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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Drawings
The drawings filed 2-11-25 have been accepted by the examiner.
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 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the motion sensor" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 is dependent upon claim 18, and so rejected for the same reasons as discussed above.
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.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Wang (US 2021/0274251).
Regarding claim 12, Wang (Fig. 6, 7, and 11) discloses a method of operating an electronic device (100), comprising:
executing at least one application (as seen in Fig. 6, multiple applications are executed, each with a different execution screen 601, 602, etc., see also “the electronic device may have a split screen for two applications, and each of the two applications may play one video file, so as to allow the plurality of video files to be played on one screen” discussed in [0053]);
playing a video based on a video playback application (“video files played on the plurality of sub-interfaces” discussed in [0098-0099]);
determining an operating frequency in response to playing the video (called a “target frame rate” in S704, “the lowest video frame rate among the target video data may be obtained and taken as a target frame rate” discussed in [0104]);
controlling a frame rate for outputting each execution screen of each of the at least one application based on the operating frequency (in S705, “refreshing rate of the screen may be modified based on the target frame rate” discussed in [0109]); and
displaying the video and each execution screen of the at least one application based on the operating frequency (each video and execution screen shown being displayed in Fig. 6, see also “the video frame rate of all the online video data may also be modified to be the target frame rate” discussed in [0114]).
Regarding claim 13, Wang discloses a method as discussed above, wherein determining the operating frequency comprises, determining the operating frequency based on a frame rate of frames included in the video played by the video playback application (as discussed above, the “target frame rate” is based on the “video frame rate among the target video data,” see [0104]).
Regarding claim 14, Wang discloses a method as discussed above, wherein controlling the frame rate comprises, based on a first application included in the at least one application being allowed to adjust a first frame rate of output frames (while not explicitly stated, the frame rate of the video is adjusted in S804), adjusting the first frame rate for the first application based on the operating frequency (in S804, see “the video frame rate of the target video data may be modified based on the refreshing rate of the screen” discussed in [0129]).
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 (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 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.
Claims 1-5, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Vembar et al. (US 2018/0218543).
Regarding claim 1, Wang (Fig. 6, 7, and 11) discloses a device (100) comprising:
a display (140);
memory (120) storing computer-executable instructions (“applications may be stored in the non-transitory memory 120” discussed in [0154]); and
at least one processor (110), comprising processing circuitry (111), operatively coupled to the display and the memory (as seen in Fig. 11), wherein the instructions cause, when being executed by at least one processor individually and/or collectively (the applications are “executed by one or more processors 110” as discussed in [0154]), the device to:
execute at least one application, an execution screen of which is output through the display (as seen in Fig. 6, multiple applications are executed, each with a different execution screen 601, 602, etc., see also “the electronic device may have a split screen for two applications, and each of the two applications may play one video file, so as to allow the plurality of video files to be played on one screen” discussed in [0053]),
identify a playback operation for playing a video output through the display based on a video playback application (“video files played on the plurality of sub-interfaces” discussed in [0098]),
determine an operating frequency based on identifying the playback operation (called a “target frame rate” in S704, “the lowest video frame rate among the target video data may be obtained and taken as a target frame rate” discussed in [0104]), control outputting of a frame to display the execution screen of each of the at least one application based on the operating frequency (in S705, “refreshing rate of the screen may be modified based on the target frame rate” discussed in [0109]), and
control the display to output the video and each execution screen based on the operating frequency (“the video frame rate of all the online video data may also be modified to be the target frame rate” discussed in [0114]).
However, Wang fails to specifically teach or suggest the device is a “wearable” device.
