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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Preliminary Amendment
Claims 1-20 are cancelled. Claims 21-40 are newly added.
Claims 21-40 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. Applicant and the assignee of this application are required under 37 CFR 1.105 to provide the following information that the examiner has determined is reasonably necessary to the examination of this application.
The newly submitted IDS contain more than 100 references, including non-patent literatures. The Examiner respectfully request the Applicant to provide the most relevant references from the IDS listings for the similar reasons stated previously in 05/13/2020 Office Action under the Information Disclosure Statement heading.
This requirement is an attachment of the enclosed Office action. A complete reply to the enclosed Office action must include a complete reply to this requirement. The time period for reply to this requirement coincides with the time period for reply to the enclosed Office action.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 23 be found allowable, claim 29 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
Claims 23 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 23 and 29 include the limitation “or a GPS”. The limitation should be “or a global positioning system (GPS)”.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 23 includes the limitation “detect a blue tooth signal…”. The limitation should be “detect a Bluetooth signal…”.
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 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.
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 21-27, 29-30, 32-33, and 37-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perez et al. (U.S. Patent Application 20120154557 A1, hereinafter “Perez”) in view of Border et al. (U.S. Patent Application 20160131912 A1, hereinafter “Border”) and further in view of Allen et al. (U.S. Patent Application 20180288405 A1, hereinafter “Allen”) and Bell (U.S. Patent Application 6456262 B1).
Regarding Claim 21 (New), Perez teaches a head-mounted display system (Abstract lines 1-3; par 0032) configured to project light to an eye of a user to display augmented reality image content in a vision field of the user (Figs 1 and 2, par 0032, mounted to or inside temple 102 is an image source including micro-display assembly 120 for projecting an augmented reality virtual image and lens 122 for directing images from micro-display 120 into light guide 112 which transmits the image light to the eye 140 of the user; paras 0044-0047), the head-mounted display system comprising:
a frame configured to be supported on a head of the user (par 0042 lines 1-3 Fig 1 frame including temple 102 and bridge 104 of display device 2);
a head-mounted display disposed on the frame (par 0042 lines 1-3 Fig 1 frame coupled to display device 2; par 0043 Fig 2 a portion of the frame of head mounted display device 2 will surround a display (that includes one or more lenses)),
one or more user sensors configured to sense the user (par 0055 Fig 3 eye tracking camera 134B; par 0045 lines 4-10 Fig 2, inside, or mounted to temple 102, are inertial sensors 132 for sensing position, orientation, and sudden accelerations of user/head mounted display device 2);
one or more environmental sensors configured to sense surroundings of the user (paras 0067-69 Figs 1,5 hub computing device 12 will create a model of the environment that the user is in and track various moving objects in that environment; capture device 20A may include a camera component 423 which may be a depth camera that may capture a depth image of a scene; par 0062 temperature sensor 138; par 0032 suggests that time of day and user location may be sensed); and
processing electronics in communication with the head-mounted display, the one or more user sensors, and the one or more environmental sensors (par 0067 processing unit 4 then uses additional sensor information it receives from head mounted display device 2…; par 0065 temperature sensor interface 372 in communication with temperature sensor 374 (located with processing unit 4)), the processing electronics configured to:
sense a situation involving an increased user focus (Figs 8, 13A, 13B, par 0110-0112, software executing in processing unit 4, determines the user's current focal region within the user's field of view; the system determines a portion of the environment or space the user is looking at; eye tracking processing based on data captured by the eye tracking camera 134 for each eye, provides the current focal region of the user and determines changes as the user moves; par 0003 the user's intent is determined by analyzing the user's eye movements, and intensity of the user's gaze on the objects in the user's environment (intent to interact is sensed based on increased focus on new objects)) of a real or virtual object, wherein the real or virtual object is a peripheral object within a peripheral location of a vision field of the user for a particular gaze direction (Figs 16A-C par 0153-0154 based at least in part on the processing unit's sensing the increased focus, as noted above, on the clock as shown in Fig 16A in a peripheral portion of the user's field of vision and thus the clock comprising a real peripheral object, the processing unit de-emphasizes/diminishes image content in a portion of the vision field other than the clock; specifically as shown in Fig 16B image content in a portion of the vision field other than the clock comprising the objects 1106, 1110, 1116 and 1120; in Fig 16B dotted lines around the objects 1106, 1110, 1116 and 1120 indicate their diminished appearance); and
alter user perception of the peripheral object within the vision field of the user for the particular gaze direction based at least in part on sensing the increased user focus on the peripheral object (at least par 0003 the visualized information is prioritized by determining the user's inferred or expressed intent to interact with one or more objects in the user's environment. In one embodiment, an optimized image is generated based on the prioritized visual information. The optimized image visually enhances the appearance of objects that the user intends to interact with in the user's environment and/or diminishes the appearance of objects that the user does not intend to interact with in the user's environment).
