DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the Amendments and Remarks received 06/30/2026 in which claims 3, 11, and 19 are cancelled, claims 1, 5, 6, 9, 13, 14, 17, 21, and 22 are amended, and no claims are added as new claims.
Response to Arguments
On pages 13–14 of the Remarks, Applicant contends the teachings of Lipton and Kondo are deficient because the scaling in Lipton is not in response to detecting a change in position and/or orientation of the user and Kondo fails to generically teach a recited claim limitation. Examiner disagrees. As explained in the rejection, infra, the skilled artisan would have found the combination of Lipton and Kondo to teach or suggest the averred feature. To one skilled in this art, the claimed display of visual content at first and second sizes yet at the same distance based on one or more criteria would be taught or suggested by the combination of Lipton’s teaching regarding gestures or gaze controlling selection of virtual objects and scaling of virtual objects of interest (enlarged and unenlarged) with respect to non-selected items wherein the non-selected items can even be removed from display, and Kondo’s teaching that gestures can include head movements evaluated with respect to thresholds because Lipton is describing scaling content in the 3D environment separate and apart from the perspective scaling used as a conventional depth cue, e.g. as taught by Kondo’s ¶ 0120. Accordingly, the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 is sustained.
Other claims are not argued separately. Remarks, 14–15.
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 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.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 8–10, 14, 16–18, 22, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lipton (US 2023/0031832 A1) and Kondo (US 2022/0317462 A1).
Regarding claim 1, the combination of Lipton and Kondo teaches or suggests a method comprising: at an electronic device in communication with one or more displays: causing display, via the one or more displays, of first visual content at a first size (Examiner interprets the first size of displayed content to be not zoomed-in scaling); while causing display of the first visual content at the first size, detecting a position and/or orientation of a user of the electronic device change; and in response to detecting the position and/or orientation of the user of the electronic device change, in accordance with a determination that the position and/or orientation of the user satisfies one or more criteria, causing display of the first visual content at a second size different than the first size (Examiner interprets this claim as claiming an invention wherein the scale (zoom level) of virtual content displayed on a head-mounted display (HMD) changes from a first, smaller size, to a second, larger size, upon detection of a user’s head leaning forward toward an object of interest wherein the “lean in” behavior essentially defines a gesture; Examiner notes the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of original claim 1 merely requires a virtual object to change size as the virtual viewpoint of the user gets closer to the object, which is a fundamental function of any HMD allowing a user to traverse through a 3D virtual environment; Otherwise, as a person traverses through a virtual environment, they would never get the sensation of approaching a virtual object because the size of the object would not appear larger as the user got closer; The result would be an unrealistic 3D environment absent the resizing as generically claimed; However, as explained for most of the dependent claims, and now this claim, as amended, the invention is interpreted to be an enlargement of a virtual object upon a detected head movement above and beyond the normal perspective enlargement (i.e. conventional depth cue) required for a realistic 3D environment; Kondo, ¶ 0120: teaches the normal scaling of virtual objects to create a 3D immersive environment wherein as the distance from the user to the object becomes shorter the virtual object becomes larger; Lipton, e.g. ¶¶ 0006, 0024, 0052, 0068, 0076, 0077: teaches an HMD wherein the user is able to use gestures as inputs, to select virtual objects, move virtual objects, scale (change the size of; zoom into or out of) virtual objects, etc.; Examiner notes Applicant’s original claim 8 explains the resizing is scaling; Lipton, ¶¶ 0081 and 0115: teaches a user’s gaze may be used as an indication that a virtual object is selected or being fixated upon and a corresponding indication can include brightening, highlighting, enlarging, etc. the virtual object to represent the point of focus of the user’s gaze wherein a full-scale representation of the selected virtual object can include occluding (e.g. darkening, fading, etc.) the other portions of the 3D environment to only show or principally show only the selected virtual object; Lipton, ¶ 0117: teaches ceasing display of portions of an image and exiting enlarged modes of viewing a