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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/24/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "touch input distance shorter than the distance" in line 5. There appears to be insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what distance the limitation is referencing. Independent claim 1, to which claim 8 depends, does not mention a distance; therefore it has not been defined. The claim further recites “…based on identifying the distance between the electronic device and the external display using the camera”. It is also unclear if these two distances are the same or different.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (US 11024264 B2) in view of Huang (US 20210350633 A1).
Concerning claims 1, 9, and 15, Lin teaches an electronic device (fig. 9: device 900) comprising:
a display (fig. 9, col. 8, ll. 30-33: multimedia component 908 includes a screen);
a camera (fig. 9, col. 9, ll. 8-11: sensor component 914 may include an optical sensor (e.g., CMOS or CCD image sensor));
at least one processor comprising processing circuitry (fig. 9: processing component 902 & processor 920); and
memory comprising one or more storage mediums (fig. 9: memory 904), storing instructions (col. 8, ll. 13-24),
wherein at least one processor individually or collectively, is configured to execute the instructions and to cause the electronic device to (col. 8, ll. 4-7, col. 9, ll. 38-46):
while displaying a frame image obtained through the camera, receive an input for executing a software application (fig. 1: steps S101-S102, col. 3, ll. 17-53 – an instruction to start a target application causes a current field of view to be adjusted based on a preset field of view that corresponds to the target application),
in response to the input, initiate execution of the software application to display, on the display, a three-dimensional image (fig. 1: steps S101-S102, wherein step S102 includes steps S401-S403 of fig. 4A, col. 5, ll. 17-19), and
based on a type of the executed software application being a first type, display, within the three-dimensional image, a first screen having a size provided by the software application (fig. 4: steps S401-S403, fig. 4B, col. 5, ll. 4-29 & col. 5, ll. 34-42 - the display area of the current virtual picture in the display screen is adjusted according to the preset display area corresponding to the preset field of view, and the current field of view is determined based on the adjusted current display area, so that different field of views may be set according to different target applications). Not explicitly taught is based on the type of the executed software application being a second type, display, within the three-dimensional image, a second screen having a size of a visual object included in the frame image and identified based on a positional relationship between the electronic device and an external display.
Huang, in the same field of endeavor, teaches an augmented reality system, wherein based on the type of the executed software application being a second type, display, within the three-dimensional image, a second screen having a size of a visual object included in the frame image and identified based on a positional relationship between the electronic device and an external display (fig. 2: head mounted device (HMD) 110 & display 121; ¶¶0025-0026 - when the user views the display 121 while wearing the head-mounted device 110, the image capturing device 111 captures the environmental image toward the display 121. The computer device 120 may estimate position information and depth information of the display 121 in an augmented reality coordinate system according to the environmental image.). 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 teachings of Huang into the Lin invention in order to provide an anchored display of a virtual object which improves a user's experience in viewing the virtual object (Huang, ¶0008).
Concerning claims 2, 10, and 16, Huang further teaches the limitations of claims 1, 9, and 15,
wherein, to display the second screen within the three-dimensional image, at least one processor individually or collectively, is configured to cause the electronic device to:
using the camera, obtain the positional relationship based on identifying, a direction from the electronic device towards the external display and a distance between the electronic device and the external display (¶0025, ¶0031; fig. 2), and
display the second screen at a position corresponding to the positional relationship within the three-dimensional image (¶¶0025-0026; fig. 2).
Concerning claims 3, 11, and 17, Huang further teaches the limitations of claim 2, 10, and 16,
wherein at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to:
identify the distance between the electronic device and the external display based on identifying a depth distance for the visual object corresponding to the external display within the frame image (¶¶0025-0026; ¶0031; fig. 2).
Concerning claims 4, 12, and 18, Huang further teaches the limitations of claims 1, 9, and 15,
wherein at least one processor individually or collectively, is configured to cause the electronic device to:
display the second screen corresponding to a shape of the visual object (¶¶0025-0026).
