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 .
Remarks
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 7/7/2026. Claims 1-5, 7-20 are presented for examination. Independent claims 1, 15, 20 were amended and dependent claims 3-5, 13, 16 were amended. Claim 6 was cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/7/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant, with regard to claims 1, 15, 20, argues that LaValle fails to teach “generating scene stability adjustment data by applying the head mounted display motion data and external data to a scene motion stabilization model, wherein the external data is associated with one or more actions of a user during usage of the head mounted display, and wherein the external data is captured by one or more external sensing components that are external to the head mounted display and communicatively coupled to the head mounted display”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
According to LaValle, the motion predictor and smoother extrapolates into the future a predetermined time to predict a future movement, orientation, and position using the one or more three-dimensional angular velocity measurements and tracking data from the one or more external cameras [0056, 0076]. The one or more three-dimensional angular velocity measurements are obtained from a gyroscope [0044]. The one or more three-dimensional angular velocity measurements of LaValle correspond to the head mounted display motion data and the tracking data from the one or more external cameras of Lavalle corresponds to the external data. The user’s movement is tracked by the one or more external cameras [0008, 0076]. Sensor fusion is performed by combining the one or more three-dimensional angular velocity measurements and tracking data to predict a future movement, orientation, and position [0077]. Therefore, LaValle does teach “generating scene stability adjustment data by applying the head mounted display motion data and external data to a scene motion stabilization model, wherein the external data is associated with one or more actions of a user during usage of the head mounted display, and wherein the external data is captured by one or more external sensing components that are external to the head mounted display and communicatively coupled to the head mounted display”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by LaValle et al. (U.S. Patent Application 20140354515).
In regards to claim 1, LaValle teaches a method [e.g. method, Abstract] comprising:
identifying head mounted display scene data [e.g. virtual reality environment, 0024] associated with a head mounted display [e.g. VR headset, 0024];
capturing head mounted display motion data [e.g. obtaining one or more three-dimensional angular velocity measurements from a sensor monitoring the head mounted display, Abstract] using one or more sensing components [e.g. These sensors may be or include gyroscopes, accelerometers, magnetometers, video cameras, color sensors, or other motion, position, and orientation sensors, 0044] associated with the head mounted display;
generating scene stability adjustment data [e.g. A three-dimensional orientation for the head mounted display is predicted to create a predicted orientation at a time corresponding to the prediction interval in order to reduce jitter in the video, Abstract, 0019-0020] by applying the head mounted display motion data and external data to a scene motion stabilization model [e.g. Using the one or more three-dimensional angular velocity measurements and tracking data from the one or more external cameras, the motion predictor and smoother extrapolates into the future a predetermined time to predict a future movement, orientation, and position. Next, sensor fusion is performed at 820. This process may be complex or may be simple. In more complex systems, the data may be "smoothed," as discussed above, and data extrapolating potential predictions for headset motion may be generated at the sensor fusion stage and passed along to subsequent stages, 0056, 0076-0077], wherein the external data is associated with one or more actions of a user during usage of the head mounted display [e.g. In either system, the movement of a wearer of such a headset may be tracked in order to react to user movements and update the images being presented, 0008], and wherein the external data is captured by one or more external sensing components that are external to the head mounted display and communicatively coupled to the head mounted display [e.g. A virtual reality headset may include on its exterior a series of markers, such as reflectors or lights (e.g., infrared or visible light) that, when viewed by an external camera, may provide one or more points of reference for interpretation by software in order to generate motion, position, and orientation data (emphasis added), 0044];
generating a stabilized head mounted display scene based on the scene stability adjustment data and the head mounted display scene data [e.g. generating a rendered image corresponding to the predicted orientation and virtual reality environment, Abstract, 0096, also see 0061]; and
causing the stabilized head mounted display scene to be rendered to a head mounted display interface [e.g. presenting the rendered image to the screen of the head mounted display, Abstract, 0096, also see 0007], wherein the stabilized head mounted display scene is rendered at a stabilized rendering position on the head mounted display interface [e.g. Finally, a display is updated at the next rendered video frame to correspond to the predicted motion, orientation, and position based upon the prediction and the prediction interval. As a result…the next rendered frame of video delivered to the VR headset will be rendered as though the wearer's head was at a predicted position, 0096].