virtual object to restore the scale and occluded portions of the image prior to the zooming in (immersive) mode; While Lipton’s teaching of using gaze appears to suggest that head movements are types of gestures that can be used to trigger the scaling of a virtual object, Kondo, in the same field of endeavor, explains that the skilled artisan had in their possession the ability to interpret head movements as gestures for interacting with a 3D virtual environment; Kondo, ¶ 0097 and 0123: teaches that head posture changes can be interpreted as a gesture for an HMD wherein gestures are evaluated according to thresholds to distinguish between gestures and other movements of the head; To one skilled in this art, the claimed display of visual content at first and second sizes based on one or more criteria would be taught or suggested by the combination of Lipton’s teaching regarding gestures or gaze controlling selection of virtual objects and scaling of virtual objects of interest (enlarged and unenlarged) with respect to non-selected items wherein the non-selected items can even be removed from display, and Kondo’s teaching that gestures can include head movements evaluated with respect to thresholds), wherein the first size of the first visual content and the second size of the first visual content are sizes in a three-dimensional environment relative to the three-dimensional environment (Similar to the interpretation given to original claim 2, Examiner interprets this claim to be differentiating between only the object (region) being enlarged (i.e. Applicant’s “relative to”), as opposed to the whole displayed area; Again as a user approaches a scene, objects therein would be scaled rather uniformly so as to give the user the effect of moving closer to foreground objects according to a 3D perspective; Examiner interprets this claimed feature to be attempting to differentiate between this uniform scaling of all objects within the scene according to virtual movement and a particular relative scaling of a particular region or object in the scene due to user selection (by head gesture) similar to a user selecting an object of interest and the object getting bigger to indicate its selection; Kondo, ¶ 0120: teaches the normal scaling of virtual objects to create a 3D immersive environment wherein as the distance from the user to the object becomes shorter the virtual object becomes larger; Lipton, e.g. ¶¶ 0006, 0024, 0052, 0068, 0076, 0077: teaches an HMD wherein the user is able to use gestures as inputs, to select virtual objects, move virtual objects, scale (change the size of; zoom into or out of) virtual objects, etc.; Examiner notes Applicant’s original claim 8 explains the resizing is scaling; Lipton, ¶¶ 0081 and 0115: teaches a user’s gaze may be used as an indication that a virtual object is selected or being fixated upon and a corresponding indication can include brightening, highlighting, enlarging, etc. the virtual object to represent the point of focus of the user’s gaze wherein a full-scale representation of the selected virtual object can include occluding (e.g. darkening, fading, etc.) the other portions of the 3D environment to only show or principally show only the selected virtual object; Lipton, ¶ 0117: teaches ceasing display of portions of an image and exiting enlarged modes of viewing a virtual object to restore the scale and occluded portions of the image prior to the zooming in (immersive) mode; While Lipton’s teaching of using gaze appears to suggest that head movements are types of gestures that can be used to trigger the scaling of a virtual object, Kondo, in the same field of endeavor, explains that the skilled artisan had in their possession the ability to interpret head movements as gestures for interacting with a 3D virtual environment; Kondo, ¶ 0097 and 0123: teaches that head posture changes can be interpreted as a gesture for an HMD wherein gestures are evaluated according to thresholds to distinguish between gestures and other movements of the head; To one skilled in this art, the claimed display of visual content at first and second sizes yet at the same distance based on one or more criteria would be taught or suggested by the combination of Lipton’s teaching regarding gestures or gaze controlling selection of virtual objects and scaling of virtual objects of interest (enlarged and unenlarged) with respect to non-selected items wherein the non-selected items can even be removed from display, and Kondo’s teaching that gestures can include head movements evaluated with respect to thresholds because Lipton is describing scaling content in the 3D environment separate and apart from the perspective scaling used as a conventional depth cue, e.g. as taught by Kondo’s ¶ 0120).