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 .
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant argument/Remarks made in amendment in which the following is noted: claims 6 – 7, and 19 are amended. Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending and an Office action on the merits follows.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12, 442, 916 in view of KIMURA et al; (Publication number: US 2018/0356636 A1), hereafter KIMURA.
Claim 1 of the application
Claim 1 of the Patent
A method comprising:
A method comprising:
at a computing system including non-transitory memory and one or more processors, wherein the computing system is communicatively coupled to a display device and one or more input devices:
at a computing system including non-transitory memory and on or more processors, wherein the computing system is communicatively coupled to a display device and one or more input devices:
obtaining a first characterization vector including at least a first location, a first motion state, a first body pose, and a first gaze direction;
presenting, via the display device, a first user interface (UI) element in a first presentation mode; while in the first presentation mode,
while in a first contextual state, presenting extended reality (XR) content, via the display device, according to a first presentation mode and enabling a first set of input modes to be directed to the XR content wherein the first contextual state is based on the first characterization vector;
detecting a trigger condition associated with transitioning the first UI element from the first presentation mode to a second presentation mode; and
detecting a change from the first contextual state to a second contextual state; and
in response to detecting the trigger condition: presenting, via the display device, the first UI element in the second presentation mode.
in response to detecting the change form the first contextual state to the second contextual state, presenting, via the display device, the XR content according to a second presentation mode and enabling a second set of inputs modes to be directed to the XR content that is different from the first set of input modes.
Wherein the first UI element is associated with a first set of descriptors in the first presentation mode; wherein the first UI element is associated with a second set of descriptors different from the first set of descriptors in the second presentation mode; and transitioning the first UI element from the first presentation mode to the second presentation mode by transforming the first set of descriptors to the second set of descriptors.
As can be seen in the comparison table above, each limitation in claim 1 of the application is found in claim 1 of the patent except for those italicized above.
KIMURA discloses information processing apparatus, information processing method, and program. More particularly, KIMURA discloses: Wherein the first UI element is associated with a first set of descriptors in the first presentation mode (KIMURA Figure 18 – the presented display options are associated with using line of sight or hand, corresponding to claimed descriptors; [0147]); wherein the first UI element is associated with a second set of descriptors different from the first set of descriptors in the second presentation mode (KIMURA Figure 18 – user interface “navigation” is transitioned to second presentation mode with second set of descriptors corresponding to input which uses space recognition; [0148]); and transitioning the first UI element from the first presentation mode to the second presentation mode by transforming the first set of descriptors to the second set of descriptors (KIMURA Figure 8 – transitioning of the UI element from a first mode to set mode includes selecting input method at step S112).
It would have been obvious to modify patent claim 1 Wherein the first UI element is associated with a first set of descriptors in the first presentation mode; wherein the first UI element is associated with a second set of descriptors different from the first set of descriptors in the second presentation mode; and transitioning the first UI element from the first presentation mode to the second presentation mode by transforming the first set of descriptors to the second set of descriptors, as claimed. Those skilled in the art would appreciate the ability to dynamically switch an operation input mode according to state of user activity (KIMURA [0012])
Regarding claim 2:
Claim 2 of the application is similarly rejected over patent claim 3 (in view of Schoen).
Regarding claim 3:
Claim 3 of the application is similarly rejected over patent claim 6 (in view of Schoen).5. Claim 14 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12, 442, 916 in view of KIMURA et al; (Publication number: US 2018/0356636 A1), hereafter KIMURA.
Claim 14 of the application
Claim 12 of the patent.
A device comprising:
A device comprising:
one or processors;
one or more processors;
a non-transitory memory;
a non-transitory memory;
an interface for communicating with a display device and one or more input devices;
an interface for communicating with a display device and one or more input devices; and
one or more programs stored in the non-transitory memory, which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the device to:
one or more programs stored in the non-transitory memory, which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the device to:
Obtain a first characterization vector including at least a first location, a first motion state, a first body pose, and a first gaze direction;
present, via the display device, a first user interface (UI) element in a first presentation mode, while presenting the first UI element in the first presentation mode;
While in a first contextual state, present extended reality (XR) connect, via the display device, according to a first presentation mode and enable a first set of input modes to be directed to the XR content, wherein the first contextual state is based on the first characterization vector;
detect a trigger condition associated with transitioning the first UI element from the first presentation mode to a second presentation mode,
Detect a change from the first contextual state to the second contextual state, presenting, bua the display device, the XR content according to a second presentation mode different from the first presentation mode and enable a second set of input modes to be directed to the XR content that is different from the first set of inputs.
Wherein the first UI element is associated with a first set of descriptors in the first presentation mode; wherein the first UI element is associated with a second set of descriptors different from the first set of descriptors in the second presentation mode; in response to detecting the trigger condition: transition the first UI element form the first presentation mode to the second presentation mode by transforming the first set of descriptors to the second set of descriptors; and present, via the display device, the first UI element in the second presentation mode.