However, Perez appears not to expressly teach
sensing the increased user focus on the peripheral object in a different gaze direction by measurement of accommodation of the eye of the user when directed at the peripheral object in the different gaze direction and detecting a minimum frequency of change in gaze direction of the user, wherein
altering user perception comprises moving image content comprising the peripheral object from the peripheral location of the vision field for the particular gaze direction to a central location of the vision field for the particular gaze direction.
Border teaches
sensing the increased user focus on the peripheral object in a different gaze direction
altering user perception comprises moving image content comprising the peripheral object from the peripheral location of the vision field for the particular gaze direction to a central location of the vision field for the particular gaze direction (par 0713 the displayed image is then laterally shifted in correspondence to and in an opposite direction to ensuing head movements, thus the increased focus “object” comprising peripheral portions of the image is moved from the edge of the display to a more central [focal] area to comfortably increase perception of the target location, and the original focal area of the image is de-emphasized by being moved away from the central [focal] area).
Perez and Border are analogous art as they each pertain to mixed reality display systems. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system comprising sensing increased user focus on an object in the HMD display image and de-emphasis of areas of the displayed image outside of the object of Perez with the inclusion of the similar sensing and de-emphasizing actions with regard to increased focus on peripheral objects of Border. The motivation would have been in order to
enable the user to view peripheral portions of the image without having to move their eyes to the full extent of the wide displayed field of view. Thereby the user views the wide field of view of the displayed image through a combination of eye movement and head movement to obtain a more comfortable viewing experience (Border par 0713).
However,
Perez as modified appears not to expressly teach
sensing the increased user focus on the peripheral object in a different gaze direction
Allen teaches wherein sensing the increased user focus on the peripheral object in a different gaze direction by measurement of accommodation of the eye of the user when directed at the peripheral object in the different gaze direction (par 0030 the system enhances an object determined to be in focus based on the accommodation and gaze position; for example, an object at a particular position and depth on the image associated with the determined user focus may be rendered with brighter colors and/or other enhancement effects).
Perez Border and Allen are analogous art as they each pertain to near-eye display systems. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Perez/Border with the inclusion of the use of the measurement of accommodation approach of Allen. The motivation would have been in order to provide a user-gaze based technique for re-rendering objects with increased focus to create more realistic or other targeted visual effects (Allen par 0010).
Bell teaches sensing the increased user focus on the peripheral object in a different gaze direction by detecting a minimum frequency of change in gaze direction of the user (col 3 lines 35-44 the frequency of gazing at various watching points may be evaluated; a weighting may be developed to give emphasis to the points watched closest to the time of a pertinent activity, such as a picture capture request; thus selection of a picture capture of a gazed object is based at least in part on a number of gazing occasions in the object area in a certain time period).
Perez Border Allen and Bell are analogous art as they each pertain to near-eye display systems. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Perez/Border/Allen with the inclusion of the use of the number of directed gazes approach of Bell. The motivation would have been in order to provide a technique for coordinating what the user is looking at with what is displayed in front of the user (Bell col 3 lines 35-44).
