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.
Claim(s) 1 and 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Haiut et al. (US 2014/0337036).
Regarding claim 1:
Haiut discloses:
Claim 1
Haiut
1. A wake control system for a head-mounted display unit operable in a low-power state and a high-power state, the wake control system configured to:
Abstract: "sleeping state," "wake"
assess, with a first sensor of the head-mounted display unit, a first wake criterion during operation in the low-power state at a first wake sensing frequency;
Fig. 15: 120 -- most clearly explained in paragraph 23
upon satisfaction of the first wake criterion, assess, with a second sensor of the head-mounted display unit, a second wake criterion during operation in the low-power state at a second wake sensing frequency, and
Fig. 15: 130-130; paragraphs 23, 135; whereas per paragraph 125 the frequencies might be different between the two processes
upon satisfaction of the second wake criterion, operate the head-mounted display unit in the high-power state.
Fig. 15: 160
Regarding claim 5:
Haiut discloses:
wherein the second wake sensing frequency differs from the first wake sensing frequency (paragraph 135).
Regarding claim 6:
Haiut discloses:
wherein the first wake criterion is a sound criterion or a movement criterion (paragraph 17).
Regarding claim 7:
Haiut discloses:
wherein the second wake criterion is a sound criterion or a movement criterion (it is speech recognition as per, e.g., Fig. 15: 130).
Claim(s) 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Raffle et al. (US 9,285,872).
Regarding claim 9:
Raffle discloses:
Claim 9
Raffle
9. A display system comprising:
a head-mounted display unit operable in a low-power state and a high-power state;
Abstract; column 21, line 65 to clumn 22, line 25: “wake” vs. “standby mode”
a wake sensor device configured to assess a wake criterion when the head-mounted display unit operates in the low-power state; and
Fig. 3: 302
a controller configured to:
determine a wake accuracy of the wake criterion, wherein a low wake accuracy indicates a lack of user intent to operate the head-mounted display unit in the high-power state and a high wake accuracy indicates user intent to operate the head-mounted display unit in the high-power state; and
Fig. 3: 304; column 24, lines 15-30: “determine that a pupil is directed toward the display in the image” is determining a user intent
operate the head-mounted display unit in the high-power state upon satisfaction of the wake criterion at the high wake accuracy.
Fig. 3: 310
Regarding claim 10:
Raffle discloses:
wherein the low wake accuracy is associated with mannerisms or natural behaviors of a user of the head-mounted display unit (column 24, lines 25-30: “a pupil is directed away from the image” is looking at something else, which is a natural behavior).
Regarding claim 11:
Raffle discloses:
wherein the wake sensor device is a first wake sensor device and the wake criterion is a first wake criterion, the display system further comprising:
a second wake sensor device configured to assess a second wake criterion when the head-mounted display unit operates in the low-power state (Fig. 3: 306).
Regarding claim 12:
Raffle discloses:
wherein the controller is configured to operate the head-mounted display unit in the high-power state upon satisfaction of the first wake criterion and the second wake criterion (Fig. 3: “both…detected”).
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.
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haiut in view of Park et al. (US 2017/0357329).
Regarding claim 2:
Haiut discloses a wake control system as discussed above.
Haiut does not disclose:
“wherein the first wake sensing frequency is based on a probabilistic condition.”
Park discloses:
wherein the first wake sensing frequency is based on a probabilistic condition (paragraph 166: “identified user state,” where the user states depend on the user’s activities as per paragraphs 101-102).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include in Haiut wherein the first wake sensing frequency is based on a probabilistic condition., as suggested by Park.
The rationale is as follows:
Haiut and Park are directed to the same field of art.
Park discloses a known technique that can make the sampling rate more appropriate for a user’s state. This is a known improvement that one of ordinary skill in the art could have included with predictable results.
Regarding claim 3:
Haiut in view of Park discloses:
wherein the probabilistic condition is one of time of day or location of a user of the head-mounted display unit (Park paragraph 125: if it tracking speed or if they are driving it is using their location).
Regarding claim 4:
Haiut in view of Park discloses:
wherein the probabilistic condition is one of a sound or a movement of a user of the head-mounted display unit (Haiut paragraph 125).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haiut in view of Bansai et al. (US 2016/0077574)
Regarding claim 8:
Haiut discloses a wake control system as discussed above.
