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 § 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 –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-9 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2014/0152538 A1 to Ham et al.
As to claim 1, Ham discloses a method comprising:
obtaining a first set of inertial measurements representing motion of a head of a user (Fig. 2 and 5, paragraphs 0054 and 0081-0083, where in step (502) the inertial measurements of the user’s head is detected by orientation sensors (264)); and
determining a first mapping between the first set of inertial measurements and a first display device when detecting a first user interaction associated with the first display device of a plurality of display devices (Fig. 2 and 5, paragraphs 0082-0083, where in step (504) mapping between the inertial measurements from orientation sensors (264) to the first display is determined).
As to claim 2, Ham discloses the method, further comprising:
causing the first mapping to be stored (Fig. 2, paragraph 0063, where the output of orientation sensor (264) is stored in view direction determination (222)).
As to claim 3, Ham discloses the method, further comprising:
obtaining a subsequent set of inertial measurements representing subsequent motion of the head of the user (Fig. 2 and 5, paragraphs 0054 and 0081-0083, where in step (502) the inertial measurements of the user’s head is detected by orientation sensors (264));
identifying the first mapping matching the subsequent set of inertial measurements (Fig. 2 and 5, paragraphs 0082-0083, where in step (504) mapping between the inertial measurements from orientation sensors (264) to the first display is determined); and
enabling further user interaction with content displayed on the first display device, based on the identified first mapping (Fig. 2 and 5, paragraphs 0082-0083, where in step (506) the user interaction with the display is enabled).
As to claim 4, Ham discloses the method, wherein enabling the further user interaction comprises:
activating a cursor on the first display device, the cursor being activated at a location corresponding to a last user interaction on the first display device (Fig. 4, paragraph 0080, where a cursor is displayed and moves responsive to the user gaze).
As to claim 6, Ham discloses the method, wherein enabling the further user interaction comprises:
controlling a display parameter of the first display device (Fig. 4, paragraph 0080, where a cursor is displayed and moves responsive to the user gaze).
As to claim 7, Ham discloses the method, wherein the first user interaction is one of:
voice input identifying the first display device;
keyboard input to interact with content displayed on the first display device;
mouse input to interact with content displayed on the first display device; or
touch input sensed by a touch sensor of the first display device (Fig. 5, paragraph 0082, where the input/output device is a keyboard, mouse, or head worn device).
As to claim 8, Ham discloses the method, further comprising:
obtaining a second set of inertial measurements representing motion of the head of the user (Fig. 2 and 5, paragraphs 0054 and 0081-0083, where in step (502) the inertial measurements of the user’s head is detected by orientation sensors (264)); and
determining a second mapping between the second set of inertial measurements and a second display device when detecting a second user interaction associated with the second display device of the plurality of display devices (Fig. 2 and 5, paragraphs 0082-0083, where in step (508) mapping between the inertial measurements from orientation sensors (264) to the second display is determined);
wherein, in response to obtaining another set of inertial measurements matching the first mapping, user interaction with content displayed on the first display device is enabled (Fig. 2 and 5, paragraphs 0082-0083, where in step (504) it is determined the user is interacting with the first display); and
wherein, in response to obtaining another set of inertial measurements matching the second mapping, user interaction with content displayed on the second display device is enabled (Fig. 2 and 5, paragraphs 0082-0083, where in step (508) it is determined the user is interacting with the second display).
As to claim 9, Ham discloses the method, further comprising:
causing the second mapping to be stored (Fig. 2, paragraph 0063, where the output of orientation sensor (264) is stored in view direction determination (244)).
As to claim 12, Ham discloses the method, wherein the plurality of display devices is controlled by a single electronic device (Fig. 4, paragraphs 0079-0080, where head worn device (260) controls displays (404, 406)).
As to claim 13, Ham discloses the method, wherein the plurality of display devices is controlled by multiple electronic devices (Fig. 3, paragraphs 0070-0078, where head worn device (260) and I/O devices (70, 80) control displays (202, 204)).
