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 .
This action is in response to the Amendment filed on 7/22/2026.
Claims 21-54 are pending. Claims 21, 36 have been amended. Claims 1-20, 29-30, 44-45 have been cancelled. Claims 51-54 are newly added.
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.
Claim(s) 21-22, 24-28, 31-35, 36-37, 39-40, 42-43, 46-50, 51, 53 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haddick et al. (US 20120212484 A1, hereinafter Haddick), in view of Marks et al. (US 20170269713 A1, hereinafter Marks), further in view of Eluvan et al. (US 20230186528 A1, hereinafter Eluvan).
Regarding Claim 21, Haddick teaches a mixed reality wearable apparatus (Haddick, Paragraph [0006], [0858], “The present disclosure relates to an augmented reality eyepiece”; “control aspects of the eyepiece may include combinations of using user action capture inputs/ devices and command/control modes and interfaces in which the inputs can be reflected, such as wearable sensor sets”), comprising: at least one camera (Haddick, Paragraph [0332], “The front portion of the frame may also be used to mount a camera or image sensor”);
at least one memory storing instructions (Haddick, Paragraph [0334], “The DSP may include a memory…for storing static information and instructions for the internal processor”); and at least one hardware processor configured to execute the instructions to perform operations comprising: receiving a live video stream of a physical environment from the at least one camera (Haddick, Paragraph [0334], “a digital signal processor (DSP) may be programmed and/or configured to receive video feed information and configure the video feed to drive whatever type of image source is being used with the optical display”; [0483], “the wearer may enter into a videoconference with a plurality of other people, where the wearer may be able to view live video images” [0856], “may be constantly viewing the surrounding environment though the eyepiece” [0967], “allow the user to share live video”); generating an internal view including at least a first portion and a second portion of the live video stream of the physical environment and a virtual reality object the first portion and the second portion being simultaneously present in the internal (Haddick, Paragraph [0554], "the engine will recognize the Fontaines de la Concorde in Paris. The program will then summon a virtual label <read on virtual reality object>, shown in FIG. 6 as part of a virtual image 618 projected onto the lens 602. The label may be text only, as seen at the bottom of the image 618. Other labels applicable to this scene may include "fountain <read on first portion of the live video stream of the physical environment>," "museum," "hotel," or the name of the columned building in the rear <read on second portion of the live video stream of the physical environment>"; Paragraph [1021], "head mounted displays are used to add images of virtual objects or virtual information that is associated with the view of a scene as seen by a user"; Paragraph [0856], "a soldier may be constantly viewing the surrounding environment though the eyepiece <read on first portion and second portion of the live video stream of the physical environment being simultaneously present in the internal view>, and by way of the embedded GPS sensor, is continuously streamed a visual display overlay that allows for the soldier to have an augmented reality view of the surrounding environment"); generating from the internal view an external view including the first portion of the live video stream of the physical environment and the virtual reality object (Haddick, Paragraph [1021], “head mounted displays <read on internal view> are used to add images of virtual objects or virtual information that is associated with the view of a scene <read on first portion of the live video stream> as seen by a user” [0283], “The projection lens 9350 is typically configured to project the modulated optical beam 9340 onto a display, such as a video display screen <read on external view>”) [[ and replacing the second portion of the live video stream of the physical environment with content alternative to the second portion of the live video stream of the physical environment ]], the external view [[ being a modified version of the internal view and ]] not including the second portion of the live video stream of the physical environment, (Haddick, Paragraph [0362], there may be a plurality of chromic areas on the lens that may be controlled independently, such as large portions of the lens, sub-portions of the projected area, programmable areas of the lens and/or projected area… enabled with certain applications (e.g. a streaming video application, a sun tracking application, an ambient brightness sensor; [0637], “data may be filed using the most salient image plus manual entry, enabling partial data capture”); [[ and at least thereby being different from the internal view; ]] [[ simultaneously displaying the internal view at the mixed reality wearable apparatus and casting the external view, different from the internal view, from the mixed reality wearable apparatus to an external display device separate from the mixed reality wearable apparatus ]].
