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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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:
A receiving module, creating module, acquiring module, and sending module in claim 1.
A determining module in claim 2.
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 § 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.
Claims 1-2, 4-7, and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dearman et al., US 2017/0329419 A1, hereinafter “Dearman”, in view of Nakamura, US 2020/0319463 A1, hereinafter “Nakamura”.
Regarding claim 1, Dearman teaches an interaction control method, comprising: receiving a touch operation of a user (¶ 13); if there is a collision point between a virtual identifier and a first application in an application list (fig. 2B, ¶ 21), creating a first virtual screen and a first window in response to the touch operation (fig. 2C, see the first virtual screen and first window ‘A’), running the first application on the first virtual screen, and rendering screen data of the first virtual screen to the first window (see fig. 2C, element 420, ¶ 21).
Dearman does not specifically teach acquiring degrees-of-freedom information of a head-mounted display apparatus; and adjusting the first window according to the degrees-of-freedom information, encoding the screen data in the adjusted first window, and sending the encoded screen data to the head-mounted display apparatus for decoding and displaying.
Nakamura, however, clearly teaches acquiring degrees-of-freedom information of a head-mounted display apparatus (fig. 7, T1, ¶ 31 and ¶ 62); and adjusting the first window according to the degrees-of-freedom information (fig. 7, T2, ¶ 63), encoding the screen data in the adjusted first window (fig. 7, T3, ¶ 63), and sending the encoded screen data to the head-mounted display apparatus for decoding and displaying (fig. 7, T4 and T5, ¶ 64).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Dearman in view of Nakamura. Dearman teaches in ¶ 62 that positional sensors may be used to “to determine an absolute position and/or a detected rotation of the computing device in the VR space that can then be used as input to the VR space”. Nakamura further teaches details regarding rendering images viewed by a user as the user moves their viewpoint by moving their head. One would have been motivated to make such a combination because Nakamura teaches in ¶ 60 that: “A round trip time (RTT) delay is generated since the image correction apparatus 200 transmits the position/orientation information regarding the head mounted display 100 to the image generation apparatus 500 in step S10 until the image is displayed on the head mounted display 100. The reprojection process in step S24 interpolates the image so that the user does not feel this delay.”
Regarding claim 2, Dearman teaches that if a touch event is received, acquiring position information of a collision point between the virtual identifier and the first window (fig. 2B, ¶ 21); determining relative position information of the collision point in the first virtual screen according to the position information of the collision point between the virtual identifier and the first window (fig. 2B, see the virtual identifiers 450 and or 455, ¶ 21); and distributing the touch event to the first virtual screen for responding, according to the relative position information (¶ 21; note that these actions are performed at any point such as after rendering images at a previous time).
Regarding claim 4, Dearman teaches the first window and a second window; and combining the screen data to include the first window and screen data in the second window, wherein a second virtual screen runs a second application, and the second window renders screen data of the second virtual screen (fig. 2B, see the first window corresponding to a first application ‘A’, and a second window corresponding to a second application ‘B’; also see ¶ 20-21).
Dearman does not specifically teach that the adjusting the first window according to the degrees-of-freedom information, encoding the screen data in the adjusted first window, and sending the encoded screen data to the head-mounted display apparatus for decoding and displaying comprises: adjusting the first window and a second window according to the degrees-of-freedom information; and combining and encoding the screen data in the adjusted first window and screen data in the adjusted second window, and sending the combined and encoded screen data to the head-mounted display apparatus for decoding and displaying, wherein a second virtual screen runs a second application, and the second window renders screen data of the second virtual screen.
Nakamura, however, teaches such encoding and decoding of information (see fig. 7, T1-T5 and ¶ 62-64).