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to combine the elements taught by Lipton, with those of Kondo, because both references are drawn to the same field of endeavor such that one wishing to practice the art of monitoring head position and user gaze in a head-mounted display (HMD) displaying a virtual environment to a user would be led to their relevant teachings regarding region or object of interest zooming/scaling and because combining Lipton’s gesture and gaze position monitoring for enlargement (zoom) control with Kondo’s head gesture monitoring represents a simple substitution of Lipton’s use of hand gestures or gaze with Kondo’s prior art head gestures to achieve a predictable result. This rationale applies to all combinations of Lipton and Kondo used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Lipton and Kondo teaches or suggests the method of claim 1, wherein: the electronic device causes display of the first visual content in a three-dimensional environment, while causing display of the first visual content at the first size while the position and/or orientation of the user does not satisfy the one or more criteria, the electronic device causes display of the first visual content a first distance from a viewpoint of the user in the three-dimensional environment, and while causing display of the first visual content at the second size in accordance with the determination that the position and/or orientation of the user satisfies the one or more criteria, the electronic device causes display of the first visual content the first distance from the viewpoint of the user in the three-dimensional environment (Examiner interprets these limitations to be essentially differentiating between a change in scale of an object due to distance on the one hand and a zoom effect on the other, wherein a particular object is artificially enlarged beyond the standard scaling that would give a traditional 3D effect; In other words, the prior art is replete with examples of virtual objects getting bigger as you get closer to them in the 3D environment because such an effect is essential to giving the user the feeling of movement in a 3D environment; As you get closer to objects or objects get closer into the foreground, they get bigger and vice versa; Instead of this traditional resizing based on distance, Examiner interprets the claimed invention to be a zoom effect based on the head gesture of leaning in/leaning closer to the object and the object enlarging due to the user’s indication (by head movement) that the user wishes to view the object (or, more generally, the region in the image) more closely or to get more information about the selected or relevant object; Kondo, ¶ 0120: teaches the normal scaling of virtual objects to create a 3D immersive environment wherein as the distance from the user to the object becomes shorter the virtual object becomes larger; Lipton, e.g. ¶¶ 0006, 0024, 0052, 0068, 0076, 0077: teaches an HMD wherein the user is able to use gestures as inputs, to select virtual objects, move virtual objects, scale (change the size of; zoom into or out of) virtual objects, etc.; Examiner notes Applicant’s original claim 8 explains the resizing is scaling; Lipton, ¶¶ 0081 and 0115: teaches a user’s gaze may be used as an indication that a virtual object is selected or being fixated upon and a corresponding indication can include brightening, highlighting, enlarging, etc. the virtual object to represent the point of focus of the user’s gaze wherein a full-scale representation of the selected virtual object can include occluding (e.g. darkening, fading, etc.) the other portions of the 3D environment to only show or principally show only the selected virtual object; Lipton, ¶ 0117: teaches ceasing display of portions of an image and exiting enlarged modes of viewing a virtual object to restore the scale and occluded portions of the image prior to the zooming in (immersive) mode; While Lipton’s teaching of using gaze appears to suggest that head movements are types of gestures that can be used to trigger the scaling of a virtual object, Kondo, in the same field of endeavor explains that the skilled artisan had in their possession the ability to interpret head movements as gestures for interacting with a 3D virtual environment; Kondo, ¶ 0097 and 0123: teaches that head posture changes can be interpreted as a gesture for an HMD wherein gestures are evaluated according to thresholds to distinguish between gestures and other movements of the head; To one skilled in this art, the claimed display of visual content at first and second sizes yet at the same distance based on one or more criteria would be taught or suggested by the combination of Lipton’s teaching regarding gestures or gaze controlling selection of virtual objects and scaling of virtual objects of interest (enlarged and unenlarged) with respect to non-selected items wherein the non-selected items can even be removed from display), and Kondo’s teaching that gestures can include head movements evaluated with respect to thresholds because Lipton is describing scaling content in the 3D environment separate and apart from the perspective scaling used as a conventional depth cue, e.g. as taught by Kondo’s ¶ 0120).