But Haddick does not explicitly disclose the external view being a modified version of the internal view and thereby including only part of content of the internal view, and at least thereby being different from the internal view; and simultaneously displaying the internal view at the mixed reality wearable apparatus and casting the external view, different from the internal view, from the mixed reality wearable apparatus to an external display device separate from the mixed reality wearable apparatus.
However, Marks teaches the external view being a modified version of the internal view (Marks, Paragraph [0026], "the spectator view <read on external view> is part of the HMD view <read on internal view>"; Paragraph [0156], "a Client may be configured to perform further rendering, to overlay one video image on another video image, to crop a video image, and/or the like"); thereby including only part of content of the internal view, and at least thereby being different from the internal view (Marks, Paragraph [0026], "the spectator view is part of the HMD view <read on external view including only part of content of the internal view>"); simultaneously displaying the internal view at the mixed reality wearable apparatus and casting the external view, different from the internal view, from the mixed reality wearable apparatus to an external display device separate from the mixed reality wearable apparatus (Marks, Paragraph [0083], "the client system 106 can be used to simultaneously process content for an HMD user, such that the HMD is provided with multimedia content associated with the interactivity during gameplay. The client system 106 can then also provide other content ... to the second screen"; Paragraph [0034], "the device of the spectator is one of an HMD used by the spectator or a television screen used by the spectator, or a computer screen used by the spectator, or hand-held device screen used by the spectator <read on external display device separate from the mixed reality wearable apparatus>"; Paragraph [0030], "The feed of the virtual reality environment is shared to a website ... Then, sending, by the server, a spectator view into the virtual reality environment to a device of the spectator").
Marks and Haddick are analogous since both concern head-mounted display systems that render an immersive view to a wearer while also sharing a view of that experience to external screens or spectator devices. Haddick provides a way of capturing camera imagery of a physical environment through a wearable eyepiece and rendering a live augmented reality view to the wearer. Marks provides a way of taking the HMD wearer's view and generating a spectator view that is a subset ("part of") the HMD view, and simultaneously sending that spectator view to a separate external display device such as a television, computer screen, or handheld device screen while the wearer continues to see the HMD view. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the "part of the HMD view" spectator-view generation and second-screen streaming architecture taught by Marks into the modified invention of Haddick, such that the wearer's live augmented view continues to be displayed on the eyepiece while a derived, partial version of that view is concurrently cast to a separate display for external observers. The motivation is to enable local spectators and remote viewers to follow the wearer's experience in real time on second screens for collaboration, broadcasting, and social sharing without disturbing the wearer's own immersive view, as discussed by Marks in Paragraphs [0030] and [0083].
The combination of Haddick and Marks does not explicitly disclose replacing the second portion of the live video stream of the physical environment with content alternative to the second portion of the live video stream of the physical environment.
However, Eluvan teaches replacing the second portion of the live video stream of the physical environment with content alternative to the second portion of the live video stream of the physical environment (Eluvan, Paragraph [0057], "AR overlay content can be incorporated into the live video feed such that it replaces some of the original content. For example, the background behind the viewing user's body can be replaced with or covered by AR overlay content"; Paragraph [0072], "the actual background behind the third viewing user 736 is replaced with the AR background 738 such that the third viewing user 736 appears to be sitting in the crowd").
Eluvan and Haddick are analogous since both concern camera-equipped systems that capture a live video feed of a physical environment, apply augmented reality content to selected spatial portions of that feed, and present the resulting enhanced view. Haddick provides a way of capturing live camera imagery of the wearer's physical environment through a wearable eyepiece and producing an AR view. Eluvan provides a way of taking a live camera video feed and selectively replacing a designated spatial region of that feed (e.g., the background region behind a captured user) with AR alternative content while preserving other regions of the live feed. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate Eluvan's selective spatial background-replacement technique into the modified Haddick–Marks system, such that when the spectator/external view is generated from the wearer's internal view, a designated region of the live physical environment feed is replaced with alternative AR content before being cast to the external display. The motivation is to enable content creators and users to control what portions of the physical environment are exposed to external viewers—for example, obscuring sensitive or private surroundings while still sharing the augmented experience—as discussed by Eluvan in Paragraphs [0057] and [0072].
