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 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8-9, 11-13, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Griswold (US 20190304406 A1).
Regarding Claim 17, Griswold teaches A computer system that is executing a system process, comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing one or more programs (Paragraph [0071]: “In some embodiments, HMD 100 can include a controller, such as controller 122, which can include, for example, a processor and memory (as described below in connection with FIG. 4) that are in communication with the various sensors and systems of HMD 100. In some embodiments, the controller can store, in memory, instructions that are executable by the processor to receive signal inputs from the sensors, determine a pose of HMD 100, and adjust display properties for content displayed using transparent display 102”)
configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including instructions (Paragraph [0006]: “In accordance with some embodiments of the disclosed subject matter, a system for displaying interactive augmented reality presentations is provided, the system comprising: a plurality of head mounted displays, wherein a first head mounted display of the plurality of head mounted displays comprises: a transparent display; and at least one processor, wherein the at least one processor is programmed to:”) for:
receiving a first position of a subject (Paragraph [0014]: “present, using the transparent display, the first view of the first three dimensional model at the first physical location based at least in part on a first head position in relation to the first physical location determined from information output by the head tracking system”); and
in response to receiving the first position of the subject in accordance with a determination that a first set of one or more criteria is satisfied, wherein the first set of one or more criteria includes a criterion that is satisfied when the first position has a first positional relationship to an object different from the subject and the computer system, providing, to an application, a first viewing direction (Paragraph [0014]: “present, using the transparent display, the first view of the first three dimensional model at the first physical location based at least in part on a first head position in relation to the first physical location determined from information output by the head tracking system”; Paragraph [0077]: “In a more particular example, if HMDs 100 are owned by an institution, a user associated with the institution can preload the content on each of HMD 100. As another example, in some embodiments, a user of an HMD 100 can download an application that can be used to present the content”. Notes: Because the presented view is based on the head position (which is the position of the head mounted display device), which is information outputted by the head tracking system, the position serves as a criteria for presenting a particular view direction depending on a positional relationship); and
in accordance with a determination that a second set of one or more criteria, different from the first set of one or more criteria, is satisfied, wherein the second set of one or more criteria includes a criterion that is satisfied when the first position has a second positional relationship to the object different from the first positional relationship to the object, forgoing provision of, to the application, the first viewing direction (Paragraph [0014]: “determine, based on information output by the head tracking system, a second head position in relation to the first physical location that is different than the first head position; in response to determining the second head position, present a second view of the first three dimensional model based on the second head position”; Paragraph [0077]: “In a more particular example, if HMDs 100 are owned by an institution, a user associated with the institution can preload the content on each of HMD 100. As another example, in some embodiments, a user of an HMD 100 can download an application that can be used to present the content”. Notes: Because the presented view is based on the head position (which is the position of the head mounted display device), which is information outputted by the head tracking system, the position serves as a criterion for presenting a particular view direction depending on a positional relationship. Furthermore, the presentation of a second viewing direction corresponding to a first position is understood to be in relation to a first position of a subject, where the first position of a subject is subject to change, represented through a second positional relationship to the object different from the first positional relationship. A change in position results in a change in the view direction, as is stated in Paragraph [0014], which inherently forgoes the previous view direction when presenting the new view direction corresponding with the change in position).
Claim 1, being similar in scope to Claim 17, is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 18, being similar in scope to Claim 17, is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 4, the method of Claim 1 is rejected over Griswold.
Griswold teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein the first position includes a location, an orientation, a gaze direction of a subject, or any combination thereof (Paragraph [0014]: “present, using the transparent display, the first view of the first three dimensional model at the first physical location based at least in part on a first head position in relation to the first physical location determined from information output by the head tracking system”; Paragraph [0066]: “In some embodiments, HMD 100 can include a head tracking system 110 that can utilize one or more motion sensors, such as motion sensors 112 shown in FIG. 1, to capture head pose data that can be used to track a head position of the wearer, for example, by determining the direction and/or orientation of a wearer's head”).
Regarding Claim 5, the method of Claim 1 is rejected over Griswold.
