CTNF 19/184,905 CTNF 81976 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. DETAILED ACTION Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/21/25 and 11/14/25 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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 of this title, 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claims 1- 6 and 10-18 are re jected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sz tuk (US 2023/0119935) in view of Munger et al. (US 9,618,748) and further in view of Duenyas et al. (US 2022/0070391). Re garding claim 1 , Sztuk teaches a wearable electronic device (Fig. 1 and paragraph 2) comprising: a first camera (eye tracking cameras 108A/108B in paragraph 25); a second camera comprising an image processing circuit (paragraphs 34-39, 42 and 58, scene cameras 193A-193D); memory (memory 280/475 in paragraphs 41 and 53); and at least one processor, comprising processing circuitry (processing logic 270/470 and paragraphs 41-42), wherein the memory stores at least one instruction, wherein at least one processor, individually and/or collectively, is configured to execute the at least one instruction and to cause the wearable electronic device (processing logic 270/470 and paragraphs 41-42 implements software on the memory to implement the functionality of the system) to: identify a gaze area of a user through the first camera (paragraphs 40-42: eye-tracking system 260 (cameras 108A/108B ) generates gaze direction data 265 indicating where the user is gazing, and processing logic 270 receives this data to identify the gaze area); acquire an image of a first resolution generated by photographing an external object through the second camera (paragraphs 37 and 42-47: selected scene camera (e.g., 293B ) captures images 295B of the external environment at full sensor resolution); determine, in the image, a first area corresponding to the gaze area of the user and a second area corresponding to an area other than the gaze area (Fig. 6 and paragraphs 61-62: processing logic 270 determines a gaze-aligned region within the captured image (e.g., by cropping in response to gaze vector 661 ) corresponding to the gaze area (first area), with the remaining non-gaze region constituting the second area); and acquire a first image having the first resolution and corresponding to the first area from the image through a first channel among multiple channels between at least one processor and the second camera, and acquire a second image having a second resolution lower than the first resolution and corresponding to the second area through a second channel among the multiple channels (Sztuk teaches transmitting image data from the scene cameras to processing logic 270 through communication channels (paragraphs 55 and 73). Sztuk discloses that artificial reality content "may be presented in a single channel or in multiple channels," paragraph 69, and that the processing logic generates the high-resolution gaze-region image (first image) and a lower-resolution peripheral image (second image) from the captured data. paragraphs 61, 62 and 67). However, while Sztuk does not expressly describe the dual-resolution images being acquired over separate first and second channels of the camera-to-processor interface, in an analogous art, Munger teaches a head-mounted display system in which a scene camera captures a full-field image, from which a high-resolution ROI image and a lower-resolution full-field (binned) image are derived and processed through separate data paths between the camera and the processor (See: col. 2, ll. 45–56; col. 6, ll. 1–25 (Fig. 6-2, steps 32–52)). Munger specifically teaches that the ROI image and the FOV image are captured and transmitted as separate streams to the processor for compositing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to implement these two streams over first and second channels of a standard camera interface as they are in the same field of endeavor, as this is the routine means of simultaneously transferring two co-temporal image streams of different resolutions between a camera sensor with an on-board image processing circuit and a host processor in a wearable device. Secondly, the combination addresses a known problem with a known solution. Sztuk teaches gaze-guided capture and dual-resolution image generation but does not expressly describe the specific mechanism by which the high-resolution gaze-region data and lower-resolution peripheral data are transmitted from the camera to the processor over separate channels. Munger expressly solves this problem by disclosing separate data paths for the ROI image and the full-field binned image between the camera system and the processor (Fig. 6-2, steps 32–52; col. 2, ll. 45–56). Applying Munger's dual-stream camera-to-processor architecture to Sztuk’s gaze-guided wearable system is the application of "a known technique to a known device... to yield predictable results." