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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on May 21, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-21 are currently pending. Applicant’s arguments are addressed herein below.
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.
Claims 1-5, 8-12 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwarz et al. (US 20180286126) in view of Kudirka et al. (US 20190134487).
As to claim 1, Schwarz discloses an electronic device comprising:
one or more sensors (Fig. 1(38): depth sensor system, [0027]: HMD device 18 can include a depth sensor system 38 that generates depth image data, [0028] – [0030]);
one or more displays (Fig. 1(36): see-through display, [0025]: head-mounted display (HMD) 18 comprises at least a partially see-through display 36);
one or more processors (Fig. 1(22), [0023]); and
memory (Fig. 1(20)) storing instructions configured to be executed by the one or more processors ([0023]), the instructions for:
receiving a request to display a first virtual object ([0028]: a selection of a virtual object displayed via the HMD device 18);
determining, via the one or more sensors (Fig. 1(38): depth sensor system), a depth of a physical object ([0027]: depth sensor system 38 can include one or more depth cameras that capture image data 26 from the physical environment 32, [0032]: real-world objects);
in accordance with a determination that the first virtual object is a head-locked virtual object or a body-locked virtual object, displaying, via the one or more displays (Fig. 1(36): see-through display), the first virtual object ([0032]: HMD device 18 can operate in a body-lock display mode in which one or more virtual objects can be displayed via the HMD device with body-locked positions. In a body-locked position, a holographic object appears to be fixed relative to the wearer of the HMD device 18, and the body-locked position of the holographic object appears to be moveable relative to real-world objects; Note: “holographic object” is interpreted as the “first virtual object”).
Schwarz does not expressly teach the first virtual object at an apparent depth that is based on at least the depth of the physical object.
Kudirka teaches the first virtual object at an apparent depth that is based on at least the depth of the physical object ([0067]: virtual object can be head locked, [0068]: a virtual object within a virtual coordinate system designed to replicate the real-world view of the user. In this regard, virtual objects can be scaled, rotated, or transformed such that virtual objects at a selected distance in the virtual coordinate system appear integrated with physical objects in the real-world view at the same distance. Further, the virtual objects can be continually updated to reflect the head orientation and/or gaze direction of the user. In some cases, a user can not perceive a difference between a physical object and a virtual object in a mixed-reality environment… user can define and associate a customizable virtual environment with a location, [0160], Therefore, depth (distance) of the virtual object within a virtual coordinate system is at an apparent depth that is based on at least the depth (distance) of the physical object in the real world).
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 Schwarz’s electronic device by incorporating Kudirka’s idea of having virtual objects at a selected distance in the virtual coordinate system appear integrated with physical objects in the real-world view at the same distance (i.e., virtual object at an apparent depth/distance that is based on at least the depth/distance of the physical object) for user’s convenience so that the user may not perceive a difference between a physical object and a virtual object in a mixed-reality environment (see Kudirka: [0068]).
As to claim 2, Schwarz (as modified by Kudirka) teach the electronic device defined in claim 1, wherein the instructions further comprise instructions for: receiving a request to display a second virtual object (Schwarz: [0028]: a selection of a virtual object displayed via the HMD device 18); and
in accordance with a determination that the second virtual object is a world-locked virtual object, displaying, via the one or more displays, the second virtual object at a location that is defined relative to a static location within a coordinate system of a three-dimensional environment (Schwarz: [0031]: world-locked virtual object).
As to claim 3, Schwarz teaches the electronic device defined in claim 1, wherein the instructions further comprise instructions for: repeatedly determining, via the one or more sensors, the depth of the physical object (Schwarz: [0027]: depth sensor system 38 can include one or more depth cameras that capture image data 26 from the physical environment 32).
Schwarz does not explicitly teach repeatedly determining the apparent depth of the first virtual object based on the determined depths of the physical object, wherein repeatedly determining the apparent depth of the first virtual object comprises changing the apparent depth of the first virtual object from a first apparent depth to a second apparent depth that is different than the first apparent depth.
Kudirka teaches repeatedly determining the apparent depth of the first virtual object based on the determined depths of the physical object, wherein repeatedly determining the apparent depth of the first virtual object comprises changing the apparent depth of the first virtual object from a first apparent depth to a second apparent depth that is different than the first apparent depth ([0068]: virtual objects can be scaled, rotated, or transformed such that virtual objects at a selected distance in the virtual coordinate system appear integrated with physical objects in the real-world view at the same distance. Further, the virtual objects can be continually updated to reflect the head orientation and/or gaze direction of the user).
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 Schwarz’s electronic device by incorporating Kudirka’s idea of continually updating the depth/distance of the virtual objects for user’s convenience so that the user may not perceive a difference between a physical object and a virtual object in a mixed-reality environment (see Kudirka: [0068]).
