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 .
The Office acknowledges the amendment dated 10 June 2026, in which:
Claims 1-24 are currently pending.
Claims 1, 5, 8, 9, 13, 16, 17, 21, and 24 are amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The rejections to Claims 1-24 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendments.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 8-9, 11-13, 16-17, 19-21 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yakishyn (US 2019/0033962, hereinafter "Yakishyn") in view of Ramani et al. (US 11,989,977, hereinafter "Ramani") and Vilermo et al. (US 2025/0147579, hereinafter “Vilermo”).
With respect to Claim 1 (Currently Amended), Yakishyn teaches a method comprising:
at an electronic device comprising one or more displays and one or more input devices (Yakishyn: Claim 1, “A device comprising: a display; a positioning sensor configured to measure movement of the device and output movement information related to the measured movement");
determining, using the one or more input devices, a first vector indicative of an orientation of the electronic device (Yakishyn: Claim 1, "identify a sight direction of the device based on the movement information");
and a second vector, different from the first vector, indicative of a predicted motion path of the electronic device (Yakishyn: Claim 1, "a direction according to a movement trajectory obtained from multiple frames stored in the memory");
in accordance with a determination that one or more first criteria are satisfied, including a criterion that is satisfied when a difference between the first vector and the second vector is greater than a threshold (Yakishyn: Para. [0109], comparing the difference between the sight direction and trajectory to a threshold), determining the difference as a head rotation input (Yakishyn: Claim 1, "identify an angle formed between a first straight line... and a second straight line... determine whether to start an adjusting mode for providing a frame corresponding to the identified sight direction based on the identified angle and a threshold value");
in accordance with a determination that the head rotation input satisfies one or more second criteria, different from the one or more first criteria (Yakishyn: Para. [0116], evaluating whether the physical head translation distance H.sub.L is non-zero, independent of the angular difference β), performing an action in accordance with the head rotation input (Para. [0006], triggers an adjusting mode specifically to update the displayed frame corresponding to the identified sight direction); and
in accordance with a determination that the one or more first criteria are not satisfied, forgoing determining the difference as the head rotation input and forgoing performing the action (Yakishyn: Para. [0109], if the threshold is not met, the adjusting mode is forgone; Claim 9, "in response to determining not to start the adjusting mode, control the display so that the multiple frames are displayed according to predetermined time information").
Yakishyn fails to expressly disclose the motion vector is predicted using a history of spatial coordinates, specifically:
the second vector indicative of a predicted motion path.
However, Ramani discloses:
a second vector indicative of a predicted motion path (Ramani: Col. 9, line 60 – Col. 10, line 9, "determine and record a plurality of positions of the user's head, arms, and hands in the environment over a period of time, which collectively comprise the human motion clip... Each motion frame may, for example, be in the form of a position vector").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method, as taught by Yakishyn, to incorporate determining the movement trajectory using a plurality of positions to predict a motion path, as taught by Ramani, in order to accurately track and anticipate the user's movement in a virtual environment (Ramani: Col. 3, lines 25-51).
The combination of Yakishyn as modified by Ramani is silent on the time duration, however, Vilermo teaches:
for at least a threshold period of time (Vilermo: Para. [0104], evaluating a difference between head orientation and a reference direction, and applying an action only when the condition “is met for a period of time… at least for a minimum time e.g. 3 seconds”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method to combine the spatial threshold, as taught by Yakishyn and Ramani, with a time threshold to serve as a transient filter, as taught by Vilermo, in order to prevent sensor drift from causing unnatural interface adjustments (Vilermo: Para. [0096]).
With respect to Claim 3, the combination of Yakishyn as modified by Ramani and Vilermo teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first vector is indicative of a forward direction of the electronic device (Yakishyn: Para. [0053], "The sight direction dv of the VR device 1000 may be a direction of a straight line that passes through the center of a display screen included in the VR device 1000 and is perpendicular to the surface of the display screen.").
With respect to Claim 4, the combination of Yakishyn as modified by Ramani and Vilermo teaches the method of claim 1, wherein determining the second vector includes determining a predicted motion path using a plurality of positions (Ramani: Col. 9, line 60 – Col. 10, line 9, "determine and record a plurality of positions of the user's head, arms, and hands in the environment over a period of time").
With respect to Claim 5 (Currently Amended), the combination of Yakishyn as modified by Ramani and Vilermo teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the criterion based on the difference between the first vector and the second vector is not satisfied when the difference between the first vector and the second vector is less than or equal to the threshold (Yakishyn: Para. [0109], Fig. 7A-C, normal playback continues when α/2 > β, “a field of view of the VR device 1000 is greater than the angular deviation β of sight directions... Without starting an adjusting mode of visual object representation, the VR device 1000 may provide multiple frames to the user 1 in time sequence.").
With respect to Claim 8 (Currently Amended), the combination of Yakishyn as modified by Ramani and Vilermo teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more second criteria include a criterion that is satisfied when the determined head rotation input meets a minimum yaw rotation threshold value (Yakishyn: Para. [0039], the horizontal angular deviation of the head movement is measured and “expressed as a value for yaw that is a rotation about the z-axis"; Para. [0109], [0116], comparing the angular deviation β to a spatial threshold (e.g., α/2, half the field of view) to trigger the adjusting mode).