As can be seen in the comparison table above, each limitation in claim 14 of the application is found in claim 12 of the patent except for those italicized above.
KIMURA discloses information processing apparatus, information processing method, and program. More particularly, KIMURA discloses: Wherein the first UI element is associated with a first set of descriptors in the first presentation mode (KIMURA Figure 18 – the presented display options are associated with using line of sight or hand, corresponding to claimed descriptors; [0147]); wherein the first UI element is associated with a second set of descriptors different from the first set of descriptors in the second presentation mode (KIMURA Figure 18 – user interface “navigation” is transitioned to second presentation mode with second set of descriptors corresponding to input which uses space recognition; [0148]); and in response to detecting the trigger condition: transition the first UI element from the first presentation mode to the second presentation mode by transforming the first set of descriptors to the second set of descriptors (KIMURA Figure 8 – transitioning of the UI element from a first mode to set mode includes selecting input method at step S112), present, via the display device, the first UI element in the second presentation mode (KIMURA Figure 18 – illustrates navigation icon presented in the second presentation mode, as claimed; see also Figure 8 S118).
It would have been obvious to modify patent claim 12 wherein the first UI element is associated with a first set of descriptors in the first presentation mode; wherein the first UI element is associated with a second set of descriptors different from the first set of descriptors in the second presentation mode; in response to detecting the trigger condition: transition the first UI element form the first presentation mode to the second presentation mode by transforming the first set of descriptors to the second set of descriptors; and present, via the display device, the first UI element, as claimed. Those skilled in the art would appreciate the ability to dynamically switch an operation input mode according to state of user activity (KIMURA [0012]).
Regarding 15:
Claim 15 of the application is similarly rejected over patent claim 15 (in view of Schoen).
Claim 20 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12, 442, 916 in view of KIMURA et al; (Publication number: US 2018/0356636 A1), hereafter KIMURA.
Claim 20 of the application
Claim 19 of the patent
A non-transitory memory storing one or more programs, which, when executed by one or more processors of a device with an interference for communicating with a display device and one or more input devices, cause the device to:
A non-transitory memory storing one or more programs, which, when executed by one or more processors of a device with an interface for communicating with a display device and one or more input device, cause the device to:
obtaining a first characterization vector including at least a first location, a first motion state, a first body pose, and a first gaze direction;
present, via the display device, a first user interface (UI) element in a first presentation mode, while presenting the first UI element in the first presentation mode,
while in a first contextual state, present extended reality (XR) content, via the display device, according to a first presentation mode and enable a first set of input modes to be directed to the XR content, wherein the first contextual state is based on the first characterization vector;
detect a trigger condition associated with transitioning the first UI element from the first presentation mode to a second presentation mode
detect a change from the first contextual state to a second contextual state;
present, via the display device, the first UI element in the second presentation mode.
in response to detecting the change from the first contextual state to the second contextual state, present, bua the display device, the XR content according to a second presentation mode different form the first presentation mode and enable a second set of input modes to be directed to the XR content that is different from the first set of input modes.
wherein the first UI element is associated with a first set of descriptors in the first presentation mode; wherein the first UI element is associated with a second set of descriptors different form the first set of descriptors in the second presentation mode; in response to detecting the trigger condition: transition the first UI element form the first presentation mode to the second presentation mode by transforming the first set of descriptors to the second set of descriptors.
As can be seen in the comparison table above, each limitation in claim 20 of the application is found in claim 19 of the patent except for those italicized above.
KIMURA discloses an information processing apparatus, information processing method, and program. More particularly, KIMURA discloses: Wherein the first UI element is associated with a first set of descriptors in the first presentation mode (KIMURA Figure 18 – the presented display options are associated with using line of sight or hand, corresponding to claimed descriptors; [0147]); wherein the first UI element is associated with a second set of descriptors different from the first set of descriptors in the second presentation mode (KIMURA Figure 18 – user interface “navigation” is transitioned to second presentation mode with second set of descriptors corresponding to input which uses space recognition; [0148]); and transitioning the first UI element from the first presentation mode to the second presentation mode by transforming the first set of descriptors to the second set of descriptors (KIMURA Figure 8 – transitioning of the UI element from a first mode to set mode includes selecting input method at step S112).
It would have been obvious to modify patent claim 19 Wherein the first UI element is associated with a first set of descriptors in the first presentation mode; wherein the first UI element is associated with a second set of descriptors different from the first set of descriptors in the second presentation mode; and transitioning the first UI element from the first presentation mode to the second presentation mode by transforming the first set of descriptors to the second set of descriptors, as claimed. Those skilled in the art would appreciate the ability to dynamically switch an operation input mode according to state of user activity (KIMURA [0012]).
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, 3, 14, 16, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KIMURA et al; (Publication number: US 2018/035666 A1), hereafter KIMURA.