The combination of Dearman and Nakamura, therefore, teaches that the adjusting the first window according to the degrees-of-freedom information, encoding the screen data in the adjusted first window, and sending the encoded screen data to the head-mounted display apparatus for decoding and displaying comprises: adjusting the first window (Dearman, fig. 2B, ‘A’) and a second window (Dearman, fig. 2B, ‘B’) according to the degrees-of-freedom information (Nakamura, fig. 7); and combining (Dearman, fig. 2B, the windows are combined on the same view) and encoding the screen data in the adjusted first window and screen data in the adjusted second window (Nakamura teaches encoding the adjusted display data which per Dearman includes the combined first and second windows), and sending the combined and encoded screen data to the head-mounted display apparatus for decoding and displaying (see Dearman for such decoding), wherein a second virtual screen runs a second application, and the second window renders screen data of the second virtual screen (Dearman, fig. 2B, different objects A-F are viewed as different applications and include different elements per ¶ 20-22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Dearman in view of Nakamura. Dearman teaches in ¶ 62 that positional sensors may be used to “to determine an absolute position and/or a detected rotation of the computing device in the VR space that can then be used as input to the VR space”. Nakamura further teaches details regarding rendering images viewed by a user as the user moves their viewpoint by moving their head. One would have been motivated to make such a combination because Nakamura teaches in ¶ 60 that: “A round trip time (RTT) delay is generated since the image correction apparatus 200 transmits the position/orientation information regarding the head mounted display 100 to the image generation apparatus 500 in step S10 until the image is displayed on the head mounted display 100. The reprojection process in step S24 interpolates the image so that the user does not feel this delay.”
Regarding claim 5, Dearman teaches acquiring posture information of a terminal apparatus (fig. 2B, element 102, ¶ 21); and controlling the virtual identifier to rotate according to the posture information, so that there is a collision point between the virtual identifier and a target application in the application list or between the virtual identifier and the first window, wherein the target application is the first application or the second application (¶ 21).
Regarding claim 6, Dearman teaches an interaction control device, comprising: a receiving module configured to receive a touch operation of a user (¶ 13); a creating module configured to, if there is a collision point between a virtual identifier and a first application in an application list (fig. 2B, ¶ 21), create a first virtual screen and a first window in response to the touch operation (fig. 2C, see the first virtual screen and first window ‘A’), run the first application on the first virtual screen, and render screen data of the first virtual screen to the first window (see fig. 2C, element 420, ¶ 21).
Dearman does not specifically teach an acquiring module configured to acquire degrees-of-freedom information of a head-mounted display apparatus; and a sending module configured to adjust the first window according to the degrees-of-freedom information, encode the screen data in the adjusted first window, and send the encoded screen data to the head-mounted display apparatus for decoding and displaying.
Nakamura teaches an acquiring module configured to acquire degrees-of-freedom information of a head-mounted display apparatus (fig. 7, T1, ¶ 31 and ¶ 62); and a sending module configured to adjust the first window according to the degrees-of-freedom information (fig. 7, T2, ¶ 63), encode the screen data in the adjusted first window (fig. 7, T3, ¶ 63), and send the encoded screen data to the head-mounted display apparatus for decoding and displaying (fig. 7, T4 and T5, ¶ 64).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Dearman in view of Nakamura. Dearman teaches in ¶ 62 that positional sensors may be used to “to determine an absolute position and/or a detected rotation of the computing device in the VR space that can then be used as input to the VR space”. Nakamura further teaches details regarding rendering images viewed by a user as the user moves their viewpoint by moving their head. One would have been motivated to make such a combination because Nakamura teaches in ¶ 60 that: “A round trip time (RTT) delay is generated since the image correction apparatus 200 transmits the position/orientation information regarding the head mounted display 100 to the image generation apparatus 500 in step S10 until the image is displayed on the head mounted display 100. The reprojection process in step S24 interpolates the image so that the user does not feel this delay.”
Regarding claim 7, Dearman teaches a determining module, wherein the acquiring module is further configured to acquire position information of a collision point between the virtual identifier and the first window if a touch event is received (fig. 2B, ¶ 21), wherein the determining module is configured to determine relative position information of the collision point in the first virtual screen according to the position information of the collision point (fig. 2B, see the virtual identifiers 450 and or 455, ¶ 21), and wherein the sending module is configured to distribute the touch event to the first virtual screen for responding, according to the relative position information (¶ 21; note that these actions are performed at any point such as after rendering images at a previous time).
Regarding claim 9, Dearman teaches the first window and a second window; and combining the screen data to include the first window and screen data in the second window, wherein a second virtual screen runs a second application, and the second window renders screen data of the second virtual screen (fig. 2B, see the first window corresponding to a first application ‘A’, and a second window corresponding to a second application ‘B’; also see ¶ 20-21).
