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 .
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.
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.
Claims 1-8 and 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US 2020/0322586) in view of Di Francesco (US 2025/0050054).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a method comprising:
receiving, at an extended reality (XR) device (Figure 6), a 360-degree content item (¶ [0048]-[0051], ¶ [0132]-[0133] and ¶ [0218] for receiving a 360-degree content);
displaying, via the XR device, a first portion of the 360-degree content item (¶ [0065], ¶ [0139]-[0140], ¶ [0219] and ¶ [0227] for displaying the received 360-degree content), wherein during the display of the first portion, the XR device is configured to:
detect changes in orientation of the XR device; responsively adjust the display of the first portion of the 360-degree content item to correspond to the changes in orientation of the XR device (¶ [0067]-[0069], ¶ [0141]-[0142], ¶ [0219], ¶ [0222], ¶ [0029]-[0230] and ¶ [0249] for during the content display, tracking changes in viewing position and orientation of user with a head mount display device and selecting and editing display 360-degree content corresponding to tracking feedback).
Lee discloses selecting and editing 360-degree content viewpoint to be transmitted and displayed according to feedback of tracking viewing position and orientation of user device in order to minimize user visual discomfort or fatigue (¶ [0241]-[0242] and ¶ [0315]). Lee is silent about identify an indication of user discomfort and based on the indication of user discomfort, restricting the device from responsively adjusting display of a subsequent second portion of the content item such that the display of the subsequent second portion is not responsive to changes in orientation of the device.
Di Francesco discloses identify an indication of user discomfort and based on the indication of user discomfort, restricting virtual reality display device from responsively adjusting display of a subsequent second portion of the content item such that the display of the subsequent second portion is not responsive to changes in movement of the device (¶ [0108] and ¶ [0232]-[0233]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee system with the teaching of Di Francesco, so to provide an alternative way of processing displayed content in response to indication of user discomfort as a matter of designed choices.
Regarding claim 2, Lee in view of Di Francesco discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. The combined system further discloses receiving, at the XR device, metadata for the 360-degree content item; identifying a viewing angle for the second portion indicated in the metadata; and displaying the second portion based on the identified viewing angle (taught by Lee; ¶ [0008]-[0009], ¶ [0127], ¶ [0185]-[0209] and ¶ [0230]-[0231]).
Regarding claim 3, Lee in view of Di Francesco discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 2. The combined system further discloses the viewing angle is a first viewing angle (Lee’s Figures 22-26); the indication of user discomfort is a first indication of user discomfort (taught by Di Francesco; ¶ [0108] and ¶ [0232]-[0233]); and the method further comprising:
identifying, during display of the second portion, a second indication of user discomfort; based on the indication of user discomfort, identifying a second viewing angle for the second portion indicated in the metadata; and adjusting the display of the second portion based on the second viewing angle (Lee’s Figures 19 and 22-26; and Di Francesco’s Figures 5-8).
Regarding claim 4, Lee in view of Di Francesco discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. The combined system further discloses based on the indication of user discomfort, performing one of: restricting a field of view of the display of the second portion; or adjusting a bitrate or a framerate of the display of the second portion (taught by Di Francesco; ¶ [0108] and ¶ [0232]-[0233]).
Regarding claim 5, Lee in view of Di Francesco discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. The combined system further discloses wherein: the 360-degree content item comprises interactivity; the interactivity comprises one of 6 degrees of freedom (DOF) or 3 DOF (taught by Lee; ¶ [0065]-[0066], ¶ [0209] and ¶ [0301]-[0310]); and the restricting the XR device from responsively adjusting the display of the second portion decreases a number of DOFs of the interactivity of the 360-degree content item (taught by Lee; ¶ [0065]-[0070] and ¶ [0240]-[0245]).
Regarding claim 6, Lee in view of Di Francesco discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. The combined system further discloses wherein: the XR device comprises an accelerometer; and the detecting the changes in orientation of the XR device is based on one or more readings of the accelerometer (taught by Lee; ¶ [0249]; and taught by Di Francesco; ¶ [0085]-[0089]).
Regarding claim 7, Lee in view of Di Francesco discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 6. The combined system further discloses wherein the identifying the indication of user discomfort is based on the one or more readings of the accelerometer (taught by Di Francesco; ¶ [0085]-[0089]).
Regarding claim 8, Lee in view of Di Francesco discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. The combined system further discloses wherein the identifying the indication of user discomfort comprises: determining a user discomfort state; identifying a user discomfort state threshold based on profile information associated with the XR device; and determining that the user discomfort state exceeds the user discomfort state threshold (taught by Di Francesco; ¶ [0231]-[0233]).
Regarding claim 11, all functionalities of a system in claim 11 are analyzed and rejected corresponding to claim 1. Lee in view of Di Francesco discloses a system comprising: control circuitry; and input/output (I/O) circuitry (Lee’s Figure 6; and Di Francesco’s Figure 1).
Regarding claims 12-18, all limitations of claims 12-18 are analyzed and rejected corresponding to claims 2-8 respectively.
Claims 9-10 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US 2020/0322586) in view of Di Francesco (US 2025/0050054) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Palazzo et al (US 2022/0164024).
Regarding claim 9, Lee in view of Di Francesco discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. The combined system is silent about determining a user discomfort trend; identifying a user discomfort trend threshold based on profile information associated with the XR device; and determining that the user discomfort trend exceeds the user discomfort trend threshold.
Palazzo discloses identifying the indication of user discomfort comprises: determining a user discomfort trend; identifying a user discomfort trend threshold based on profile information associated with the XR device; and determining that the user discomfort trend exceeds the user discomfort trend threshold (¶ [0025] and ¶ [0063]-[0065]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee in view of Di Francesco system with the teaching of Palazzo, so to provide an alternative way of identifying user discomfort while viewing content as a matter of designed choices.
Regarding claim 10, Lee in view of Di Francesco and further in view of Palazzo discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 9. The combined system further discloses wherein the determining the user discomfort trend comprises: obtaining biomarker readings of one of the XR device or a measurement device associated with the XR device; and determining the user discomfort trend based on a rate of change in the biomarker readings over a time period (taught by Palzzo; Figure 3; ¶ [0022]-[0025] and ¶ [0063]-[0065]).
Regarding claims 19-20, all limitations of claims 19-20 are analyzed and rejected corresponding to claims 9-10 respectively.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIGI L DUBASKY whose telephone number is (571)270-5686. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00.
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, Nathan Flynn can be reached at 571-272-1915. 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.
/GIGI L DUBASKY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421
Prosecution Insights