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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-8 and 14-25 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.
Claim Interpretation
Independent claims 1, 15 and 20 have each been amended to recite the term “blending data.” This term is not specifically recited in the specification, and paragraph [0087] of the specification is the only part of the specification specifically discussing blending, and thus this interpretation is used for the term “blending data.”
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-8 and 14-25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,169,276 in view of Wan (US 2016/0063715).
The present claims are merely broader versions of the patented claims except for the limitation reciting “wherein generating the display image includes receiving, from an external computer, the rendered graphics and blending data and generating the display image based on the blending data. However, Wan discloses a method wherein generating a display image includes receiving, from an external computer, rendered graphics and blending data and generating the display image based on the blending data (Paragraph [0131]: “Alternatively, the image I 825, the low-resolution depth map DI 835 and the occlusion mask M 845 may be received from an external data source (not shown) connected to the network 120…” See also Figures 4E and 8 and paragraph [0129].).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to “one of ordinary skill” in the at before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Wan such that blending data would be used and the rendered graphics and blending data would be received from an external computer and claim these features in U.S. Patent No. 12,169,276. The motivation to claim these features would have been in order to improve accuracy, spatial resolution and object/depth boundaries alignment of the depth map (See paragraph [0061] of Wan.).
Claims 1-8 and 14-25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 11,693,242 in view of Wan (US 2016/0063715).
The present claims are merely broader versions of the patented claims except for the limitation reciting “wherein generating the display image includes receiving, from an external computer, the rendered graphics and blending data and generating the display image based on the blending data. However, Wan discloses a method wherein generating a display image includes receiving, from an external computer, rendered graphics and blending data and generating the display image based on the blending data (Paragraph [0131]: “Alternatively, the image I 825, the low-resolution depth map DI 835 and the occlusion mask M 845 may be received from an external data source (not shown) connected to the network 120…” See also Figures 4E and 8 and paragraph [0129].).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to “one of ordinary skill” in the at before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Wan such that blending data would be used and the rendered graphics and blending data would be received from an external computer and claim these features in U.S. Patent No. 12,169,276. The motivation to claim these features would have been in order to improve accuracy, spatial resolution and object/depth boundaries alignment of the depth map (See paragraph [0061] of Wan.).
Claims 1-8 and 14-25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 10,838,206. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present claims are merely broader versions of the patented claims, and thus, the present claims are anticipated by the patented 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 (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.
Claims 1-2, 14-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright et al. (US 2016/0371888) in view of Gay et al. (US 2012/0200667) and further in view of Wan (US 2016/0063715).
Regarding claim 1, Wright et al. disclose a method comprising:
at a head-mounted device (HMD) (Figures 1-2) including non-transitory memory, a first image sensor, one or more processors, and a display (Figure 1, 14 is a first camera sensor. Figure 2 and paragraphs [0019]-[0021], screen 102 [display], processor 104, where Figure 2 shows the connection between the processor and the camera [first image sensor], which is a communications interface. See paragraphs [0011] and [0028] which state a database is stored, meaning there is a non-transitory memory.);
obtaining, via the first image sensor, an image of a physical environment (Paragraph [0023]);
obtaining a depth map associated with the physical environment (Paragraph [0023]);
generating a display image by blending the image of the physical environment with rendered graphics (Paragraphs [0024] and [0026]); and
displaying, via the display, the display image (Figure 4).
Wright et al. fail to explicitly teach of generating the display image by using the depth map, and wherein generating the display image includes generating the display image based on blending data.
Gay et al. disclose of generating a display image using a depth map (Paragraph [0036]), and wherein generating the display image includes generating the display image based on blending data (Paragraph [0039], where the occlusion mask is blending data.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to “one of ordinary skill” in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the depth map when generating a display image as taught by Gay et al. to generate the display image taught by Wright et al. The motivation to combine would have been in order to resolve problems of overlap and order [e.g., occlusion issues] (See paragraphs [0035]-[0036] of Gay et al.).
Wright et al. and Gay et al. fail to explicitly teach wherein generating the display image includes receiving, from an external computer, the rendered graphics and blending data.
Wan discloses a method wherein generating a display image includes receiving, from an external computer, rendered graphics and blending data (Paragraph [0131]: “Alternatively, the image I 825, the low-resolution depth map DI 835 and the occlusion mask M 845 may be received from an external data source (not shown) connected to the network 120…” See also Figures 4E and 8 and paragraph [0129].).