Griswold teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein the first viewing direction is a viewing direction from a set of one or more predefined viewing directions (Paragraph [0014]: “determine, based on information output by the head tracking system, a second head position in relation to the first physical location that is different than the first head position; in response to determining the second head position, present a second view of the first three dimensional model based on the second head position”; Paragraph [0066]: “In some embodiments, HMD 100 can include a head tracking system 110 that can utilize one or more motion sensors, such as motion sensors 112 shown in FIG. 1, to capture head pose data that can be used to track a head position of the wearer, for example, by determining the direction and/or orientation of a wearer's head”. Notes: The viewing direction is presented after the head position is determined, where the information output by the head tracking system results in the determination of the position. Therefore, the viewing direction is considered predetermined, since it is determined based on a head position established before the view direction is presented).
Regarding Claim 6, the method of Claim 1 is rejected over Griswold.
Griswold teaches the method of Claim 1, further comprising:
Receiving a second position of the subject different from the first position of the subject (Paragraph [0014]: “determine, based on information output by the head tracking system, a second head position in relation to the first physical location that is different than the first head position; in response to determining the second head position, present a second view of the first three dimensional model based on the second head position”) and
In accordance with a determination that the first set of one or more criteria is satisfied, wherein the first set of one or more criteria includes a criterion that is satisfied when the first position has the first positional relationship to the object, providing, to the application, the first viewing direction (Paragraph [0014]: “present, using the transparent display, the first view of the first three dimensional model at the first physical location based at least in part on a first head position in relation to the first physical location determined from information output by the head tracking system”; Paragraph [0077]: “In a more particular example, if HMDs 100 are owned by an institution, a user associated with the institution can preload the content on each of HMD 100. As another example, in some embodiments, a user of an HMD 100 can download an application that can be used to present the content”. Notes: Because the presented view is based on the head position (which is the position of the head mounted display device), which is information outputted by the head tracking system, the position serves as a criterion for presenting a particular view direction depending on a positional relationship).
Regarding Claim 8, the method of Claim 1 is rejected over Griswold.
Griswold teaches the method of Claim 1 wherein the object is a volume (Paragraph [0061]: “In some embodiments, multiple augmented reality devices can be networked with a common server or servers to provide relevant content based on time and/or the location of the augmented reality devices. For example, as described above, the instructor can assign different 3D models to different physical spaces”; Paragraph [0014]: “determine, based on information output by the head tracking system, a second head position in relation to the first physical location that is different than the first head position; in response to determining the second head position, present a second view of the first three dimensional model based on the second head position”. Notes: the physical spaces are the physical locations described in Paragraph [0014]).
Regarding Claim 9, the method of Claim 1 is rejected over Griswold.
Griswold teaches the method of Claim 1 wherein the object is a virtual object rendered by the application (Paragraph [0061]: “In some embodiments, multiple augmented reality devices can be networked with a common server or servers to provide relevant content based on time and/or the location of the augmented reality devices. For example, as described above, the instructor can assign different 3D models to different physical spaces”; Paragraph [0077]: “In a more particular example, if HMDs 100 are owned by an institution, a user associated with the institution can preload the content on each of HMD 100. As another example, in some embodiments, a user of an HMD 100 can download an application that can be used to present the content”; Paragraph [0098]: “In some embodiments, HMD 100 can use any suitable hardware and/or software for rendering the content received from server 204, such as Unity 3D available from Unity Technologies. Additionally, in some embodiments, any suitable communications protocols can be used to communicate control data, image data, audio, etc., between HMD 100 and server 204, such networking software available from Unity Technologies”. Notes: the virtual object is necessarily rendered to be presented visually on an HMD).
Regarding Claim 11, the method of Claim 1 is rejected over Griswold.
