DETAILED ACTION
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 § 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.
Claim(s) 16, 19-28, 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watola (US20220082841A1) in view of Nasi (US20190080514A1).
Regarding claim 16, Watola teaches a method by a user equipment (UE) in a wireless communication system, the method comprising: “The processor may provide, for example, for coordination of the other components of the device 99, such as control of user interfaces, applications run by device 99, and wireless communication by device 99” (Watola, 0067).
identifying that an augmented reality (AR) display type of the UE is configured to an optical see-through (OST); “Present Augmented Reality (AR) eyewear implementations fall cleanly into two disjoint categories, video see-through (VST) and optical see-through (OST)” (Watola, 0009). “These displays are placed in front of the eyes so as to readily display or project a modified or augmented image when observed with the eyes” (Watola, 0061). It would have been obvious to a person in the arts to modify and provide a layer of display to block light coming from the outside. Refer to Fig. 1, 3a, and 3b.
and displaying, via the OST, the AR content based on the information about the AR capability. “Whereas traditional OST AR produces displayed images that neatly coexist and integrate with the natural scene that they overlay, HST devices, systems, and methods must apply carefully-selected and painstakingly-tuned nonlinear distortions to satisfy their users” (Watola, 0094).
Watola does not explicitly teach the remaining claimed limitations. However, Nasi teaches the remaining claimed limitations.
identifying information about an AR capability of the UE, wherein the information about the AR capability includes an opacity indicating that the UE displays AR content with no view of a physical world; “As another example, an opacity level of 100% (interpreted as no view of a physical world) may indicate that smart film 402 is to be substantially opaque, such that a view of real-world surroundings of the vehicle is substantially inhibited by smart film 402” (Nasi, 0112).
Watola and Nasi are combinable because they are in the same field of endeavor of augmented reality. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine system of Watola with opacity of Nasi in order to improve hardware and integrated software and algorithms for a class of wearable electronic Augmented Reality (AR) glasses in general, with additional specific benefits for low-vision users suffering from various visual impairments (e.g., Age-related Macular Degeneration—AMD—and other visual field deficiencies).
Regarding claim 19, the method of claim 16, Nasi teaches further comprising performing at least one of service discovery or service provisioning. “HSS 235 includes one or more devices, such as one or more server devices, capable of managing (e.g., receiving, generating, storing, processing, and/or providing) information associated with user device 205 and/or vehicle system 210 (interpreted as discovery provisioning for it fundamentally requires managing subscriber profiles)” (Nasi, 0034).
Regarding claim 20, the method of claim 16, Nasi teaches wherein the information about the AR capability further includes an alpha-blend indicating that the UE displays alpha-blended AR content with the physical world. “As shown in FIG. 1B, a particular window system 110a may provide, for display, an augmented reality overlay 140 that is superimposed in association with a real-world geographic feature 120 (interpreted as alpha-blend)” (Nasi, 0018).
Regarding claim 21, the method of claim 20, Nasi teaches wherein the alpha-blend included in the information about the AR capability indicates a level of blending with the physical world and the AR content. “An opacity level may identify an opacity (or transparency) of smart film 402. For example, an opacity level of 0% may indicate that smart film 402 is to be substantially transparent, such that a view of real-world surroundings of the vehicle is substantially uninhibited by smart film 402. As another example, an opacity level of 100% may indicate that smart film 402 is to be substantially opaque, such that a view of real-world surroundings of the vehicle is substantially inhibited by smart film” (Nasi, 0112). “Vehicle system 210 may adjust an opacity level of window system 500 (e.g., smart film 402) such that smart film 402 is substantially transparent to permit a view of the real-world geographic feature to be substantially uninhibited by an opacity of smart film 402” (Nasi, 0117).
Regarding claim 22, the method of claim 16, Watola teaches wherein the OST is a form in which light reflected from a real object passes through a display and is perceived by a user. “The display is mounted in the top frame of the glasses and points downward such that the mirror directs its reflected image into the eye; the same mirror allows light from the environment to pass directly through it into the eye” (Watola, 0079).
