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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
The office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed 08/10/2026 which has been entered and made of record. Claims 1-4, 7-12 and 15-20 have been amended. No claim has been newly added. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application. The claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) has been withdrawn based on the amendments of claims 1, 9 and 17.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 08/10/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Wheeler as fully explained below.
Applicant argues:
Wheeler does not teach the claimed relationship between the display unit and the real environment. Further, because Wheeler does not present the real environment through the display unit, Wheeler also fails to disclose a user interface comprising both the real environment presented through the display unit and information generated by the processor and displayed in the display unit.
Wheeler does not teach the movement of control information based on head rotation alone.
Wheeler does not teach the posture detection sensor for the head of user in real time.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Wheeler teaches an HMD in Figure 1, the HMD displays virtual images and the field of view of real environment together, and in paragraph [0041], “the wearer of HMD 100 may observe a portion of the real-world environment, i.e., in a particular field of view provided by the optical system 106. In addition, HMD 100 is operable to display virtual images that are superimposed on the field of view. It clearly indicates the combining of the view of real environment with the virtual image as the information generated by the processor. It teaches further in paragraph [0064] “A real-world scene is viewable through a viewing window 224 . ……Thus, both a virtual image and a real-world image are viewable to the viewing location 222 through the proximal beam splitter 216.”
Wheeler teaches the movement of control information based on user’s head movement in paragraph [0095] “if the HMD user rotates the HMD to the right and gazes towards the right side of the HMD display 714, the user interface menus may rotate to the left, allowing the contacts 724 and calendar 726 to be displayed in the HMD display 714.”. The claim language does not include the limitation of “based only on head rotation alone”.
Wheeler teaches using sensor to detect the change of orientation of HMD in paragraph [0100] “The routine may be called every time that there is a new sensor reading relating to the orientation of the HMD, for example, a sensor reading from gyroscope 120, accelerometer 124, or other component of HMD-Tracking system 104.”.
Conclusions: The rejections set in the previous Office Action are shown to have been proper, and the claims are rejected below. New citations and parenthetical remarks can be considered new grounds of rejection and such new grounds of rejection are necessitated by the Applicant's amendments to the claims. Therefore, the present Office Action is made final.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 9 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wheeler et al. (US 20130106674 A1), hereinafter as Wheeler.
Regarding claim 1, Wheeler teaches A display control method (Wheeler paragraph [0004] “a method is provided. The method includes determining a gaze axis within a field of view of a head-mounted display (HMD), wherein the HMD is configured to display virtual images within the field of view.”), wherein a display unit is communicatively connected to a processor, so that a user is able to view a real environment through the display unit (Wheeler Figure 1, processor 112 and display panel 126, and paragraph [0040-0041] “FIG. 1 is schematic diagram of a wearable computing device or a head-mounted display (HMD) 100 that may include several different components and subsystems……HMD 100 includes a see-through display. Thus, the wearer of HMD 100 may observe a portion of the real-world environment, i.e., in a particular field of view provided by the optical system 106. In addition, HMD 100 is operable to display virtual images that are superimposed on the field of view, for example, to provide an "augmented reality" experience.”), the method comprising: presenting a user interface, wherein the user interface comprises: the real environment presented through the display unit and information generated by the processor and displayed in the display unit (Wheeler paragraph [0091] “a HMD may display a user interface in which the virtual images are substantially anchored to the real-world environment. This `world-fixed` user interface could appear to the HMD user as though the virtual images of the user interface are substantially fixed to an inside surface of an imaginary ring that surrounds the user's head.”); detecting, by a posture detection sensor, a posture change of the head of the user in real time (Wheeler paragraph [0100] “The routine may be called every time that there is a new sensor reading relating to the orientation of the HMD, for example, a sensor reading from gyroscope 120 , accelerometer 124 , or other component of HMD-Tracking system 104 ……. Specifically, the variables dx and dy, which represent the distances that the wearer's head has travelled in the x and y directions, respectively, are determined from the sensor data.”); and controlling, in response to the head of the user being rotated in a first direction of rotation, the information to move, in the user interface, relative to the head in a direction opposite to the first direction of rotation (Wheeler paragraph [0095] “As described above, the user interface icons and/or menus could be arranged in imaginary ring that surrounds the HMD user's head. In the example embodiment 712, if at rest, the user interface may be configured to remain substantially `world-fixed` and rotate in the opposite direction at least due to HMD panning and eye gaze change. For instance, if the HMD user rotates the HMD to the right and gazes towards the right side of the HMD display 714, the user interface menus may rotate to the left, allowing the contacts 724 and calendar 726 to be displayed in the HMD display 714.”).
