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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to: Application filed on October 21st, 2024
Claims 1-20 are pending claims.
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 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.
Claims 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 2017/0123215 A1) in view of Cole (US 2017/0050743 A1).
As for independent claim 1:
Li discloses a computer-implemented method for motion stabilization, the computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving a first image for rendering on a display device associated with a vehicle, the first image comprising at least one object (0007, 0023-0024, Li discloses generating a first image and displaying the first image on a display device of a vehicle such as an aircraft);
identifying device motion data for the display device by receiving one or more device inertial measurement inputs from one or more device inertial measurement units, wherein the device motion data comprises one or more of (i) device acceleration motion or (ii) device angular motion (0007, 0027, Li discloses senses an angular motion of the display device and provides a display borne inertial measurement unit for that purpose);
generating, using a motion stabilization model framework, predicted gaze position deviation data based on the device motion data and vehicle motion data, wherein the predicted gaze position deviation data comprises estimated position change of a gaze of an eye of a user on a screen of the display device (0007, 0019, 0029, Li discloses a motion stabilization framework that predicts the eye's angular position deviation due to VOR);
adjusting a position of the at least one object on the screen of the display device based at least in part on the predicted gaze position deviation data (0005, 0038-0039, Li discloses corrects and shifts the displayed image to account for the predicted VOR eye-position deviation and generating the updated image so the displayed object stays fixed on the field of vision of the user).
Li does not disclose identifying vehicle motion data for the vehicle by receiving one or more vehicle inertial measurement inputs from one or more vehicle inertial measurement units, wherein the vehicle motion data comprises one or more of (i) vehicle acceleration motion or (ii) vehicle angular motion. Cole discloses identifying vehicle motion data for the vehicle by receiving one or more vehicle inertial measurement inputs from one or more vehicle inertial measurement units, wherein the vehicle motion data comprises one or more of (i) vehicle acceleration motion or (ii) vehicle angular motion in 0017-0018, 0026. In the cited sections, Cole discloses receiving vehicle orientation/motion data from a sensor device, see second inertial measurement unit, located in the vehicle external to the device. Accordingly it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a skilled artisan to modify the method of Li to incorporate vehicle inertial measurement unit as taught by Cole, thus accurately isolate the actual relative motion between the user's eye and the display (Cole, 0018, 0019).
As for dependent claim 2:
Li–Cole discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: generating, using the motion stabilization model framework, predicted device position deviation data based on the device motion data, wherein the predicted device position deviation data comprises estimated position change of the display device (Li, 0023, 0024, 0028 discloses monitoring the position and orientation of the display system and uses it in image generation; Cole, 0067, discloses the head mounted VR device estimates at least one of a current position and a current orientation of the head mounted VR device with respect to the vehicle based reference system based on inertial sensor information).
As for dependent claim 3:
Li–Cole discloses the method of claim 2, further comprising: adjusting the position of the at least one object on the screen of the display device based at least in part on the predicted device position deviation data (Li, 0038-0039, discloses adjusts/shifts the displayed image as a function of the tracked device/head position).
As for dependent claim 4:
Li–Cole discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: detecting motion of the screen of the display device; and re-mapping touch zones on the screen based on the detected motion of the screen (Li, 0023, 0024, 0028 discloses monitoring the position and orientation of the display system).
As for dependent claim 5:
Li–Cole discloses the method of claim 1, wherein generating the predicted gaze position deviation data based on the device motion data and the vehicle motion data comprises: generating predicted eye motion data by applying the device motion data and the vehicle motion data to the motion stabilization model framework, wherein the predicted eye motion data comprises one or more of (i) estimated acceleration motion of the eye of the user or (ii) estimated angular motion of the eye of the user; and generating, the predicted gaze position deviation data by applying the predicted eye motion data to the motion stabilization model framework (Li , 0007, 0019, 0029, discloses estimates an angular motion of the eye of the user and applies it within the VOR framework to produce the predicted eye gaze/position).
As for dependent claim 6:
Li–Cole discloses the method of claim 5, wherein the motion stabilization model framework comprises one or more of (i) eye angular VOR motion prediction model or (ii) eye angular position tracking model (Li, 0007, 0019-0021 and 0029, discloses both an eye angular VOR motion prediction mathematical model and an eye angular position tracking mathematical model).
As for dependent claim 7:
Li–Cole discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the display device is one of a smartphone, a laptop computer, an avionics display, a primary flight device, or a heads down display (Li, 0002, 0024, discloses an avionics/flight display and flat panel display devices).
As for independent claim 8:
Claim 8 contains substantial subject matter as claim 1 and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for dependent claims 9-14:
Claims 9–14 contain substantial subject matter as claims 2–7 and are rejected along the same rationale.
As for independent claim 15:
Claim 15 contains substantial subject matter as claim 1 and is rejected along the same rationale.
As for dependent claim 16-20:
Claims 16–20 contain substantial subject matter as claims 2–6 and are rejected along the same rationale.
It is noted that any citation to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)).
The Examiner notes MPEP § 2144.01, that quotes In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825,159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968) as stating “in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” Further MPEP 2123, states that “a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID PHANTANA ANGKOOL whose telephone number is (571) 272-2673. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:00-3:30 PM.
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, can Adam Queler be reached on 571-272-4140. 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.
/David Phantana-angkool/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Prosecution Insights