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 .
Claims 1-19 are present for examination.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 6 and 11 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6, line 4, “a loss-of-fusion zone” should be “the loss-of-fusion zone”.
Claim 11, p. 3, line 4, “a virtual object” should be “the virtual object”, and line 5, “a user” should be “the user”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 11, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
MPEP 2106 III provides a flowchart for the subject matter eligibility test for product and processes. The claim analysis following the flowchart is as follows:
Claim 11 recites:
A method for operating a head-mounted display device configured to display a virtual object, the method comprising:
identifying a type of content corresponding to the virtual object;
determining a boundary between different zones of a binocular field of view (FOV) of a user based at least in part on the identified type of content corresponding to the virtual object;
obtaining a first estimate of a location at which a virtual object is to be perceived by a user and a later, second estimate of the location at which the virtual object is to be perceived by the user;
determining, based at least on the first estimate of the location at which the virtual object is to be perceived by the user and the second estimate of the location at which the virtual object is to be perceived by the user, that the virtual object has crossed the determined boundary between different zones of the binocular FOV of the user; and
in response to determining that the virtual object has crossed the determined boundary between zones of the binocular FOV of the user, switching between starting and resetting a timer associated with the identified type of content.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes. It recites a method, which is a process.
Step 2A, Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or nature phenomenon?
Yes.
The step of “identifying a type of content corresponding to the virtual object” can be a mental process because a person can look at the virtual object and determine the type of content corresponding to the virtual object in the mind.
The step of “determining a boundary between different zones of a binocular field of view (FOV) of a user based at least in part on the identified type of content corresponding to the virtual object” can be a mental process because a user can mentally decide a boundary between zones of his/her FOV based on the type of content corresponding to the virtual object.
The step of “obtaining a first estimate of a location at which a virtual object is to be perceived by a user and a later, second estimate of the location at which the virtual object is to be perceived by the user” can be a mental process because a user can estimate the locations of the virtual object in the mind.
The step of “determining, based at least on the first estimate of the location at which the virtual object is to be perceived by the user and the second estimate of the location at which the virtual object is to be perceived by the user, that the virtual object has crossed the determined boundary between different zones of the binocular FOV of the user” can be a mental process because a user can mentally determine whether the virtual object has crossed the boundary between different zones based on the estimated locations.
The step of “in response to determining that the virtual object has crossed the determined boundary between zones of the binocular FOV of the user, switching between starting and resetting a timer associated with the identified type of content” can be a mental process because a user can either start or reset a timer associated with the type of content by counting up or down in the mind in response to determining the virtual object has crossed the determined boundary between zones of the binocular FOV of the user.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
Although the claim recites “a head-mounted display device”. It is recited in the preamble at such a high level without any details, and therefore at most can be considered as a generic computer component, which cannot integrate the recited abstract ideas into practical application.
Therefore, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because at most “a head-mounted display device” recited in the preamble can be considered as a generic computer component which does not integrate the recited abstract ideas into practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
Similarly as discussed above, at most “a head-mounted display device” recited in the preamble can be considered as a generic computer component which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas recited in the claim.
Therefore, claim 11 is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claim 14, it depends from claim 11 and further recites setting a value for the timer based at least in part on the identified type of content.
This can be a mental process because a user can set the value for the timer in the mind based on the identified type of content.
Therefore, claim 14 does not recite any additional elements that can integrate the abstract ideas in claims 11 and 14 into practical application or amount to significantly more.
Therefore, claim 14 is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claim 15, it depends from claim 11 and further recites wherein the type of content comprises user-locked content or in-world content.
This merely further limits the type of content in the mental process step of “identifying a type of content corresponding to the virtual object” not an additional element.
Therefore, claim 15 does not recite any additional elements that can integrate the abstract ideas in claims 11 and 14 into practical application or amount to significantly more.
Therefore, claim 15 is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Note claim 12 recites limitations further define the head-mounted display device with details. The head-mounted display device recited in claim 12 can be considered as a particular machine that the abstract ideas of claim 11 can be used with. Therefore, it can integrate the abstract ideas into practical application.