Wheeler and the current application are in the same field of endeavor, namely computer graphic, especially in the field of augmented reality display with head movement tracking. In one embodiment, Wheeler teaches updating the virtual image based on the movement of HMD; in another embodiment, Wheeler teaches using sensors to detect the change of orientation of HMD, to improve user interaction. Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Wheeler in various embodiments to improve user interaction.
Regarding claim 9, it recites similar limitations of claim 1 but in an electronic device form. The rationale of claim 1 rejection is applied to reject claim 9. In addition, Wheeler teaches An electronic device, comprising: at least one memory and at least one processor, wherein the at least one memory is configured to store program code, and the program code, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the electronic device to (Wheeler paragraph [0045] “The function of the HMD 100 may be controlled by a processor 112 that executes instructions stored in a non-transitory computer readable medium, such as the memory 114. Thus, processor 112 in combination with instructions stored in the memory 114 may function as a controller of HMD 100. As such, processor 112 may control the user interface 115 to adjust what images are displayed by HMD 100. The processor 112 may also control the wireless communication interface 134 and various other components of the HMD 100. The processor 112 may additionally represent a plurality of computing devices that may serve to control individual components or subsystems of the HMD 100.”).
Regarding claim 17, it recites similar limitations of claim 1 but in a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium form. The rationale of claim 1 rejection is applied to reject claim 17. In addition, Wheeler teaches A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium configured to store program code that, when executed by a processor, causes the processor to (Wheeler paragraph [0005] “The non-transitory computer readable medium includes instructions executable by a computing device to cause the computing device to perform functions including, receiving eye-tracking images from a head-mounted display (HMD), wherein the HMD is configured to display virtual images within a field of view.”).
Claim(s) 2-4, 7, 10-12, 15 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wheeler et al. (US 20130106674 A1), hereinafter as Wheeler, in view of Rahman et al. (US 20230185365 A1), hereinafter as Rahman.
Regarding claim 2, Wheeler teaches The method according to claim 1, but is not relied on for the below claim language wherein during the rotation of the head in the first direction of rotation, in response to the information being moved to a preset boundary in the user interface relative to the head in the direction opposite to the first direction of rotation, a position of the information in the user interface is controlled to remain unchanged.
Rahman teaches wherein during the rotation of the head in the first direction of rotation, in response to the information being moved to a preset boundary in the user interface relative to the head in the direction opposite to the first direction of rotation, a position of the information in the user interface is controlled to remain unchanged (Rahman teaches a range 110 in Figure 1D, 2D AR content as the information is constrained to remain inside the range, paragraph [0042] “keeping 2D AR content 25 within range 110 may avoid situations in which an unconstrained 2D AR content 25 could, for example, move outside the edges of the AR display 100 (e.g., to become out of view of the viewer, or otherwise tax the viewer's OVR responses)…… Movements of 2D AR content 25 may be constrained or restricted not to exceed range 110. For example, when a moving 2D AR content 25 approaches the boundaries (i.e. edges, E) of range 110, the position of 2D AR content 25 may be reset or returned to, or pulled back toward, the center of range 110 (i.e., center C), for example, by a spring-like bouncing action off the range boundaries or edges.”).
Wheeler and Rahman are in the same field of endeavor, namely computer graphic, especially in the field of augmented reality display with head movement tracking. Rahman teaches a method of moving AR content within an allowed range to improve user interaction. Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Rahman with the method of Wheeler to improve user interaction.
Regarding claim 3, Wheeler teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein the information is moved with the movement of the head of the user; but is not relied on for the below claim language and before and after the movement of the head, a relative position of the information and the head remains unchanged.
Rahman teaches and before and after the movement of the head, a relative position of the information and the head remains unchanged (Rahman teaches moving the 2D AR content into a head-locked position, further teaches the switching between world-locked, head-locked and stabilized lock model, paragraph [0041-0045] “2D AR content 25 may be constrained to remain within a range 110 (e.g., a rectangular area) on AR display 100 when transiting between starting position 104 and the final head-locked position 105……an example HMD device may include a switch (e.g., a hardware switch or a software switch) which may allow a person (e.g., a viewer or an administrator) to switch or toggle the HMD device (and AR display 100) between any of the world-locked mode, the head-locked mode, and/or the stabilized mode.”, paragraph [0019] “In a head-locked mode, the position and orientation of the overlaid AR content in the AR display depends only on the position and orientation of the viewer's head (as if the AR object or content were rigidly attached by a rigid rod to the viewer's head) independent of any features of the real-world scene.”).