Regarding claim 23, the method of claim 16, Watola teaches wherein the UE is implemented with AR glasses providing an AR experience to a user via an OST display. “OST AR eyewear, on the other hand, has a direct optical path allowing light from the scene to form a natural image on the retina. This natural image is essentially the same one that would be formed without AR glasses, possibly with some loss of brightness due to attenuation by optical components. A camera is used to capture the scene for automated analysis, but its image does not need to be shown to the user. Instead, computed annotations or drawings from an internal display are superimposed onto the natural retinal image by any of a number of established optical combining methods” (Watola, 0011).
Regarding claim 24, it is similar in scope to claim 16 except for additional limitations that Watola discloses a user equipment (UE) in a wireless communication system, the UE comprising:
a transceiver; “HST device 99 includes a processor 252A, memory 264A, an input/output device such as a display 254A, a communication interface 266A, and a transceiver 268A, along with other components” (Watola, 0066).
and a processor coupled with the transceiver and configured to control to:
identify that an augmented reality (AR) display type of the UE is configured to an optical see-through (OST),
identify information about an AR capability of the UE, wherein the information about the AR capability includes an opacity indicating that the UE displays AR content with no view of a physical world,
and display, via the OST, the AR content based on the information about the AR capability.
Regarding claim 25, the claim is directed to a method claim with the similar limitations as claim 20. As such, it is rejected on the same grounds.
Regarding claim 26, the claim is directed to a method claim with the similar limitations as claim 21. As such, it is rejected on the same grounds.
Regarding claim 27, the claim is directed to a method claim with the similar limitations as claim 22. As such, it is rejected on the same grounds.
Regarding claim 28, the claim is directed to a method claim with the similar limitations as claim 23. As such, it is rejected on the same grounds.
Regarding claim 31, the claim is directed to a method claim with the similar limitations as claim 19. As such, it is rejected on the same grounds.
Claim(s) 17 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watola (US20220082841A1) in view of Nasi (US20190080514A1) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Lee (US20210051260A1).
Regarding claim 17, the method of claim 16, Watola and Nasi do not explicitly teach the claimed limitations. However, Lee teaches wherein the information about the AR capability further includes at least one of an AR UE type, a valid color space, an invalid color space, illuminance measurement information, illuminance information, or a reference color space. “The processor 1001 may control the illuminance sensor 1006 to measure an illuminance around the AR glass apparatus 1000. The processor 1001 may adjust the degree of exposure of the camera 1003 capturing the front of the AR glass apparatus 1000, based on the measured illuminance around the AR glass apparatus 1000. (interpreted as illuminance measurement information)” (Lee, 0179). “In operation S802, the AR glass apparatus 1000 may determine a shutter speed range based on an illuminance around the AR glass apparatus 1000, which is measured through an illuminance sensor, and the identified illuminance of the object of interest. (interpreted as illuminance information)” (Lee, 0138).
Watola, Nasi, and Lee are combinable because they are in the same field of endeavor of augmented reality. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine system of Watola with opacity of Nasi and illuminance of Lee in order to reduce noise of the image to a certain threshold value or less in the illuminance around the AR glass apparatus 1000 measured through the illuminance sensor and the determined shutter speed range.
Regarding claim 29, the claim is directed to a method claim with the similar limitations as claim 17. As such, it is rejected on the same grounds.
Claim(s) 18 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watola (US20220082841A1) in view of Nasi (US20190080514A1) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Inoue (US20110193985A1).
Regarding claim 18, the method of claim 16, Watola and Nasi do not explicitly teach the claimed limitations. However, Inoue teaches further comprising:
transmitting the information about the AR capability to an application function (AF); “the AR information transmitted from the information retrieval system 2 by the AR information acquisition request (interpreted as application function)” (Inoue, 0141).
and receiving, from an application server (AS), a media player entry (MPE) to which color remapping processed by the AS based on the information about the AR capability is applied. “The information retrieval server 21 creates the image data of the map by setting the display color of the guidance route (a road route connecting the start intersection to the end intersection) in the image data of the map to be different from other roads. (interpreted as color remapping for dynamically changing the color values of specific pixels or vector paths)” (Inoue, 0231).
Watola, Nasi, and Inoue are combinable because they are in the same field of endeavor of augmented reality. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine system of Watola with opacity of Nasi and illuminance of Lee in order to enable a user activity to be enriched.
Regarding claim 30, the claim is directed to a method claim with the similar limitations as claim 18. As such, it is rejected on the same grounds.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIANA SZE whose telephone number is (571)272-9916. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6am-4pm.
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.
/B.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2614
/KENT W CHANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2614