Hence the prior art includes each element claimed although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of the actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In combination, the combination of Wright et al. and Gay et al. performs the same function as it does separately of generating the display image based on blending data, and Wan performs the same function as it does separately of receiving rendered graphics and blending data from an external computer.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performed the same function as it does separately. The results of the combination would have been predictable and resulted in receiving the rendered graphics and the blending data from an external computer.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, Wright et al., Gay et al. and Wan disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the HMD includes a communication interface to communicate with the external computer, wherein the rendered graphics and blending data are received from the external computer via the communication interface (Wan et al.: See claim 1 above, clearly if the rendered graphics and blending data are received from the external computer then there is a communication interface to receive them.).
Regarding claim 14, Wright et al., Gay et al. and Wan disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the rendered graphics correspond to virtual content (Wright et al.: Paragraphs [0024] and [0026], and Gat et al.: Paragraph [0036].).
Regarding claim 15, please refer to the rejection of claim 1, and furthermore Gay et al. also disclose a non-transitory computer readable medium having instruction encoded thereon (Paragraphs [0046]-[0047]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to “one of ordinary skill” in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the processor is connected with a non-transitory memory storing one or more programs for the processor to perform in order to allow the device to perform displaying of the mixed reality content and achieve the functionality as described in Wright et al.
Regarding claim 16, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 2.
Regarding claim 20, please refer to the rejection of claim 1, and furthermore Gay et al. also disclose a depth sensor to obtain the depth map (Paragraph [0036]).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright et al. (US 2016/0371888) in view of Gay et al. (US 2012/0200667) and further in view of Wan (US 2016/0063715) and Osman et al. (US 2014/0364197).
Regarding claim 3, Wright et al., Gay et al. and Wan disclose the method of claim 2.
Wright et al., Gay et al. and Wan fail to teach wherein the rendering graphics from the external computer includes an encoded representation of the rendered graphics.
Osman et al. disclose wherein data from a computer includes an encoded representation of rendering graphics (Paragraph [0093], encoded video streams.).
Hence the prior art includes each element claimed although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of the actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In combination, the combination of Wright et al., Gay et al. and Wan performs the same function as it does separately of providing rendered graphics, and Osman et al. performs the same function as it does separately of encoding rendered graphics.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performed the same function as it does separately. The results of the combination would have been predictable and resulted in the data from the computer including an encoded representation of the rendered graphics.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 4, Wright et al., Gay et al., Wan and Osman et al. disclose the method of claim 3, further comprising decoding at least a portion of the encoded representation of the rendered graphics (Osman et al.: Paragraph [0093], decode.).
Claims 5, 8, 17, 19 and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright et al. (US 2016/0371888) in view of Gay et al. (US 2012/0200667) and further in view of Wan (US 2016/0063715) and Bradski et al. (US 2016/0026253).
Regarding claim 5, Wright et al. (US 2016/0371888), Gay et al. and Wan disclose the method of claim 1, where Gay et al. also disclose wherein the blending data includes an alpha mask (Paragraph [0039], the occlusion mask is an alpha mask.).
Wright et al. (US 2016/0371888), Gay et al. and Osman et al. fail to teach wherein the rendered graphics includes a plurality of color channels.
Bradski et al. disclose wherein rendered graphics includes a plurality of color channels (Paragraph [0667]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to “one of ordinary skill” in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the color channel teachings of Bradski et al. to the rendered graphics as taught by the combination of Wright et al. (US 2016/0371888), Gay et al. and Wan. The motivation to combine would have been in order to improve the color reproducibility of the rendered graphics thus improving the authenticity of the displayed image.
Regarding claim 8, Wright et al. (US 2016/0371888), Gay et al., Wan and Bradski et al. disclose the method of claim 5, wherein blending the image of the physical environment with the rendered graphics includes performing alpha blending using the alpha mask (Gay et al.: Paragraph [0036] and Figure 8 of Wan.).
Regarding claim 17, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 5.
Regarding claim 19, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 8.
Regarding claim 21, Wright et al. (US 2016/0371888), Gay et al., Wan and Bradski et al. disclose the method of claim 5, wherein the alpha mask is based on the depth map and depth information for the rendered graphics (Gay et al.: Paragraph [0036], and Figure 8 and paragraph [0131] of Wan.).
Regarding claim 22, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 5.
Regarding claim 23, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 21.
Regarding claim 24, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claims 5, 8 and 21.
Regarding claim 25, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claims 5 and 21.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 and 18 would be allowable if a Terminal Disclaimer is filed and the claims are rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The primary reasons for indicating allowable subject matter in claims 6 and 18 is the inclusion of the limitation reciting “the alpha mask varies across the plurality of color channels based on display lens distortion characterizing the display” which, in combination with the other recited features, is not taught and/or suggested either singularly or in combination within the prior art.
Claim 7 is objected to due to its dependency from claim 6.
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 STEPHEN G SHERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2941. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00am - 4pm ET.
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, AMR AWAD can be reached at (571)272-7764. 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.
/STEPHEN G SHERMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621
15 December 2025