DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. 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.
Priority
3. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The Information Disclosure Statements filed 20 March 2025 and 8 April 2026 have been fully considered by Examiner. Annotated copies are included herewith.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
6. Claims 1-3, 5, 9-10, 13-14, 16, 18-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lindsay (US-2019/0102953).
Regarding Claim 1, Lindsay teaches a method for displaying a virtual display interface in an extended-reality space, comprising: obtaining map information of a real space by means of an image acquisition device;
• Lindsay [0020] “The HMD 104 includes one or more outward-facing image sensors configured to acquire image data of the environment 100. Examples of such image sensors include, but are not limited to, depth sensor systems (e.g. time-of-flight, structured light camera(s), and/or stereo camera arrangements), and two-dimensional image sensors (e.g. RGB and/or grayscale sensors). Such image sensor(s) may be configured to detect images in visible, infrared and/or other suitable wavelength range(s). The acquired image data may be utilized to obtain a three-dimensional representation of the environment 100 for use in displaying and positioning three-dimensional virtual objects appropriately.”
• Examiner Note: Image sensors are an image acquisition device, and it can collect environment images, which is map information of a real space.
generating an extended-reality space by means of a rendering engine based on the map information of the real space; and
• Lindsay [0020] “The acquired image data may be utilized to obtain a three-dimensional representation of the environment 100 for use in displaying and positioning three-dimensional virtual objects appropriately."
• Examiner Note: Images of the actual environment, which is map information of the real space, is being displayed on the display screen in a three-dimensional representation, which is rendering.
determining a target position of a virtual display interface in the extended-reality space, and displaying the virtual display interface at the target position,
• Lindsay [0021] "Likewise, the HMD may display any suitable type of content including but not limited to virtual object models representing three-dimensional virtual objects. A three-dimensional virtual object may be displayed in a variety of ways. For example, a three-dimensional virtual object may be displayed in a world-locked view relative to the real world environment 100. The term “world-locked” as used herein signifies that the three-dimensional virtual object is displayed as positionally fixed relative to real world objects (although this position may be user-adjusted in some examples)."
• Lindsay [0028] “In some examples, a user may manipulate or otherwise interact with three-dimensional virtual objects that are displayed.”
• Lindsay FIG. 5B additionally shows that the 3D virtual object can be a virtual menu at element 504.
• Examiner Note: A three-dimensional virtual object can be interacted with by the user (virtual display interface), and it is displayed at a position fixed relative to the real world (target position).
wherein a size of the virtual display interface is related to the target position where the virtual display interface is located and a visual range of a user.
• Lindsay [0022] "Some three-dimensional virtual objects may include dimensional information, e.g. metadata regarding dimensions at which the three-dimensional virtual object is to be displayed relative to the real-world environment. The dimensional information may specify any suitable scale characteristics (e.g. dimension(s), volume(s), aspect ratio(s), scale(s), orientation(s), position(s), etc.), and may take any suitable form... The dimensional information may be obtained from metadata for the three-dimensional virtual object, a data table, a database, or any other suitable location."
• Examiner Note: Dimension, volume, aspect ratio, and scale are scale parameters which influence size, and are related to position, which is also a scale parameter, and corresponds to the target position to be displayed.
• Lindsay [0023] "The HMD 104 then may compare an aspect ratio of the bounding box 202 to an aspect ratio of the HMD field of view 106, and based on the comparison, modify the three-dimensional virtual object 200, e.g. by scaling the three-dimensional virtual object 200 to obtain a modified three-dimensional virtual object 204, to fit within the HMD field of view 106, as depicted in FIG. 2B. In some examples, dimensions of the three-dimensional virtual object 200 may be resized while still keeping the same aspect ratio(s). In other examples, the aspect ratio of the three-dimensional virtual object 200 may be changed, such as by stretching, pinching, or flattening."
• Examiner Note: The three-dimensional virtual object (virtual display interface) is displayed in a target position (wherever the three-dimensional virtual object is displayed), with the aspect ratio (size) being influenced by the HMD field of view (visual range of a user).