Regarding Claim 22, The combination of Haddick, Marks and Eluvan teaches the invention in Claim 21.
The combination further teaches wherein the external view is generated based on a user interaction with a button, control, icon, or toggle (Huddick, Paragraph [0025], “Command and control modes operating in conjunction with the eyepiece may be initiated by sensing inputs through input devices, user action, external device interaction, reception of events and/or data feeds, internal application execution, external application execution, and the like”).
Regarding Claim 24, The combination of Haddick, Marks and Eluvan teaches the invention in Claim 21.
The combination further teaches wherein the content alternative to the second portion of the live video stream of the physical environment comprises a computer-generated rendering (Haddick, Paragraph [0226], “operated to provide sequential portions <read on first portion and second portion> of the image to the user” ; [0518],the eyepiece may provide 3D display imaging to the user, such as through conveying a stereoscopic, auto-stereoscopic, computer-generated holography, volumetric display image, stereograms/stereoscopes, view-sequential displays, electro-holographic displays, parallax "two view" displays [0522], eyepiece facilities may use visual techniques to render the projection of an object).
Regarding Claim 25, The combination of Haddick, Marks and Eluvan teaches the invention in Claim 21.
The combination further teaches wherein the content alternative to the second portion of the live video stream of the physical environment comprises an image (Haddick, Paragraph [0226], “operated to provide sequential portions <read on first portion and second portion> of the image to the user”; [0399], “This technique is applicable to video cameras, shifting the electronic image from frame to frame of the video in a manner sufficient to counteract the motion”) .
Regarding Claim 26, The combination of Haddick, Marks and Eluvan teaches the invention in Claim 21.
The combination further teaches the operations further comprising
presenting an interface configured to allow user selection of an external view mode (Haddick, Paragraph [0551], “The user selects by making a gesture using a pointing device, or gesture to signal the selection of the video call option”) in
which the external view includes a [[ solid ]] background (Haddick, Paragraph
[1026], In the background of FIG. 114, the 3D labels from FIG. 113 are coincident with and positioned on top of the 3D labels from FIG. 112 with no disparity) or a computer-generated rendering (Haddick, Paragraph [0518],the eyepiece may provide 3D display imaging to the user, such as through conveying a stereoscopic, auto-stereoscopic, computer-generated holography, volumetric display image, stereograms/stereoscopes, view-sequential displays, electro-holographic displays, parallax "two view" displays [0522], eyepiece facilities may use visual techniques to render the projection of an object).
Regarding Claim 27, The combination of Haddick, Marks and Eluvan teaches the invention in Claim 21.
The combination further teaches wherein the external display device comprises a computer or a projector (Haddick, Paragraph [0816], “the eyepiece may provide control through facilities internal and external to the eyepiece, such as initiated from the surrounding environment 7202, input devices 7204, sensing devices 7208, user action capture devices 7210, internal processing facilities 7212, internal multimedia processing facilities, internal applications 7214, camera 7218, sensors 7220, earpiece 7222, projector 7224).
Regarding Claim 28, The combination of Haddick, Marks and Eluvan teaches the invention in Claim 21.
The combination further teaches wherein casting the external view comprises wirelessly transmitting the external view from the mixed reality wearable apparatus to the external display device (Haddick, Paragraph [0006], “The present disclosure relates to an augmented reality eyepiece”; [0561], “The eyepiece <read on wearable apparatus> may also use multiple wireless communications systems, such as one for streaming high data rate media (e.g. video), one for low data rate media (e.g. text messaging), one for command data between the external facility and the eyepiece).
