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 . Claims 2-21 are pending.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 2, 8-9, 12, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (US 2018/0041694) in view of Burns (US 2023/0008291). All reference is to Chang unless otherwise indicated.
Regarding Claims 2 and 12 (New), Chang teaches a method and a system comprising:
control circuitry [fig. 1 @100]; configured to:
determine a gaze point of a user's eye [¶0027, “The eye detection unit 1024 is an eye sensor for example, which can detect the user's eye movement to determine a gaze direction. In an embodiment, when the user's pupils are detected to maintain the same AOV for a certain period of time (e.g., >3 seconds), the eye detection unit 1024 identifies that the user is gazing at a certain location”]; and
a field of view of the user [¶0026, “The field of view detection unit 102 includes a position detection unit 1022 and an eye detection unit 1024. The position detection unit 1022 is a motion sensor for example, which can detect the user's position/posture to determine which direction the user is currently facing (facial orientation) … the position detection unit 1022 can detect the user's facial orientation, thereby increasing the accuracy in determining the user's field of view”];
determine an environmental parameter [facial orientation] relating to the user's environment [¶0026]
Chang does not teach determine a range of permitted gaze points of the user's eye based on the environmental parameter, the gaze point of the user's eye, and the field of view; determine whether the gaze point of the user's eye is outside of the range of permitted gaze points; and based at least in part on determining that the gaze point of the user's eye is outside of the range of permitted gaze points, cause a change in a mode of display of a user device
Burns teaches determine a range of permitted gaze points [fig. 2A @204] of the user's eye based on the environmental parameter [user posture], the gaze point of the user's eye [fig. 2A @224, ¶0054, “… a range of head positions 204 that correspond to a set of desirable, ergonomic head positions (e.g., an ergonomic range)… In some embodiments, the ergonomic range of head positions 204 is based on additional characteristics such as the user's gaze and posture”], and the field of view [¶0065, “…notification 330 is not visible from a field of view from the user's line of sight 324 without the user having to move her/his head from head position 300A to head position 300B”];
determine whether the gaze point of the user's eye [fig. 4B @424] is outside of the range of permitted gaze points [fig. 4B @404]; and
based at least in part on determining that the gaze point of the user's eye is outside of the range of permitted gaze points, cause a change in a mode of display [display on to display off] of a user device [¶0084, “ … in accordance with a determination that the first head position is located outside the ergonomic range of positions, the computer-generated reality environment is not displayed”]
Before the application was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of controlling a display mode based on ergonomic factors, as taught by Burns, into the system, taught by Chang, so that the user can view the computer-generated reality content from a more comfortable and/or ergonomic head position (Burns: ¶0004).
Regarding Claims 8 and 18 (New), Chang in view of Burns teaches the method of Claim 2 and the system of Claim 12, wherein
the control circuitry is further configured to, based at least in part on determining that the gaze point of the user's eye [Burns: fig. 2E @224] is outside of the range of permitted gaze points [Burns: fig. 2E @204],
generate for output a cautionary notification to the user device [Burns: 2E @202], wherein the cautionary notification comprises at least one of an audio warning [alternate limitation not addressed], deactivating a display screen of the user device [Burns: ¶0062, “In Fig. 2E, when the user's head position is determined to be in an un-ergonomic head position 200E, user interface 202 ceases being displayed instead of being repositioned”], or generating haptic feedback on a steering wheel of a vehicle [alternate limitation not addressed].
Regarding Claims 9 and 19 (New), Chang in view of Burns teaches the method of Claim 2 and the system of Claim 12, wherein the control circuitry configured to cause the change in the mode of display of the user device is further configured to
generate for output feedback comprising educational information comprising posture corrections [Burns: ¶0060, “in accordance with a determination that user's head position 200C is located in the undesirable range of positions 208, notification 230 is displayed in exemplary user interface 202, indicating that user's 220 head position 200C is in an un-ergonomic position … notification 230 informs user 220 that user 220 should move her/his head position to a more ergonomic position (e.g., head position 200D)”].
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Burns and Park (US 2022/0176996). All reference is to Chang unless otherwise indicated.
Regarding Claims 3 and 13 (New), Chang in view of Burns teaches the method of Claim 2 and the system of Claim 12
Chang in view of Burns does not teach the control circuitry is further configured to use a monitoring system of a vehicle to determine the gaze point of a user's eye and the field of view of the user
Park teaches control circuitry configured to use a monitoring system of a vehicle to determine
the gaze point of a user's eye [¶0016, “The processor may determine the gaze point using the driver's gaze position information and transmit a control command to display HUD information at the gaze point”] and
the field of view of the user [¶0011, “The driver's state data may include gaze direction information, eye blink information, pupil diameter information, face position information, and expression information of a driver”, ¶0083, “the processor 130 determines that the driver's current field of view is the gaze point”]
Before the application was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of monitoring a driver’s state, as taught by Park, into the method and system taught by Chang in view of Burns, so that a vehicle driver can view the computer-generated content from a more comfortable and/or ergonomic head position.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Burns and Alaniz (US 2015/0097864). All reference is to Chang unless otherwise indicated.
