensor (134B), the controller to: receive a portion of the image and the biometric data and provide a signal combining the portion of the image and the biometric data (processing unit 4 gathers image data captured by cameras 112, 134B and GPU 322 renders image data from cameras 112, 134B to be displayed to a user on a head mounted display) (figures 12; paragraphs 99, 117-129). However, although the Salter reference discloses all of the limitations above, it fails to specifically disclose that the signal does not contain all of the image.
Stahl discloses that it is well known in the imaging art to perform image compression on images wirelessly transmitted by a head mounted display in order to reduce the original amount of data of the image prior to transmission (paragraph 46). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have been motivated to include the teaching of performing compression on images wirelessly transmitted by a head mounted display as disclosed by the Stahl reference in the electronic head mounted display device disclosed by the Salter reference. Doing so would provide a means for reducing the bandwidth usage of the device while performing wireless data transmission.
Re claim 13, Salter further discloses a buffer (218) to store the portion of the image for subsequent access by the camera (112) (paragraph 51).
Re claim 15, Salter further discloses that the controller is to produce the signal consistent with any one of a camera link or Universal Serial Bus (processing unit 4 may include a wireless Wifi enabled communication device 346 and USB ports 348)(figure 5; paragraph 53).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salter et al. US 2014/0368535 in view of Official Notice.
Re claim 6, Salter discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses that a room facing camera (112) captures video and still images (paragraph 39) and a CCD sensor is used for an eye tracking camera (134B)(paragraph 46). However, although the Salter reference discloses all of the limitations above, it fails to specifically disclose that the first camera includes a CMOS or CCD sensor. The examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known in the digital imaging art for cameras capturing video and still images to use CCD and/or CMOS image sensors to capture image information. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have been motivated to include a CCD or CMOS image sensor in a camera of the electronic head mounted display device disclosed by the Salter reference. Doing so would provide a means for receiving incoming light and converting the incoming light into digital image signals to be processed, stored and displayed.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salter et al. US 2014/0368535 in view of Ronngren US 2019/0005735.
Re claim 7, Salter discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses that a room facing camera (112) captures video and still images (paragraph 39) and a CCD sensor is used for an eye tracking camera (134B)(paragraph 46). However, although the Salter reference discloses all of the limitations above, it fails to specifically disclose that the first camera has a global shutter or a rolling shutter.
Ronngren discloses that it is well known in the imaging art for a head mounted display device (4) to include cameras 12, 42 having image sensors using global or rolling shutters in order to capture images to observe users’ eyes and to observe an environment surrounding a user (figures 2a, 2b; paragraph 91). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have been motivated to include the teaching of capturing image data using either a rolling shutter or a global shutter as disclosed by the Ronngren reference in the electronic head mounted display device disclosed by the Salter reference. Doing so would provide a means for capturing images of acceptable image quality in order to be stored and displayed to a user.
Claims 9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salter et al. US 2014/0368535 in view of Stahl et al. US 2021/0165229 and further in view of Ronngren US 2019/0005735.
Re claim 9, the combination of the Salter and Stahl references discloses all of the limitations of claim 8 above and Salter further discloses that a room facing camera (112) captures video and still images (paragraph 39) and a CCD sensor is used for an eye tracking camera (134B)(paragraph 46). However, although the combination of the Salter and Stahl references discloses all of the limitations above, it fails to specifically disclose that the first camera has a global shutter or a rolling shutter.
Ronngren discloses that it is well known in the imaging art for a head mounted display device (4) to include cameras 12, 42 having image sensors using global or rolling shutters in order to capture images to observe users’ eyes and to observe an environment surrounding a user (figures 2a, 2b; paragraph 91). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have been motivated to include the teaching of capturing image data using either a rolling shutter or a global shutter as disclosed by the Ronngren reference in the electronic head mounted display device disclosed by the combination of the Salter and Stahl references. Doing so would provide a means for capturing images of acceptable image quality in order to be stored and displayed to a user.
Re claim 14, the combination of the Salter and Stahl references discloses all of the limitations of claim 12 above and Salter further discloses that a room facing camera (112) captures video and still images (paragraph 39) and a CCD sensor is used for an eye tracking camera (134B)(paragraph 46). However, although the combination of the Salter and Stahl references discloses all of the limitations above, it fails to specifically disclose that the first camera has a global shutter or a rolling shutter.
Ronngren discloses that it is well known in the imaging art for a head mounted display device (4) to include cameras 12, 42 having image sensors using global or rolling shutters in order to capture images to observe users’ eyes and to observe an environment surrounding a user (figures 2a, 2b; paragraph 91). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have been motivated to include the teaching of capturing image data using either a rolling shutter or a global shutter as disclosed by the Ronngren reference in the electronic head mounted display device disclosed by the combination of the Salter and Stahl references. Doing so would provide a means for capturing images of acceptable image quality in order to be stored and displayed to a user.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salter et al. US 2014/0368535 in view of Stahl et al. US 2021/0165229 and further in view of Official Notice.
Re claim 11, the combination of the Salter and Stahl references discloses all of the limitations of claim 8 above and Salter further discloses that a room facing camera (112) captures video and still images (paragraph 39) and a CCD sensor is used for an eye tracking camera (134B)(paragraph 46). However, although the Salter reference discloses all of the limitations above, it fails to specifically disclose that the first camera includes a CMOS or CCD sensor. The examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known in the digital imaging art for cameras capturing video and still images to use CCD and/or CMOS image sensors to capture image information. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to have been motivated to include a CCD or CMOS image sensor in a camera of the electronic head mounted display device disclosed by the combination of the Salter and Stahl references. Doing so would provide a means for receiving incoming light and converting the incoming light into digital image signals to be processed, stored and displayed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Miller et al. US 2022/0137703 discloses a head mounted display including inward facing cameras for capturing images of a user’s eyes and outward facing cameras for capturing images of a surrounding area.
Sarwar et al. US 2023/0053497 discloses an eye tracking system for a head mounted display device.
Webb US 2022/0201302 discloses a method for performing image compression on images captured by a head mounted display.
Contacts
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kelly L. Jerabek whose telephone number is (571) 272-7312. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday (8:00 AM - 5:00 PM).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, George Eng can be reached at (571) 272-7495. The fax phone number for submitting all Official communications is (571) 273-7300. The fax phone number for submitting informal communications such as drafts, proposed amendments, etc., may be faxed directly to the Examiner at (571) 273-7312.
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 .
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/KELLY L JERABEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2699