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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on October 29, 2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claims 11 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 11, lines 2-3, please change “in response to the user instructs execution of the calibration” to “in response to the user instructing execution of the calibration”
In Claim 12, lines 2-3, please change “in response to a predetermined period elapses without user operation” to “in response to a predetermined period that elapses without user operation”
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 5, 9-12 and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (USPGPUB 2017/0212669—hereinafter “Kim”).
Claims 1, 16 and 17 are drawn to an information processing apparatus, a control method of an information processing apparatus and a non-transitory computer readable medium that executes a control method of an information processing apparatus. Claims 1, 16 and 17 recite the same invention in different statutory formats and thus are considered together below.
As to Claims 1, 16 and 17, Kim teaches an information processing apparatus (Fig. 11 at 110) comprising one or more processors (Fig. 11 at 112) and/or circuitry configured to control a head mounted display apparatus (Pg. 8, ¶ 84 – VR device) in accordance with touch operation on a touch operation surface (Figs. 1-2 at 16),
wherein, in calibration of the touch operation (Pgs. 3-4, ¶ 35-39), the one or more processors and/or circuitry:
controls the head mounted display apparatus such that a first display position, which is a position in an image displayed by the head mounted display apparatus, is identifiable (Fig. 4 at 42 and Pg. 5, ¶ 49);
causes a user to perform touch on the touch operation surface while being conscious of the first display position, and acquires information on a first touch position that is a position at which the touch is performed (Fig. 4 at 42 and Pg. 5, ¶’s 49 and 56);
controls the head mounted display apparatus such that a second display position that has a predetermined positional relation with the first display position is identifiable (Fig. 4 at 46 and Pg. 5, ¶’s 50-51 and 56); and
causes the user to perform touch on the touch operation surface while being conscious of the second display position, and acquire information on a second touch position that is a position at which the touch is performed (Fig. 4 at 46 and Pg. 5, ¶’s 50-51 and 56).
As to Claim 5, Kim teaches that in the calibration, furthermore, the one or more processors and/or circuitry causes the user to designate the first display position (Fig. 4 at 42/44 and Pg. 5, ¶ 49).
As to Claim 9, Kim teaches that the first display position is a predetermined position (Pg. 5, ¶ 49 – “already displayed prior to the touch”).
As to Claim 10, Kim teaches that the one or more processors and/or circuitry executes the calibration in response to the user wears the head mounted display apparatus (See Fig. 1 and Pg. 3, ¶ 35).
As to Claim 11, Kim teaches that the one or more processors and/or circuitry executes the calibration in response to the user instructs execution of the calibration (Pg. 3, ¶’s 35-36).
As to Claim 12, Kim teaches that the one or more processors and/or circuitry executes the calibration in response to a predetermined period elapses without user operation (Pg. 3, ¶ 36, note that when the device is powered on after being off (predetermined period elapses) the device enters a calibration mode).
As to Claim 14, Kim teaches that the one or more processors and/or circuitry controls the head mounted display apparatus such that the first display position is continued to be identifiable when enabling the second display position to be identified (Fig. 4 at 41 and Pg. 5, ¶ 49; note that display elements 41 are always displayed).
As to Claim 15, Kim teaches that the one or more processors and/or circuitry enables the first display position to be identified by displaying a first item at the first display position (Fig. 4 at 42/44 and Pg. 5, ¶’s 49 and 56) and enables the second display position to be identified by displaying a second item at the second display position (Fig. 4 at 46/44 and Pg. 5, ¶’s 49 and 56).
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, 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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Lee (USPGPUB 2008/0109763—hereinafter “Lee”).
As to Claim 2, Kim fails to teach that the one or more processors and/or circuitry calculates a ratio of a distance from the first display position to the second display position with respect to a distance from the first touch position to the second touch position. Examiner cites Lee to teach an information processing apparatus (Fig. 2 at 100/200) that calculates a ratio of a distance from a first display position to a second display position with respect to a distance from a first touch position to a second touch position (See Fig. 5A and Pgs. 3-4, ¶ 55). At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the ability to calculate a ratio of a distance from a first display position to a second display position with respect to a distance from a first touch position to a second touch position, as taught by Lee, in the information processing apparatus, taught by Kim, in order to enable a cursor on a touch screen panel to be easily moved to an outer display apparatus (Lee, Pg. 1, ¶ 8).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Hayasaka et al. (USPGPUB 2015/0123997—hereinafter “Hayasaka”).
As to Claim 6, Kim fails to teach that the one or more processors and/or circuitry acquires information on a line of sight of the user, and determines a position gazed by the user as the first display position designated by the user. Examiner cites Hayasaka to teach an information processing apparatus (See Fig. 1B) that acquires information on a line of sight of the user, and determines a position gazed by the user as the first display position designated by the user (Pg. 3, ¶ 42, last sentence). At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the ability to acquire information on a line of sight of the user, and determine a position gazed by a user as a first display position designated by the user, as taught by Hayasaka, in the information processing apparatus taught by Kim, in order to define a reference position (Hayasaka, Pg. 4, ¶ 42, last sentence).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Kiemele et al. (USPGPUB 2019/0065026—hereinafter “Kiemele”).
As to Claim 7, Kim fails to teach that the one or more processors and/or circuitry acquires information on an orientation of a controller having the touch operation surface, and determines a position to which the controller is oriented as the first display position designated by the user. Examiner cites Kiemele to teach an information processing apparatus (See Fig. 9) that acquires information on an orientation of a controller having a touch operation surface, and determines a position to which the controller is oriented as a first display position designated by the user (Pg. 2, ¶ 17, Pg. 5, ¶ 40 and Pg. 7, ¶ 73). At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the ability to acquire information on an orientation of a controller having a touch operation surface, and determines a position to which the controller is oriented as a first display position designated by the user, as taught by Kiemele, in the information processing apparatus taught by Kim, in order to properly vary visual content rendered on the display (Kiemele, Fig. 7 at 706-710 and Pg. 2, ¶ 17, Pg. 5, ¶’s 40-43 and Pg. 7, ¶ 73).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim.
As to Claim 8, Kim fails to teach that the first display position is designated by using an operation member that is capable of receiving user operation different from the touch operation. Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known to use different operation members, such as a confirmation key or button. At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a confirmation key/button in the information processing apparatus, taught by Kim, in order to confirm an input.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Sztuk et al. (U.S. Patent 11,269,406—hereinafter “Sztuk”).
As to Claim 13, Kim fails to teach that the one or more processors and/or circuitry acquires information on a line of sight of the user, and executes the calibration in response to a position gazed by the user changes by a change amount larger than a predetermined change amount. Examiner cites Sztuk to teach an information processing apparatus that acquires information on a line of sight of a user, and executes a calibration in response to a position gazed by the user that changes by a change amount larger than a predetermined change amount (Fig. 1 at 116 and Col. 9, line 43—Col. 10, line 29). At the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the ability to acquire information on a line of sight of a user, and execute a calibration in response to a position gazed by the user that changes by a change amount larger than a predetermined change amount, as taught by Sztuk, in the information processing apparatus taught by Kim, in order to calibrate eye tracking used in display systems (Sztuk, Col. 1, lines 5-10).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 4 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Yamamoto et al. USPGPUB 2013/0285884
Goto et al. USPGPUB 2014/0320383
Kim USPGPUB 2017/0090744
Xu et al. USPGPUB 2018/0004297
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY AMADIZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7762. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs; 9AM - 5PM 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, Patrick Edouard can be reached at 571-272-7603. 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.
/RODNEY AMADIZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2622
Prosecution Insights