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 .
Withdrawal of Allowance
The previous Notice of Allowance, mailed on 02 December 2025, is hereby withdrawn in view of the newly cited prior art submitted by the Applicant in the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) dated 13 February 2026. Prosecution is reopened to address rejections based on CN 116414342 A (hereinafter "Wang").
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 of this title, 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, 6-13, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 116414342 A to Wang et al. (hereinafter "Wang") in view of US 2016/0080874 A1 to Fullam et al. (hereinafter "Fullam").
With respect to Claim 1, Wang teaches a wearable electronic device (Wang: Fig. 1, head-mounted display device 1000) comprising:
a first sensor (Wang: Description, human eye image acquired by a camera device);
a speaker (Wang: Fig. 1, speaker 1700);
a display (Wang: Fig. 1, display apparatus 1500);
memory storing instructions (Wang: Fig. 1, memory 1200); and
a processor operatively connected with the sensor, speaker, display, and memory (Wang: Fig. 1, processor 1100),
wherein the instructions cause the device to:
display first content in a first virtual area and second content in a second virtual area corresponding to different directions (Wang: Step S2100, Fig. 3, creating a plurality of virtual screens 1, 2, and 3 corresponding to applications 1, 2, and 3);
based on identifying that a gaze is directed toward the first direction, output a first sound at a first volume and a second sound at a second volume, wherein the volumes are different (Wang: Step S2230a, acquiring an eyeball gazing direction; Step S2400, adjusting first and second volumes so that the first volume is larger than the second volume).
Wang fails to expressly disclose:
The specific output of a third and fourth volume when gaze moves from the first direction to the second direction; and
Identifying a gesture for adjusting a position of the virtual area and changing the volume accordingly.
However, Fullam discloses:
Updating audio output during dynamic gaze transitions, where moving gaze from a first target to a second target causes the first sound to decrease (third volume) and the second sound to increase (fourth volume) (Fullam: Para. [0019]).
Furthermore, Wang teaches:
Determining the first virtual screen based on an "enlarged input" (gesture) of the wearer (Wang: Step S2200, Fig. 6-7).
Using degree of freedom information from a control device (e.g., handle/gesture) to determine screen focus and subsequently adjust volume parameters (Wang: Step S2210b, S2300, S2320).
Therefore, it would be obvious to a POSITA to modify the apparatus as taught by Wang to incorporate the dynamic volume transition logic of Fullam in order to provide a more intuitive and seamless immersive experience where audio focus shifts naturally with visual attention. It would be further obvious to utilize the gesture-based focus and "amplified input" mechanisms taught by Wang to allow a user to manually reposition virtual areas and adjust their volumes, as this is a standard and predictable application of known user interface paradigms in augmented reality systems.
With respect to Claims 13, 19, and 20, these are the method, storage medium, and system equivalents of the apparatus in Claim 1. Therefore, they are rendered obvious by the same combination of Wang as modified by Fullam.
Claims 6-8, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Fullam. Wang teaches identifying audio tracks corresponding to specific processes (Wang: Step S2400). It would be obvious to associate these sounds with specific objects within the application to provide object-specific audio feedback as claimed.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang. Wang explicitly teaches that receiving an "enlarged input" (gesture) for a virtual screen causes the screen to be taken as the first virtual screen (focus), which inherently adjusts its position and audio properties (Wang: Step S2200, Fig. 6-7).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Fullam and common knowledge. Wang teaches multi-application management in an AR HMD. It would be an obvious design choice to transmit notification information from a secondary virtual area to a companion wearable device (e.g., a smartwatch) to ensure the user receives critical updates from non-focused applications.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Fullam. Fullam teaches using spatial audio techniques to create a sound image originating from the direction of a target (Fullam: Para. [0019]) and utilizing motion sensors (second sensor) to coordinate device orientation with gaze direction (Fullam: Para. [0003]).
Claims 2-5, 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Fullam as applied above, and further in view of US 2024/0307778 A1 to Thresh et al. (hereinafter "Thresh").
With respect to Claims 2 and 14, the combination of Wang and Fullam teaches the base gaze-contingent audio modulation. The claims recite “…determine the third volume and the fourth volume based on a number of virtual areas between the first virtual area and the second virtual area…”
Wang teaches a plurality of virtual screen areas. Thresh discloses:
“Preferably the priority of the selected audio component is determined based on the distance of a virtual source… audio components associated with sounds generated further from the player character may be preferentially selected for downward adjustment of audio output quality.” (Thresh: Para. [0027]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Wang/Fullam to determine volume as a mathematical function of gaze distance to achieve the foveated quality adjustments taught by Thresh.
With respect to Claims 3 and 15, the combination of Wang and Fullam teaches the base gaze-contingent audio modulation. Wang and Fullam fail to expressly disclose determining the specific volume decrease/increase based on a “volume corresponding to a distance.”
However, Thresh discloses:
“monitoring the location of the user's gaze based on the data received from an eye-tracking module and adjusting the quality of one or more audio components such that audio components corresponding to a virtual source nearer the location of the user's gaze are output at higher quality than audio components corresponding to a virtual source further from the location of the user's gaze.” (Thresh: Para. [0030]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Wang/Fullam to determine volume as a mathematical function of gaze distance to achieve the foveated quality adjustments taught by Thresh.
Claims 4-5, 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Fullam. The claims recite applying a “filter effect” including a “dim effect.” Wang teaches that the volume control parameter for non-focused screens can be set to "0" (mute) or reduced (Wang: Step S2300, Scenario 2). Fullam teaches filtering microphone signals or sound sources to emphasize/de-emphasize content (Fullam: Para. [0018] – [0019]).
However, Thresh teaches:
“selecting a frequency window and processing audio data… only within the frequency window… converting the high-quality audio data file… to a reduced sample rate or bit depth… to reduce the load on the processing unit.” (Thresh: Para. [0013], [0020]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Wang/Fullam to determine volume as a mathematical function of gaze distance to achieve the foveated quality adjustments taught by Thresh.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN EARLES whose telephone number is (571)272-4628. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday at 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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 on 571-272-0666. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRYAN EARLES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2625
Prosecution Insights