Regarding Claim 31, The combination of Haddick, Marks and Eluvan teaches the invention in Claim 21.
The combination further teaches wherein generating the internal view comprises overlaying the virtual reality object onto the first portion of the live video stream of the physical environment (Haddick, Paragraph [0226], “operated to provide sequential portions <read on first portion and second portion> of the image to the user” ; [0953], “The user may use the eyepiece to view <read on internal view > an overlay of visual and/or audio instructions of the item to walk the user through maintenance without the need for a handheld manual…video, still images, 3D and/or 2D images, animated images, audio and the like may be used for such maintenance”).
Regarding Claim 32, The combination of Haddick, Marks and Eluvan teaches the invention in Claim 21.
The combination further teaches wherein the virtual reality object
comprises a three-dimensional object (Haddick, Paragraph [0953], “video, still images, 3D and/or 2D images, animated images, audio and the like may be used for such maintenance… the user may view an overlay and/or video of various images of the item”).
Regarding Claim 33, The combination of Haddick, Marks and Eluvan teaches the invention in Claim 21.
The combination further teaches wherein the virtual reality object comprises a virtual addition to a physical object (Haddick, Paragraph [1010], “ergence works in conjunction with eye accommodation to permit a person to maintain a clear image of an object as the object moves relative to the person. Vergence compensation becomes important in situations where a virtual image, i.e., an AR image, such as a label or other information, is to be placed near to or overlap a real image or when a virtual image of an object is to be superimposed upon a real image of the object in order to make the placement of the virtual image correct with respect to the real image”).
Regarding Claim 34, The combination of Haddick, Marks and Eluvan teaches the invention in Claim 21.
The combination further teaches wherein the virtual reality object comprises two-dimensional content (Haddick, Paragraph [1121], a method for positioning 2D labels in a 3D virtual world…method for augmented reality is to adjust the focus of the virtual objects or virtual information so that the user perceives differences in focus depth that provide a depth cue to the user).
Regarding Claim 35, The combination of Haddick, Marks and Eluvan teaches the invention in Claim 21.
The combination further teaches wherein the virtual reality object comprises animate virtual content (Haddick, Paragraph [1016], “the user may be requested to look at a series of real or virtual objects having a range of real or virtual distances, e.g., from near to far, and the vergence of the eyes is measured either mechanically or electronically or both” [1021], method for augmented reality is to adjust the focus of the virtual objects or virtual information so that the user perceives differences in focus depth that provide a depth cue to the user. [0529], The sign may be a billboard, and the advertisement for a personalized advertisement based on a preferences profile of the user. The visual cue 3802,3808 may be a hand gesture, and the projected content a projected virtual keyboard [0972], “such images may be still and/or video, animated, 3-D, 2-D, and the like” [0591], the local advertisement may be animated in embodiments).
Regarding Claim 36, it recites limitations similar in scope to the limitations of claim 21 and the combination of Haddick, Marks and Eluvan teaches all the limitations as of Claim 1. And Haddick discloses these features can be implemented on a computer readable storage medium (Haddick, Fig. 29, Paragraph [0335], The DSP may include at least one computer readable medium or memory for holding instructions programmed and for containing data structures…Various forms of computer readable media may be involved in carrying out one or more sequences of one or more instructions to the optical display for execution).
Regarding Claim 37, it recites limitations similar in scope to the limitations of Claim 22 and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 39, it recites limitations similar in scope to the limitations of Claim 24 and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 40, it recites limitations similar in scope to the limitations of Claim 25 and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 41, it recites limitations similar in scope to the limitations of Claim 26 and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 42, it recites limitations similar in scope to the limitations of Claim 27 and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 43, it recites limitations similar in scope to the limitations of Claim 28 and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 46, it recites limitations similar in scope to the limitations of Claim 31 and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 47, it recites limitations similar in scope to the limitations of Claim 32 and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 48, it recites limitations similar in scope to the limitations of Claim 33 and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 49, it recites limitations similar in scope to the limitations of Claim 34 and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 50, it recites limitations similar in scope to the limitations of Claim 35 and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 51, The combination of Haddick, Marks, and Eluvan teaches the invention in Claim 21.