Haiut does not disclose:
“wherein the first wake criterion and the second wake criterion are selectable by a user of the head-mounted display unit.”
Bansai discloses:
wherein a wake criterion is selectable by a user of the head-mounted display unit (paragraph 71).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include in Haiut wherein the first wake criterion and the second wake criterion are selectable by a user of the head-mounted display unit, as suggested by Bansai.
The rationale is as follows:
Haiut and Bansai are directed to the same field of art.
Haiut already uses a spoken word or phrase as wake criterion. Bansai discloses this can be customized so the user can pick this, which obviously is convenient for the user. One of ordinary skill in the art could have included this with predictable results.
Claim(s) 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raffle in view of Johansson et al. (US 2015/0220131)
Regarding claim 13:
Raffle discloses a display system as discussed above.
Raffle does not disclose:
“wherein the first wake criterion is an environmental stimulus.”
Johansson discloses:
wherein the first wake criterion is an environmental stimulus (paragraph 47).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include in Raffle the elements taught by Johansson.
The rationale is as follows:
Raffle and Johansson are directed to the same field of art.
Raffle already discloses there might be more wake criteria (e.g., column 23, lines 20-35). Johansson discloses that some might be environmental stimuli. This enables the device to more accurately predict when it should wake up. This is a known improvement that one of ordinary skill in the art could have included with predictable results.
Regarding claim 14:
Raffle in view of Johansson discloses:
wherein the second wake criterion is a user behavior that is reactionary to the environmental stimulus (this follows from, e.g., Johansson paragraph 53 – if the user uses the device a certain length of time after an environmental stimulus it is “reactionary” to it).
Regarding claim 15:
Raffle in view of Johansson discloses:
wherein the first wake criterion is satisfied by non-occurrence of the environmental stimulus (e.g., Johansson paragraph 59 – if it transits to a sleep state when it detects it being put in the case, the opposite, or non-occurance of this, wouild be a wake criterion).
Claim(s) 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johansson et al. (US 2015/0220131) in view of Chang et al. (US 2016/0162012).
Regarding claim 16:
Johansson discloses:
Claim 16
Johansson
16. A display system comprising:
a head-mounted display unit configured to provide content to a user, the head-mounted display unit operable in a low-power state and a high-power state that consumes more power than the low-power state; and
Paragraphs 36, 39, but Johansson does not disclose it is a head-mounted display unit
a wake control system configured to determine when to operate the head-mounted display unit in the high-power state, wherein the wake control system:
Paragraph 39
assesses a probabilistic condition associated with a likelihood that a wake criterion is satisfied when the head-mounted display unit is operated in the low-power state;
Paragraph 52: "likely a user may want to use the computing device"
assesses satisfaction of a wake criterion when the head-mounted display unit is operated in the low-power state at a wake sensing frequency based on the probabilistic condition; and
Paragraph 52
operates the head-mounted display unit in the high-power state upon determining satisfaction of the wake criterion.
Paragraph 52: "initiate a transition…to an active power state."
Johansson does not disclose:
"a head-mounted display unit"
Chang discloses:
A head-mounted display unit (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include in Johansson the elements taught by Chang.
The rationale is as follows:
Chang and Johansson are directed to the same field of art.
Johansson discloses its method can be used with a variety of computing devices (e.g., paragraph 36). Chang discloses one such device. One of ordinary skill could have recognized that this is the kind of device Johansson's method is applicable to with predictable results.
Regarding claim 17:
Johansson in view of Chang discloses:
wherein the probabilistic condition is associated with a likelihood that the wake criterion may be satisfied (Johansson paragraph 52).
Regarding claim 18:
Johansson in view of Chang discloses:
wherein the probabilistic condition is a location of a user of the head-mounted display unit (Johansson paragraph 48).
Regarding claim 19:
Johansson in view of Chang discloses:
wherein the probabilistic condition is a movement of a user of the head-mounted display unit (Johansson paragraph 47: "traveling").
Regarding claim 20:
Johansson in view of Chang discloses:
wherein the probabilistic condition is a time of day or an activity of a user of the head-mounted display unit (Johansson paragraph 52: "time of day").
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sampath et al. (US 10,572,270).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER RAY LAMB whose telephone number is (571)272-5264. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 PM.
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, Patrick Edouard can be reached at 571-272-7603. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER R LAMB/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2622