Vembar (Fig. 6, 8, 10, and 11) discloses a wearable device (“wearable device with display” discussed in [0063]) comprising:
a display (18);
memory (8) storing computer-executable instructions (“computer readable storage media storing instructions” discussed in claim 12); and
at least one processor (4), operatively coupled to the display and the memory (as seen in Fig. 10), wherein the instructions cause, when being executed by at least one processor individually and/or collectively, the wearable device to:
execute at least one application (eg. “software” discussed in [0028], see also “a smart phone with a specialized application” discussed in [0008]), an execution screen of which is output through the display (“application splits the screen view into two sections to show a different view to each eye” discussed in [0008]),
identify a playback operation for playing a video output through the display based on a video playback application (“computer sends full video frames and audio to the headset” discussed in [0021]),
determine an operating frequency (eg. a “normal” lower frame rate using the rendering in 414, discussed in [0052]), control outputting of a frame to display the execution screen of each of the at least one application based on the operating frequency (after 414, in 418 “sends that rendered frame to the HMD” discussed in [0052]), and
control the display to output the video and each execution screen based on the operating frequency (“the HMD receives the rendered frame and displays it to the user at 412” discussed in [0052]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang to use a “wearable” device as taught by Vembar because both Wang and Vembar are directed towards a “smartphone” device (see [0010] of Wang and [0008] of Vembar), and Vembar additionally teaches that smartphones can be worn by a user (“a smart phone with a specialized application is mounted to a specialized wearable holder that places the smart phone screen directly in front of the user's eyes” discussed in [0008]).
Regarding claim 2, Wang and Vembar disclose a wearable device as discussed above, and Wang further discloses wherein the instructions cause, when being executed by at least one processor individually and/or collectively, the wearable device to determine the operating frequency based on a frame rate of frames included in the video played by the video playback application (as discussed above, the “target frame rate” is based on the “video frame rate among the target video data,” see [0104]).
Regarding claim 3, Wang and Vembar disclose a wearable device as discussed above, and Wang further discloses wherein the instructions cause, when being executed by at least one processor individually and/or collectively, the wearable device to, based on characteristics of the at least one application, control a frame rate corresponding to a cycle at which the at least one application outputs frames corresponding to each execution screen or rendering of the frames corresponding to each execution screen (the “target frame rate” is based on each of the execution screens, see S701 which first receives the frame rates of all the execution screens before controlling the frame rate in S704 as discussed above, see also “the video frame rates of all received online video data may be obtained” discussed in [0101]).
Regarding claim 4, Wang and Vembar disclose a wearable device as discussed above, and Wang further discloses the device comprising:
a communication circuit (used to communicate with a “sending terminal,” eg. “connected to a first sending terminal” discussed in [0133] and “video data currently received by the electronic device may be the video data that has been sent to the electronic device by the sending terminal” discussed in [0134]),
wherein the instructions cause, when being executed by at least one processor individually and/or collectively, the wearable device to,
transmit information requesting to render the frames to an external electronic device (“updating request may be sent to the sending terminal” discussed in [0136]) configured to render the frames corresponding to each execution screen through the communication circuit based on the operating frequency (“updating request may include the refreshing rate of the screen” discussed in [0137] and “video frame rate of the remaining video data may be modified to the refreshing rate of the screen” discussed in [0138]).
Regarding claim 5, Wang and Vembar disclose a wearable device as discussed above, and Wang further discloses wherein the instructions cause, when being executed by at least one processor individually and/or collectively, the wearable device to:
based on characteristics of a first application included in the at least one application indicating that a first frame rate of output frames is adjustable (while not explicitly stated, the frame rate of the video is adjusted in S804), adjust the first frame rate for the first application based on the operating frequency (in S804, see “the video frame rate of the target video data may be modified based on the refreshing rate of the screen” discussed in [0129]).
Regarding claim 9, Wang and Vembar disclose a wearable device as discussed above, and Vembar further discloses wherein the wearable device comprises a motion sensor (26) configured to detect movement of the wearable device (“Integrated Motion Unit (IMU) that detects head position and movement” discussed in [0007]), and the instructions cause, when being executed by at least one processor individually and/or collectively, the wearable device to:
obtain motion information through the motion sensor (in 402, see “head motion is determined by an IMU (Inertial Measurement Unit) of the HMD” discussed in [0052]), and
determine whether to output the video and each execution screen based on the operating frequency (eg. to output at a “lower frame rate”) based on the motion information (eg. based on 404, when the “rate of movement is compared to a threshold” discussed in [0052], see “the user is not moving the head very much and objects in the scene are still or moving slowly, then a lower frame rate may be used” discussed in [0049] and “generate a higher frame rate during these times of fast movement” discussed in [0053]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Wang and Vembar for the same reasons as discussed above.