Griswold teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein the first set of one or more criteria includes a criterion that is satisfied when the application requested to be notified in response to a viewing direction being the first viewing direction (Paragraph [0079]: “In some embodiments, each HMD 100 can execute an application that can interact with server 204 (e.g., over communication network 206) to present content associated with each station. When a particular HMD 100 comes within a predetermined distance of a station (e.g., when HMD 100-2 approaches station 202-2) server 204 can provide content associated with station 202-2”; Paragraph [0082]: “In some embodiments, one or more stations 202 can be used by a presenter to control what is being presented by HMDs near other stations. For example, in some embodiments, a wearer of HMD 100-1 can interact with content presented at station 202-1 using any suitable user interface device(s) to control content that is being presented at one or more of stations 202-2 and 202-3 (and/or any other suitable stations)”; Paragraph [0059]: “In some embodiments, a user can select different portions of the interactive presentation for presentation at different physical locations, different virtual locations, and/or different times. For example, the instructor can place different 3D models of human anatomy that illustrate different concepts (or the same concepts in different ways) into an ordered presentation, and/or can assign the different 3D models of human anatomy to different physical locations (e.g., stations as described below in connection with FIG. 2)”. Notes: Stations are the physical locations described in Paragraph [0014]. Since the HMD can execute an application that presents content associated with each station where the content is presented based on a predetermined distance from the HMD to the station, the HMD is necessarily notified that the view direction is a first viewing direction in the case that the view specific to a first position of a subject and first positional relationship is presented via the application in the HMD. The broadest reasonable interpretation of requesting to be notified in the context of applications is the expectation of a notification (waiting for a notification). Considering that the application presents the content from view directions, the application is necessarily expecting a view direction to be a view direction corresponding to a specific positional relationship and position of the head, and subsequently presents to the user of the HMD the contents corresponding to the specified view direction)
Regarding Claim 12, the method of Claim 1 is rejected over Griswold.
Griswold teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein the first set of one or more criteria includes a criterion that is satisfied when a first user interface of the application is in a field of view of the subject (Paragraph [0020]: “the at least one processor of the first head mounted display is further programmed to: present a first user interface element in connection with the first three dimensional model in a location that is based on the information indicative of physical movements of the user input device … receive one or more instructions from the server indicating the location at which the user interface element is to be presented in relation to the first three dimensional model; present the user interface element at a location with respect to the first three dimensional model based on the information received from the server related to the location of the user interface element in relation to the first three dimensional model”. Notes: a user interface can be presented in relation to a three dimensional model, in which a view direction presents a view of the three-dimensional model).
Regarding Claim 13, the method of Claim 1 is rejected over Griswold.
Griswold teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein the first set of one or more criteria includes a criterion that is satisfied when a second user interface of the application is being focused on by the subject (Paragraph [0020]: “the at least one processor of the first head mounted display is further programmed to: present a first user interface element in connection with the first three dimensional model in a location that is based on the information indicative of physical movements of the user input device”; Paragraph [0082]: “In some embodiments, one or more stations 202 can be used by a presenter to control what is being presented by HMDs near other stations. For example, in some embodiments, a wearer of HMD 100-1 can interact with content presented at station 202-1 using any suitable user interface device(s) to control content that is being presented at one or more of stations 202-2 and 202-3 (and/or any other suitable stations)”; Paragraph [0059]: “In some embodiments, a user can select different portions of the interactive presentation for presentation at different physical locations, different virtual locations, and/or different times. For example, the instructor can place different 3D models of human anatomy that illustrate different concepts (or the same concepts in different ways) into an ordered presentation, and/or can assign the different 3D models of human anatomy to different physical locations (e.g., stations as described below in connection with FIG. 2)”. Notes: the broadest reasonable interpretation of a user interface being focused on by the subject is a user interface being utilized by the user).
Regarding Claim 16, the method of Claim 1 is rejected over Griswold.
Griswold teaches the method of Claim 1, further comprising: rendering the object (Paragraph [0098]: “In some embodiments, HMD 100 can use any suitable hardware and/or software for rendering the content received from server 204, such as Unity 3D available from Unity Technologies. Additionally, in some embodiments, any suitable communications protocols can be used to communicate control data, image data, audio, etc., between HMD 100 and server 204, such networking software available from Unity Technologies”; Paragraph [0061]: “In some embodiments, multiple augmented reality devices can be networked with a common server or servers to provide relevant content based on time and/or the location of the augmented reality devices. For example, as described above, the instructor can assign different 3D models to different physical spaces”; Paragraph [0077]: “In a more particular example, if HMDs 100 are owned by an institution, a user associated with the institution can preload the content on each of HMD 100. As another example, in some embodiments, a user of an HMD 100 can download an application that can be used to present the content”. Notes: the virtual object is necessarily rendered to be presented visually on an HMD).
