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 .
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: “ray generation module”, “sight capturing module” and “audio management module” in claim 9.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Paragraphs 96 states the target ray is consistent with the actual sight line of the pupil. The specification does not state how the sight line of the pupil is measured. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand some kind of detector would be needed to accomplish this task.
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.
Claim limitation “ray generation module” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. See the 112(a) rejection above. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 10 recites a computer-readable medium that can be interpreted as a transitory medium. The specification sets out no definition for the medium that would prevent one from interpreting the medium as transitory.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1, 3, 8, 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perry (US 2017/0221264) in view of Kondo et al. (US 2019/0250707).
In regard to claim 1, Perry teaches a method for playing audio of multi-screen display, wherein the method for playing audio of multi-screen display is applied to a head-mounted display device comprising a lens (fig. 1 and paragraph 54), and wherein the method for playing audio of multi-screen display comprises following steps: determining a physical target point of the eyes when the head-mounted display device performs multi-screen display, and determining a corresponding target ray according to the physical target point (fig. 4B and paragraph 83); determining a target virtual screen intersecting the target ray and displayed in the head-mounted display device (paragraph 83, once focus is determined the object of the focus is enlarged in the field of view); and playing a target audio of the target virtual screen and shielding an interfering audio of a non- target virtual screen displayed in the head-mounted display device (paragraph 84) but does not teach determining a physical target point of the lens.
Kondo et al. teach determining a physical target point of the lens (fig. 1 and paragraph 41. Kondo et al. teach using the lens to determine the gaze direction which is the physical target point of eyeglass lenses).
The two are analogous art because they both deal with the same field of invention of head-up displays.
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the apparatus of Perry with the lens type gaze detection of Kondo et al. The rationale is as follows: Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to provide the apparatus of Perry with the lens type gaze detection of Kondo et al. because the gaze detection of Kondo et al. would work equally as well as the gaze detection of Perry. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize either system would work predictably and either could be chosen based on design specifications like cost, size, etc.
In regard to claim 3, Perry teaches determining plane position information of virtual screens displayed respectively in the head-mounted display device, wherein the plane position information represents an information set comprising any corner point of each of the virtual screens and a long side vector and a wide side vector which take the corner point as an endpoint (any plane will include this information); and determining the target virtual screen intersecting the target ray according to the plane position information and the target ray (fig. 4B paragraph 83. The plane of Perry includes the long side vector and wide side vector as claimed. The plane of Perry also includes other information useful in determining the target display. The claim does not state how the vectors are used to determine the plane. The claim only states the plane includes this information which all planes inherently do).
Claim 8 is the apparatus corresponding to the method of claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons as shown above. Regarding the modules of claim 8, applicant’s specification states these modules are
In regard to claim 9, Perry teaches all the limitations of claim 9 (see claim 1 rejection above) including a processor, storage unit, and a program for playing audio of a multi-screen display (fig. 9 and paragraph 127).
In regard to claim 10, Perry teaches all the limitations of claim 10 (see claim 1 rejection above) including a computer-readable storage medium on which a program for playing audio of multi-screen display is stored (paragraph 127).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perry in view of Kondo et al. further considered with Shimizu et al. (US 2023/0097378).
In regard to claim 2, Perry and Kondo et al. teach all the elements of claim 2 except wherein the step of determining a corresponding target ray according to the physical target point comprises: determining a corresponding target ray by taking the physical target point as an endpoint and according to a direction perpendicular to a mirror surface of the lens and a sight direction of a user wearing the head-mounted display device.
Shimizu et al. teach wherein the step of determining a corresponding target ray according to the physical target point comprises: determining a corresponding target ray by taking the physical target point as an endpoint and according to a direction perpendicular to a mirror surface of the lens and a sight direction of a user wearing the head-mounted display device (fig. 1. Shimizu et al. show a ray connecting the line of sight of the user and a end point through the surface of the lens).
The two are analogous art because they both deal with the same field of invention of head-up displays.
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the apparatus of Perry and Kondo et al. with the gaze detection of Shimizu et al. The rationale is as follows: Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to provide the apparatus of Perry and Kondo et al. with the gaze detection of Shimizu et al. because the system of Shimizu et al. would work equally as well as that of Perry and Kondo et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the gaze detection of Shimizu et al. would provide predictable results and would help reduce eye strain of the user.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: In regard to claims 4-6, the prior art fails to teach or make obvious, in combination with the claim’s other features, “determining an actual intersection point among the intersection points to be confirmed, according to a first length value of the long side projection and a second length value of the wide side projection”.
In regard to claim 7, the prior art fails to teach or make obvious, in combination with the claim’s other features, “controlling each of the non-target virtual screens to enter a standby state if the playing duration is greater than a preset duration.”
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH R HALEY whose telephone number is (571)272-0574. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am-5pm.
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.
/JOSEPH R HALEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621
Prosecution Insights