Regarding claim 10, Wang and Vembar disclose a wearable device as discussed above, and Vembar further discloses wherein the motion sensor is configured to detect at least one of an angular velocity at which the wearable device rotates (this limitation is not being examined due to the alternative language “at least one of”) or a movement velocity at which a position of the wearable device moves (“head motion velocity” discussed in [0059]), and the instructions cause, when being executed by at least one processor individually and/or collectively, the wearable device to:
compare at least one of an angular velocity value (this limitation is not being examined due to the alternative language “at least one of”) or a movement velocity value obtained through the motion sensor with a threshold (in 404, “rate of movement is compared to a threshold” discussed in [0052], and “head motion velocity threshold” more specifically discussed in [0059]),
based on at least one of the angular velocity value (this limitation is not being examined due to the alternative language “at least one of”) or the movement velocity value being less than or equal to the threshold (eg. “NO” after 404), output the video and each execution screen based on the frame rate adjusted based on the operating frequency (eg. when “the head motion rate is below the threshold, then the HMD continues as is normal” as discussed in [0052]), and
based on at least one of the angular velocity value (this limitation is not being examined due to the alternative language “at least one of”) or the movement velocity value being greater than the threshold, output the video and each execution screen based on a default frequency (in this example, the default frequency corresponds to “generate a higher frame rate during these times of fast movement” as discussed in [0053]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Wang and Vembar for the same reasons as discussed above.
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang and Vembar as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Koo et al. (US 2020/0388208).
Regarding claim 6, Wang and Vembar disclose a wearable device as discussed above, however fail to teach or suggest wherein the instructions cause, when being executed by at least one processor individually and/or collectively, the wearable device to:
based on characteristics of a second application included in the at least one application indicating that a second frame rate of output frames is fixed, control rendering the frames output by the second application based on the operating frequency.
Koo (Fig. 1) discloses a device comprising:
a display (170);
memory (eg. “flash memory, a cache, random access memory (RAM) or other non-volatile memory device or devices” discussed in [0035]) storing computer-executable instructions (eg. instructions stored in “RAM” discussed in [0035]); and
at least one processor (110), comprising processing circuitry (eg. 120), operatively coupled to the display and the memory (as seen in Fig. 1), wherein the instructions cause, when being executed by at least one processor individually and/or collectively (“one or more processors executing a program of instructions” discussed in [0015]), the device to:
execute at least one application (eg. a “gaming application” discussed in [0009]), an execution screen of which is output through the display (“170 is a display device that visually displays images based on the frames generated by the GPU 110” discussed in [0014]),
identify a playback operation for playing a video output through the display based on a video playback application (eg. a “video stream” discussed in [0009]),
characteristics of a second application included in the at least one application indicating that a second frame rate of output frames is fixed (“for some applications, the frame rate 105 is fixed” discussed in [0012]).
Therefore, the combination of Wang and Vembar with Koo would provide a wearable device wherein the instructions cause, when being executed by at least one processor individually and/or collectively, the wearable device to based on characteristics of a second application included in the at least one application indicating that a second frame rate of output frames is fixed (eg. an application with a fixed frame rate, as taught by Koo), control rendering the frames output by the second application based on the operating frequency (Wang teaches that display can render images by modifying the display frame rate based on the operating frequency instead of by modifying the application frame rate, eg. as in S705).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang and Vembar to provide, based on characteristics of a second application included in the at least one application indicating that a second frame rate of output frames is fixed, control rendering the frames output by the second application based on the operating frequency as taught by Koo because this allows the displayed images to be adjusted even for applications with a fixed frame rate.
Regarding claim 8, Wang, Vembar, and Koo disclose a wearable device as discussed above, and Koo further discloses wherein the instructions cause, when being executed by at least one processor individually and/or collectively, the wearable device to display frames output by the second application by applying late stage reprojection (“replay captured content rather than retransmitting a frame” discussed in [0009]), based on the second frame rate being lower than the operating frequency (“by detecting that the display refresh rate exceeds the rate of frame generation by at least a threshold amount” discussed in [0009]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Wang, Vembar, and Koo for the same reasons as discussed above.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over and Wang, Vembar, and Koo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hamada et al. (US 2019/0373213).