Regarding Claim 2, Lindsay further teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the determining a target position of a virtual display interface in the extended-reality space and displaying the virtual display interface at the target position comprises:
determining distance information between the virtual display interface and an initial position of a head-mounted device according to attribute information of the virtual display interface,
• Lindsay [0022] "Some three-dimensional virtual objects may include dimensional information, e.g. metadata regarding dimensions at which the three-dimensional virtual object is to be displayed relative to the real-world environment. The dimensional information may specify any suitable scale characteristics (e.g. dimension(s), volume(s), aspect ratio(s), scale(s), orientation(s), position(s), etc.), and may take any suitable form... The dimensional information may be obtained from metadata for the three-dimensional virtual object, a data table, a database, or any other suitable location."
• Examiner Note: Metadata (attribute information) of the three-dimensional virtual object (virtual display interface) is used to get dimensional information, which contains parameters such as position.
determining the target position of the virtual display interface in the extended-reality space based on the distance information, and
• Lindsay [0024] "The relative aspect ratios of the three-dimensional virtual object 200 and the HMD field of view 106 may vary depending upon an apparent distance from the HMD 104 at which the three-dimensional virtual object 200 is to appear when displayed.
• Examiner Note: This apparent distance (distance information) would be based off the position of the three-dimensional virtual object (virtual display interface) and position of the HMD (initial position of a head-mounted device), which is a parameter of dimensional information which is from the metadata (attribute information).
determining the target position of the virtual display interface in the extended-reality space based on the distance information, and displaying the virtual display interface at the target position.
displaying the virtual display interface at the target position.
• Lindsay [0026] "Other suitable methods of modifying the three-dimensional virtual object 200 to fit within the HMD field of view 106 may be utilized. As another example, an apparent distance of the displayed three-dimensional virtual object 200 from the user 102 may be varied while keeping the dimensions fixed until the three-dimensional virtual object 200 fits within the HMD field of view 106. In this sense, the scale is changed by changing the apparent distance from the user at which the virtual object 200 is displayed. Yet another example includes scaling and/or resizing the three-dimensional virtual object 200 to a predetermined scale/size and displaying at a predetermined distance from the user 102."
• Examiner Note: Using the apparent distance information (distance information) to find where the three-dimensional virtual object (virtual display interface) fits within the HMD field of view (target position), then the virtual object (virtual display interface) is displayed at a target position.
Regarding Claim 3, Lindsay further teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein before the determining distance information between the virtual display interface and an initial position of a head-mounted device according to attribute information of the virtual display interface, the method further comprises:
receiving a call-out instruction for the virtual display interface, and obtaining the attribute information of the virtual display interface based on the call-out instruction.
• Lindsay [0035] "At 604, the method 600 includes receiving a user input requesting display of a first three-dimensional virtual object. The method 600 further includes, at 606, comparing dimensional information for the first three-dimensional virtual object to dimensional information regarding a field of view of the display device. The dimensional information for the three-dimensional virtual object may be included as metadata with the three-dimensional object file, data from a data table or a database, or may be obtained in any other suitable manner."
• Examiner Note: After a user input requesting display of a three-dimensional virtual object (call-out instruction for the virtual display interface), dimensional information which is included as metadata with the three-dimensional object file (attribute information) is used. It would follow that after a call-out instruction for a specific virtual object, the three-dimensional object file corresponding to that object would be obtained in response.
Regarding Claim 5, Lindsay further teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein a size of the virtual display interface in a horizontal direction is determined based on the distance information and a preset viewing angle in the horizontal direction, and a size of the virtual display interface in a vertical direction is determined based on the distance information and a preset viewing angle in the vertical direction.
