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 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 4-6 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.
Regarding claim 4:
It recites the limitation "the computer-generated virtual element" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Note that this element was introduced in claim 3, but this is dependent on claim 2.
Regarding claims 5-6:
They similarly recited “the computer-generated virtual element.”
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 –
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 9-13, 19-20, and 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wilairat et al. (US 2015/0331485; disclosed in IDS)
Claim 1
Wilairat
1. (Original) A method performed by a head-mounted computing device, the method comprising:
Paragraph 20: "head-mounted display"
identifying a first location based on a first direction of a gaze of at least one eye of a user, the head-mounted computing device being mounted on a head of the user;
Fig. 5: 508 is the first location, as per paragraph 43
identifying a second location in response to a movement of the head of the user;
Paragraph 46: "head-tracking sensor"
receiving, from the user, a selection associated with the second location;
Not ever explicitly stated, but since it is "a selectable button" (paragraph 42) that it is selected is implicit.
generating a calibration adjustment based on the first direction, the second location, and the selection; and identifying a third location based on:
Paragraph 78: the "offset vector"
a second direction of the gaze of the at least one eye of the user; and
This is just the next selection operation
the calibration adjustment.
That it is used in the next operation follows from, e.g., paragraph 52
Regarding claim 2:
Wilairat discloses:
wherein the generation of the calibration adjustment is based on the first direction, the second location, the selection, and the movement of the head of the user (all this is shown in Fig. 6, where 508 is the first direction, 512 is the second location, this is on the button so there is a selection here, and 520 illustrates the movement of the head as per paragraph 46).
Regarding claim 3:
Wilairat discloses:
wherein the second location includes a computer-generated virtual element (Fig. 6: "Button").
Regarding claim 4:
Wilairat discloses:
in response to receiving the selection, performing a predetermined action, the predetermined action being associated with the computer-generated virtual element (Wilairat does not go into detail as to what the button does, but since it is a selectable button it presumably does something).
Regarding claim 5:
Wilairat discloses:
wherein a location of the computer-generated virtual element remains fixed with respect to objects in physical space outside the head-mounted device (although a computer-generated virtual element, this element is not necessarily displayed by the HMD but rather by another device, e.g., a tablet computer as per paragraph 42, and therefore it is fixed with respect to it, and outside the head-mounted device).
Regarding claim 7:
Wilairat discloses:
wherein the identifying the second location includes moving an identified location in an adjustment direction from the first location to the second location, the adjustment direction being based on a direction of movement of the head of the user (this is vector 520 in Fig. 6) .
Regarding claim 9:
Wilairat discloses:
the movement of the head of the user is a first movement of the head of the user (as discussed earlier); and the selection associated with the second location includes a second movement of the head of the user (it must move to select it during the process as discussed above).
Regarding claim 10:
Wilairat discloses:
wherein the identifying the first location is performed in response to determining that a duration of the gaze in the first direction satisfies a gaze time threshold (paragraph 55: "dwell timeframe").
Regarding claim 11:
All elements positively recited have already been identified with respect to earlier rejections. No further elaboration is necessary.
Regarding claim 12:
Wilairat discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (Fig. 1: "memory"). All other elements of this claim have already been identified with respect to earlier rejections. No further elaboration is necessary.
Regarding claim 13:
All elements positively recited have already been identified with respect to earlier rejections. No further elaboration is necessary.
Regarding claims 19-20, and 22-23:
All elements positively recited have already been identified with respect to earlier rejections. No further elaboration is necessary.
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) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilairat in view of Hoover et al. (US 2019/0130622; disclosed in IDS)
Regarding claim 6:
Wilairat discloses:
wherein: the identifying the second location in response to the movement of the head of the user includes moving a cursor from the first location to the second location (shown in, e.g., Fig. 6).
Wilairat does not disclose:
“the method further comprises changing an appearance of the computer-generated virtual element in response to a distance of the cursor from the computer-generated virtual element satisfying a distance threshold.”
Hoover discloses:
the method further comprises changing an appearance of the computer-generated virtual element in response to a distance of the cursor from the computer-generated virtual element satisfying a distance threshold (paragraph 109: “aligned” means within a distance threshold).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include in Wilairat the elements taught by Hoover.
The rationale is as follows:
Wilairat and Hoover are directed to the same field of art.