Regarding claim 7, Wang, Vembar, and Koo disclose a wearable device as discussed above, however fail to teach or suggest wherein the instructions cause, when being executed by at least one processor individually and/or collectively, the wearable device to skip rendering on at least a part of the frames output by the second application, based on the second frame rate being higher than the operating frequency.
Hamada (Fig. 9) discloses a device wherein, based on characteristics of an application indicating that a second frame rate of output frames is fixed (eg. “when content is at a fixed frame rate of 60 p” discussed in [0121]), the device to skip rendering on at least a part of the frames output by the application (“dropping frames at regular intervals” discussed in [0084]), based on the second frame rate being higher than the operating frequency (“when content is at a fixed frame rate of 60p and a display environment only supports a frame rate of 30p” and “the content can be displayed when the net frame rate is 30p” discussed in [0121], with 60p being higher than 30p).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang, Vembar, and Koo to skip rendering on at least a part of the frames output by the second application, based on the second frame rate being higher than the operating frequency as taught by Hamada because this is the “simplest method for reducing a video frame rate” (see [0084]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over and Wang and Vembar as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nelson et al. (US 2019/0054377).
Regarding claim 11, Wang and Vembar disclose a wearable device as discussed above, and Vembar further discloses the device comprising:
a gaze detection sensor (20) configured to detect a gaze of a user wearing the wearable device (“eye tracker is used to determine the direction of the user's gaze” discussed in [0057]), wherein the instructions cause, when being executed by at least one processor individually and/or collectively, the wearable device to:
determine a gaze direction of the user detected through the gaze detection sensor (“determine the direction of the user's gaze” discussed in [0057]).
However, Wang and Vembar fail to teach or suggest determining whether a gaze direction of the user detected through the gaze detection sensor is toward a video display area where the video is displayed, or in response to determining that the gaze direction is toward inside of the video display area, output the video and each execution screen based on the frame rate adjusted based on the operating frequency, and in response to determining that the gaze direction is toward outside of the video display area, output the video and each execution screen based on a default frequency.
Nelson (Fig. 1, 2, and 7) discloses a device comprising:
a gaze detection sensor (25) configured to detect a gaze of a user (“data capture camera device 25 that is configured to continuously detect and monitor player interaction commands (e.g. eye gaze” discussed in [0056]), wherein the instructions cause, when being executed by at least one processor individually and/or collectively (“memory 52 and a processor circuit 53 for carrying out program instructions stored in the memory” discussed in [0084]), the device to:
determine whether a gaze direction of the user detected through the gaze detection sensor is toward a video display area where the video is displayed (eg. “when a player is looking at a particular one of a group of concurrently displayed games” as discussed in [0120], see also Fig. 7A),
in response to determining that the gaze direction is toward inside of the video display area (eg. “detects that the player's gaze is directed toward game 28C in the upper left corner” discussed in [0120] and seen in Fig. 7A), output the video and each execution screen based on the frame rate adjusted based on the operating frequency (“display the game, and in particular animations or video clips displayed as part of the game, at a higher frame rate” such as 60 PFS, as discussed in [0120]), and
in response to determining that the gaze direction is toward outside of the video display area, output the video and each execution screen based on a default frequency (eg. when not viewing 28A, it is output at the “default” 30 FPS as seen in Fig. 7A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang and Vembar to determine whether a gaze direction of the user detected through the gaze detection sensor is toward a video display area where the video is displayed, or in response to determining that the gaze direction is toward inside of the video display area, output the video and each execution screen based on the frame rate adjusted based on the operating frequency, and in response to determining that the gaze direction is toward outside of the video display area, output the video and each execution screen based on a default frequency as taught by Nelson because Wang, Vembar, and Nelson are each directed towards smartphones (eg. see [0010] of Wang, [0008] of Vembar, and [0164] or Fig. 1C of Nelson), and this reduces the overall computing resources required while “the user may not notice the drop in video quality” (see in [0120]).
Claims 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Koo.
Regarding claim 15, Wang discloses a method as discussed above, however fails to teach or suggest wherein controlling the frame rate comprises, based on a second frame of frames output by a second application included in the at least one application being fixed, controlling rendering of the frames output by the second application based on the operating frequency.