Dearman does not specifically teach that the adjusting the first window according to the degrees-of-freedom information, encoding the screen data in the adjusted first window, and sending the encoded screen data to the head-mounted display apparatus for decoding and displaying comprises: adjusting the first window and a second window according to the degrees-of-freedom information; and combining and encoding the screen data in the adjusted first window and screen data in the adjusted second window, and sending the combined and encoded screen data to the head-mounted display apparatus for decoding and displaying, wherein a second virtual screen runs a second application, and the second window renders screen data of the second virtual screen.
Nakamura, however, teaches such encoding and decoding of information (see fig. 7, T1-T5 and ¶ 62-64).
The combination of Dearman and Nakamura, therefore, teaches that the adjusting the first window according to the degrees-of-freedom information, encoding the screen data in the adjusted first window, and sending the encoded screen data to the head-mounted display apparatus for decoding and displaying comprises: adjusting the first window (Dearman, fig. 2B, ‘A’) and a second window (Dearman, fig. 2B, ‘B’) according to the degrees-of-freedom information (Nakamura, fig. 7); and combining (Dearman, fig. 2B, the windows are combined on the same view) and encoding the screen data in the adjusted first window and screen data in the adjusted second window (Nakamura teaches encoding the adjusted display data which per Dearman includes the combined first and second windows), and sending the combined and encoded screen data to the head-mounted display apparatus for decoding and displaying (see Dearman for such decoding), wherein a second virtual screen runs a second application, and the second window renders screen data of the second virtual screen (Dearman, fig. 2B, different objects A-F are viewed as different applications and include different elements per ¶ 20-22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Dearman in view of Nakamura. Dearman teaches in ¶ 62 that positional sensors may be used to “to determine an absolute position and/or a detected rotation of the computing device in the VR space that can then be used as input to the VR space”. Nakamura further teaches details regarding rendering images viewed by a user as the user moves their viewpoint by moving their head. One would have been motivated to make such a combination because Nakamura teaches in ¶ 60 that: “A round trip time (RTT) delay is generated since the image correction apparatus 200 transmits the position/orientation information regarding the head mounted display 100 to the image generation apparatus 500 in step S10 until the image is displayed on the head mounted display 100. The reprojection process in step S24 interpolates the image so that the user does not feel this delay.”
Regarding claim 10, Dearman teaches a control module, the acquiring module is further configured to acquire posture information of a terminal apparatus (fig. 2B, element 102, ¶ 21); wherein the control module is configured to control the virtual identifier to rotate according to the posture information, so that there is a collision point between the virtual identifier and a target application in the application list or between the virtual identifier and the first window, and wherein the target application is the first application or the second application (¶ 21).
Regarding claim 11, Dearman teaches an electronic apparatus comprising: a memory configured to store executable computer instructions; and a processor configured to implement the interaction control method of claim 1 according to a control of the executable computer instructions (fig. 10, element 1000, ¶ 44-48).
Regarding claim 12, Dearman teaches a computer-readable storage medium having computer instructions stored thereon, wherein the interaction control method of claim 1 is performed when the computer instructions are executed by a processor (¶ 45-46).
Claims 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dearman, in view of Nakamura, as applied above, and further in view of Croxford et al., US 2022/0262079 A1, hereinafter “Croxford”.
Regarding claims 3 and 8, Dearman in view of Nakamura teach adjusting the first window according to the degrees-of-freedom information as applied above.
Dearman and Nakamura do not teach compressing an edge region of the screen data in the adjusted first window and sending the compressed edge region to the head-mounted display apparatus for decoding and displaying.
Croxford, however, teaches compressing an edge region of the screen data in the first window and sending the compressed edge region to the head-mounted display apparatus for decoding and displaying (¶ 40-41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Dearman, Nakamura and Croxford. The references teach HMD devices and Croxford further teaches compressing the edge region of the displayed images. One would have been motivated to make such a combination because Croxford teaches, in ¶ 34, compressing or displaying the edge portions at a lower resolution “thus reducing the processing burden, power/energy consumption, amount of storage, and/or bandwidth resource required for handling the frames. Reducing the energy consumption also reduces heat output and can improve battery life for mobile devices. High heat outputs can cause the device to become too hot to handle, and may require active cooling, e.g. with fans, and/or thermal throttling.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEPEHR AZARI whose telephone number is (571)270-7903. The examiner can normally be reached weekdays from 11AM-7PM.
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.
/SEPEHR AZARI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621
Prosecution Insights