The combination further teaches wherein the external display device is viewable by an observer in the physical environment (Marks, Paragraph [0106], "the spectator can be local to the HMD player, and can be viewing the HMD content on a second screen <read on external display device viewable by an observer in the physical environment>"; Paragraph [0034], "the device of the spectator is one of an HMD used by the spectator or a television screen used by the spectator, or a computer screen used by the spectator, or hand-held device screen used by the spectator").
Marks and Haddick are analogous since both concern head-mounted display systems that render an immersive view to a wearer while also sharing a view of that experience to external screens or spectator devices. Haddick provides a way of capturing camera imagery of a physical environment through a wearable eyepiece and rendering a live augmented reality view to the wearer. Marks provides a way of streaming the spectator view to a second screen that is co-located with the HMD player, so that a spectator physically present in the same environment as the HMD wearer can observe the shared view on that screen. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the external display device of the modified Haddick–Marks–Eluvan system to be viewable by an observer physically present with the wearer, in order to enable in-person collaboration, demonstration, and shared viewing between the wearer and local spectators, as discussed by Marks in Paragraph [0106].
Regarding Claim 53, it recites limitations similar in scope to the limitations of Claim 51 and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 23, 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haddick et al. (US 20120212484 A1, hereinafter Haddick), in view of Marks et al. (US 20170269713 A1, hereinafter Marks), further in view of Eluvan et al. (US 20230186528 A1, hereinafter Eluvan) as applied to Claim 21, 36 above respectively and further in view of Krol et al. (US 11741652 B1, hereinafter Krol)
Regarding Claim 23, The combination of Haddick, Marks and Eluvan teaches the invention in Claim 21.
The combination does not explicitly disclose but Krol teaches wherein the content alternative to the second portion of the live video stream of the physical environment comprises a solid background (Krol, Column 8, Line 4-7, 12, Line 37-42, “Devices 306A-B can be any type of computing device, including a laptop, a desktop, a smartphone, a tablet computer, or a wearable computer (such as a smartwatch or a augmented reality or virtual reality headset)” “user 604 physically places a solid colored background behind them to assist in background alteration (see FIG. 6B for a general illustration). In this aspect, the video stream is analyzed to determine which portions represent user 604 and which represent the solid colored background; Column 2, Line 39-40, “the video on the avatar illustrates the other user's real world physical surroundings”).
Krol and Haddick are analogous since both of them are dealing with display media in the augmented reality environment. Haddick provided a way of allow user who wearing the eyepiece or glasses to see the object in the augmented reality and communicated to external device for sharing the data. Krol provided a way of allow user to select the solid color background of the live video stream when displaying and/or projecting data in collaboration augmented environment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate solid background selection taught by Krol into modified invention off Haddick such that when viewing the medium in the augmented reality environment, system will be able to use solid background in the live video stream in order for users to properly and easily identify the object in the media they are looking. The motivation is to allow system is capable of automatically detecting the color of the physically placed background, so the analysis is conducted by detecting which pixels are that color (i.e., physically placed background) and which pixels are not that color (i.e., user 604) discussed by Krol in Column 16, Line 50-55
Regarding Claim 38, it recites limitations similar in scope to the limitations of Claim 23 and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 52, 54 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haddick et al. (US 20120212484 A1, hereinafter Haddick), in view of Marks et al. (US 20170269713 A1, hereinafter Marks), further in view of Eluvan et al. (US 20230186528 A1, hereinafter Eluvan) as applied to Claim 21, 36 above respectively and further in view of Kahan et al. (US 20230237192 A1, hereinafter "Kahan").