Koo (Fig. 1) discloses a method of operating an electronic device comprising:
executing at least one application (eg. a “gaming application” discussed in [0009]);
playing a video based on a video playback application (eg. a “video stream” discussed in [0009]); and
a second frame of frames output by a second application included in the at least one application being fixed (“for some applications, the frame rate 105 is fixed” discussed in [0012]).
Therefore, the combination of Wang with Koo would provide a method for an electronic device wherein controlling the frame rate comprises, based on a second frame of frames output by a second application included in the at least one application being fixed (eg. an application with a fixed frame rate, as taught by Koo), controlling rendering of the frames output by the second application based on the operating frequency (Wang teaches that display can render images by modifying the display frame rate based on the operating frequency instead of by modifying the application frame rate, eg. as in S705).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang so controlling the frame rate comprises, based on a second frame of frames output by a second application included in the at least one application being fixed, controlling rendering of the frames output by the second application based on the operating frequency as taught by Koo because this allows the displayed images to be adjusted even for applications with a fixed frame rate.
Regarding claim 17, Wang and Koo disclose a method as discussed above, and Koo further discloses wherein controlling rendering of the frames output by the second application based on the operating frequency comprises:
based on the second frame rate being lower than the operating frequency (eg. “by detecting that the display refresh rate exceeds the rate of frame generation by at least a threshold amount” discussed in [0009]), late stage reprojecting frames output by the second application (“replay captured content rather than retransmitting a frame” discussed in [0009]), based on the second frame rate being lower than the operating frequency (“by detecting that the display refresh rate exceeds the rate of frame generation by at least a threshold amount” discussed in [0009]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Wang and Koo for the same reasons as discussed above.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over and Wang and Koo as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Hamada et al. (US 2019/0373213).
Regarding claim 16, Wang and Koo disclose a method as discussed above, however fail to teach or suggest wherein controlling rendering of the frames output by the second application based on the operating frequency comprises:
skipping rendering on at least a part of the frames output by the second application, based on the second frame rate being higher than the operating frequency.
Hamada (Fig. 9) discloses a method for operating an electronic device wherein, based on characteristics of an application indicating that a second frame rate of output frames is fixed (eg. “when content is at a fixed frame rate of 60 p” discussed in [0121]), skipping rendering on at least a part of the frames output by the application (“dropping frames at regular intervals” discussed in [0084]), based on the second frame rate being higher than the operating frequency (“when content is at a fixed frame rate of 60p and a display environment only supports a frame rate of 30p” and “the content can be displayed when the net frame rate is 30p” discussed in [0121], with 60p being higher than 30p).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang and Koo to skip rendering on at least a part of the frames output by the second application, based on the second frame rate being higher than the operating frequency as taught by Hamada because this is the “simplest method for reducing a video frame rate” (see [0084]).
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over and Wang as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Vembar.
Regarding claim 18, Wang discloses a method as discussed above, however fails to teach or suggest wherein determining the operating frequency comprises:
obtaining motion information through the motion sensor, and
determining whether to output the video and each execution screen based on the operating frequency based on the motion information.
Vembar (Fig. 6, 8, 10, and 11) discloses an operating method for an electronic device comprising:
executing at least one application (eg. “software” discussed in [0028], see also “a smart phone with a specialized application” discussed in [0008]);
playing a video based on a video playback application (“computer sends full video frames and audio to the headset” discussed in [0021]);
determine an operating frequency (eg. a “normal” lower frame rate using the rendering in 414, discussed in [0052]);
controlling a frame rate for outputting each execution screen of each of the at least one application based on the operating frequency (after 414, in 418 “sends that rendered frame to the HMD” discussed in [0052]), and
displaying the video and each execution screen based on the operating frequency (“the HMD receives the rendered frame and displays it to the user at 412” discussed in [0052]),
wherein determining the operating frequency comprises:
obtaining motion information through the motion sensor (from 26, in 402, see “head motion is determined by an IMU (Inertial Measurement Unit) of the HMD” discussed in [0052]), and
determining whether to output the video and each execution screen based on the operating frequency (eg. to output at a “lower frame rate”) based on the motion information (eg. based on 404, when the “rate of movement is compared to a threshold” discussed in [0052], see “the user is not moving the head very much and objects in the scene are still or moving slowly, then a lower frame rate may be used” discussed in [0049] and “generate a higher frame rate during these times of fast movement” discussed in [0053]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang to include a motion sensor determining whether to output the video and each execution screen based on the operating frequency based on the motion information as taught by Vembar because this allows displayed images to respond to a user’s movement, increasing immersion (“system responds to head motions to change the scene that is viewed by the user of the HMD” discussed in [0035]).