As to claim 14, Ham discloses the method, wherein inertial measurements are obtained from an inertial sensor of a wearable device worn on or near the head of the user (Fig. 2, paragraph 0054, where the inertial measurements are obtained from orientation sensors (264) of head worn device (260)).
As to claim 15, Ham discloses limitations similar to claim 1. In addition, Ham discloses a computing system comprising:
a processing unit configured to execute computer readable instructions (Fig. 2, paragraphs 0056-0060, processors (205, 240), where memory (220, 242) includes computer readable instructions).
As to claims 16-19, Ham discloses limitations similar to claims 3, 7, 8 and 14, respectively.
As to claim 20, Ham discloses limitations similar to claims 1 and 15. In addition, Ham discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions encoded thereon, wherein the instructions are executable by a processing unit of a computing system (Fig. 2, paragraphs 0056-0060, where memory (220, 242) are computer readable medium having instructions, processors (205, 240)).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 5, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2014/0152538 A1 to Ham et al. in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2012/0272179 A1 to Stafford.
As to claim 5, Ham is deficient in disclosing the method, wherein enabling the further user interaction comprises:
detecting scrolling input; and
causing content displayed on the first display device to be scrolled based on the scrolling input.
However, Stafford discloses the method, wherein enabling the further user interaction comprises:
detecting scrolling input (Fig. 5, paragraphs 0064-0065, where portable device (506) detects a scrolling input based on the gaze direction (504)); and
causing content displayed on the first display device to be scrolled based on the scrolling input (Fig. 5, paragraphs 0064-0065, where the content on portable device (506) is scrolled based on the detected gaze (504)).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of determining mapping between inertial motion of a user’s head and a display device as taught by Ham by including detecting a scroll input as taught by Stafford. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to save time and effort in scrolling by using the detected gaze (Stafford, paragraph 0065).
As to claim 10, Ham is deficient in disclosing the method, further comprising:
detecting selection of an object displayed on the first display device;
obtaining a third set of inertial measurements representing motion of the head of the user;
identifying the second mapping matching the third set of inertial measurements; and
causing the selected object to be moved to be displayed on the second display device, based on the identified second mapping.
However, Stafford discloses the method, further comprising:
detecting selection of an object displayed on the first display device (Fig. 8, paragraphs 0074-0076, where window (810) is selected on display (802) based on the gaze);
obtaining a third set of inertial measurements representing motion of the head of the user (Fig. 8, paragraphs 0074-0076, where the inertial measurement is move (804));
identifying the second mapping matching the third set of inertial measurements (Fig. 8, paragraphs 0074-0076, where display (806) is the second mapping); and
causing the selected object to be moved to be displayed on the second display device, based on the identified second mapping (Fig. 8, paragraphs 0074-0076, where window (810) is moved from display (802) to display (806)).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of determining mapping between inertial motion of a user’s head and a display device as taught by Ham by including detecting a selection of an object and moving the object from one display to another as taught by Stafford. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to enhance the user’s interaction with the GUIs (Stafford, paragraph 0074).
As to claim 11, Ham is deficient in disclosing the method, further comprising:
obtaining a further set of inertial measurements indicating user movement above a defined threshold; and
causing all stored mappings to be deleted.
However, Stafford discloses the method, further comprising:
obtaining a further set of inertial measurements indicating user movement above a defined threshold (Fig. 11, paragraphs 0085-0086, where in step (1106) is it determined if the distance between a current position of a cursor and the point of gaze is above a threshold); and
causing all stored mappings to be deleted (Fig. 11, paragraphs 0085-0086, where if the answer is no in step (1106), then the stored mappings are deleted and the process is started over).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of determining mapping between inertial motion of a user’s head and a display device as taught by Ham by including obtaining inertial measurements indicating user movement above a threshold as taught by Stafford. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to determine if the user movement is erroneous or not (Stafford, paragraphs 0085-0086).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANEETA YODICHKAS whose telephone number is (571)272-9773. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5.
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, Ke Xiao can be reached at 571-272-7776. 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.
ANEETA YODICHKAS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2627
/ANEETA YODICHKAS/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2627