Regarding Claim 52, The combination of Haddick, Marks and Eluvan teaches the invention of Claim 21.
The combination does not explicitly disclose but Kahan teaches wherein the second portion of the live video stream of the physical environment includes video of an observer in the physical environment (Kahan, Paragraph [0337], "analyzing the image data using an object detection algorithm to detect a physical object in the specific region of the physical environment, and identifying the specific region of the physical environment as private based on the detected physical object ... Some examples of a physical object in a specific region of a physical environment may include a desk against a wall of a room, a corner shelf, a person (e.g., or part thereof, such as a face) <read on video of an observer in the physical environment>, or an animal"; Paragraph [0446], “The image data may include images, grayscale images, color images, 2D images, 3D images, videos, 2D videos, 3D videos, frames, footages, data derived from other image data”; Paragraph [0408], "the wearer may be in a room in their home and may not want certain objects in the physical environment (e.g., a table or one or more items on the table) to be visible in the representation of the physical environment that may be visible to non-wearer viewers that are not also present in the room"; Paragraph [0412], "the operations comprise including the public portion of the physical environment in the representation of the physical environment while excluding the private portion of the physical environment from the representation of the physical environment <read on the second portion of the live video stream being replaced/excluded from the external view>"; Paragraph [0416], "The non-wearer viewer may be physically located in the physical environment with the wearer <read on observer in the physical environment> or in a physical location separate from the physical environment").
Kahan and Haddick are analogous since both concern wearable extended reality appliances that use an image sensor to capture a live view of the wearer's physical environment and generate an augmented reality view based on that captured environment. Haddick provides a wearable eyepiece with an outward-facing camera capturing the wearer's live physical environment. Kahan provides Kahan teaches (i) a wearable's camera detecting another person in the room as a distinct object, (ii) flagging that person's region so it is dropped from the shared rendering while the rest is kept, and (iii) the recipient of that shared rendering being someone in the same room viewing it on a separate device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Kahan's teaching that a region containing a person (an observer in the physical environment) can be the designated region excluded from the representation shown to non-wearer viewers into modified invention of Haddick such that the second portion of the live video stream is specifically the region containing video of an observer in the physical environment. The motivation is to protect the privacy of persons captured incidentally in the wearer's camera feed and to give the wearer control over which real-world persons in the wearer's surroundings are exposed to external viewers of the cast feed, as discussed by Kahan in Paragraphs [0408] and [0412].
Regarding Claim 54, it recites limitations similar in scope to the limitations of Claim 54 and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 21, 36, filed on 7/22/2026, with respect to rejection under 35 USC § 103 have been considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that Haddick does not teach the limitation "the first portion and the second portion being simultaneously present in the internal view," arguing that Haddick Paragraph [0226] describes only "sequential portions" of the image provided one after another.
In response to the argument, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner's mapping is not solely limited to Haddick Paragraph [0226]. As described in the rejection above, Haddick further teaches in Paragraph [0554] a live scene captured through the eyepiece in which multiple real-world objects such as a "fountain," a "museum," a "hotel," and "the columned building in the rear" are all present in a single scene at the same time, with a virtual label overlaid onto that scene as part of virtual image 618 projected onto the lens. The fountain-region and the columned-building-region of that scene read on the claimed "first portion" and "second portion" of the live video stream of the physical environment, and both are present in the wearer's view concurrently, not one after another. Haddick Paragraph [0856] further reinforces this teaching by disclosing that a soldier is "constantly viewing the surrounding environment though the eyepiece" while being "continuously streamed a visual display overlay," which necessarily means the multiple spatial portions of the surrounding physical environment are simultaneously present in the wearer's internal view together with the virtual overlay. Therefore, the argument that Haddick discloses only temporally sequential portions is not persuasive.
Applicant further asserts that Marks does not teach an external view "being a modified version of the internal view" and "including only part of content of the internal view," arguing that Marks only discloses either a "same view" alternative (Paragraph [0011]) or a "decoupled" alternative (Paragraphs [0020], [0056]), neither of which discloses the amended claim language.