As to claim 4, Schwarz teaches the electronic device defined in claim 3, wherein determining, via the one or more sensors, the depth of the physical object (Schwarz: [0027]: depth sensor system 38 can include one or more depth cameras that capture image data 26 from the physical environment 32).
Schwarz does not explicitly teach changing the apparent depth of the first virtual object from the first apparent depth to the second apparent depth comprises changing the apparent depth of the first virtual object from the first apparent depth to the second apparent depth during a transition period.
Kudirka teaches changing the apparent depth of the first virtual object from the first apparent depth to the second apparent depth comprises changing the apparent depth of the first virtual object from the first apparent depth to the second apparent depth during a transition period ([0068]: virtual objects can be scaled, rotated, or transformed such that virtual objects at a selected distance in the virtual coordinate system appear integrated with physical objects in the real-world view at the same distance. Further, the virtual objects can be continually updated to reflect the head orientation and/or gaze direction of the user, [0149]: smooth transitions between different views… FIG. 6G is a conceptual view of a field of view 658 of a pitcher transitioning between a virtual environment of FIG. 6A and an unobstructed view of FIG. 6E. Note: time period of the virtual object’s movement from one position to another is interpreted as the transition period).
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 Schwarz’s electronic device by adapting Kudirka’s idea of continually updating the depth/distance of the virtual objects for user’s convenience so that the user may not perceive a difference between a physical object and a virtual object in a mixed-reality environment (see Kudirka: [0068]).
As to claim 5, Schwarz (as modified by Kudirka) does not teach the electronic device defined in claim 4, wherein the transition period is greater than 5 milliseconds.
However, it is obvious for the electronic device of Schwarz (as modified by Kudirka) to have the transition period is greater than 5 milliseconds since it is a very little time for updating the depth/distance of the virtual objects based on the physical object’s depth/distance.
As to claims 8-12, it is the operation performed by the apparatus of claims 1-5. Please see claims 1-5 for detail analysis.
As to claims 15-19, it is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions for performing the functions of the apparatus of claims 1-5. Please see claims 1-5 for detail analysis.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7, 13-14 and 20-21 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 21, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the 4th page of remarks, Applicant asserts that the cited references do not teach “in accordance with a determination that the first virtual object is a head-locked virtual object or a body- locked virtual object, displaying, via the one or more displays, the first virtual object at an apparent depth that is based on at least the depth of the physical object” (claim 1). The Examiner respectfully disagrees to this assertion.
Schwarz teaches in accordance with a determination that the first virtual object is a head-locked virtual object or a body-locked virtual object, displaying, via the one or more displays (Fig. 1(36): see-through display), the first virtual object ([0032]: HMD device 18 can operate in a body-lock display mode in which one or more virtual objects can be displayed via the HMD device with body-locked positions. In a body-locked position, a holographic object appears to be fixed relative to the wearer of the HMD device 18, and the body-locked position of the holographic object appears to be moveable relative to real-world objects; Note: “holographic object” is interpreted as the “first virtual object”).
Secondary reference Kudirka teaches the first virtual object at an apparent depth that is based on at least the depth of the physical object ([0067]: virtual object can be head locked, [0068]: a virtual object within a virtual coordinate system designed to replicate the real-world view of the user. In this regard, virtual objects can be scaled, rotated, or transformed such that virtual objects at a selected distance in the virtual coordinate system appear integrated with physical objects in the real-world view at the same distance. Further, the virtual objects can be continually updated to reflect the head orientation and/or gaze direction of the user. In some cases, a user can not perceive a difference between a physical object and a virtual object in a mixed-reality environment… user can define and associate a customizable virtual environment with a location, [0160], Therefore, depth (distance) of the virtual object within a virtual coordinate system is at an apparent depth that is based on at least the depth (distance) of the physical object in the real world).
Schwarz in combination Kudirka teach the above limitations. Kudirka reference is used just to emphasize the first virtual object at an apparent depth that is based on at least the depth of the physical object. Also, note that claim recites that the first virtual object is a head-locked virtual object or a body-locked virtual object. Similar argument applies to other independent claims 8 and 15.
Since both references are in the same art invention (HMD/head-set display displaying virtual objects), these two references can be combined. It is not necessary that the references actually suggest, expressly or in so many words, the changes or improvements that applicant has made. The test for combining references is what the references as a whole would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Sheckler, 168 USPQ 716 (CCPA 1971); In re McLaughlin 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971); In re Young 159 USPQ 725 (CCPA 1968).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AFROZA Y CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)270-1543. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-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, Nitin Patel can be reached at (571)272-7677. 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.
/AFROZA CHOWDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2628
Prosecution Insights