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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in the present application, with claims 1, 18, and 20 being independent.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 23 January 2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: While the originally file specification discusses HMDs, it does not appear to recite the full scope of the subject matter of claims 15-17. For instance, controlling an external display to display content that is a different virtual object than that being displayed and controlling it based on the control of the virtual object.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: imaging obtaining device configured to..., display control device configured to..., line-of-sight obtaining device configured to...in claim 20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-14, 18, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: The claims should recite either “line-of-sight” or “line of sight” for consistency. Currently both are used interchangeably in the claimed limitations . Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 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.
With respect to claim 1, given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the corresponding disclosure the scope of the claimed limitation is unclear. For instance, as currently drafted, it is not immediately clear as to how the obtained line-of-sight of the user is used to determine transparency of the virtual object. Is the line-of-sight of a user related to the captured image? How is the controlling of the display to display a combined image obtained by combining the captured image with a virtual object performed to determine transparency based on the line-of-sight of the user? From figs.2 and 10, it appears that some essential subject matter is also not present in claim 1. The discussion around Figs. 2 and 10 describe for instance determining the line of sight of the user and determining if it is on a person, the virtual object, or neither the virtual object or the person and the transparency is adjusted or maintained based on the determination. Paragraph 51 sets forth setting the transparency of the CG image by using latest data on the position/orientation information, the line-of-sight information, and the subject information stored in the working memory 110, and combines the captured image and the CG image in such a manner that the CG image is superimposed on the captured image, whereby a display image is generated. In addition, it is unclear as to if the applicant is intending for a specific routine with the claim language of execute ....processing in each of the limitations. The examiner respectfully requests the applicant clarify the scope of the claimed limitations.
Claims 18 and 20 recite substantially similar limitations as to those recited in claim 1 and are accordingly also rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that set forth in claim 1.
Claims depending thereon do not cure the noted deficiency and are accordingly also rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that set forth in the claims from which they depend.
Claims 18 and 20 recite substantially similar subject matter as to that set forth in claim 1 and are accordingly rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that set forth in claim 1.
Claims depending thereon do not cure the deficiencies noted and are accordingly rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that set forth in the claims from which they depend.
With respect to claim 2, given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the corresponding disclosure the scope of the claimed limitation is unclear. For instance, as currently drafted, it is not immediately clear as to a) if the moving object is a physical object or a virtual object and how the moving object relates to the person from claim 1. It is further unclear as to how the transparency of the virtual object with the increased transparency is further determined based on the line-of-sight of the user obtained in the line-of-sight processing, when in claim 1 the transparency of the virtual object is determined based on the line-of-sight of the user.
Claims depending thereon do not cure the deficiencies noted and are accordingly rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that set forth in the claims from which they depend.
With respect to claim 3, given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the corresponding disclosure, the scope of the claimed limitation is unclear. For instance, as currently drafted, it is not immediately clear as to how the virtual object has increased transparency with respect to the person, since the previous claim has increased transparency with respect to a moving object. The examiner respectfully requests the applicant clarify the scope of the claimed limitation..
Claims depending thereon do not cure the deficiencies noted and are accordingly rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that set forth in the claims from which they depend.
With respect to claim 4, given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the corresponding disclosure, the scope of the claimed limitation is unclear. For instance, as currently drafted, it is not immediately clear as to in the case where the line of sight is on the area of the virtual object for a predetermined time, the transparency is of the virtual object with increased transparency is decreased. Claim 2, from which claim 4 depends, recites the transparency of at least part of an area of the virtual object overlapping the moving object is increased. Is the area in claim 4 a part of the area that does not overlap with the moving object or is it the area as a whole, including the portion which overlaps? The examiner respectfully requests the applicant clarify the scope of the claimed limitation.
Claims depending thereon do not cure the deficiencies noted and are accordingly rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that set forth in the claims from which they depend.
With respect to claim 5, given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the corresponding disclosure, the scope of the claimed limitation is unclear. For instance, as currently drafted, it is not immediately clear as to how the area is an area of the virtual object, when an area of the virtual object has already been defined and how the claim fits in with the claims from which it depends. The examiner respectfully requests the applicant clarify the scope of the claimed limitation.
With respect to claim 6, given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the corresponding disclosure, the scope of the claimed limitation is unclear. For instance, as currently drafted, it is not immediately clear as to how claim 6 fits in with the claims from which it depends. Claim 6 calls for the line of sight to move from the area of the person to the area of the virtual object and for the transparency of the virtual object with the increased transparency to decrease. However, the previous claims do not appear to have the line of sight just on the area of the person or on the area of the virtual object and the increased transparency was with respect to a moving object. The examiner respectfully requests the applicant clarify the scope of the claimed limitation.