In response to the argument, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant has overlooked Marks Paragraph [0026], which expressly discloses that "the spectator view is part of the HMD view." This disclosure directly reads on the amended limitation that the external view "includ[es] only part of content of the internal view," because a spectator view that is a subset ("part of") of the HMD player's view is by definition (i) derived from the HMD view and therefore a modified version of it, and (ii) includes only a portion of the content of the HMD view rather than the entire content. Marks Paragraph [0156] further teaches that a Client "may be configured to perform further rendering, to overlay one video image on another video image, to crop a video image, and/or the like," which describes the modification operations (including cropping) used to generate the spectator view from the HMD view. Marks therefore is not limited to only the "same view" and "decoupled" alternatives identified by Applicant, and Marks Paragraph [0026] specifically teaches an external view that is generated from and is a modified partial version of the internal HMD view. Therefore, Applicant's argument cannot be considered persuasive.
Applicant further asserts that Eluvan does not disclose "generating from the internal view an external view" for casting to an external display device separate from the wearable apparatus, arguing that Eluvan's AR replacement technique is applied to a single user's own view.
In response to the argument, Examiner respectfully disagrees. As described in the rejection above, Eluvan is not relied upon to teach the casting-to-external-display architecture; that limitation is taught by Marks (Paragraphs [0030], [0034], [0083]), which discloses simultaneously providing HMD content to the wearer while sending a spectator view to a separate device such as a television screen, computer screen, or handheld device screen. Eluvan is relied upon only to teach the specific spatial-region replacement technique in which a designated portion of a live video feed (e.g., "the background behind the viewing user's body") is "replaced with or covered by AR overlay content" (Eluvan Paragraph [0057]; see also Paragraph [0072]). The combination of Haddick, Marks, and Eluvan as a whole teaches the amended limitations. Therefore, Applicant's argument cannot be considered persuasive.
Applicant asserts that the proposed three-reference combination lacks proper motivation and is supported only by impermissible hindsight, citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
In response to the argument, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The motivation to combine set forth in the rejection is not results-based hindsight but is grounded in problems and solutions recognized by the references themselves. Marks expressly identifies the desirability of concurrently sharing HMD-generated content to external second screens for spectators to enable real-time viewing, collaboration, and broadcasting (Marks, Paragraphs [0030], [0083], [0106]). Eluvan expressly identifies the desirability of selectively replacing spatial regions of a captured live video feed with alternative AR content when that feed is presented for viewing (Eluvan, Paragraphs [0057], [0072]). Combining these teachings with Haddick's wearable AR eyepiece, which is already configured to capture live video of the physical environment and produce an augmented internal view, is a predictable use of known techniques to yield the expected result of a wearable system that can share an augmented view externally while controlling which portions of the physical environment are exposed to outside viewers. The combination relies on the ordinary skill and creativity of a person of ordinary skill in the art as recognized by KSR, and does not require the amended claims as a roadmap. Therefore, Applicant's hindsight argument cannot be considered persuasive.
In regard to Claims 22-35, 37-50, they directly/indirectly depends on independent Claim 21, 36 respectively. Applicant does not argue anything other than the independent claim 21, 36. The limitations in those claims in conjunction with combination previously established as explained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20190370544 A1 Object Initiated Communication
US 10431008 B2 Remote assistance workstation, method and system with a user interface for remote assistance with spatial placement tasks via augmented reality glasses
US 20180176506 A1 COMMUNICATION STAGE AND DISPLAY SYSTEMS
US 20170251172 A1 Communication Stage and Integrated Systems
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time 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 YUJANG TSWEI whose telephone number is (571)272-6669. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am-5:30pm EST.
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, Kent Chang can be reached at (571)272-7667. 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.
/YuJang Tswei/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2614
Prosecution Insights