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, 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griswold (US 20190304406 A1), in view of Peuhkurinen (US 20140313197 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Griswold teaches the method of Claim 1.
Griswold teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein the object is a first object, wherein the application is a first application, the method further comprising:
In response to receiving the first position of the subject (Paragraph [0014]: “present, using the transparent display, the first view of the first three dimensional model at the first physical location based at least in part on a first head position in relation to the first physical location determined from information output by the head tracking system”):
In accordance with a determination that a third set of one or more criteria is satisfied, wherein the third set of one or more criteria includes a criterion that is satisfied when the first position has a third positional relationship to a second object different from the subject and the computer system (Paragraph [0014]: “determine that the second physical location of the plurality of physical locations in the physical environment of the head mounted display is located closest to the head mounted display of the plurality of physical locations; in response to determining that the second physical location is located closest to the head mounted display of the plurality of physical locations, present the second three dimensional (model) anchored at the second physical location”) and
Providing, to an application, a second viewing direction (Paragraph [0006]: “receive second content comprising a second three dimensional model; present, using the transparent display, a first view of the first three dimensional model at a first time; and present, using the transparent display, a first view of the second three dimensional model at a second time subsequent to the first time based on one or more instructions received from a server”)).
Griswold does not explicitly teach a fourth set of one or more criteria different from the third set of one or more criteria, where the fourth set of one or more criteria includes a criterion that is satisfied when the first position has a fourth positional relationship to the second object different from the third positional relationship to the second object, and when the fourth set of one or more criteria is satisfied, forgoing provision of, to the second application, the second viewing direction.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that in accordance with a determination that a fourth set of one or more criteria, different from the third set of one or more criteria, is satisfied, wherein the fourth set of one or more criteria includes a criterion that is satisfied when the first position has a fourth positional relationship to the second object different from the third positional relationship to the second object, forgoing provision of, to the second application, the second viewing direction.
Griswold teaches a set of one or more criteria where the first position has a second positional relationship to the first object different from the first positional relationship, where when the criteria is satisfied, provision of the viewing direction is forgone (Paragraph [0014]: “determine, based on information output by the head tracking system, a second head position in relation to the first physical location that is different than the first head position; in response to determining the second head position, present a second view of the first three dimensional model based on the second head position”; Paragraph [0077]: “In a more particular example, if HMDs 100 are owned by an institution, a user associated with the institution can preload the content on each of HMD 100. As another example, in some embodiments, a user of an HMD 100 can download an application that can be used to present the content”. Notes: Because the presented view is based on the head position (which is the position of the head mounted display device), which is information outputted by the head tracking system, the position serves as a criterion for presenting a particular view direction depending on a positional relationship. Furthermore, the presentation of a second viewing direction corresponding to a first position is understood to be in relation to a first position of a subject, where the first position of a subject is subject to change, represented through a second positional relationship to the object different from the first positional relationship. A change in position results in a change in the view direction, as is stated in Paragraph [0014], which inherently forgoes the previous view direction when presenting the new view direction corresponding with the change in position). A person having ordinary skill in the art would combine the criteria regarding a change in positional criteria with regards to a first object with the criteria regarding a positional criteria with regards to a second object. One would be motivated to do so to have a more comprehensive display method capable of displaying view directions of one or more objects from different positions. Applying a similar structure with regards to different criteria on positional relationships to different objects is an extension a person having ordinary skill in the art would make.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the criteria regarding different positional relationships to a first object from a subject position with the criteria regarding a positional relationship to a second object different from the first of Griswold; Doing so would yield the predictable result of a more comprehensive display method, providing multiple different view directions of different objects dependent on the subject’s positional relationship to the objects.