Therefore, claim 12 is eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Claim 13 depends from claim 12 and is also eligible.
Claim 16 depends from claim 11 and further recites “wherein, in response to determining that the timer associated with the identified type of content has expired, modifying the virtual object in accordance with the identified type of content.” Modifying the virtual object can be an additional element and it can improve the user’s perception of the virtual object therefore can integrate the abstract ideas into practical application.
Therefore, claim 16 is eligible.
Claims 17-19 depends from claim 16 and are also eligible accordingly.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, it recites, inter alia, “determining a boundary between different zones of a binocular field of view (FOV) of a user based at least in part on the identified type of content corresponding to the virtual object; determining whether a vergence point of the user has crossed a distance threshold defined relative to the virtual object; in response to determining that the virtual object has crossed the determined boundary between zones of the binocular FOV of the user, switching between starting and resetting a timer associated with the identified type of content”. (Emphasis added.)
It seems that the step of “determining that the virtual object has crossed the determined boundary between zones” is required to allow the step of “in response to determining that the virtual object has crossed the determined boundary between zones of the binocular FOV of the user, switching between starting and resetting a timer associated with the identified type of content”. However, the two determining steps recited before that limitation recited above only determine a boundary and “whether a vergence point of the user has crossed a distance threshold defined relative to the virtual object”. And the step of “determining that the virtual object has crossed the determined boundary between zones” seems to be an essential step for the step of switching. Such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. On the other hand, if Applicant’s intention is for the switching step being in response to the step of “determining a vergence point of the user has crossed a distance threshold defined relative to the virtual object”, Applicant should amend the claim accordingly.
Claims 2-10 depend from claim 1 but fail to cure the deficiencies of claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, it recites, inter alia, “obtaining a first estimate of a location at which a virtual object is to be perceived by a user and a later, second estimate of the location at which the virtual object is to be perceived by the user; determining, based at least on the first estimate of the location at which the virtual object is to be perceived by the user and the second estimate of the location at which the virtual object is to be perceived by the user, that the virtual object has crossed the determined boundary between different zones of the binocular FOV of the user.” According to the obtaining step, it seems that the location for the first estimate and the location for the second estimate are the same location where the virtual object is to be perceived by the user because the claim first recites “a location” for the first estimate and then recites “the location” for the second estimate. However, in the step of determining the virtual object has crossed the determined boundary, the virtual object seems to have been moving from a first location to a second location because having crossed the determined boundary indicates the virtual object has two locations, one from one side of the boundary and the other from the other side of the boundary. Therefore, it is not clear whether the locations of the virtual object to be perceived in the obtaining step should be the same location or different locations, which renders claim 11 indefinite.
Claims 12-19 depend from claim 11 but fail to cure the deficiencies of claim 11.
In addition, claim 6 recites “wherein determining whether the vergence point of the user has crossed the distance threshold defined relative to the virtual object includes determining whether the virtual object is located within a loss-of-fusion zone by determining whether the virtual object is located at less than a loss-of-fusion threshold distance from a user of the display system.” (Emphasis added.) It is not clear whether “the distance threshold” is the same as or different than the “loss-of-fusion threshold distance”. Also, it is not clear whether “the user” is the same as or different than “a user of the display system”.
Claim 7 depends from claim 6 but fails to cure the deficiencies of claim 6.
Claim 10 recites “a viewer of the display system”. However, claim 1, from which claim 10 depends, recites “a user”. It is not clear whether the “viewer” recited in claim 10 is the same as or different than the “user” recited in claim 1.
Claim 19 recites “a viewer of the display system”. However, claim 11, from which claim 19 depends, recites “a user”. It is not clear whether the “viewer” recited in claim 19 is the same as or different than the “user” recited in claim 11.
For examination purposes, claim 1 has been interpreted as comprising the step “determining that the virtual object has crossed the determined boundary between zones of the binocular FOV of the user”.
Claim 6 has been interpreted as “the distance threshold” being the same as the “loss-of-fusion threshold distance”, and “the user” being the same as “a user of the display system”.
