DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
1. Applicant’s Preliminary Amendment to the Claims filed January 15, 2025 is received and entered.
2. Claims 9 and 10 are amended. Claims 1 – 10 are pending and are under examination in this action.
3. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112(f)
4. 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.
5. Regarding claim 8, the limitations of “a determination module” and “an output module” are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because they use a generic placeholder coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function.
Regarding the recitation of “a determination module” and “an output module” in claim 8, these limitations do not invoke 112(f) because the generic place holders “module” are preceded by a structural modifier. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize, in light of the specification, that each of these modules corresponds to sufficient definite structure of a processor as described in paragraph [0164] of Applicant's specification. Accordingly, the terms “determination module” and “output module” connote sufficient definite structure to avoid invoking 35 USC 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
6. 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.
7. Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, these claims are directed to both an apparatus and method steps of using the apparatus and are therefore indefinite. See IPXL Holdings v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.2d 1377, 1384, 77 USPQ2d 1140, 1145 (Fed. Cir. 2005). See also, Ex parte Lyell, 17 USPQ2d 1548 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990).
Claim 9 is directed to both an apparatus and a method by simultaneously requiring the physical structure of an apparatus (lines 1 – 4) while depending from a method claim (line 4).
Claim 10 is directed to both an apparatus and a method by simultaneously requiring the physical structure of an apparatus (lines 1 – 2) while depending from a method claim (line 3).
A recitation claiming both an apparatus and a method simultaneously is indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
8. 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.
9. Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claim 9 and 10, these claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to neither a "process" nor a "machine," but rather embracing / overlapping two different statutory classes for at least the reasons stated above with regard to the rejection of this claim under 35 USC 112. See Ex parte Lyell, 17 USPQ2d 1548, 1551 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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.
11. Claims 1, 3, and 8 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa et al. (U.S. Pub. 2017/0278486) in view of Zhou et al. (U.S. Pub. 2022/0050582).
Regarding claim 1, Ishikawa teaches: a display control method, wherein the method comprises:
using a first virtual screen among a plurality of virtual screens as a main display screen of a head-mounted display device (FIG. 1; paragraph [0067]; HMD 100 displays a virtual image in a visual field V [first virtual screen]), wherein part of the plurality of virtual screens are located in a visual field area of a wearer of the head-mounted display device (FIG. 1; paragraphs [0067], [0068]; the virtual image in visual field V [first virtual screen] is located in the user’s visual field. Advance images B1, B2, B3, and B4 are provided outside the visual field V [first virtual screen] and are therefore interpreted as being provided on a plurality of second virtual screens).
Ishikawa fails to explicitly disclose: determining whether display content of second virtual screens among the plurality of virtual screens is updated; and outputting first prompt information on the first virtual screen when the display content of any of the second virtual screens is updated.
However, in a related field of endeavor, Zhou discloses: a display device [terminal 100] that has a visible display 10 and a plurality of hidden non-visible windows 30 (FIGS. 2, 3; paragraph [0097]).
With regard to claim 1, Zhou teaches: determining whether display content of second virtual screens among the plurality of virtual screens is updated (FIGS. 3, 4, 6A, 6B; paragraphs [0084], [0097]; while windows 30 [second virtual screens] are hidden, it is determined whether the display interface of any of these hidden windows 30 is updated); and
outputting first prompt information on the first virtual screen when the display content of any of the second virtual screens is updated (FIGS 6A, 6B; paragraph [0084]; when a display interface of a hidden window 30 is updated, the terminal 100 prompts a user [first prompt information] by shaking or highlighting prompt bar 50 or circular floating window 60).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to combine the known teachings of Ishikawa and Zhou to yield predictable results. More specifically, the teachings of a HMD device that includes a plurality of “virtual screens”, a primary virtual screen which is in a visual field and secondary virtual screens that are outside the visual field, as taught by Ishikawa, are known. Additionally, the teachings of a display device that includes a visible display and hidden windows where a prompt is provided on the visible display when the display content of a hidden window is updated, as taught by Zhou, are known as well. The combination of the known teachings of Ishikawa and Zhou would yield the predicable result of a HMD device that includes a plurality of “virtual screens”, a primary virtual screen which is in a visual field and secondary virtual screens that are outside the visual field, where a prompt is provided on the primary virtual screen when the display content of a secondary virtual screen is updated. In other words, it would have been obvious to incorporate the visual prompt of Zhou into the device of Ishikawa when hidden display content is updated. Such a combination merely provides a way to alert a user that non-visible display content has been updated. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to combine the known teachings of Ishikawa and Zhou to yield the aforementioned predictable results.
Regarding claim 3, Ishikawa fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the outputting first prompt information on the first virtual screen when the display content of any of second virtual screens is updated comprises: when the display content of the any of the second virtual screens is updated, acquiring attribute information of the any of the second virtual screens; and displaying a display control element matching the attribute information of the any of the second virtual screens, on the first virtual screen.