Griswold does not explicitly teach providing a second viewing direction to a second application different from the first application.
However, Peuhkurinen teaches providing a viewing direction to a second application different from the first application (Paragraph [0031]: “The method allows running of 3D object based application visualization in the same scene while having the process separation; i.e. separating the first process running in the first application context from the second process running in the second application context. In this way, the security and the stability can be improved in the whole system. The 3D process separation enables embedding of some natural looking 3rd party applications into 3D applications to be constructed, such as augmented reality applications, in a secure and stabile way”).
Griswold and Peuhkurinen are considered analogous in the art with respect to displaying content in augmented reality applications. One would be motivated to utilize more than one applications for visualization to improve security and stability in a display system, as is evident in Peuhkurinen.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the display method regarding one or more criteria for positional relationship between a position of a subject and multiple objects for displaying a multiple view direction of Griswold with the use of a second application different from the first application when providing a view direction in augmented reality of Peuhkurinen; Doing so would yield the predictable result of a display method utilizing multiple applications, improving security and stability within the display system.
Claims 3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griswold (US 20190304406 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, the method of Claim 1 is rejected over Griswold.
Griswold teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein the application is a first application, the method further comprising:
in response to receiving the first position of the subject and in accordance with a determination that a fifth set of one or more criteria is satisfied, forgoing provision of, to an application, a viewing direction (Paragraph [0014]: “present, using the transparent display, the first view of the first three dimensional model at the first physical location based at least in part on a first head position in relation to the first physical location determined from information output by the head tracking system”; Paragraph [0066]: “In some embodiments, HMD 100 can include a head tracking system 110 that can utilize one or more motion sensors, such as motion sensors 112 shown in FIG. 1, to capture head pose data that can be used to track a head position of the wearer, for example, by determining the direction and/or orientation of a wearer's head”; Paragraph [0014]: “determine, based on information output by the head tracking system, a second head position in relation to the first physical location that is different than the first head position; in response to determining the second head position, present a second view of the first three dimensional model based on the second head position”; Paragraph [0077]: “In a more particular example, if HMDs 100 are owned by an institution, a user associated with the institution can preload the content on each of HMD 100. As another example, in some embodiments, a user of an HMD 100 can download an application that can be used to present the content”. Notes: A change in position results in a change in the view direction, as is stated in Paragraph [0014], which inherently forgoes the previous view direction when presenting the new view direction corresponding with the change in position).
Griswold does not explicitly teach a fifth set of one or more criteria, where the fifth set of one or more criteria is different from the first and second set of one or more criteria.
However, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would find it obvious for there to be a fifth set of one or more criteria, where the fifth set of one or more criteria is different from the first and second set of one or more criteria; this is implicit in Griswold, which teaches displaying different views based on different criteria (Paragraph [0014]: “present, using the transparent display, the first view of the first three dimensional model at the first physical location based at least in part on a first head position in relation to the first physical location determined from information output by the head tracking system”; Paragraph [0066]: “In some embodiments, HMD 100 can include a head tracking system 110 that can utilize one or more motion sensors, such as motion sensors 112 shown in FIG. 1, to capture head pose data that can be used to track a head position of the wearer, for example, by determining the direction and/or orientation of a wearer's head”; Paragraph [0014]: “determine, based on information output by the head tracking system, a second head position in relation to the first physical location that is different than the first head position; in response to determining the second head position, present a second view of the first three dimensional model based on the second head position”) as well as multiple different devices with different positions (Paragraph [0073]: “FIG. 2 shows an example 200 of a system of networked HMDs 100 in accordance with some embodiments of the disclosed subject matter. As shown in FIG. 2, system 200 can include various HMDs 100-1 to 100-5 located in the same physical space (e.g., in the same room). System 200 can include various stations 202-1 to 202-3, which can correspond to points in physical space at which one or more images are to be displayed by HMDs 100”). Considering that the position of the subject may be determined via the head tracking system, it would have been obvious to have multiple criteria different from one another in terms of the position of the subject; One would be motivated to do so to present multiple different view directions of an object/three-dimensional model, from different directions; Doing so would improve the immersion of the user.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display method of Griswold to consider a fifth criteria different from a first and second criteria with respect to the display of a view direction; Doing so would yield the predictable result of including more view directions with different associated criteria, improving the immersion of a person viewing the display.
