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 Objections
Claim 23 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 1. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 11-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim (US 2024.0078096).
Regarding claim 1, Kim disclose:
An Augmented Reality (AR) viewing arrangement comprising; a circuit for receiving image data; and a circuit for processing the image, wherein the circuit for receiving image data is configured to receive an image of a real-world view; and wherein the circuit for processing the image is configured to: determine a main field-of-view and a peripheral field-of-view in the image data; detect an object in the image data; and determine if the object is in the peripheral field-of-view, and if so provide a graphical representation for the object in a second format, and if not provide a graphical representation for the object in a first format, wherein the first format is different from the second format (see Fig. 1, 2B, 8, 10; [0024-0026, 0066]; image receiving circuit (camera 245, optical sensor 282, sensor 260) to receive image; processing circuit (120) to process image when FOV 550 ahs main FOV (e.eg, center at 530) where focus 515 is present; area peripheral to FOV (e.g., at 535/533); where 533/535 are determined to be peripheral; each displayed in second state; when 530 is displayed in firs state).
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Kim further disclose:
the second format is in black and white, and wherein the first format is in color (see [0109, 0121, 0153]; where color information (including black) is deteremiend for all objects such that the first/second formats are displayed accordingly (e.g., black and white desk 540 would then represent 533 and 535 as black and white).
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Kim further disclose:
the first format is an original image of the object (see Fig. 8, 10).
Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Kim further disclose:
the circuit for receiving image data is configured to receive image data corresponding to a rear-view of the AR viewing arrangement, and wherein the circuit for receiving image data is further configured to detect an eye in the image data corresponding to the rear-view and to determine a gaze based on the detected eye, and determine the main field-of-view and the peripheral field-of-view in the image data based on the gaze (see Fig. 2B; [0067, 0111]; where 260 receives image data of user’s eye to determine objects in FOV)
Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Kim further disclose:
the circuit for image processing is further configured to; detect an event for the detected object; and provide the graphical representation to indicate the event (see [0155] notification is event, user allows/blocks notification on 1055).
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Kim further disclose:
the circuit for image processing is further configured to; detect an event for the detected object in the peripheral field-of-vision; and provide a further graphical representation for the event (see [0155]; where 533 is in peripheral)
Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Kim further disclose:
the circuit for image processing is further configured to detect that the detected object has moved, and in response thereto provide the graphical representation in the other format (see [0127, 0143]; detected movement of object may cease display (mask) object in response).
Regarding claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Kim further disclose:
the circuit for image processing is further configured to detect that the gaze has moved and in response thereto: determine updated main field of view and peripheral field of view; determine if any detected object in the peripheral field of vision falls within the updated main field of vision, and in response thereto provide the graphical representation in the first format; and determine if any detected object in the main field of vision falls within the updated peripheral field of vision, and in response thereto provide the graphical representation in the second format (see Fig. 8, 10; [0111-0112, 0116]; where first/second formats are based on focus/selection by user. Thus when user selects objects for concentration (main FOV) vs to mask (peripheral FOV)).
Regarding claim 11, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Kim further disclose:
the graphical representation for the detected object in the peripheral field-of-view comprises a changing component (see [0155]; user allows/blocks notification on 1055
Regarding claim 12, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Kim further disclose:
the AR viewing arrangement further comprises a circuit for displaying image data configured display the image of the real-world; and to display the graphical representation of over the detected object (see Fig. 8, 10).
Regarding claim 13, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Kim further disclose:
the graphical representation for the detected object in the peripheral field-of-view comprises a graphical object arranged to cover the detected object as displayed (see Fig. 8, 10; [0113])
Regarding claim 14, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Kim further disclose:
the graphical representation for the detected object in the peripheral field-of-view comprises a graphical object arranged to frame the detected object as displayed(see Fig. 8, 10).
Regarding claim 15, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Kim further disclose:
the graphical representation for the detected object in the peripheral field-of-view comprises an identifier for the detected object, wherein the detected object is a searched-for object. (see Fig. 8, 10)
Regarding claim 16, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Kim further disclose:
the AR viewing arrangement is a head-worn device (see Fig. 8, 10)
Regarding claim 17, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Kim further disclose:
the AR viewing arrangement is a head-up display device (see [0031, 0055]; transparent display 250).
Regarding claim 18, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Kim further disclose:
the AR viewing arrangement is a tablet computer device (see Fig. 12; tablet 101-1)
Regarding claim 19, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Kim further disclose:
the AR viewing arrangement is a smartphone (see [0046] smart phone)
Regarding claim 20, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Kim further disclose:
a front-facing image sensor and a rear-facing image sensor (see Fig 2B; front facing 282; rear facing 260-1).
Regarding claims 21-23, claims 21-23 are each rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
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.
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(s) 9-10 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Li (US 2022.0171968)
Regarding claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Kim is not explicit as to, but Li disclose:
the graphical representation for the detected object in the peripheral field-of-view comprises a color-scale ranging from full color to black and white, wherein the amount of color is based on a distance from a center of the field-of-view (see Fig 4-6; [0045-0049]; the intensity of an image changes based on the distance from center point).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to combine the known techniques of Li to that of Kim, to predictably allow for full resolution images on a focus area and reduce rendering complexity for the user. While Li is not explicit as to the amount of color being the level of intensity, it would have further have been obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of applicant’s invention, since there are a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions (e.g., change the intensity between black and white as a color change) to be pursued by one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success
Regarding claim 10, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Kim is not explicit as to, but Li disclose:
the graphical representation for the detected object in the peripheral field-of-view comprises an intensity, wherein the amount of intensity is based on a distance from a center of the field-of-view, wherein the intensity grows with the distance (see Fig 4-6; [0045-0049]; the intensity of an image changes based on the distance from center point).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to combine the known techniques of Li to that of Kim, to predictably allow for full resolution images on a focus area and reduce rendering complexity for the user.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH BUKOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-7913. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday // 0730-1530.
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, Amr Awad can be reached at 571.272.7764. 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.
/kenneth bukowski/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621