In regards to claim 2, LaValle teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the head mounted display interface is provided on a display panel [e.g. screen of the head mounted display, 0007] of the head mounted display.
In regards to claim 3, LaValle teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the head mounted display motion data comprises surrounding environment data representative of an environment surrounding the user of the head mounted display during a motion event [e.g. sensor measurements tracking the markers mounted in the surrounding environment of the user wearing the VR headset while in motion, 0076].
In regards to claim 4, LaValle teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the head mounted display motion data comprises user input [e.g. The user may interact with other peripherals, such as a mouse, keyboard, headphones, speakers, microphones, hand-held controllers or other, similar interactive components (not shown) to further direct the user system as it renders a virtual environment for display on the VR headset, 0033] and movement data [e.g. motion data, 0029] representative of an input by the user of the head mounted display during a motion event [e.g. the user inputs interactions with other peripherals and motion data while in motion, 0029, 0033].
In regards to claim 7, LaValle teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the scene motion stabilization model is configured to: perform a drift correction operation [e.g. smoothing is primarily directed to counteracting sensor artifacts, minor movements, and sensor drift (linear or exponential drift in accuracy of sensors) so that these do not harm the experience of a wearer by producing jitter or random movement of the rendered scene, 0080].
In regards to claim 10, LaValle teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more sensing components include one or more of a head tracking component [e.g. gyroscopes, accelerometers, 0044], or a positional component [e.g. position sensors, 0044].
In regards to claim 11, LaValle teaches the method of claim 1, wherein at least one of the one or more sensing components is external [e.g. external cameras, 0044, 0076] to the head mounted display.
In regards to claim 14, LaValle teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the scene stability adjustment data is representative of an estimated position change of the head mounted display [e.g. predicted position of the headset at the end of that prediction interval, 0083, 0085, 0095, 0096].
In regards to claim 15, the claim recites similar limitations as claim 1, but in the form of an apparatus comprising memory and one or more processors communicatively coupled to the memory, the one or more processors configured to perform the method of claim 1. Furthermore, LaValle teaches an apparatus [e.g. VR headset, 0024] comprising memory [e.g. memory, 0037] and one or more processors [e.g. processor, 0037] communicatively coupled to the memory, the one or more processors configured to perform the method of claim 1. Therefore, the same rationale as claim 1 is applied.
In regards to claim 17, the claim recites similar limitations as claim 14. Therefore, the same rationale as claim 14 is applied.
In regards to claim 19, the claim recites similar limitations as claim 11. Therefore, the same rationale as claim 11 is applied.
In regards to claim 20, the claim recites similar limitations as claim 1, but in the form of a non-transitory computer program product comprising: at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having computer program code stored thereon that, in execution with at least one processor, configures the computer program product with the method of claim 1. Furthermore, LaValle teaches a non-transitory computer program product [e.g. memory, 0038] comprising: at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium [e.g. RAM, 0038] having computer program code [e.g. instructions, 0038] stored thereon that, in execution with at least one processor [e.g. processor, 0037], configures the computer program product with the method of claim 1. Therefore, the same rationale as claim 1 is applied.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 5, 9, 12, 13, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaValle et al. (U.S. Patent Application 20140354515) as applied to claims 1, 15 above, and further in view of Williams et al. (U.S. Patent Application 20150029218).
In regards to claim 5, LaValle does not explicitly teach the method of claim 1, wherein the head mounted display motion data comprises eye tracking data representative of movement of an eye of the user of the head mounted display during a motion event.
However, Williams teaches the method [e.g. method, Abstract] of claim 1, wherein the head mounted display motion data comprises eye tracking data [e.g. tracking glint positions, 0043] representative of movement of an eye of the user of the head mounted display during a motion event [e.g. gaze detection of an end user’s eye of the HMD during the rotation of the eyeballs, 0045].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified LaValle’s method with the features of wherein the head mounted display motion data comprises eye tracking data representative of movement of an eye of the user of the head mounted display during a motion event in the same conventional manner as taught by Williams because eye tracking is well known and commonly used in the art of eye tracking systems [0043].