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. , 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). The underlying hardware architecture — a wearable device with a scene camera, an on-board image processing circuit, and a host processor — is identical across both references, and a skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in implementing the combination. Regarding claim 2 , Sztuk and Munger teaches the claimed wherein at least one processor, individually and/or collectively, is configured to cause the wearable electronic device to acquire the first image and the second image in parallel through the first channel and the second channel (Sztuk in paragraphs 42 and 61: parallel or simultaneous generation of the gaze-region image and the peripheral image from a common captured frame. Munger further teaches that the ROI capture rate can be higher than the FOV capture rate, implying simultaneous parallel processing of both streams, col. 6, ll. 28–32, and that composing the final image requires both the ROI and FOV images to be available concurrently (Fig. 6-2, step 66). Acquiring both images in parallel over two channels is the predictable and routine implementation for real-time display in a wearable device. The prior motivations as discussed above in claim 1 are also incorporated herein. Regarding claim 3, Sztuk and Munger teaches the claimed further comprising: a glass member comprising a transparent material; and a display configured to display a virtual object through the glass member, wherein at least one processor, individually and/or collectively, is configured to cause the wearable electronic device to: acquire a third image in which the first image and the second image are merged; and control the display to display the third image through the glass member (Sztuk in paragraphs 27 31-33 and 56-59: a head-mounted device with near-eye optical elements 110A/110B comprising a transparent layer 120A through which the user views both scene light 191 and virtual image light 141 generated by display layer 140A , i.e., a transparent glass member with an integrated display. Sztuk further teaches that the gaze-guided image is generated and provided for display. Munger also independently teaches this entire limitation: a wearable HMD with a transmissive/transparent display (col. 3, ll. 1–19) through which the ROI image is composited with the surrounding FOV image into a final merged image (col. 6, ll. 44–66, Fig. 6-2 step 66: "compose final L & R images (overwrite FOV data in ROI)") and displayed to the wearer through the optical prism/transparent display. eSight col. 4, ll. 40–56; col. 5, ll. 37–55). Regarding claim 4, Sztuk teaches the claimed wherein the first channel comprises a channel associated with an improved inter integrated circuit (I3C), and wherein the second channel comprises a channel associated with a mobile industry processor interface (MIPI) (Sztuk in paragraph 73: communication channels between the cameras and processing logic including I²C (Inter-Integrated Circuit) and standard mobile device communication protocols (listing I²C as a communication channel used in the system). To the extent Sztuk does not expressly designate I3C for the first channel and MIPI for the second, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the lower-bandwidth control/metadata channel using I3C; a known, standardized, low-overhead bus directly related to I²C and used for sensor control in mobile imaging devices; and the higher-bandwidth image data channel using MIPI CSI-2, which is the industry-standard interface for transferring camera image data to a mobile processor. Both protocols were well-known and routinely paired in wearable camera systems at the time of the invention. The selection of I3C for the first (control/lower-bandwidth) channel and MIPI for the second (image data/higher-bandwidth) channel is a routine design choice by a skilled artisan implementing the dual-channel architecture taught by Sztuk and Munger). Regarding claim 5, Sztuk teaches the claimed wherein the first channel comprises a first virtual channel associated with a mobile industry processor interface (MIPI), and wherein the second channel comprises a second virtual channel associated with the MIPI (MIPI CSI-2 expressly supports multiple virtual channels over a single physical interface for simultaneously transmitting multiple image streams, including streams of different resolutions, from a camera sensor to a processor. This was well-established in the art. Implementing the high-resolution gaze-region stream and the lower-resolution peripheral stream as first and second virtual channels of a single MIPI CSI-2 interface is the routine application of this known capability to the dual-resolution stream architecture taught by Sztuk and Munger, and would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.). Regarding claim 6 , Sztuk and Munger teaches the claimed wherein the second camera further comprises volatile memory, and wherein at least one processor, individually and/or collectively, is configured to cause the wearable electronic device to store data about the image of the first resolution in the volatile memory (Sztuk in paragraphs 41, 46-47 and 53: memory 475 is included in processing logic 470 , which is communicatively coupled to the scene cameras, and that full-resolution image data is stored in memory as gaze-guided images. Munger further teaches that image data from the camera sensor is buffered in memory within the camera front-end before transmission to the CPU (Fig. 1b: camera sensor 35 to parallel-to-serial converter 36 to memory path through FPGA 39 to CPU 40 ; col. 4, ll. 1–26). Regarding claim 10 , Sztuk teaches the claimed wherein the first camera comprises a gaze tracking camera configured to identify a gaze of the user (Sztuk in paragraphs 25 and 40-41: teaches that cameras 108A/108B are included in eye-tracking system 260 , configured to determine the gaze direction of the user by imaging the eyebox region and tracking the position of the pupil and/or corneal reflections. These cameras are the first camera of claim 1 and function as gaze tracking cameras). Method claims 11-14 are rejected for the same reasons as discussed above in device claims 1-4, respectively, because the methodology is performed by the device claims. Medium claims 15-18 are rejected for the same reasons as discussed above in device claims 1-4, respectively, because the medium, the stored instructions and the processor based system includes the same required components in the instant claim . