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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Germany on March 1, 2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the DE10 2024 105 934.6 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “S1” of Fig. 2. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-16 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 1 recites:
“providing a surroundings-based glasses pose with respect to a surroundings coordinate system and/or a vehicle-based glasses pose with respect to a vehicle coordinate system in the central processing unit…
acquiring glasses motion information via a glasses inertial sensor system and/or vehicle motion information via a vehicle inertial sensor system”
it is unclear whether the claimed features are alternative or combined features as the claim recites both “and” and “or”. Correction is required.
Accordingly, claims 2-16 are rejected based on dependency from a rejected base claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hiroyuki Aga et al., “Latency Compensation for Optical See-Through Head-Mounted with Scanned Display”, SID Symposium Digest of Technical Papers, Volume 50, Issue 1, Jun 2019, p. 330-333.
Independent claim 1, Aga discloses a method for operating a display system including smartglasses in a vehicle including a glasses-external central processing unit, the method comprising:
providing at least one piece of object information in the central processing unit (i.e. OST-HMD system that can pin virtual objects into the real world - Fig. 8);
providing a surroundings-based glasses pose with respect to a surroundings coordinate system (i.e. The data captured by cameras and IMU is then used by the tracker to estimate the user’s eye pose. - p. 131, col. 1, Para 2) and/or a vehicle-based glasses pose with respect to a vehicle coordinate system in the central processing unit;
rendering at least one display object for the respective at least one piece of object information for contact-analogous vehicle-fixed or world-fixed display according to the surroundings-based (i.e. The renderer generates virtual images viewed from an estimated eye pose to the frame buffer. The display presents this modified image to the user's eye - p. 131, col. 1, Para 2; p. 131, col. 2, sec. 3.4 Renderer) or the vehicle-based glasses pose in the central processing unit;
transferring the at least one display object to the smartglasses via a communication connection (Fig. 8);
acquiring glasses motion information via a glasses inertial sensor system (i.e. HMD system uses two inside-outcameras and the inertial measurement unit (IMU) to track a user’s current head pose. – p. 330, col. 2, sec. 3.1 System Overview) and/or vehicle motion information via a vehicle inertial sensor system;
performing a warping process in the smartglasses for the at least one display object based on a change in the world-fixed glasses pose during a latency period (i.e. latency compensation is indispensable to reduce system delay in OST. Post-rendering image warping is one of the most effective latency compensation techniques. It transforms 2D rendered images right before the frame buffer read-out.– p. 330, col. 1, Introduction) and/or based on a change in the world-fixed vehicle pose during the latency period;
displaying the at least one warped display object in the smartglasses (Figs. 5, 7; p. 333 col. 1, sec. 4.6 Display).
Claim 2, Aga discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the surroundings-based glasses pose is determined in the smartglasses based on the glasses motion information (Fig. 4), the vehicle- based glasses pose being determined based on the surroundings-based glasses pose and vehicle motion information
Claim 3, Aga discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the warping process for each of the display objects is performed with reference to a change in the world-fixed glasses pose or vehicle-fixed glasses pose during the latency period by virtue of the image of the at least one display object being translationally shifted, rotated and/or scaled according to the change in the world-fixed or vehicle-fixed glasses pose (i.e. applies the temporal reprojection to the scanned image that corrects the 6DoF movement – p. 332, col. 1, sec. 3.5.3 Scaler; Figs. 5 and 6).
Claim 4, the rationale as applied in the rejection of claim 3 applies herein.
Claim 5, Aga discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the latency period corresponds to the period from a time of a beginning of rendering to a time of display of the image of the at least one display object in the smartglasses (i.e. Motion-to-photon latency, which is the length of time between the user performing a motion and the display showing the appropriate content for that particular motion – p. 330, col. 2, Para 1).
Claim 6, the rationale as applied in the rejection of claim 5 applies herein.
Claim 7, the rationale as applied in the rejection of claim 5 applies herein.
Claim 8, Aga discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein each of the at least one piece of object information corresponds to a vector model of a corresponding displayable display object (i.e. using mesh-based image warping; pixels are resampled according to the control mesh – Fig. 6; p. 332, col. 2, Para 1).
Claim 9, the rationale as applied in the rejection of claim 8 applies herein.
Claim 10, the rationale as applied in the rejection of claim 8 applies herein.
Claim 11, Aga discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the warping process in the smartglasses and the display of the at least one warped display object are performed at a higher frequency than the rendering (i.e. The scaler block performs interlaced scanning of the frame buff-er to double up the refresh rate and applies the temporal reprojection to the scanned image that corrects the 6DoF movement – p. 332, col. 1, sec. 3.5.3 Scaler).
Claim 12, the rationale as applied in the rejection of claim 11applies herein.
Claim 13, the rationale as applied in the rejection of claim 11 applies herein.
Claim 14, Aga discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein, in addition to the at least one display object, at least one piece of object information is also transferred by the central processing unit for rendering in the smartglasses (i.e. pin virtual objects – p. 330, col. 2, sec 3 System Setup; Figs. 7, 8).
Claim 15, the rationale as applied in the rejection of claim 14 applies herein.
Claim 16, the rationale as applied in the rejection of claim 14 applies herein.
Independent claim 17, the claim is similar in scope to claim 1. Therefore, similar rationale as applied in the rejection of claim 1 applies herein.
Independent claim 18, the claim is similar in scope to claim 1. Therefore, similar rationale as applied in the rejection of claim 1 applies herein.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANTE HARRISON whose telephone number is (571)272-7659. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am to 5:00 pm EST.
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.
/CHANTE E HARRISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2615
Prosecution Insights