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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 1/10/25. These drawings are acceptable.
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Limor et al. (US 2020/0225737).
Regarding claim 1, Limor discloses a method, performed by an augmented reality (AR) device (see 2890 in fig. 28) having an image sensor (see 2000 in fig. 22), for extending a field of view of the AR device (see 1000 in fig. 22), the method comprising: establishing communications between the AR device and a display device having a display screen (see 1000 and 3000 in fig. 22); time-synchronizing the display device to the AR device (e.g. see ¶ [0059]); determining a position of the display screen of the display device relative to the AR device (see “Range finder” in fig. 28; see 3410-3430 in fig. 34); configuring content to be rendered on the display screen of the display device (see 2820 and 2850 in fig. 28); and sending the content to the display device (see 4000 and 1000 in fig. 22).
Regarding claims 2, 16 and 18, Limor further discloses wherein establishing communications between the AR device and the display device comprises establishing communications between the AR device and a plurality of display devices (see 1000 in fig. 22), and wherein the plurality of display devices operates as a large, unified display to provide a single view, as individual displays displaying different views, or a combination thereof (see 1000 in fig. 22).
Regarding claims 3, 15 and 19 Limor further discloses comprising, providing, to the display device, a time synchronization signal for synchronizing timing of images being displayed by the display device with an operation of the AR device (e.g. see ¶ [0059]).
Regarding claims 4, 12 and 20, Limor further discloses comprising: determining a position of the AR device (see “Range finder” in fig. 28); reporting a position of the AR device to the display device (see 2820 and 2840 in fig. 28); and requesting the display device to display at least one object according to the position of the AR device (see 2860 and 2880 in fig. 28).
Regarding claim 5, Limor further discloses wherein determining the position of the AR device comprises at least one of: determining the position using radio frequency positioning techniques (see “Range finder” in fig. 28; e.g. see ¶ [0104]); or determining a size of the display screen of the display device and determining the position of the AR device based at least in part on visual information received by the image sensor, while ignoring visual information within the display screen of the display device.
Regarding claim 7, Limor further discloses comprising: reporting, to the display device, a user interaction with at least one of the at least one object being displayed by the display device (see 3000, 4000 and 1000 in fig. 22).
Regarding claim 8, Limor further discloses comprising, in response to the user interaction, at least one of: transferring an object being displayed by the display device to the AR device and displaying the object as an AR image (see 3000, 4000 and 1000 in fig. 22); or transferring an object being displayed by the AR device as an AR image to the display device and ceasing displaying the object as an AR image.
Regarding claims 9 and 11, Limor further discloses wherein the AR device comprises at least one lens through which a user of the AR device can view a three-dimensional (3D) display for displaying pairs of images to simulate a 3D image, and wherein the display device comprises a 3D display (e.g. see ¶ [0064]).
Regarding claim 10, the claim(s) recite analogous limitations to claim 1, and is/are therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 13, the claim(s) recite analogous limitations to claims 7-8, and is/are therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 14, the claim(s) recite analogous limitations to claim 8, and is/are therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 17, the claim(s) recite a device (see fig. 22) with analogous limitations to claim 1, and is/are therefore rejected on the same premise.
Furthermore, Limor discloses at least one lens through which a user can view a display (e.g. see ¶ [0104]); a projector for projecting an AR image onto the at least one lens for viewing by the user (see 2880 in fig. 28); a memory; at least one transceiver; and at least one processor communicatively coupled to the projector, the memory, and the at least one transceiver (see 4000 in fig. 1).
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 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 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 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Limor.
Although it is not explicitly recited, it is conventional in the art for performing a six-degree of freedom (6DOF) calculation for determine position of the AR device. The Examiner takes official notice that performing a six-degree of freedom (6DOF) calculation for determine position of the AR device is well known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate performing a six-degree of freedom (6DOF) calculation for determine position of the AR device for the benefit of optimal virtual viewing experience.
Citation of Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1. Chung et al. (US 2019/0043447), discloses synchronization of 3D object display.
2. Park et al. (US 2013/0169765), discloses synchronization of 3D object display.
3. Nourbakhsh et al. (US 2012/0190439), discloses synchronization of 3D object display.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD T TORRENTE whose telephone number is (571)270-3702. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 6:45-3:15 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, Jay Patel can be reached at (571) 272-2988. 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.
/RICHARD T TORRENTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2485
Prosecution Insights