Regarding Claims 4 and 14 (New), Chang in view of Burns teaches the method of Claim 2 and the system of Claim 12
Chang in view of Burns does not teach the control circuitry configured to determine the environmental parameter relating to the user's environment is further configured to determine a motion of a frame of reference of the user relative to a motion of the user device
Alaniz teaches determine a motion of a frame of reference of the user relative to a motion of the user device [¶0071, “The rendering module 308 can also determine user motion data 412 representing motion of the user relative to the vehicle based on the user data 320 and the vehicle data 318. For example, in one embodiment, the portable device 312 can include accelerometer sensors and/or gyroscope sensors that help determine a position, a location and/or an orientation of the user in relation to the vehicle”]
Before the application was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of determining relative motion between a user and a vehicle display, as taught by Alaniz, into the method and system taught by Chang in view of Burns, ensure that calculated ergonomic limits include relative motion between the user and their display device.
Claims 5-7 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Burns and Katz (US 2022/0203996). All reference is to Chang unless otherwise indicated.
Regarding Claims 5 and 15 (New), Chang in view of Burns teaches the method of Claim 2 and the system of Claim 12
Chang in view of Burns does not teach the control circuitry is further configured to: determine a level of a user interaction with the user device; and based at least in part on determining the level of user interaction is greater than a threshold interaction value, restrict operation of the user device
Katz teaches determine a level of user interaction with the user device [construed as determining when a driver interacts with a mobile device and effect on attentiveness, ¶0003, “when a driver interacts with a mobile device such as a mobile phone, the driver is usually distracted, and less attentive to controlling the vehicle, and therefore it may be useful to predict or determine expected interactions between the driver and the mobile device, and limit operation of the mobile device”, ¶0196, “… the system may track a posture or change in body posture of an individual in the vehicle, such as a driver, to determine that the individual is operating the mobile device…”; and
based at least in part on determining the level of user interaction is greater than a threshold interaction value, restrict operation of the user device [¶0309, “20. In the system of paragraph 1, the at least one of the message, command, or alert may be associated with at least one of: a first indication of a level of danger of picking up or interacting with the mobile device … wherein the at least one processor is further configured to determine the first indication … using information associated with … a level of driver attentiveness to the road…”]
Before the application was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of determining user interaction level does not exceed a preset amount, as taught by Katz, into the method and system taught by Chang in view of Burns, to ensure that user interactions do not affect their attentiveness on a primary task such as a level of driver attentiveness to the road.
Regarding Claims 6 and 16 (New), Chang in view of Burns and Katz teaches the method of Claim 5 and the system of Claim 15, wherein the control circuitry is further configured to:
determine the user interaction with the user device [Katz: ¶0206 teaches the driver interacting with areas in their field of view that do not indicate driver inattentiveness] has been transmitted to a vehicle display device [enables processor to assess extent of user interaction]; and
based at least in part on determining the user interaction with the user device has been transmitted to the vehicle display device [Katz: ¶0108, “the processor may be configured to generate an audible or visual message after detecting that the driver's gaze has shifted towards an object for a period of time greater than a predetermined threshold”, ¶0309 teaches restricting use of the mobile device based on driver attentiveness],
enable continued use of the user device [Katz: ¶0206 teaches the driver interacting with areas in their field of view that do not indicate driver inattentiveness].
Regarding Claims 7 and 17 (New), Chang in view of Burns and Katz teaches the method of Claim 5 and the system of Claim 15, wherein
the threshold interaction value [Katz: construed as the amount of interaction allowed before the message, command or alert taught by ¶0309 is generated, during autonomous driving passengers interactions do not affect attentiveness and during manual driving when the driver is determined inattentive the message taught by ¶0309 is generated] is based on a level [Katz: ¶0394, “ It is to be understood that in some embodiments, all individuals in the vehicle may be considered “passengers” if the vehicle is operating in an autonomous manner”, ¶0395, “65. The system of paragraph 64, wherein the change in operation mode of the vehicle comprises changing between a manual driving mode and an autonomous driving mode”] of autonomy of a vehicle [Katz: autonomous or manual driving].
Claims 11 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Burns and Naganuma (JP2018/007038A). All reference is to Chang unless otherwise indicated.
Regarding Claims 11 and 21 (New), Chang in view of Burns teaches the method of Claim 2 and the system of Claim 12, wherein the control circuitry is further configured to:
determine a physiological parameter of the user [Park: ¶0057, “A driver biometric data collection unit 213 collects data such as an electrocardiogram, grip strength, respiration, and pulse acquired by a biosensor”]; and
estimate a level of tension of the user [¶0063, “The driver biometric data collection unit 213 collects a change in driver's state (tension/relaxation, etc.) about the autonomous driving according to the vehicle control value again and updates and stores the autonomous driving data and the control value together”] based on the physiological parameter
Chang in view of Burns does not teach the range of permitted gaze points is further determined based on the estimated level of tension
Naganuma teaches a range of permitted gaze points [construed as controlled amount of display area] is further determined based on the estimated level of tension [0101, “as the degree of tension of the driver increases, the range of movement of the driver's line of sight decreases. Therefore, the control device 4 may expand the range of the third area 81 in the first area on the imaging surface”, “the control device 4 determines that the degree of tension of the driver has increased. So that the third area 81 is controlled to be widened”]
Before the application was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine a permitted gaze area based on the driver’s detected tension level, as taught by Naganuma, into the method and system taught by Chang in view of Burns in order to compensate the drivers display for the effects of tension on the driver’s vision.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 20 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Douglas Wilson whose telephone number is (571)272-5640. The examiner can normally be reached 1100-1800 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, 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.
/Douglas Wilson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2622
Prosecution Insights