This is just giving feedback to the user. This is a known improvement that one of ordinary skill in the art could have included with predictable results.
Claim(s) 8, 14-15, 17-18, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilairat in view of Green et al. (US 2023/0359272).
Regarding claim 8:
Wilairat discloses wherein:
the identifying the first location includes displaying a cursor at the first location; the identifying the second location includes moving the cursor from the first location to the second location (shown in, e.g., Fig. 6)
Wilairat does not disclose:
"a location of the cursor is fixed on a display included in the head-mounted device while the head-mounted device moves. "
(This actually is not clear. The embodiment of Fig. 6 describes viewing a cursor on a separate tablet device, but Wilairat does disclose that the HMD may have a display and may display elements in real space, for example paragraph 39, but Wilairat does not explicitly disclose using these steps together).
Green discloses:
a location of the cursor is fixed on a display included in the head-mounted device while the head-mounted device moves (paragraph 42: "a stationary simulated world object," where it could be an icon or cursor as per paragraph 46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include in Wilairat the elements taught by Green.
The rationale is as follows:
Wilairat and Green are directed to the same field of art.
Wilairat already discloses using the display of the HMD to present mixed-reality situations, which is exactly what Green is talking about here. Green shows that instead of having an icon on another device, it could be displayed by the HMD itself. This is probably already implied by Wilairat but explicitly shown by Green. This is a known improvement that one of ordinary skill in the art could have included with predictable results.
Regarding claim 14:
Wilairat in view of Green discloses:
A method performed by a head-mounted device, the method comprising: identifying a first location on a display based on a direction of a gaze of a user wearing the head-mounted device (Wilairat Fig. 6: 508), the display being included in the head-mounted device (in Wilairat the situation shown in Fig. 6 is being displayed on a tablet computer, but Green teaches the HMD itself could display these elements as per paragraph 36 and discussed above); determining, based on the direction of the gaze of the user remaining fixed for a predetermined period of time, that the first location was inaccurate (Wilairat paragraph 50); and identifying a second location on the display based on the direction of the gaze and movement of the head-mounted device (Wilairat Fig. 6: 508).
Regarding claim 15:
Wilairat in view of Green discloses:
wherein the determination that the first location was inaccurate is based on the direction of the gaze of the user remaining fixed for the predetermined period of time and a direction of the movement of the head-mounted device satisfying a direction similarity condition for a direction of a computer-generated icon from the first location (Wilairat paragraph 47, where it might use the dwell time as per paragraph 54).
Regarding claims 17-18:
All elements positively recited have already been identified with respect to earlier rejection. No further elaboration is necessary.
Regarding claim 21:
Wilairat in view of Green discloses:
wherein the cursor is displayed on a lens included in the head-mounted computing device, at least a portion of the lens being transparent (in Wilairat the HMD display as such a lens as per paragraph 58, and Green teaches displaying the cursor using the HMD as discussed above).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilairat in view of Green, and further in view of Starner (US 8,941,561; disclosed in IDS)
Regarding claim 16:
Wilairat in view of Green discloses a method as discussed abov.
Wilairat in view of Green does not disclose:
"wherein the determination that the first location was inaccurate is based on the direction of the gaze of the user remaining fixed for the predetermined period of time and the head-mounted device moving in a first direction while the gaze of the user moves in a second direction, the second direction satisfying an opposite direction condition."
Starner discloses:
Determining a location based on the direction of the gaze of the user remaining fixed for the predetermined period of time and the head-mounted device moving in a first direction while the gaze of the user moves in a second direction, the second direction satisfying an opposite direction condition (column 5, lines 30-50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include in Wilairat in view of Green wherein the determination that the first location was inaccurate is based on the direction of the gaze of the user remaining fixed for the predetermined period of time and the head-mounted device moving in a first direction while the gaze of the user moves in a second direction, the second direction satisfying an opposite direction condition, as suggested by Starner.
The rationale is as follows:
Wilairat and Starner are directed to the same field of art.
This is just applying the method of determining a sustained gaze taught by Starner to the method of Wilairat in view of Green, which already discloses determining the first location was inaccurate by determining a sustained gaze ("dwell time"). This is a known improvement that one of ordinary skill in the art could have included with predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER RAY LAMB whose telephone number is (571)272-5264. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 PM.
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, Patrick Edouard can be reached at 571-272-7603. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER R LAMB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2622
Prosecution Insights