In regards to claim 9, LaValle does not explicitly teach the method of claim 1, further comprising: processing the stabilized head mounted display scene using one or more image processing techniques.
However, Williams teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: processing the stabilized head mounted display scene using one or more image processing techniques [e.g. The updated images comprising late stage graphical adjustments of forward predicted rendered images may be generated using various image reprojection techniques of varying computational complexity. The image reprojection techniques may include per pixel reprojection (e.g., where each pixel of a rendered image is reprojected based on an updated pose), multi-plane homography (e.g., where multiple rendered images associated with multiple planes within a 3D scene are used to generate the composite updated image), single plane homography (e.g., where a single rendered image associated with a single plane within a 3D scene is used to generate the updated image), affine homography, and pixel offset based adjustments, 0025].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified LaValle’s method with the features of processing the stabilized head mounted display scene using one or more image processing techniques in the same conventional manner as taught by Williams because processing an image such as a stabilized head mounted display scene is well known and commonly used in the art of image processing systems.
In regards to claim 12, LaValle does not explicitly teach the method of claim 1, further comprising:
identifying head mounted display operations data;
generating a head mounted display scene based on the head mounted display operations data; and
causing the head mounted display scene to be rendered to the head mounted display interface, wherein the head mounted display scene is rendered at an original rendering position on the head mounted display interface.
However, Williams teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
identifying head mounted display operations data [e.g. The particular pose may be provided to the rendering module by pose estimation module, 0047];
generating a head mounted display scene based on the head mounted display operations data [e.g. rendering module may generate a pre-rendered image corresponding with a particular pose of an HMD, 0047]; and
causing the head mounted display scene to be rendered to the head mounted display interface [e.g. the pre-rendered image is rendered to the physical display of the HMD, 0024], wherein the head mounted display scene is rendered at an original rendering position on the head mounted display interface [e.g. the pre-rendered image is rendered based on the current position of the HMD, 0024].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified LaValle’s method with the features of
identifying head mounted display operations data;
generating a head mounted display scene based on the head mounted display operations data; and
causing the head mounted display scene to be rendered to the head mounted display interface, wherein the head mounted display scene is rendered at an original rendering position on the head mounted display interface
in the same conventional manner as taught by Williams because rendering a head mounted display scene based on the head mounted display operations data is well known and commonly used in head tracking systems.
In regards to claim 13, LaValle does not explicitly teach the method of claim 1, wherein the scene stability adjustment data is representative of an estimated position change of an eye gaze of the user of the head mounted display.
However, Williams teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the scene stability adjustment data is representative of an estimated position change of an eye gaze of the user of the head mounted display [e.g. the gaze detection detects the gaze or field of view of the user changing from one position in the field of view to another, 0045].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified LaValle’s method with the features of wherein the scene stability adjustment data is representative of an estimated position change of an eye gaze of the user of the head mounted display in the same conventional manner as taught by Williams because gaze tracking is well known and commonly used in the art of gaze tracking systems [0043].
In regards to claim 16, the claim recites similar limitations as claim 13. Therefore, the same rationale as claim 13 is applied.
Claim(s) 8, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaValle et al. (U.S. Patent Application 20140354515) as applied to claims 1, 15 above, and further in view of Li et al. (U.S. Patent Application 20170123215).
In regards to claim 8, LaValle does not explicitly teach the method of claim 1, wherein the scene motion stabilization model comprises a vestibulo-ocular reflex model.
However, Li teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the scene motion stabilization model comprises a vestibulo-ocular reflex model [e.g. using an eye angular VOR (vestibulo-ocular reflex) motion prediction mathematical model, 0007].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified LaValle’s method with the features of wherein the scene motion stabilization model comprises a vestibulo-ocular reflex model in the same conventional manner as taught by Li because Li provides a method for VOR compensation in order to enhance the cognition of the display information [0018].
In regards to claim 18, the claim recites similar limitations as claim 8. Therefore, the same rationale as claim 8 is applied.
Conclusion
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 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 ANDREW SHIN whose telephone number is (571)270-5764. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 11:00AM to 7:00PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Said Broome can be reached at 571-272-2931. 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.
/ANDREW SHIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2612
/Said Broome/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2612
Prosecution Insights