Concerning claims 5, 13, and 19, Huang further teaches the limitations of claims 1, 9, and 15,
wherein at least one processor individually or collectively, is configured to cause the electronic device to:
identify a first edge and a second edge of the visual object based on the shape of the visual object (fig. 4, ¶0036: the processor 123 may obtain corner positions of two corner points C1 and C2 located on an upper side of the reference image block, and set an upper block edge BE_T between the two corner points C1 and C2 to be a lower display boundary of the virtual object. Alternatively, in a scenario where the virtual object is presented on the left side of the display 121 (e.g., the virtual object V_L shown in FIG. 2), the processor 123 may obtain corner positions of two corner points C1 and C3 located on a left side of the reference image block, and set a left block edge BE_L between the two corner points C1 and C3 to be a right display boundary of the virtual object), and
display the second screen within the three-dimensional image based on one edge of the second screen corresponding to the first edge (fig. 4, ¶0036), and
wherein the second edge is shorter than the first edge (fig. 4, ¶0036).
Concerning claims 6, 14, and 20, Huang further teaches the limitations of claims 1, 9, and 15,
wherein, to display the second screen within the three-dimensional image, at least one processor individually or collectively, is configured to cause the electronic device to:
identify, using the camera, each of a plurality of visual objects corresponding to each of a plurality of external electronic devices including the external display (¶¶0025-0026; fig. 2: …number of the virtual object and the screen bezel to which the virtual object is anchored are not limited in the disclosure, therefore, identifying a plurality of visual objects corresponding to each of a plurality of external electronic devices including the external display would have been obvious), and
display, within the three-dimensional image the second screen having the size of the visual object that is largest among sizes of each of the plurality of visual objects (¶¶0025-0026; fig. 2: ……number of the virtual object and the screen bezel to which the virtual object is anchored are not limited in the disclosure).
Concerning claim 7, Huang further teaches the electronic device of claim 6,
wherein at least one processor individually or collectively, is configured to cause the electronic device to:
identify another visual object corresponding to another external electronic device, distinct from the external display, among the plurality of visual objects, based on displaying the second screen (¶¶0025-0026; fig. 2: …number of the virtual object and the screen bezel to which the virtual object is anchored are not limited in the disclosure, therefore, identifying additional visual objects corresponding to each of a plurality of external electronic devices including the external display would have been obvious), and
display a third screen having another size of the another visual object overlapping at least a portion of the second screen (¶¶0025-0026; fig. 2: ……number of the virtual object and the screen bezel to which the virtual object is anchored are not limited in the disclosure), and
wherein the another size corresponding to the another external electronic device is smaller than the size of the visual object (¶¶0025-0026; fig. 2).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (US 11024264 B2) in view of Huang (US 20210350633 A1) and Xu et al. (US 20180004297 A1, hereinafter Xu).
Concerning claim 8, Lin in view of Huang teaches the electronic device of claim 1. Lin further teaches wherein at least one processor individually or collectively, is configured to cause the electronic device to:
identify an input indicating selection of at least one multimedia content included within the first screen or the second screen (col. 3, ll. 25-36: touching a predetermined location on the AR device may launch a target application such as a video playing application, and/or various game applications). Not explicitly taught is using a touch input distance shorter than the distance, based on identifying the distance between the electronic device and the external display using the camera.
Xu, in the same field of endeavor, teaches hover touch input compensation in augmented reality, comprising:
using a touch input distance shorter than the distance, based on identifying the distance between the electronic device and the external display using the camera (figs. 7A-&C; ¶¶0040-0042 – detecting user input via a touch input that has an offset between a virtual feature and an intended touch point of a touch surface). 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 teachings of Xu into the Lin in view of Huang invention in order to implement touch capabilities within the virtual environment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M ANDERSON II whose telephone number is (571)270-1444. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10AM-6PM.
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, BRIAN PENDLETON can be reached at 571-272-7527. 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.
/James M Anderson II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425
Prosecution Insights