Wheeler and Rahman are in the same field of endeavor, namely computer graphic, especially in the field of augmented reality display with head movement tracking. Rahman teaches a method of moving AR content within an allowed range to improve user interaction. Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Rahman with the method of Wheeler to improve user interaction.
Regarding claim 4, Wheeler in view of Rahman teach The method according to claim 2, and further teach wherein the information is always located in the user interface currently displayed to the user, and the preset boundary is a boundary of a preset range in the user interface (Rahman teaches a rectangular area 110 as the preset range in Figure 1D, paragraph [0041] “In the stabilized mode, the response of 2D AR content 25 (i.e., responsive movements of the 2D AR content) to viewer's head motions may be dampened. For example, the responsive movements of 2D AR content 25 may be constrained to be responsive to viewer's head motions within a limited allowed range (e.g., limited in direction, amplitude and/or frequency) of movements. For example, as shown in FIG. 1D, 2D AR content 25 may be constrained to remain within a range 110 (e.g., a rectangular area) on AR display 100 when transiting between starting position 104 and the final head-locked position 105. The limits of the allowed range 110 of the movements of 2D AR content 25 along path P2 may be a function of one or more characteristics (e.g., direction, amplitude, and or frequency) of the viewer's head motions.”)
Wheeler and Rahman are in the same field of endeavor, namely computer graphic, especially in the field of augmented reality display with head movement tracking. Rahman teaches a method of moving AR content within an allowed range to improve user interaction. Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Rahman with the method of Wheeler to improve user interaction.
Regarding claim 7, Wheeler teaches The method according to claim 1, but is not replied on for the below claim language wherein the method further comprises:
after the end of the rotation of the head and the information, controlling the position of the information so that the relative position of the information and the head remains unchanged before and after the rotation of the head in the first direction of rotation.
Rahman teaches wherein the method further comprises: after the end of the rotation of the head and the information, controlling the position of the information so that the relative position of the information and the head remains unchanged before and after the rotation of the head in the first direction of rotation (Rahman teaches moving 2D AR content to final head-locked position in Figure 1D, head-locked mode indicates the relative position of AR content and head remains unchanged, paragraph [0042] “the responsive movements of 2D AR content 25 may be biased to move 2D AR content 25 toward a center C of range 110 (or a center of AR display 100) when transiting between starting position 104 and the final head-locked position 105.”, paragraph [0019] “In a head-locked mode, the position and orientation of the overlaid AR content in the AR display depends only on the position and orientation of the viewer's head (as if the AR object or content were rigidly attached by a rigid rod to the viewer's head) independent of any features of the real-world scene.”).
Wheeler and Rahman are in the same field of endeavor, namely computer graphic, especially in the field of augmented reality display with head movement tracking. Rahman teaches a method of moving AR content within an allowed range to improve user interaction. Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Rahman with the method of Wheeler to improve user interaction.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 has similar limitations as claim 2, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 2.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 has similar limitations as claim 3, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 3.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 has similar limitations as claim 4, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 4.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 has similar limitations as claim 7, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 7.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 has similar limitations as claim 2, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 2.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 has similar limitations as claim 3, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 3.
Regarding claim 20, claim 11 has similar limitations as claim 4, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 4.
Claim(s) 5-6 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wheeler et al. (US 20130106674 A1), hereinafter as Wheeler, in view of Xiao et al. (CN 112015269 A), hereinafter as Xiao. The original and a machine translation of Xiao are provided by the examiner.
Regarding claim 5, Wheeler teaches The method according to claim 1, but is not relied on for the below claim language wherein before responding to the rotation of the head of the user in the first direction of rotation, the method further comprises: in response to a calibration operation, calibrating a default angle based on current spatial angle information of the display unit, wherein the default angle is used to determine whether the head of the user has been rotated.