However, Zhou teaches: wherein the outputting first prompt information on the first virtual screen when the display content of any of second virtual screens is updated comprises:
when the display content of the any of the second virtual screens is updated, acquiring attribute information of the any of the second virtual screens; and displaying a display control element matching the attribute information of the any of the second virtual screens, on the first virtual screen (FIG. 6B; paragraphs [0083], [0084]; when small window 30 is hidden and corresponds to a WeChat interface [attribute information], the circular floating window 60 may include a graphic indicator corresponding to WeChat to identify which small window 30, and which corresponding interface, has been updated).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to combine the known teachings of Ishikawa and Zhou to yield predictable results for at least the reasons set forth above with regard to claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, Ishikawa teaches: a display control apparatus (FIG. 1; paragraph [0067]; HMD 100), wherein the apparatus comprises:
a determination module (FIG. 3; paragraph [0087]; CPU 301 controls the whole operation of the HMD) configured to use a first virtual screen among a plurality of virtual screens as a main display screen of a head-mounted display device (FIG. 1; paragraph [0067]; HMD 100 displays a virtual image in a visual field V [first virtual screen]), wherein part of the plurality of virtual screens are located in a visual field area of a wearer of the head-mounted display device (FIG. 1; paragraphs [0067], [0068]; the virtual image in visual field V [first virtual screen] is located in the user’s visual field. Advance images B1, B2, B3, and B4 are provided outside the visual field V [first virtual screen] and are therefore interpreted as being provided on a plurality of second virtual screens); and
an output module (FIG. 3; paragraph [0087]; CPU 301 controls the whole operation of the HMD, including the display of images and objects via display unit 10).
Ishikawa fails to explicitly disclose: determine whether display content of second virtual screens among the plurality of virtual screens is updated; and to output first prompt information on the first virtual screen when the display content of any of the second virtual screens is updated.
However, Zhou teaches: determine whether display content of second virtual screens among the plurality of virtual screens is updated (FIGS. 3, 4, 6A, 6B; paragraphs [0084], [0097]; while windows 30 [second virtual screens] are hidden, it is determined whether the display interface of any of these hidden windows 30 is updated); and
to output first prompt information on the first virtual screen when the display content of any of the second virtual screens is updated (FIGS 6A, 6B; paragraph [0084]; when a display interface of a hidden window 30 is updated, the terminal 100 prompts a user [first prompt information] by shaking or highlighting prompt bar 50 or circular floating window 60).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to combine the known teachings of Ishikawa and Zhou to yield predictable results for at least the reasons set forth above with regard to claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, Ishikawa teaches: a head-mounted display device (FIG. 1; paragraph [0067]; HMD 100), wherein the head-mounted display device comprises: a memory configured to store executable computer instructions (FIG. 3; paragraphs [0086], [0087]; memory 302 stores programs); and
a processor configured to execute the display control method according to claim 1 under control of the executable computer instructions (FIG. 3; paragraphs [0086], [0087]; CPU 301 executes programs stored in memory 302 to perform the disclosed operations of HMD 100).
Regarding claim 10, Ishikawa teaches: a computer-readable storage medium in which computer instructions are stored, wherein the computer instructions are executed by a processor to execute the display control method according to claim 1 (FIG. 3; paragraphs [0086], [0087]; memory 302 stores programs executable by CPU 301 to perform the disclosed operations of HMD 100).
12. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa in view of Zhou, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Hicks et al. (U.S. Pub. 2020/0349905).
Regarding claim 2, neither Ishikawa nor Zhou explicitly disclose: wherein the determining whether the display content of any of the second virtual screens is updated comprises: acquiring a current first display data frame and a latest second display data frame of the any of the second virtual screens; comparing the first display data frame with the second display data frame to obtain a comparison result; and when the comparison result indicates that there is a difference between the first display data frame and the second display data frame, indicating that the display content of the any of the second virtual screens is updated.
However, Hicks teaches: wherein the determining whether the display content of any of the second virtual screens is updated comprises: acquiring a current first display data frame and a latest second display data frame of the any of the second virtual screens; comparing the first display data frame with the second display data frame to obtain a comparison result; and when the comparison result indicates that there is a difference between the first display data frame and the second display data frame, indicating that the display content of the any of the second virtual screens is updated (paragraph [0318]; changes to a displayed image are determined by comparing a new frame to a previous frame. When there is a difference between the new and previous frame, the displayed image is determined as being updated or changed).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to combine the known teachings of Ishikawa, Zhou, and Hicks to yield predictable results. More specifically, the teachings of a plurality of “virtual screens”, a primary virtual screen which is in a visual field and secondary virtual screens that are outside the visual field, where a prompt is provided on the primary virtual screen when the display content of a secondary virtual screen is updated, as taught by the combination of Ishikawa and Zhou, are known. Additionally, the teachings of determining whether a display image has been changed/updated by comparing a new frame to a previous frame to detect differences therein, as taught by Hicks, are known as well. The combination of the known teachings of Ishikawa, Zhou, and Hicks would yield the predicable result of a HMD device that includes a plurality of “virtual screens”, a primary virtual screen which is in a visual field and secondary virtual screens that are outside the visual field, where a prompt is provided on the primary virtual screen when the display content of a secondary virtual screen is updated, where a screen is determined as being updated by comparing a new frame to a previous frame to detect differences therein. In other words, it would have been obvious to incorporate the frame comparison of Hicks as the particular method of determining whether content is updated in the combination of Ishikawa and Zhou. Such a combination merely fills in the gaps of the combination of Ishikawa and Zhou with regard to the particular steps to determine that non-visible display content has been updated. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to combine the known teachings of Ishikawa, Zhou, and Hicks to yield the aforementioned predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
13. Claims 4 – 7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN A LUBIT whose telephone number is (571)270-3389. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, ~6am - 3pm.
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, Temesghen Ghebretinsae can be reached at 571-272-3017. 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.
/RYAN A LUBIT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2626
Prosecution Insights