DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 19-38 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: it refers to cancelled claim 2. Examiner interprets it as referring to claim 20. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 19-23, 26, 28-33, 36 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hwang et al. (WO 2018/200315 A1, IDS).
As to claim 19, Hwang discloses a device (Hwang, FIG. 1, [0084], “apparatus 150 for projecting collision-deterrents in virtual reality viewing environments”) comprising:
a processor (Hwang, FIG. 37, [0231], “processor 3718”) configured to:
determine a first elementary degree of freedom (DoF) boundary (Hwang, FIGS. 17-19, [0137], “first predetermined distance 1808”) associated with a user (Hwang, FIGS. 17-19, [0135], a user whose “parameters 1702” is associated with), wherein the first elementary DoF boundary (Hwang, FIGS. 17-19, [0137], “first predetermined distance 1808”) is determined based on at least one of prior-to-runtime information (Hwang, FIG. 17, [0135], e.g., “user profile parameters 1702”) or runtime information;
determine a second elementary DoF boundary (Hwang, FIGS. 17-19, [0138], “second distance 1810”) associated with the user (Hwang, FIGS. 17-19, [0135], the user whose “parameters 1702” is associated with), wherein the second elementary DoF boundary (Hwang, FIGS. 17-19, [0138], “second distance 1810”) is determined based on at least the prior-to-runtime information (Hwang, FIG. 17, [0135], e.g., “user profile parameters 1702”) or the runtime information;
determine a consolidated DoF boundary (Hwang, FIGS. 17-19, [0140], “critical distance 1906” and “adjustable distance 1908”) based on the first elementary DoF boundary (Hwang, FIGS. 17-19, [0137], “first predetermined distance 1808”) and the second elementary DoF boundary (Hwang, FIGS. 17-19, [0138], “second distance 1810”); and
on a condition that the determination of the consolidated DoF boundary is successful, determine to control a movement of the user (Hwang, e.g., see FIGS. 20-23) based on the consolidated DoF boundary (Hwang, e.g., FIGS. 26A-26B, [0153], “projection 2602 for preventing a collision with two external users 2604, 2606”; “ second distance 2608 (such as shown in FIG. 26A) may be calculated in forward, backward, leftward, and rightward directions from an HMD user's perspective. The second distance 2610 (such as shown in FIG. 26B) may be calculated as a series of values that are calculated based on the adjustable distance calculations for a series of virtual frames”; [0155], “The three regions may be labeled with text, such as "Safe," "Warning," and "Danger"”).
As to claim 20, Hwang discloses the device of claim 19, wherein on a condition that the determination of the consolidated DoF boundary is not successful, the processor is further configured to modify the first elementary DoF boundary or the second elementary DoF boundary to obtain a modified DoF boundary (Hwang, e.g., FIG. 15, [0126], “Because the size of the physical motion area ratio increases or decreases according to a user profile value and the interactivity value of the probable-collision frame, the adjustable distance is dependent on the attributes of the selected probable-collision frame”).
As to claim 21, Hwang discloses the device of claim 2, wherein the processor is further configured to: determine an updated consolidated DoF boundary (Hwang, FIG. 24, [0151], e.g., “calculate new distance between HMD wearer and external user 2434”) based on the modified DoF boundary and the first elementary DoF boundary or the second elementary DoF boundary (Hwang, FIG. 24, [0150], e.g., “distance < second distance? 2426” → Yes → “save distance as previous distance 2428”).
As to claim 22, Hwang discloses the device of claim 21, wherein the processor is further configured to: determine the modified DoF boundary by determining not to consider a volumetric asset of one or more of the first elementary DoF boundary or the second elementary DoF boundary (Hwang, FIG. 19, [0140], e.g., “If the physical motion area ratio is equal to 100, the first predetermined distance 1902 may be set equal to the second distance 1904”).
As to claim 23, Hwang discloses the device of claim 21, wherein the processor is further configured to: determine the modified DoF boundary by modifying a space constraint associated with the first elementary DoF boundary or the second elementary DoF boundary (Hwang, e.g., FIG. 12, [0121], “The overlap 1202 is identified as the region where there is a possibility of collision (or, for some embodiments, the possibility of collision is above a threshold). The weight of the virtual frame 1208 in the virtual environment corresponding to the overlapping area 1202 in the actual space is increased”).
As to claim 26, Hwang discloses the device of claim 19, wherein the processor configured to determine the consolidated DoF boundary based on the first elementary DoF boundary and the second elementary DoF boundary comprises the processor being configured to:
determine that a first physical environment of the first elementary DoF boundary and a second physical environment of the second elementary DoF boundary are different; and based on the difference, determine to disallow the first elementary DoF boundary in the consolidated DoF boundary (Hwang, FIG. 18, [0140], “ In calculating an adjustable distance 1908, Eq. 9 shows the critical distance 1906 being subtracted from the first predetermined distance 1902 so that the first predetermined distance 1902 and the second distance 1904 are equal if the physical motion area ratio has an extreme (maximum) value of 100”; it is reasonably inferred that if the “physical motion area ratio” corresponding to the 1st and 2nd physical environments changes from a normal value to the “extreme value of 100”, the “first predetermined distance 1902” is not used).