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Lipton and Kondo teaches or suggests the method of claim 1, further comprising: while causing display of the first visual content at the second size, detecting the position and/or orientation of the user of the electronic device change from satisfying the one or more criteria to not satisfying the one or more criteria; and in response to detecting the position and/or orientation of the user of the electronic device change from satisfying the one or more criteria to not satisfying the one or more criteria, causing display of the first visual content at the first size (Interpreted as undoing the zoom function upon the head position retreating from “looking in” position; see treatment of claim 1; Examiner finds that in view of the prior art teaching a head gesture can trigger an enlargement, it would be obvious, given those teachings to account for a reverse action to undo such behavior; Lipton, ¶ 0117: teaches ceasing display of portions of an image and exiting enlarged modes of viewing a virtual object to restore the scale and occluded portions of the image prior to the zooming in (immersive) mode).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Lipton and Kondo teaches or suggests the method of claim 1, wherein causing display of the first visual content at the first size includes causing display of the first visual content with a first scale, and causing display of the first visual content at the second size includes: in accordance with a determination that a gaze of the user was directed to a first portion of the first visual content while the position and/or orientation of the user of the electronic device changed, causing display of a portion of the first visual content including the first portion with a second scale different from the first scale; and in accordance with a determination that the gaze of the user was directed to a second portion of the first visual content different from the first portion while the position and/or orientation of the user of the electronic device changed, causing display of a portion of the first visual content including the second portion with the second scale different from the first scale (Interpreted as maintaining zoom as the user looks at various objects with the head maintaining a position of “leaning in”; Examiner finds that in view of the prior art teaching a head gesture can trigger an enlargement and restore original size from an enlargement, it would be obvious, given those teachings to maintain such behavior while the head gesture indicates; Lipton, ¶ 0117: teaches ceasing display of portions of an image and exiting enlarged modes of viewing a virtual object to restore the scale and occluded portions of the image prior to the zooming in (immersive) mode upon selecting a “reset” action; Examiner notes the opposite of this behavior would be the system requiring the user to move his head like a pigeon back and forth to cancel a previous zoom operation and initiate a new zoom operation to make selections? Or perhaps the display would zoom out on its own without a gesture indicating as such prior to another selection being enlarged?; To argue the prior art is deficient in this way when there is no suggestion in the prior art that such operations must be repeated for the zoom to be maintained would seem unreasonable to the skilled artisan; Indeed, Lipton teaches that a gesture can control the zoom or enlargement such that the most reasonable inference is that if the head position is maintained, then the zoom or enlargement operation is likewise maintained; the zoom is not otherwise cancelled absent a movement indicating a cancellation of the zoom).
Claim 9 lists the same elements as claim 1, but in apparatus form rather than method form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 1 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 10 lists the same elements as claim 2, but in apparatus form rather than method form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 2 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 14 lists the same elements as claim 6, but in apparatus form rather than method form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 6 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 16 lists the same elements as claim 8, but in apparatus form rather than method form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 8 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 17 lists the same elements as claim 1, but in CRM form rather than method form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 1 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 18 lists the same elements as claim 2, but in CRM form rather than method form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 2 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 22 lists the same elements as claim 6, but in CRM form rather than method form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 6 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 24 lists the same elements as claim 8, but in CRM form rather than method form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 8 applies to the instant claim.