Regarding Claim 7, the method of Claim 1 is rejected over Griswold.
Griswold teaches the method of Claim 1 further comprising:
receiving a third position of the subject different from the first position of the subject (Paragraph [0014]: “determine, based on information output by the head tracking system, a second head position in relation to the first physical location that is different than the first head position; in response to determining the second head position, present a second view of the first three dimensional model based on the second head position”).
Griswold does not explicitly teach a determination that a seventh set of one or more criteria, different from the first set of one or more criteria and the second set of one or more criteria, is satisfied, where in the seventh set of one or more criteria includes a criterion that is satisfied when the third position has a seventh positional relationship, different from the first positional relationship and the second positional relationship, to the object, providing, to the application, a third viewing direction different from the first viewing direction.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that to receive the third position of the subject and in accordance with a determination that a seventh set of one or more criteria, different from the first set of one or more criteria and the second set of one or more criteria, where when the criteria is satisfied, wherein the seventh set of one or more criteria includes a criterion that is satisfied when the third position has a seventh positional relationship, different from the first positional relationship and the second positional relationship, to the object, providing, to the application, a third viewing direction different from the first viewing direction.
Griswold teaches a first and second criteria pertaining to a first and second positional relationship between a subject and an object (Paragraph [0014]: “present, using the transparent display, the first view of the first three dimensional model at the first physical location based at least in part on a first head position in relation to the first physical location determined from information output by the head tracking system”; Paragraph [0066]: “In some embodiments, HMD 100 can include a head tracking system 110 that can utilize one or more motion sensors, such as motion sensors 112 shown in FIG. 1, to capture head pose data that can be used to track a head position of the wearer, for example, by determining the direction and/or orientation of a wearer's head”; Paragraph [0014]: “determine, based on information output by the head tracking system, a second head position in relation to the first physical location that is different than the first head position; in response to determining the second head position, present a second view of the first three dimensional model based on the second head position”) as well as multiple different devices with different positions (Paragraph [0073]: “FIG. 2 shows an example 200 of a system of networked HMDs 100 in accordance with some embodiments of the disclosed subject matter. As shown in FIG. 2, system 200 can include various HMDs 100-1 to 100-5 located in the same physical space (e.g., in the same room). System 200 can include various stations 202-1 to 202-3, which can correspond to points in physical space at which one or more images are to be displayed by HMDs 100”), and displaying the view direction in an application (Paragraph [0077]: “In a more particular example, if HMDs 100 are owned by an institution, a user associated with the institution can preload the content on each of HMD 100. As another example, in some embodiments, a user of an HMD 100 can download an application that can be used to present the content”) Given that Griswold teaches providing different viewpoint directions for different positional relationships, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that the method for doing so can be applied to more than two positional relationships between a subject and an object. One would be motivated to do so more comprehensively display an object.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display method of Griswold such that it includes multiple positional relationships with corresponding view directions; Doing so would yield the predictable result of a more comprehensive display method regarding an object of interest.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griswold (US 20190304406 A1) in view of Himane (US 20200089313 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, the method of Claim 1 is rejected over Griswold.
Griswold does not teach that the object is a virtual control.
However, Himane teaches an object being a virtual control (Paragraph [0005]: “In some implementations, the second device has a touch screen and, in some implementations, the virtual content positioned in place of the marker comprises a control (e.g., button) corresponding to an interaction with the user experience/content provided by the first device. For example, the first device may display a CGR environment that includes a virtual remote control having virtual buttons as the representation of a mobile phone. The virtual remote control is displayed at a location corresponding to the real-world location of the mobile phone. When the user virtually touches a virtual button on the virtual remote control, the user actually touches a corresponding portion of the touch screen of the second device, which is recognized as input that controls or otherwise initiates an interaction with the virtual environment”).