With respect to claim 10, given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the corresponding disclosure, the scope of the claimed limitation is unclear. For instance, as currently drafted, it is not immediately clear as to how claim 10 fits in with the subject matter of claim 1. Claims 1 and 10 together would set forth execute display control processing to display a combined image obtained by combining the captured image with a virtual object on a display, wherein in the display control processing, transparency of the virtual object overlapping an area of a person included in the captured image is determined based on the line of sight of the user, wherein in a case where a line of sight of the person is directed at the to the user, the virtual object is controlled to be in a transparent state even in a case where the line of sight of the user is not on the area of the person. Here the claim would call for virtual object to be in a transparent state even in a case where the user is not on the area of the person and for the transparency to be determined based on the line of sight of the user. Claim 1 does not call for the line of sight of the user to be on the overlapping portion or directed to an area of a user. The examiner respectfully requests the applicant clarify the scope of the claimed limitation.
With respect to claim 12, given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the corresponding disclosure, the scope of the claimed limitation is unclear. For instance, as currently drafted, it is not immediately clear as to how the transparency is both determined based on line-of-sight of the user and based on a distance between a position of the line of sight and the person. What is a position of the line of sight? The examiner respectfully requests the applicant clarify the scope of the claimed limitation.
With respect to claim 13, given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the corresponding disclosure, the scope of the claimed limitation is unclear. For instance, as currently drafted, it is not immediately clear as to how the transparency is both determined based on the line-of-sight of the user and based on a on the angle of convergence and the line of sight. What constitutes the angle of convergence of the user with respect to the claim and how is that used in conjunction with the line of sight to determine the transparency? The examiner respectfully requests the applicant clarify the scope of the claimed limitation
With respect to claim 14, given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the corresponding disclosure, the scope of the claimed limitation is unclear. For instance, as currently drafted, it is not immediately clear as to what constitutes a “preliminarily registered person”? How can the person be a preliminarily registered person? Similar to previous claims, it is not clear as to how the transparent state in this claim relates to the transparency of claim 1. The examiner respectfully requests the applicant clarify the scope of the claimed limitation
With respect to claims 15-17, given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the corresponding disclosure, the scope of the claimed limitations is unclear. For instance, as currently drafted, it is not immediately clear as to the relationship between the second display and the transparency of the virtual object. For instance, claim 15 calls for further controlling a second display and adjust content on the second display based on changing the transparency of the virtual object. Is applicant intending to claim a second display of an HMD, where the virtual object is shown on both screens? It is also unclear as to what constitutes content different from the eyes of the user and how the second display displays eyes of the user. The examiner respectfully requests the applicant clarify the scope of the claimed limitation
Claims depending thereon do not cure the deficiencies noted and are accordingly rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that set forth in the claims from which they depend.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1, 18, and 20 recite obtaining a captured image; obtaining a line of sight of a user; controlling a display to display a combined image obtained by combining the captured image with a virtual object, wherein the control is performed to determine transparency of the virtual object overlapping an area of a person included in the captured image based on the line of sight of the user.
As drafted, the claimed limitations are mental process that can be performed by a human mind. For instance, the limitation “determine transparency of the virtual object overlapping an area of a person included in the captured image based on the line of sight of the user”, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is simply either placing the person on top of the virtual object or placing the virtual object to top of the person. Obtaining data and displaying the combined image, is merely (extra solution activity). The process is a mental process. Thus, the claim, as drafted, falls at least within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. It is noted, that a similar argument could be made for the claim to additionally fall within one or more groups, such as “Organizing Human Activity”.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the method, is recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The additional elements (e.g., a display device, memory storing a program, a processor), do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1, 18, and 20 are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a processing device to perform the claimed limitations amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, claims 1, 15, and 18 are not patent eligible.
Similar mapping and rationale can be performed for each of the dependent claims. The dependent claims do not cure the deficiency noted with respect to claims from which they depend. Accordingly, claims 1-20 as currently drafted are not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Since no prior art is being applied to the claims, based on their current scope, claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent 10,803,663 to Wang et al. teaches detecting physical object s with obstruct at least a portion of the area within the virtual bounded floor plan, see for instance, column 16, lines 38-67 and fig. 11.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J COBB whose telephone number is (571)270-3875. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 11am - 7pm ET.
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, Alicia Harrington can be reached at 571-272-2330. 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.
/MICHAEL J COBB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2615
Prosecution Insights