Claims 4, 5, 12, 13, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lipton, Kondo, and Hardee (US 2018/0293455 A1).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Lipton, Kondo, and Hardee teaches or suggests the method of claim 1, wherein causing display of the first visual content at the first size includes causing display of the first visual content at the first size concurrently with second visual content, and causing display of the first visual content at the second size includes causing display of the first visual content at the second size without causing display of the second visual content (Similar to the interpretation given to original claims 2 and 3, Examiner interprets this claim to be differentiating between only the object (region) being enlarged, as opposed to the whole displayed area; see treatment of original claims 2 and 3; Examiner finds the “without causing display” to be not illustrated in Applicant’s drawings (Figs. 3D-3H) because the zoomed in document or photo still has surrounding content like the monitor in Applicant’s Fig. 3H displayed; Lipton, e.g. ¶¶ 0006, 0024, 0052, 0068, 0076, 0077: teaches an HMD wherein the user is able to use gestures as inputs, to select virtual objects, move virtual objects, scale (change the size of; zoom into or out of) virtual objects, etc.; Examiner notes Applicant’s original claim 8 explains the resizing is scaling; Lipton, ¶¶ 0081 and 0115: teaches a user’s gaze may be used as an indication that a virtual object is selected or being fixated upon and a corresponding indication can include brightening, highlighting, enlarging, etc. the virtual object to represent the point of focus of the user’s gaze wherein a full-scale representation of the selected virtual object can include occluding (e.g. darkening, fading, etc.) the other portions of the 3D environment to only show or principally show only the selected virtual object; Lipton, ¶ 0117: teaches ceasing display of portions of an image and exiting enlarged modes of viewing a virtual object to restore the scale and occluded portions of the image prior to the zooming in (immersive) mode; While Lipton’s teaching of using gaze appears to suggest that head movements are types of gestures that can be used to trigger the scaling of a virtual object, Kondo, in the same field of endeavor explains that the skilled artisan had in their possession the ability to interpret head movements as gestures for interacting with a 3D virtual environment; Kondo, ¶ 0097 and 0123: teaches that head posture changes can be interpreted as a gesture for an HMD wherein gestures are evaluated according to thresholds to distinguish between gestures and other movements of the head; Hardee, ¶ 0021: teaches only portions of selected images are displayed such as by “zooming in” on the appropriate portions of the images or “cropping” the images; The skilled artisan would find the combination of Lipton’s teachings regarding the removal of other objects at are not selected for enlargement through occlusion and Hardee’s teachings regarding the selection of portions of the image for zooming in to the exclusion of other image portions through cropping those portions out of the displayed image of the object of interest would teach or suggest Applicant’s claimed “without causing display of second visual content”).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to combine the elements taught by Lipton and Kondo, with those of Hardee, because all three references are drawn to the same field of endeavor such that one wishing to practice the art of displaying selected content to a user on a display device using image scaling would be led to their relevant teachings, because Hardee is reasonably pertinent to the problem of providing a visual indication to a user corresponding to a selected region of interest in an image because the similarity in function for both the invention and prior art is enlarging a selected region or object of interest for emphasis for the user. In addition, combining Lipton’s HMD displays utilizing scaling or zooming wherein non-selected content may be removed or darkened from display with Hardee’s selection and display of only zoomed in portions of images by zooming or cropping the images represents a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield a predictable result. This rationale applies to all combinations of Lipton, Kondo, and Hardee used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Lipton, Kondo, and Hardee teaches or suggests the method of claim 1, further comprising: prior to detecting the position and/or orientation of the user of the electronic device change, concurrently causing display of second visual content at a third size with the first visual content at the first size and; in response to detecting the position and/or orientation of the user of the electronic device change, in accordance with the