Xiao teaches wherein before responding to the rotation of the head of the user in the first direction of rotation, the method further comprises: in response to a calibration operation, calibrating a default angle based on current spatial angle information of the display unit, wherein the default angle is used to determine whether the head of the user has been rotated (Xiao teaches computing two yaw angles for the head-mounted display device, the display is corrected based on the difference between the first and second yaw angles, paragraph [0067- 0068] “when executed on a computer, cause the computer to perform the above-described display calibration method for a head-mounted display device. The attitude information is input into a preset positioning system, and a first yaw angle of the head-mounted display device is calculated using the positioning system. Rotation information of the head-mounted display device is acquired, and a second yaw angle of the head-mounted display device is calculated based on the rotation information. Display correction parameters of the head-mounted display device are calculated based on the first and second yaw angles. The current display screen of the head-mounted display device is corrected based on the display correction parameters and the position information of the rigid body.”).
Wheeler and Xiao are in the same field of endeavor, namely computer graphic, especially in the field of augmented reality display with head movement tracking. Xiao teaches the calibration of head-mounted display device to improve user interaction (Xiao paragraph [0160] “By correcting the horizontal rotation direction and the horizontal spatial position of the display screen, the situation of display screen errors caused
by the asynchrony between the motion capture system and the head-mounted display system during virtual reality simulation is avoided, thereby improving the realism and immersion of users in virtual simulation games.”). Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Xiao with the method of Wheeler to improve user interaction.
Regarding claim 6, Wheeler in view of Xiao teaches The method according to claim 5, and further teach wherein calibrating the default angle comprises: calibrating a default pitch angle of the head of the user; and/or calibrating a default horizontal angle of the head of the user (Xiao paragraph [0091] “To determine the user's orientation in space, three angles are required, as shown in Figure 9: yaw (rotation around the Y-axis), pitch (rotation around the X-axis), and roll (rotation around the Z-axis)…… The yaw angle value is used to reset the current horizontal rotation (i.e., yaw angle) value of the head-mounted display device……Since the yaw angle cannot be corrected using gravity sensing, only the yaw angle needs to be calibrated during calibration.”).
Wheeler and Xiao are in the same field of endeavor, namely computer graphic, especially in the field of augmented reality display with head movement tracking. Xiao teaches the calibration of head-mounted display device to improve user interaction (Xiao paragraph [0160] “By correcting the horizontal rotation direction and the horizontal spatial position of the display screen, the situation of display screen errors caused
by the asynchrony between the motion capture system and the head-mounted display system during virtual reality simulation is avoided, thereby improving the realism and immersion of users in virtual simulation games.”). Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Xiao with the method of Wheeler to improve user interaction.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 has similar limitations as claim 5, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 5.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 has similar limitations as claim 6, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 6.
Claim(s) 8 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wheeler et al. (US 20130106674 A1), hereinafter as Wheeler, in view of Lee et al. (US 20150370072 A1), hereinafter as Lee.
Regarding claim 8, Wheeler teaches The method according to claim 1, but is not replied on for the below claim language wherein before responding to the rotation of the head of the user in the first direction of rotation, the information is located outside a middle area of the user interface displayed by the display unit.
Lee teaches wherein before responding to the rotation of the head of the user in the first direction of rotation, the information is located outside a middle area of the user interface displayed by the display unit (Lee teaches displaying second content 320 on the left side or the right side of the display screen in Figure 3A, paragraph [0115-0117] “When the output region is divided into at least three regions, as illustrated in FIG. 3A (a), the display unit 151 may include a first region 210 and a second region 220 which is disposed next to both sides of the first region 210. The second region 220 may include a region (hereinafter referred to as a left second region) corresponding to a left side and a region (hereinafter referred to as a right second region) corresponding to a right side……the second contents 320 may be contents associated with the first contents 310. For example, the second contents 320 may include a graphic object (a control icon and a control user interface (UI)) for controlling the application”).
Wheeler and Lee are in the same field of endeavor, namely computer graphic, especially in the field of augmented reality display with head movement tracking. Lee teaches a method of displaying control icon and menus on the sides of the display interface to improve user interaction (Lee paragraph [0186] “a display position of the second contents may be changed based on a state of the HMD 100, so as to easily apply a user input for controlling the second contents which are displayed in the display unit 151. Therefore, even though an input of a user input unit which is provided in one direction is limited in a state where a user wears the HMD 100, the second contents may be controlled through a user input unit which is provided in another direction, and thus, a convenience of the user increases considerably.”). Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Lee with the method of Wheeler to improve user interaction.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 has similar limitations as claim 8, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 8.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 XIAOMING WEI whose telephone number is (571)272-3831. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Kee Tung can be reached at (571)272-7794. 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.
/XIAOMING WEI/Examiner, Art Unit 2611
/KEE M TUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Prosecution Insights