Regarding claim 1:
KIMURA discloses a method (KIMURA ABSTRACT; Figure 8) comprising:
at a computing system (KIMURA Figure 2 1) including non-transitory memory and one or more processors (KIMURA Figure 2 control unit 10; storage unit 16), wherein the computing system is communicatively coupled to a display device (KIMURA Figure 2 controller 10 coupled to display unit 13) and one or more input devices (KIMURA Figure 2 controller 10 coupled to operation input unit 12)9:
presenting, via the display device, a first user interface (UI) element in a first presentation mode (KIMURA Figure 18 user interface presented in first mode, as claimed, when stopped), wherein the first UI element is associated with a first set of descriptors in the first presentation mode (KIMURA Figure 18 – the presented display options are associated with using line of sight or hand, corresponding to claimed descriptors; [0147]); while presenting the first UI element in the first presentation mode, detecting a trigger condition associated with transitioning the first UI element from the first presentation mode to a second presentation mode (KIMURA Figure 5 S124; a change in state is detected which corresponding is used to transition the display mode S115), wherein the first UI element is associated with a second set of descriptors different from the first set of descriptors in the second presentation mode (KIMURA Figure 18 – user interface “navigation” is transitioned to second presentation mode with second set of descriptors corresponding to input which uses space recognition; [0148]); and
in response to detecting the trigger condition:
transitioning the first UI element from the first presentation mode to the second presentation mode by transforming the first set of descriptors to the second set of descriptors (KIMURA Figure 8 – transitioning of the UI element from a first mode to set mode includes selecting input method at step S112); and
presenting, via the display device, the first UI element in the second presentation mode (KIMURA Figure 18 – illustrates navigation icon presented in the second presentation mode, as claimed; see also Figure 8 S118).
Regarding claim 3:
KIMURA discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the trigger condition corresponds to one of: a change in context that satisfies at least one transition criterion, a change in motion state that satisfies at least one transition criterion, a change in head pose that satisfies at least one criterion, a change in body pose that satisfies at least one transition criterion, or a change in a gaze direction that satisfies at least one transition criterion (KIMURA [0065 – 0068]).
Regarding claim 14:
Claim 14 is similarly rejected for those reasons discussed above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 16:
Claim 16 is similarly rejected for those reasons discussed above in claim 3.
Regarding claim 20:
Claim 20 is similarly rejected for those reasons discussed above in claim 1 (and additionally [0052]).
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.
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.5. Claim(s) 6 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIMURA in view of Rovi Shaneware (Publication number: US 2017/0315608 A1), hereafter Shaneware.
Regarding claim 6:
KIMURA does not disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising: while presenting the first UI element in the first presentation mode, updating at least one of a position, orientation scale, or appearance of the first UI element based on a change to at least one of a head pose or body pose of the computing system.
Shaneware discloses methods and systems for displaying additional content on a heads up display displaying a virtual reality environment. More particularly, Shaneware discloses while presenting the first UI element in the first presentation mode, updating at least one of a position, orientation scale, or appearance of the first UI element based on a change to at least one of a head pose or body pose of the computing system (Shaneware [0111] Figure 3 additional content is generated in first portion based on detection of full body movement).
It would have been obvious to modify KIMURA while presenting the first UI element in the first presentation mode, updating at least one of a position, orientation scale, or appearance of the first UI element based on a change to at least one of a head pose or body pose of the computing system, as claimed. Those skilled in the art would appreciate assist the user perform a fully body movement (Shaneware ABSTRACT).
Regarding claim 19:
Claim 19 is similarly rejected for those reasons discussed above in claim 6
6. Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIMURA in view of Bao et al; (Publication number: US 2018/0088323 A1), hereafter Bao.
Regarding claim 7:
KIMURA does not disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising: while presenting the first UI element in the first presentation mode, updating at least one of a position, orientation, scale, or appearance of the first UI element based on a change to at least one translational or rotational values of a physical object within a physical environment.
However, Bao discloses selectably opaque displays. More particularly, Bao discloses while presenting the first UI element in the first presentation mode, updating at least one of a position, orientation, scale, or appearance of the first UI element based on a change to at least one translational or rotational values of a physical object within a physical environment (Bao Figure 11 1116; [0119] opacity of region 404 is adjusted based on distance to object 1106).
It would have been obvious to modify KIMURA such that while presenting the first UI element in the first presentation mode, updating at least one of a position, orientation, scale, or appearance of the first UI element based on a change to at least one translational or rotational values of a physical object within a physical environment, as claimed. Those skilled in the art would appreciate promoting safety in an immersive environment.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2,4, 5, 8 – 13, 15, 17, and 18 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 MIHIR K RAYAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 - 5pm (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.
/MIHIR K RAYAN/ 9 June 2026Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2622
Prosecution Insights