• Lindsay [0023] "Where a three-dimensional virtual object is too large to fit entirely within the HMD field of view 106 due to its scale exceeding the HMD field of view 106, the HMD 104 may modify the three-dimensional virtual object to fully fit within the HMD field of view 106 so that a user may view the three-dimensional virtual object in its entirety. FIGS. 2A-2B illustrate the modification of an example three-dimensional virtual object 200 to fit within the HMD field of view 106. In one example, referring to FIG. 2A, the HMD 104 obtains the three-dimensional virtual object 200, for example from local or remote storage, and compares the dimensional information of the three-dimensional virtual object 200 to dimensional information for the HMD field of view 106. In the depicted example, a bounding box defined around the three-dimensional virtual object 200 is determined based upon the dimensional information (e.g. as a maximum dimension of the three-dimensional virtual object in each coordinate direction), as schematically indicated by bounding box 202. The bounding box 202 is shown as a rectangular three-dimensional boundary surrounding and fully containing the three-dimensional virtual object 202, although any other suitably shaped bounding volume may be utilized. The bounding box 202 may represent dimensions relative to the viewing direction in which the three-dimensional virtual object 200 is to be initially rendered, or may represent a largest dimension from any viewing angle. The HMD 104 then may compare an aspect ratio of the bounding box 202 to an aspect ratio of the HMD field of view 106, and based on the comparison, modify the three-dimensional virtual object 200, e.g. by scaling the three-dimensional virtual object 200 to obtain a modified three-dimensional virtual object 204, to fit within the HMD field of view 106, as depicted in FIG. 2B. In some examples, dimensions of the three-dimensional virtual object 200 may be resized while still keeping the same aspect ratio(s). In other examples, the aspect ratio of the three-dimensional virtual object 200 may be changed, such as by stretching, pinching, or flattening."
• Examiner Note: FIGs 2A and 2B show a 3D object (virtual display interface) being scaled by comparison of aspect ratios of the bounding box of the object versus the aspect ratio of the HMD field of view (the field of view is the preset viewing angle, as field of view dictates a degree of vision). An aspect ratio contains 2 dimensions, one each of horizontal and vertical.
Regarding Claim 9, it recites similar limitations to Claim 1, except for a memory and a processor (Lindsay [0042] “The controller 908 includes one or more logic devices and one or more computer memory devices storing instructions executable by the logic device(s) to enact functionalities of the head-mounted display device 900.”
Lindsay [0049] “The logic subsystem 1022 may include one or more processors configured to execute software instructions. Additionally, or alternatively, the logic subsystem 1022 may include one or more hardware or firmware logic subsystems configured to execute hardware or firmware instructions.”). Therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding Claim 10, it recites similar limitations to Claim 1, except for a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (Lindsay [0004] “Another example provides a display device comprising a camera, a display, a logic subsystem, and a storage subsystem comprising instructions that are executable by the logic subsystem to acquire image data imaging an environment via the camera, from the image data detect a surface within the environment, receive a user input requesting display of a three-dimensional virtual object, display the three-dimensional virtual object via the display, receive a user input moving a position of the three-dimensional virtual object, detect the three-dimensional virtual object being moved to within a threshold distance of the surface, display the three-dimensional virtual object to appear as being positioned on the surface, and constrain movement of the three-dimensional virtual object to being along the surface.”). Therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding Claim 13, it recites similar limitations to Claim 2, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding Claim 18, it recites similar limitations to Claim 2, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding Claim 14, it recites similar limitations to Claim 3, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding Claim 19, it recites similar limitations to Claim 3, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding Claim 16, it recites similar limitations to Claim 5, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding Claim 21, it recites similar limitations to Claim 5, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
8. Claims 4, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindsay (US-2019/0102953) in view of Perry (US-2022/0269889).
Regarding Claim 4, Lindsay discloses the method according to claim 1(as rejected above). Lindsay does not disclose receiving a reset instruction, and returning to perform the obtaining map information of a real space by means of an image acquisition device.
However, Perry teaches receiving a reset instruction, and returning to perform the obtaining map information of a real space by means of an image acquisition device.
• Perry [0083] “In some examples, if the quality rating of the augmented tag or augmented tag data is below the threshold, the user is prompted to recapture image(s) of the anchor tag or features, such as but not limited to environmental features of a scene”
• Examiner Note: The prompt to recapture images is a reset instruction, and is used to recapture images of environmental features again (obtaining map information of a real space).
Lindsay and Perry are analogous in the art of displaying virtual objects in an extended-reality environment. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lindsay’s invention of display a virtual display interface at a target location based off environmental data with Perry’s teaching of a reset instruction to recapture images of the environment, as doing so would give the user an option to recalibrate a scene to their liking, improving user experience.