As to claim 28, Hwang discloses the device of claim 19, wherein on a condition that the user reaches the consolidated DoF boundary, the processor is further configured to launch a boundary-reached action, and wherein the boundary-reached action comprises one or more of: a progressive transition to a black screen rendering, a display of a warning message (Hwang, FIGS. 26A-26B, [0154], “ A vector radiating away from the HMD user in the x- y plane with a length equal to the second distance value may be divided into three regions. The outer third of the second distance vector may designate a safe region. The middle third of the second distance vector may designate a warning region. The inner third of the second distance vector may designate a danger region. The safe, warning, and danger regions may be labeled and colored with yellow, orange, and red projections”), a haptic vibration signal, an audio signal, or a user boundary-reached action.
As to claim 29, it differs from claim 19 only in that it is the method performed by the device of claim 1. It recites substantially the same limitations as in claim 19, and Hwang discloses them. Please see claim 19 for detailed analysis.
As to claims 30-33, 36 and 38, they recite substantially the same limitations as in claims 20-23, 26 and 28, respectively, and Hwang discloses them. Please see claims 20-23, 26 and 28 for detailed analysis.
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, 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 24-25 and 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al. (WO 2018/200315 A1, IDS) in view of McHugh et al. (US 2019/0172262 A1).
As to claim 24, Hwang does not teach the device of claim 20, wherein on a condition that the determination of the consolidated DoF boundary is not successful, the processor is further configured to launch a boundary-failed action, wherein the boundary-failed action comprises one or more of an error message generation or a pre-defined boundary-failed action associated with the user.
However, McHugh teaches the concept that on a condition that the determination of the consolidated DoF boundary is not successful, the processor is further configured to launch a boundary-failed action, wherein the boundary-failed action comprises one or more of an error message generation (McHugh, [0115], e.g., “In the event that there are not enough visual features, as viewed by the HMD camera, to reliably pin the content to the location selected by the user, an error message may be shown on the HUD”) or a pre-defined boundary-failed action associated with the user.
At the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the “apparatus 150 for projecting collision-deterrents in virtual reality viewing environments” taught by Hwang to further show the “error message” for the failure in visualizing the boundary, as taught by McHugh, in order to address the problem that “continuous toggling or flickering between virtual content representations can be distracting to the user and make the AR experience less interesting due to the distraction” (McHugh, [0003]).
As to claim 25, McHugh teaches the device of claim 19, wherein on a condition that the determination of the consolidated DoF boundary is not successful, the processor is further configured to modify a virtual item within an XR environment associated with the user (McHugh, e.g., [0115], “In the event that there are not enough visual features, as viewed by the HMD camera, to reliably pin the content to the location selected by the user, an icon may be shown on the HUD that helps guide the user to place the pinnable content to an acceptable real world spot, location, surface or geographically determined place”).
As to claims 34-35, they recite substantially the same limitations as in claims 24-25, respectively, and McHugh teaches them. Examiner renders the same motivation as in claim 24. Please see claims 24-25 for detailed analysis.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 27 and 37 would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 27, the closest known prior art, i.e., Hwang et al. (WO 2018/200315 A1, IDS), McHugh et al. (US 2019/0172262 A1), Harviainen (US 2022/0095001 A1, IDS), Wassall et al. (US 2021/0244479 A1), LeBeau et al. (US 2022/0086205 A1), and Mindlin et al. (US 11,405,436 B1), alone or in reasonable combination, fails to teach limitations in consideration of the claims as a whole, specifically with respect to the limitations “determine that a first physical environment of the first elementary DoF boundary and a second physical environment of the second elementary DoF boundary are different; and based on the difference, determine the consolidated DoF boundary based on a common intersection of the first elementary DoF boundary and the second elementary DoF boundary”.
As to claim 37, it recites substantially the same limitations as in claim 27, and is allowable for the same reason above. Please see claim 27 for detailed analysis.
Conclusion
The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: Harviainen (US 2022/0095001 A1, IDS) teaches the concept of “selecting a selected representation from the one or more degrees of freedom representation based on the bandwidth available” (Abs.); Wassall et al. (US 2021/0244479 A1) teaches the concept of “obtaining a model defining a tracking volume of a set of tracking cameras … indicating pose of the XR headset … and providing the graphical representation of the tracking volume to the XR headset for display to the user” (Abs.); LeBeau et al. (US 2022/0086205 A1) teaches the concept of “creating and administering artificaly reality collaborative working environments” (Abs.); and Mindlin et al. (US 11,405,436 B1) teaches the concept of “an illustrative collaboration space provider system providing a virtual collaboration experience … between a plurality of users” (Abs.).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD J HONG whose telephone number is (571) 270-7765. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM EST.
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, Chanh Nguyen can be reached on (571) 272-7772. 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.
Jun. 18, 2026
/RICHARD J HONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2623
***
Prosecution Insights