With respect to Claim 9, the combination of Yakishyn as modified by Ramani and Vilermo teaches the electronic device comprising the structural limitations corresponding to the method steps of claim 1.
With respect to Claims 11-13 and 16, these claims are dependent on independent claim 9 and recite the same limitations as claims 3-5 and 8. Therefore, they are rendered obvious by the combination of Yakishyn as modified by Ramani for the same reasons as applied to claims 3-5 and 8.
With respect to Claim 17, the combination of Yakishyn as modified by Ramani and Vilermo teaches the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions corresponding to the method steps of claim 1.
With respect to Claims 19-21 and 24, these claims are dependent on independent claim 17 and recite the same limitations as claims 3-5 and 8. Therefore, they are rendered obvious by the combination of Yakishyn as modified by Ramani and Vilermo for the same reasons as applied to claims 3-5 and 8.
Claims 2, 7, 10, 15, 18 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yakishyn in view of Ramani and Vilermo, as applied above, and further in view of Aimone et al. (US 2021/0165490, hereinafter "Aimone").
With respect to Claim 2, the combination of Yakishyn as modified by Ramani and Vilermo teaches the method of claim 1, including determining a head rotation input and performing an action in response.
Yakishyn, Ramani, and Vilermo fail to expressly disclose:
presenting, via the one or more displays, a user interface that is interactable via the head rotation input, wherein determining the one or more first criteria are satisfied occurs while presenting the user interface.
While Yakishyn teaches using the head rotation input to execute an action (adjusting the display viewport/frame), it lacks the frame of reference of applying this specific input to interact with a graphical user interface.
However, Aimone discloses:
presenting, via the one or more displays, a user interface that is interactable via the head rotation input, wherein determining the one or more first criteria are satisfied occurs while presenting the user interface (Aimone: Para. [0128], "Any conventional user interface may be adapted to be controlled by any of the inputs measured or determined by the wearable computing device").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method, as taught by Yakishyn and Ramani to present a user interface that is interactable via the determined head rotation input to interact with a presented user interface, as taught by Aimone, in order to allow the user to seamlessly navigate menus and select functions hands-free in the virtual environment.
With respect to Claim 7, the combination of Yakishyn as modified by Ramani and Vilermo teaches the method of claim 1.
Yakishyn, Ramani and Vilermo fail to expressly disclose:
prompting, using one or more of audio, visual, or haptic output devices, a user for confirmation of the head rotation input, wherein performing the action is also in accordance with the confirmation being received.
However, Aimone discloses:
prompting, using one or more of audio, visual, or haptic output devices, a user for confirmation of the head rotation input, wherein performing the action is also in accordance with the confirmation being received (Aimone: Para. [0058], "The device may provide the user with private audio, visual and or haptic feedback..."; and Para. [0124], "Optionally, a confirmation prompt may appear asking for the user's confirmation to proceed to the next page.").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method, as taught by Yakishyn and Ramani, to incorporate a confirmation prompt via audio, visual, or haptic output, as taught by Aimone, in order to prevent unintended actions and ensure the user explicitly intends to execute the command (Aimone: Para. [0124] – [0126]).
With respect to Claims 10 and 15, these claims are dependent on independent claim 9 and recite the same limitations as claims 2 and 7. Therefore, they are rendered obvious by the combination of Yakishyn, Ramani, Vilermo and Aimone for the same reasons as applied to claims 2 and 7.
With respect to Claims 18 and 23, these claims are dependent on independent claim 17 and recite the same limitations as claims 2 and 7. Therefore, they are rendered obvious by the combination of Yakishyn, Ramani, Vilermo and Aimone for the same reasons as applied to claims 2 and 7.
Claims 6, 14 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yakishyn in view of Ramani and Vilermo, as applied above, and further in view of LaValle et al. (US 9,063,330, hereinafter "LaValle").
With respect to Claim 6, the combination of Yakishyn as modified by Ramani and Vilermo teaches the method of claim 1.
Yakishyn, Ramani, and Vilermo fail to expressly disclose:
wherein the one or more first criteria include a criterion that is satisfied when an angular velocity of the electronic device is greater than an angular velocity threshold.
However, LaValle discloses:
wherein the one or more first criteria include a criterion that is satisfied when an angular velocity of the electronic device is greater than an angular velocity threshold (LaValle: Abstract, "increases up to a predetermined latency interval when the head mounted display is moving at an angular velocity of or above a predetermined threshold.").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method, as taught by Yakishyn and Ramani, to incorporate an angular velocity threshold criterion, as taught by LaValle, in order to accurately filter intentional head rotations from subtle, slow movements to improve motion prediction (LaValle: Col. 9, line 40 – Col. 10, line 13).
With respect to Claims 14 and 22, these claims depend on independent claims 9 and 17 respectively and recite the same limitations as claim 6. Therefore, they are rendered obvious by the combination of Yakishyn, Ramani, Vilermo and LaValle for the same reasons as applied to claim 6.
Response to Arguments/Amendments/Remarks
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-24 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references used in the current rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN EARLES whose telephone number is (571)272-4628. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday at 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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, William Boddie can be reached on 571-272-0666. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRYAN EARLES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2625
Prosecution Insights