Regarding Claim 15, it recites similar limitations to Claim 4, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding Claim 20, it recites similar limitations to Claim 4, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
9. Claims 6, 17 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindsay (US-2019/0102953) in view of Terre (US-2022/0229534).
Regarding Claim 6, Lindsay teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprises: detecting movement of a head-mounted device in the extended-reality space.
• Lindsay [0047] "The storage subsystem 1024 comprises instructions stored thereon that are executable by the logic subsystem 1022, for example, to receive and interpret inputs from the sensors, to identify location and movements of a user, to identify real objects in an augmented reality field of view and present augmented reality imagery therefore, to detect objects located outside a field of view of the user, and to present indications of positional information associated with objects located outside the field of view of the user, among other tasks."
• Examiner Note: Location and movements of a user is movement of a head-mounted device.
However, Lindsay doesn’t teach adjusting the size of the virtual display interface based on displacement of the movement.
Terre teaches adjusting the size of the virtual display interface based on displacement of the movement.
• Terre [0077] "In some embodiments, an extended reality appliance may be configured to change the viewing perspective of the extended reality environment in response to movements of the user and in response to head movements of the user in particular."
• Terre [0145] "Controlling perspective as used in this disclosure may include, for example, changing a position of a scene in fixed distance, changing a distance of the scene, changing an angle of the scene, changing a size of the scene, causing rotation of the scene, or any other manipulation of the scene that may cause a change in how a viewer may visualize the scene."
• Examiner Note: In response to movements of the user (displacement of movement), the perspective is changed, and changing perspective may include changing a size of a scene (size of the virtual display interface), therefore the size of the virtual display device can be adjusted based on displacement of the movement.
Lindsay and Terre are analogous in the art of displaying virtual objects in an extended-reality environment. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lindsay’s invention of display a virtual display interface at a target location based off environmental data, and detecting head movement, with Terre’s teaching of using the head movement to adjust the size of a scene, as doing so would maintain a representation that allows for consistent viewing by the user, improving visibility of the displayed virtual content.
Regarding Claim 17, it recites similar limitations to Claim 6, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding Claim 22, it recites similar limitations to Claim 6, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
10. Claims 7 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindsay (US-2019/0102953) in view of Terre (US-2022/0229534), and in further view of Pahud (US-2019/0005724).
Regarding Claim 7, Lindsay in view of Terre discloses the method according to claim 6 (as rejected above). Lindsay in view of Terre does not disclose wherein the detecting movement of a head-mounted device in the extended-reality space and adjusting the size of the virtual display interface based on displacement of the movement comprises: reducing the size of the virtual display interface if the head-mounted device moves in the extended-reality space in a direction close to the virtual display interface; and enlarging the size of the virtual display interface if the head-mounted device moves in the extended-reality space in a direction away from the virtual display interface.
However, Pahud teaches wherein the detecting movement of a head-mounted device in the extended-reality space and adjusting the size of the virtual display interface based on displacement of the movement comprises: reducing the size of the virtual display interface if the head-mounted device moves in the extended-reality space in a direction close to the virtual display interface; and enlarging the size of the virtual display interface if the head-mounted device moves in the extended-reality space in a direction away from the virtual display interface.
• Pahud, figs 7A-7Bm fig 8, [0064]-[0065] – The user changes the scale of the virtual user interface so that the user interface is smaller when moved close (104,116) and larger when moved further away (106,112,114).
Lindsay, Terre, and Pahud are analogous in the art of problem solving, in this case, ensuring visibility of virtual objects to a user. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Lindsay in view of Terre with Pahud’s teaching of adjusting the size of a virtual object as the distance between the user and virtual object changes, as doing so would maintain a visible representation that allows for consistent viewing by the user, where the object would appear the same size on screen regardless of distance, improving visibility of the displayed virtual content.
Regarding Claim 23, it recites similar limitations to Claim 7, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James A Thompson whose telephone number is (571)272-7441. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-6pm.
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, Alicia Harrington can be reached at 571-272-2330. 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.
/JAMES A THOMPSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2615
Prosecution Insights