determination that the position and/or orientation of the user satisfies the one or more criteria: in accordance with a determination that a gaze of the user was directed to the first visual content while the position and/or orientation of the user changed, causing display of the first visual content at the second size and causing cessation of display of the second visual content; and in accordance with a determination that a gaze of the user was directed to the second visual content while the position and/or orientation of the user changed, causing display of the second visual content at a fourth size different than the third size and causing cessation of display of the first visual content (Similar to the interpretation given to original claims 2–4, Examiner interprets this claim to be differentiating between only the object (region) being enlarged, as opposed to the whole displayed area; see treatment of original claims 2–4; Examiner further interprets the particulars of this claim to be claiming the cancelling of the zoom effect but still rescaling the whole displayed environment according to normal depth perception with virtual/real movements such that rescaling ratios match a sensation of traveling through the virtual environment; Kondo, ¶ 0120: teaches the normal scaling of virtual objects to create a 3D immersive environment wherein as the distance from the user to the object becomes shorter the virtual object becomes larger; Lipton, e.g. ¶¶ 0006, 0024, 0052, 0068, 0076, 0077: teaches an HMD wherein the user is able to use gestures as inputs, to select virtual objects, move virtual objects, scale (change the size of; zoom into or out of) virtual objects, etc.; Examiner notes Applicant’s original claim 8 explains the resizing is scaling; Lipton, ¶¶ 0081 and 0115: teaches a user’s gaze may be used as an indication that a virtual object is selected or being fixated upon and a corresponding indication can include brightening, highlighting, enlarging, etc. the virtual object to represent the point of focus of the user’s gaze wherein a full-scale representation of the selected virtual object can include occluding (e.g. darkening, fading, etc.) the other portions of the 3D environment to only show or principally show only the selected virtual object; Lipton, ¶ 0117: teaches ceasing display of portions of an image and exiting enlarged modes of viewing a virtual object to restore the scale and occluded portions of the image prior to the zooming in (immersive) mode; While Lipton’s teaching of using gaze appears to suggest that head movements are types of gestures that can be used to trigger the scaling of a virtual object, Kondo, in the same field of endeavor explains that the skilled artisan had in their possession the ability to interpret head movements as gestures for interacting with a 3D virtual environment; Kondo, ¶ 0097 and 0123: teaches that head posture changes can be interpreted as a gesture for an HMD wherein gestures are evaluated according to thresholds to distinguish between gestures and other movements of the head; Lipton, ¶ 0084: teaches ceasing the display of selected or highlighted content upon a gesture input; Lipton, ¶¶ 0075, 0081, and 0115: teaches enlarging a virtual object selected by the user while ceasing to display other objects in the first view based on detected gaze; Lipton, ¶ 0117: teaches an enlarged representation upon selection of a virtual object being accomplished through gaze as a non-limiting example and further teaches return of the representation to the unenlarged size; Hardee, ¶ 0021: teaches only portions of selected images are displayed such as by “zooming in” on the appropriate portions of the images or “cropping” the images; The skilled artisan would find the combination of Dryer’s teachings regarding the removal of other objects that are not selected for enlargement and Hardee’s teachings regarding the selection of portions of the image for zooming in to the exclusion of other image portions through cropping those portions out of the displayed image of the object of interest would teach or suggest Applicant’s claimed “cessation of display of the second visual content”).
Claim 12 lists the same elements as claim 4, but in apparatus form rather than method form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 4 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 13 lists the same elements as claim 5, but in apparatus form rather than method form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 5 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 20 lists the same elements as claim 4, but in CRM form rather than method form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 4 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 21 lists the same elements as claim 5, but in CRM form rather than method form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 5 applies to the instant claim.