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sztuk (US 2023/0119935) in view of Munger et al. (US 9,618,748) and further in view of Duenyas et al. (US 2022/0070391) . Regarding claim 7 , Munger in its combination with Sztuk teaches the claimed as discussed in claim 1 above (Munger teaches that the image processing circuit performs pixel binning on the non-ROI (full-field) regions of the image to reduce them to a lower resolution, and that this binning is performed by the camera-side processing circuitry reading from its internal buffer. eSight col. 2, ll. 35–56 ("An image corresponding to the entire sensor image area can be captured at the same resolution as the display by grouping pixels together, otherwise called 'binning'"); col. 5, ll. 55–65), however fails to teach, but Duenyas teaches the claimed wherein at least one processor, individually and/or collectively, is configured to cause the wearable electronic device to cause the image processing circuit to read the data stored in the volatile memory and perform binning on the second area with the second resolution (Duenyas in Fig. 6A and paragraphs 8, 28-30: teaches an image sensor in which the image processor reads data from the pixel array and performs analog binning on the non-ROI (remaining) regions to produce a lower-resolution output, with the binning controlled by analog binning controller 24 operating on the pixel array 22 through the image processor 30 ). Performing binning on the second (peripheral) area using the camera's on-board image processing circuit reading from volatile memory is directly taught by the combination of Munger and Duenyas and represents the standard implementation of spatially selective resolution reduction in a camera sensor with an integrated ISP. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to incorporate the teachings of Duenyas into the proposed combination of Sztuk and Munger because Duenyas’ teachings allows for the benefit of reducing power consumption and processing complexity in image sensors used in camera systems (abstract and paragraph 1). Regarding claims 8-9 , Munger in its combination with Sztuk teaches the claimed as discussed in claim 1 above, however fails to teach, but Duenyas teaches the claimed wherein at least one processor, individually and/or collectively, is configured to cause the wearable electronic device to cause the image processing circuit to perform binning on a partial area of the second area with a third resolution lower than the second resolution, and wherein the partial area comprises an edge area of the second area. (Duenyas in Fig. 4 and paragraphs 6 and 33: expressly teaches applying a graduated, multi-level binning scheme in which a highest analog binning factor (lowest resolution) is applied to the outermost background regions of the frame while an intermediate binning factor is applied to closer non-ROI regions. Fig. 4 (region A sub-regions A1, A2a/A2b, A3, A4a/A4b, A5 surrounding ROIs B and C at higher binning factor than ROI B). The prior motivation as discussed above is incorporated herein. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to incorporate the teachings of Duenyas into the proposed combination of Sztuk and Munger because Duenyas’s teachings allows for the benefit to significantly reduce power consumption for image sensor 10 as well as reduce the 'h-time'... allowing for reducing a data transmission rate from the pixel array, increasing the frame rate, and/or for performing more complicated tasks 'on sensor.' (abstract and paragraph 22). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GELEK W TOPGYAL whose telephone number is (571)272-8891. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (9:30-6 PST). 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, William Vaughn can be reached at 571-272-3922. 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. /GELEK W TOPGYAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481 Application/Control Number: 19/184,905 Page 2 Art Unit: 2481 Application/Control Number: 19/184,905 Page 3 Art Unit: 2481 Application/Control Number: 19/184,905 Page 4 Art Unit: 2481 Application/Control Number: 19/184,905 Page 5 Art Unit: 2481 Application/Control Number: 19/184,905 Page 6 Art Unit: 2481 Application/Control Number: 19/184,905 Page 7 Art Unit: 2481 Application/Control Number: 19/184,905 Page 8 Art Unit: 2481 Application/Control Number: 19/184,905 Page 9 Art Unit: 2481 Application/Control Number: 19/184,905 Page 10 Art Unit: 2481 Application/Control Number: 19/184,905 Page 11 Art Unit: 2481
Prosecution Insights