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 .
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) 2-10 and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mulholland et al. (US 2013/0336629; hereinafter Mulholland) in view of view of Mallinson (US 2018/0095542).
Regarding claim 2:
Mulholland discloses a method, comprising:
At a computer system with one or more display generation components and one or more input devices (see Fig. 1A and 9; HMD 120 is a computing system with display components and input devices):
displaying, via the one or more display generation components, virtual content (see Fig. 2; and paragraph [0027]);
while displaying the virtual content, detecting, via the one or more input devices, movement of a portion of a person (see paragraph [0028]); and
in response to detecting the movement of the portion of the person (see Fig. 3 and paragraph [0029]):
reducing, via the one or more display generation components, a prominence of display of a portion of the virtual content (see Fig. 3 and paragraph [0029]); and
displaying, via the one or more display generation components, a representation of a physical environment of the person that includes one or more objects, wherein the representation of the physical environment of the person, that includes the one or more objects, was not displayed prior to detecting the movement of the portion of the person (see Figs. 2-6 and paragraphs [0030]- [0036]).
Mulholland does not disclose the one or more objects are visually emphasized relative to other portions of the physical environment.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Mallinson discloses a method, wherein
in response to detecting the movement of the portion of the person:
display, via the one or more display generation components, a representation of a physical environment of the person that includes one or more objects, wherein the representation of the physical environment of the person, that includes one or more objects, was not displayed prior to detecting the movement of the portion of the person, and the one or more objects are visually emphasized relative to the other portion of the physical environment (see paragraph 0062]; the VR objects of Mallinson is an equivalent of the representation of the one or more objects that is in the physical environment; the VR object is highlighted in the display so that user can easily interact with the real-world object).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Mulholland and Mallinson such that the one or more objects are visually emphasized relative to the other portion of the physical environment. The combination would have yielded a predictable result of providing a display device that can easily locate the object of interest in the physical environment.
Regarding claim 3:
Mulholland and Mallinson disclose all the features in claim 2. Mulholland further discloses the method, wherein: prior to detecting the movement of the portion of the person, the virtual content is displayed at a first location (see Fig. 2; the virtual content is being displayed at the entire display area); and
in response to detecting the movement of the portion of the person, reducing the prominence of the display of the portion of the virtual content includes displaying the virtual content at a second location that is different from the first location (see Fig. 4; when the sensor detects that user had stood up, the virtual content is being displayed at the corner location).
Regarding claim 4:
Mulholland and Mallinson disclose all the features in claim 2. Mulholland further discloses the method, wherein reducing the prominence of the display of the portion of the virtual content includes increasing a transparency of the virtual content (see Fig. 3 and paragraph [0029]).
Regarding claim 5:
Mulholland and Mallinson disclose all the features in claim 2. Mulholland further discloses the method, wherein reducing the prominence of the display of the portion of the virtual content includes reducing a scale of the virtual content (see Figs. 2 and 4; window 220 is reduced).
Regarding claim 6:
Mulholland and Mallinson disclose all the features in claim 2. Mulholland further discloses the method, wherein the virtual content includes video content (see paragraph [0027]; the virtual content is a movie).
Regarding claim 7:
Mulholland and Mallinson disclose all the features in claim 2. Mulholland further discloses the method, wherein detecting the movement of the portion of the person includes detecting a change in a pose of the person (see Figs. 2-4 or paragraph [0036]).
Regarding claim 8:
Mulholland and Mallinson disclose all the features in claim 2. Mulholland further discloses the method, wherein detecting the movement of the portion of the person includes detecting a change in a pose of a person of a body of the person (see Figs. 2-4; and paragraph [0036]; the sensor is capable of detecting when the user turns his/her head, getting up from a chair and sitting up from a laying position).
Regarding claim 9:
Mulholland and Mallinson disclose all the features in claim 2. Mulholland further discloses the method, wherein detecting the movement of the portion of the person includes detecting a change in a pose of an electronic device worn by the person (see Figs. 2-4 and paragraph [0036]).
Regarding claim 10:
Mulholland and Mallinson disclose all the features in claim 2. Mulholland further discloses the method, wherein the computer system includes one or more audio output devices, and the method includes:
while displaying the virtual content, outputting audio via the one or more audio output devices (see paragraph [0014]); and
in response to detecting the movement of the portion of the person, changing the outputting of the audio (see paragraph [0029]; the audio is reduced when trigger event is detected).
Regarding claim 12:
Mulholland and Mallinson disclose all the features in claim 10. Mulholland further discloses the method, wherein changing the outputting of the audio includes decreasing a volume level of audio content from the computer system (see paragraph [0029]).
Regarding claim 13:
Mulholland and Mallinson disclose all the features in claim 2. Mulholland further discloses the method, wherein reducing the prominence of the display of the portion of the virtual content includes decreasing a level of immersion with respect to display of the portion of the virtual content (see Figs. 2-6 and paragraphs [0029]-[0036]; making the virtual content more transparent and/or reducing the size of the virtual content are considered decreasing a level of immersion).
Regarding claims 14 and 15:
Each of claims 14 and 15 recites similar limitations as in claim 2. Hence, Mulholland and Mallinson disclose all the features in claims 14 and 15 in the similar manner as discussed above in claim 2.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mulholland in view of Mallinson as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Gil et al. (US 10,055887; hereinafter Gil).
Regarding claim 11:
Mulholland and Mallinson disclose all the features in claim 2. However, Mulholland and Mallinson do not disclose the method, wherein changing the outputting of the audio includes increasing a volume level of audio corresponding to ambient sound from the respective physical environment.
In the same field of endeavor, Gil discloses a method, wherein changing the outputting of the audio includes increasing a volume level of audio corresponding to ambient sound from the physical environment (see col. 6, lines 7-10 and col.8, lines 20-24).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Mulholland, Mallinson and Gil such that the method includes changing the outputting of the audio includes increasing a volume level of audio corresponding to ambient sound from the physical environment. The combination would have yielded a predictable result of improving user experience by adapting the virtual environment based on the ambient environment (see col. 12, lines 34-36).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 2, 14 and 15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 LIXI CHOW SIMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-7571. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00am-3:00pm.
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, William Boddie can be reached at 517-272-0666. 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.
/LIXI C SIMPSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2625