Claims 7, 15, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lipton, Kondo, and Jorasch (US 2021/0399911 A1).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Lipton, Kondo, and Jorasch teaches or suggests the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more criteria include a criterion that is satisfied when an altitude of a head of the user changes by at least a threshold amount (Kondo, ¶¶ 0123 and 0132: teach a head gesture exceeding a threshold means the gesture was performed; Kondo, ¶ 0100: teaches the purpose of the thresholds is to differentiate between intended gestures and other head motions of the user; Jorasch, ¶ 1256: teaches gestures can include head motions including altitude (upward distance or downward distance with respect to a neutral threshold position) When Kondo’s teachings are combined with Jorasch’s teachings (e.g. ¶ 2109) regarding head movements of the user controlling position (i.e. X, Y, Z), orientation (yaw, tilt, roll), and zooming/scaling, the combination teaches altitude (i.e. Y-dimension) movement being subjected to a threshold prior to initiating a “selection” or “zoom” command for a specified object or region in an image so that erroneous selections or zooming operations do not frustrate the user).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to combine the elements taught by Lipton and Kondo, with those of Jorasch, because all three references are drawn to the same field of endeavor such that one wishing to practice the art of displaying selected content to a user on a display device using image scaling would be led to their relevant teachings, because Jorasch’s teachings are reasonably pertinent to the problem of providing head tracking using accelerometers because the similarity in function for both the invention and prior art is tracking user movement. In addition, combining Kondo’s HMD displays utilizing accelerometers to track head movements, including tilt movements with Jorasch’s head movement tracking using accelerometers represents a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield a predictable result. This rationale applies to all combinations of Lipton, Kondo, and Jorasch used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
Claim 15 lists the same elements as claim 7, but in apparatus form rather than method form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 7 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 23 lists the same elements as claim 7, but in CRM form rather than method form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 7 applies to the instant claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Atsuchi (US 2024/0013689 A1) teaches changing the size (scaling or zooming) of a virtual object based on a distance between a HMD and a display surface wherein a farther distance corresponds with a smaller display size (¶ 0163).
Sugihara (US 2022/0291744 A1) teaches a user stepping forward or forward tilting the head (a so-called “looking-in” motion) so that an HMD object is enlarged based on the user’s head position and likewise leaning back or tilting back the head to reduce the scale of the object (Fig. 6 and ¶¶ 0096, 0098, and 0108) and teaches a further bending back can be interpreted to be a command to exit the object (¶ 0109).
Yang (US 2024/0085711 A1) teaches sizes and positions of displayed images controlled to control virtual objects in world-space wherein the display can be a single display or multiple displays (¶ 0016).
Brown (US 2023/0306690 A1) teaches the scaling of a virtual object changing as the user approaches or recedes from the virtual object (¶ 0075).
Goodrich (US 2021/0287439 A1) illustrates the graying out of a background as the foreground object (person) is cropped from an image (¶ 0041 and Figs. 12–15).
Smith (US 2019/0289284 A1) teaches enlarging regions of interest for a head-mounted display (¶ 0043).
Ophir (US 2023/0103650 A1) teaches “head movements of the user wearing the HMD may control positioning, orientation, focusing and/or gimbal parameters of the cameras array for allowing the user to remotely control his/her line of sight (LOS) and/or field of view (FOV), change ROI, focus (e.g. zooming) on objects of interest, etc.” (Ophir, ¶ 0274).
Hayashi (US 2023/0068862 A1) teaches that the art considers gestures for controlling HMD virtual object viewing behavior can include gestures of the head, and specifically teaches that an HMD is capable of “detecting that the head of the player is pushed forward away from the body of the player as if to get a better view through a crack, etc.” (Hayashi, ¶ 0073).
Wu (US 2010/0192100 A1) teaches three-dimensional virtual objects being displayed to a user as a menu wherein the selected item is enlarged (zoomed) and moved forward to indicate selection to the user (e.g. ¶ 0054 and Fig. 4B).
Neff (US 2023/0376161 A1) teaches virtual object instances scaled up (enlarged) to facilitate visibility and usability of menu icons (e.g. ¶ 0080 and Fig. 5B).
Yardi (US 2022/0004639 A1) teaches an HMD wherein the user is able to use gestures as inputs, to select virtual objects, move virtual objects, scale (change the size of; zoom into or out of) virtual objects, etc. (Yardi, ¶ 0075).
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 extension fee 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 Michael J Hess whose telephone number is (571)270-7933. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00am-5:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William Vaughn can be reached on (571)272-3922. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8933.
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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL J HESS/Examiner, Art Unit 2481
Prosecution Insights