Claim 10 has been interpreted as “a viewer of the display system” being the same as the “user” recited in claim 1.
Claim 11 has been interpreted as having the first estimate of a first location of the virtual object and the second estimate of a second location of the virtual object.
Claim 19 has been interpreted as “a viewer of the display system” being the same as the “user” recited in claim 11.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-19 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 USC 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, the closest prior art references the examiner could find are US Patent Publication No. 20120127062 A1 to Bar-Zeev et al., US Patent Publication No. 20180136716 A1 to Kuehne, US Patent Publication No. 20040001110 A1 to Khan, which disclose A display system for displaying a virtual object (Bar-Zeev, Abstract, disclosing an augmented reality system provides improved focus of real and virtual objects), the display system comprising: one or more processors (Bar-Zeev, para. [0046], disclosing a processing unit); and one or more computer storage media storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations (Bar-Zeev, para. [0048], disclosing instructions stored on a processor readable storage device for performing processes) comprising: identifying a type of content corresponding to the virtual object (Bar-Zeev, para. [0155], disclosing the types of virtual objects and their location in a user field of view is determined by the application); determining a boundary between different zones of a binocular field of view (FOV) of a user (Kuehne, para. [0012], disclosing determining the relative boundary of the detection region located in the binocular field of view of the user); determining whether a vergence point of the user has crossed a distance threshold defined relative to the virtual object (Khan, para. [0073], disclosing the points at which rays intersect a model would be required to be within a threshold distance of the previous focus point or viewpoint or else the point and its corresponding ray will be ignored).
However, none of the prior art references on the record, alone or in combination, discloses determining a boundary between different zones of a binocular field of view (FOV) of a user based at least in part on the identified type of content corresponding to the virtual object; in response to determining that the virtual object has crossed the determined boundary between zones of the binocular FOV of the user, switching between starting and resetting a timer associated with the identified type of content; determining whether the timer associated with the identified type of content has expired; and in response to determining that the timer associated with the identified type of content has expired, modifying the virtual object in accordance with the identified type of content.
Claims 2-10 depend from claim 1 with respective additional limitations.
Regarding claim 11, the closest prior art references the examiner could find are Bar-Zeev, Kuehne, and US Patent Publication No. 20140347391 A1 to Keane et al., which disclose A method for operating a head-mounted display device configured to display a virtual object (Bar-Zeev, Abstract, disclosing an augmented reality system provides improved focus of real and virtual objects), the method comprising: identifying a type of content corresponding to the virtual object (Bar-Zeev, para. [0155], disclosing the types of virtual objects and their location in a user field of view is determined by the application); determining a boundary between different zones of a binocular field of view (FOV) of a user (Kuehne, para. [0012], disclosing determining the relative boundary of the detection region located in the binocular field of view of the user); based at least in part on the identified type of content corresponding to the virtual object; obtaining a first estimate of a location at which a virtual object is to be perceived by a user and a later, second estimate of the location at which the virtual object is to be perceived by the user (Keane, para. [0006], disclosing displaying a virtual object to the user at a first position in the user’s field of view and rotating the virtual object to a second position to face the user when it is determined that the user is motionless for a predetermined period of time).
However, none of the prior art references on the record, alone or in combination, discloses determining a boundary between different zones of a binocular field of view (FOV) of a user based at least in part on the identified type of content corresponding to the virtual object; determining, based at least on the first estimate of the location at which the virtual object is to be perceived by the user and the second estimate of the location at which the virtual object is to be perceived by the user, that the virtual object has crossed the determined boundary between different zones of the binocular FOV of the user; and in response to determining that the virtual object has crossed the determined boundary between zones of the binocular FOV of the user, switching between starting and resetting a timer associated with the identified type of content.
Claims 12-19 depend from claim 11 with respective additional limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAIXIA DU whose telephone number is (571)270-5646. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am-4:00 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, Kee Tung can be reached at 571-272-7794. 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.
/HAIXIA DU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Prosecution Insights