Regarding claim 19, Wang and Vembar disclose a method as discussed above, and Vembar further discloses wherein determining the operating frequency based on the motion information comprises:
comparing at least one of an angular velocity value (this limitation is not being examined due to the alternative language “at least one of”) or a movement velocity value (“head motion velocity” discussed in [0059]) obtained through the motion sensor with a threshold (in 404, “rate of movement is compared to a threshold” discussed in [0052], and “head motion velocity threshold” more specifically discussed in [0059]),
based on at least one of the angular velocity value (this limitation is not being examined due to the alternative language “at least one of”) or the movement velocity value being less than or equal to the threshold (eg. “NO” after 404), outputting the video and each execution screen based on the frame rate adjusted based on the operating frequency (eg. when “the head motion rate is below the threshold, then the HMD continues as is normal” as discussed in [0052]), and
based on at least one of the angular velocity value (this limitation is not being examined due to the alternative language “at least one of”) or the movement velocity value being greater than the threshold, outputting the video and each execution screen based on a default frequency (in this example, the default frequency corresponds to “generate a higher frame rate during these times of fast movement” as discussed in [0053]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Wang and Vembar for the same reasons as discussed above.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over and Wang as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Nelson.
Regarding claim 11, Wang discloses a method as discussed above, however fails to teach or suggest wherein determining the operating frequency comprises:
determining whether a gaze direction of the user detected through the gaze detection sensor is toward a video display area where the video is displayed,
in response to determining that the gaze direction is toward inside of the video display area, outputting the video and each execution screen based on the frame rate adjusted based on the operating frequency, and
in response to determining that the gaze direction is toward outside of the video display area, outputting the video and each execution screen based on a default frequency.
Nelson (Fig. 1, 2, and 7) discloses a method of operating an electronic device comprising:
determining whether a gaze direction of the user (“data capture camera device 25 that is configured to continuously detect and monitor player interaction commands (e.g. eye gaze” discussed in [0056]) detected through the gaze detection sensor (25) is toward a video display area where the video is displayed (eg. “when a player is looking at a particular one of a group of concurrently displayed games” as discussed in [0120], see also Fig. 7A),
in response to determining that the gaze direction is toward inside of the video display area (eg. “detects that the player's gaze is directed toward game 28C in the upper left corner” discussed in [0120] and seen in Fig. 7A), outputting the video and each execution screen based on the frame rate adjusted based on the operating frequency (“display the game, and in particular animations or video clips displayed as part of the game, at a higher frame rate” such as 60 PFS, as discussed in [0120]), and
in response to determining that the gaze direction is toward outside of the video display area, outputting the video and each execution screen based on a default frequency (eg. when not viewing 28A, it is output at the “default” 30 FPS as seen in Fig. 7A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang to include determining whether a gaze direction of the user detected through the gaze detection sensor is toward a video display area where the video is displayed, or in response to determining that the gaze direction is toward inside of the video display area, outputting the video and each execution screen based on the frame rate adjusted based on the operating frequency, and in response to determining that the gaze direction is toward outside of the video display area, outputting the video and each execution screen based on a default frequency as taught by Nelson because Wang and Nelson are each directed towards smartphones (eg. see [0010] of Wang, and [0164] or Fig. 1C of Nelson), and this reduces the overall computing resources required while “the user may not notice the drop in video quality” (see in [0120]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN M BLANCHA whose telephone number is (571)270-5890. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9-5.
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, Chanh Nguyen can be reached at 5712727772. 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.
/JONATHAN M BLANCHA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2623
Prosecution Insights