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 .
Claim Interpretations - 35 USC § 101
The limitation “formatting and displaying a content of the virtual information according to the text display font size, the text display line height, and the text display blank height” is considered a practical application of displaying fonts in focus on a plurality of different devices with different Fields of view and pixels per degree.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to nonstatutory subject matter. Claim 15 recites "a storage medium”. A computer program may be statutory if it is claimed as a physical product, by reciting the program in conjunction with a “non-transitory computer readable medium.” The specification (see paragraph [0149] of the specification) recites “may include” Because the specification does not positively restrict the medium to only statutory embodiments, and under a broadest reasonable interpretation the medium might include signals (i.e. transitory propagating signals, carrier waves, etc.) and is thus directed to nonstatutory subject matter (see MPEP §2106; In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007); and the Director’s Memo Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media, 1351 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 212 (Feb. 23, 2010)). In order to overcome the rejection, Applicant(s) should amend claims 15-20 such that the program is a physical product in conjunction with the medium and the medium is non-transitory in nature, “non-transitory computer readable storage medium.”
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: various acquisition/determination units/subunits, display unit in claims 8-14, processor in conjunction with a specific algorithm and display.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-14 are allowed.
Claims 15-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the 101 rejections, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record is Xin et al. (US 2020/0244944)(Hereinafter referred to as Xin).
Regarding claim 1, Xin teaches A method for displaying augmented reality (The virtual reality systems may be classified, based on different functions thereof into four types including an immersive virtual reality system, an augmented reality virtual reality system, a desktop virtual reality system, and a distributed virtual reality system See paragraph [0051]), comprising:
acquiring a field of view and resolution of an augmented reality display device, and a viewing angle of a user (On the other hand, pixels per degree (PPD) of screens of different VR terminal devices are also inconsistent, for example, a pixel per degree of a screen of an Oculus terminal device is 12, and a pixel per degree of a screen of a Google Daydream terminal device is 14. The developer experiments on a VR terminal device of one specification, and when information such as font setting parameters with a better effect in the VR device of the specification is used in a VR device of another specification, because pixels per degree of screens of different devices are different, display effects of same content on devices having screens with different pixel per degrees are different. For example, a same font specification that is set by using a same font setting parameter is just clear on the Google Daydream terminal device, but is unclear on the Oculus terminal device. This case results in the fact that the developer needs to reset a new text height based on the VR device when migrating the same content from a Daydream platform to an Oculus platform, and needs to re-test and re-verify the text height in a development process, greatly increasing difficulty and costs of content migration. Col. 7, lines 44-64)( That is, a minimum comfortable readable text height H in a real world for a human and the distance S between the human eye and the text meet the formula (2). a is the high corresponding visual angle formed by the text height and the eye of the user, and may also be referred to as an image and text visual angle. Based on an international human-machine design specification, it may be concluded that when the value range of a is greater than or equal to 18 degrees and less than or equal to 22 degrees, a font viewed by a human is clear and meets comfort requirements of human vision. It should be understood that, the value range of a may be less than 18 degrees or greater than 22 degrees. This is not limited in, this embodiment of this application herein. See col. 11, line 63 to col. 12, line 8);
acquiring a standard text width ratio of virtual information to be displayed (The text parameter control module is mainly configured to control a size of displayed texts, for example, a text height and a text width. See col. 7, lines 5-7);
determining a text display font size corresponding to the virtual information according to the resolution, the field of view, the viewing angle, and the standard text width ratio (In S120, a text parameter control module in the VR device determines, based on the received text information, contents and other information of the text information, for example, distance information between the text information in a virtual environment and the eye of the user, and determines the font size of the text information based on the pixel per degree PPD.sub.VR device of the VR device, the pixel per degree PPD.sub.Human eye of the eye of the user, the distance information between the text information in the VR and the eye of the user, and the correction value α. For example, a height, a transparency, a color, and the like of a font in the text information may be determined. This is not limited in this embodiment of this application herein. See col. 9, lines 43-55);
determining a text display line height corresponding to the virtual information based on the text display font size (Specifically, FIG. 7 is a diagram of a relationship between 55 a font height and a distance between a human eye and a text. As shown in FIG. 7, in a real environment, a relationship between a text height H and a distance S between a human eye and a font is a tangent function, that is, as shown in a formula (2)); and
formatting and displaying a content of the virtual information according to the text display font size, the text display line height (In S140, after receiving the rendered data, the display module in the VR device may display the rendered text information or image to the user. A font size of the rendered text information or image adapts to the VR device worn by the user. Therefore, the user can view a text in the text information clearly and has better user experience. See col. 10, lines 30-35 ), but is silent to determining a text display blank height corresponding to the virtual information based on the text display font size and formatting and displaying a content of the virtual information according to the text display blank height.
The prior art of record alone or in combination is silent to the limitations “determining a text display blank height corresponding to the virtual information based on the text display font size and formatting and displaying a content of the virtual information according to the text display blank height.” Of claim 1 when read in light of the rest of the limitations in claim 1 and thus claim 1 is allowed.
The examiner notes that paragraph [0100] of the specification as filed is a special definition of text display blank height which is a height between the last line of text and a bottom of the text display area when displaying text.
Claims 2-7 are allowed because they depend on an allowed claim.
The prior art of record alone or in combination is silent to the limitations “a second determination unit configured to determine a text display blank height corresponding to the virtual information based on the text display font size; and a display unit configured to format and display a content of the virtual information according to the text display blank height. ” Of claim 8 when read in light of the rest of the limitations in claim 8 and thus claim 8 is allowed.
Claims 9-14 are allowed because they depend on an allowed claim.
The prior art of record alone or in combination is silent to the limitations “determining a text display blank height corresponding to the virtual information based on the text display font size; and formatting and displaying a content of the virtual information according to the text display blank height. ” Of claim 15 when read in light of the rest of the limitations in claim 15 and thus claim 15 contains allowable subject matter.
Claims 16-20 contain allowable subject matter because they depend on a claim that contains allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sedouram (US 2024/0119423), generally refers to font size selection for augmented reality (See paragraph [0022]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS R WILSON whose telephone number is (571)272-0936. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00PM.
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, Kee Tung can be reached at (572)-272-7794. 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.
/NICHOLAS R WILSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Prosecution Insights