Griswold and Himane are considered analogous in the art with respect to the display of virtual objects in augmented reality. A common motivation in the art is to make interactable virtual objects in an environment to adjust the environment, as is evident in Himane.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the display method of providing a view direction of an object of Griswold with the display of a virtual remote of Himane; Doing so would yield the predictable result of allowing a user to interact with the displayed environment via an interactable object.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griswold (US 20190304406 A1) in view of Stack Overflow (Disable form while Background Worker is busy?, 2009).
Regarding Claim 14, the method of Claim 1 is rejected over Griswold.
Griswold does not explicitly teach that the system process does not receive an input from the application after receiving a request to manage the object and before providing the first viewing direction to the application.
However, Stack Overflow teaches the system process not receiving an input from the application after receiving a request for task management and before finishing the task (Post by Chris: “I don't want the user to interact with my application while a certain backgroundworker is busy (working). I created this bgw so that the application doesn't look frozen when it's working. But now users can move around in the app. How do I disable my form/application?”; Answer by Garo Yeriazarian: “You could also create a modal "busy splash" dialog that is shown when the background task starts and removed programmatically when the task ends. You could put a little animation in that box too to let the users know that something is going on. You would also need to make sure they don't close the dialog manually (only allow it to be closed programmatically)”).
Griswold and Stack Overflow are considered analogous in the art with respect to resource management for displays. A common motivation in the art is to improve a user experience with regards to a display that is interactable. A desirable approach is to limit inputs and requests when performing current tasks to properly manage system resources and prevent changes to the displayed content while a specific process is being performed, as is evident in Stack Overflow. Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to implement the system process such that the system process does not receive an input from the application after receiving a request to manage the object and before providing the first viewing direction to the application, as doing so would improve the continuity and smoothness of a viewer’s experience of a display of the content. Such an approach is commonly observed in visual content such as video games and their associated cutscenes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the display method of Griswold with the system resource management method of Stack Overflow; Doing so would yield the predictable result of smooth and continuous display of the object when the object or a view of the object is subject to management.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griswold (US 20190304406 A1) in view of Game Development Stack Exchange (Why should I separate objects from rendering?, 2013).
Regarding Claim 15, the method of Claim 1 is rejected over Griswold.
Griswold does not explicitly teach that another system process, different from the system process, renders the object.
However, Game Development Stack Exchange teaches another system process, different from the system process, rendering an object (Answer by Fault: “Really simplified, you'd still need to, for example, apply a rotation and translation based on where your player is and where he's looking. (My example is a 3D game, if you go with 2D, it'll be a walk in the park). I hope this is what you were looking for? As you can hopefully recollect from the above, the render system doesn't care about the game's logic. It only uses the scene's current state to render, i.e. it pulls the necessary information from it, in order to render. And the game logic? It doesn't care what the renderer does. Heck, it doesn't care if it's displayed at all! And you don't need to attach rendering information to the scene either. It should be enough that the renderer knows it needs to render an orc. You'll have loaded an orc model already, which the renderer then knows to display. This should satisfy your requirements. The graphic representation and logic are coupled, because they both use the same data. Yet they are separate, because neither relies on the other! EDIT: And just to answer why one would do it like this? Because it's easier is the simplest reason. You don't need to think about "such and such happened, I should now update the graphics". Instead you make stuff happen, and each frame the game looks at what's currently happening, and interprets it in some way, giving you an on-screen result”).
Griswold and Game Development Stack Exchange are considered analogous in the art with respect to rendering content for display. A common motivation in the art is to separately render objects in a separate process performed by a system for simplicity, as is evident in Game Development Stack Exchange.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of display of Griswold with the separate system process for rendering objects of Game Development Stack Exchange; Doing so would yield the predictable result of having a well-designed, simple display method.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAYMOND CHUN LAM LI whose telephone number is (571)272-5124. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5.
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, Kent Chang can be reached at 571-272-7667. 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.
/RAYMOND CHUN LAM LI/Examiner, Art Unit 2614
/KENT W CHANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2614
Prosecution Insights