Regarding Claim 22 (New), Perez as modified teaches the head-mounted display system of Claim 21, wherein
altering user perception further comprises altering at least one of contrast, opacity (Perez par 0141 Fig 15A a portion of the real-world scene which includes the objects that the user is not interested may be blocked out by the opacity filter 114 from reaching the user's eye), color, color saturation, color balance, size, background, brightness, edges, or sharpness of the moved image content comprising the peripheral object.
Regarding Claim 23 (New), Perez as modified teaches the head-mounted display system of claim 21, wherein
the one or more environmental sensors comprise a depth sensor, a pair of binocular world cameras, a geolocation sensor, a proximity sensor, or a GPS (Border HWC 102 may also have a number of positional awareness sensors, such as GPS, electronic compass, altimeter, tilt sensor, IMU, and the like).
Perez Border Allen and Bell are analogous art as they each pertain to near-eye display systems. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Perez/Border/Allen with the inclusion of the GPS sensor of Border. The motivation would have been in order to provide, e.g., members of a tactical force with improved situational awareness, e.g. each HWC 102 may communicate its GPS position such that all the HWCs 102 know where all of HWC 102 are located (Border par 0235).
Regarding Claim 24 (New), Perez as modified teaches the head-mounted display system of claim 21, wherein
the one or more user sensors comprise one or more cameras (Perez Fig 3 eye tracking camera 134B).
Regarding Claim 25 (New), Perez as modified teaches the head-mounted display system of claim 21, wherein
the situation involving increased user focus comprises driving a motor vehicle (Border par 0573 driving in a car and trying to display HUD data over the external illumination, indicating increased user focus on the HUD data).
Perez Allen and Bell are analogous art as they each pertain to near-eye display systems. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Perez/Allen/Bell with the inclusion of the driving a vehicle scenario of Border. The motivation would have been in order to provide that content adjustment in a see-through head-worn display may be based on the perceived user need in addition to the scene that will form the backdrop for the content (Border par 0567).
Regarding Claim 26 (New), Perez as modified teaches the head-mounted display system of claim 21, wherein
the one or more environmental sensors comprise a sensor configured to detect a radio signal (Border HWC 102 may also have a number of positional awareness sensors, such as GPS, a radio receiving sensor).
Perez Allen and Bell are analogous art as they each pertain to near-eye display systems. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Perez/Allen/Bell with the inclusion of with the inclusion of the GPS sensor of Border. The motivation would have been in order to provide, e.g., members of a tactical force with improved situational awareness, e.g. each HWC 102 may communicate its GPS position such that all the HWCs 102 know where all of HWC 102 are located (Border par 0235).
Regarding Claim 27 (New), Perez as modified teaches the head-mounted display system of claim 21, wherein
the one or more environmental sensors comprise a sensor configured to detect a blue tooth signal from an automobile (Perez par 0064 Fig 4 wireless communication device 346 can include a Bluetooth communication device, which necessarily comprises a sensor to detect a Bluetooth signal).
Regarding Claim 29 (New), Perez as modified teaches the head-mounted display system of claim 23, wherein
the one or more environmental sensors is a depth sensor or a GPS, a pair of binocular world cameras, or a geolocation sensor or a proximity sensor (Border HWC 102 may also have a number of positional awareness sensors, such as GPS, electronic compass, altimeter, tilt sensor, IMU, and the like).
Perez Allen and Bell are analogous art as they each pertain to near-eye display systems. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Perez/Allen/Bell with the inclusion of the GPS sensor of Border. The motivation would have been in order to provide, e.g., members of a tactical force with improved situational awareness, e.g. each HWC 102 may communicate its GPS position such that all the HWCs 102 know where all of HWC 102 are located (Border par 0235).
Regarding Claim 30 (New), Perez as modified teaches the head-mounted display system of Claim 21, wherein
sensing the increased user focus on the peripheral object is based on detecting a number of occasions that a user directs the head of the user, eyes (Bell col 3 lines 35-44 the frequency of gazing at various watching points may be evaluated; a weighting may be developed to give emphasis to the points watched closest to the time of a pertinent activity, such as a picture capture request; thus selection of a picture capture of a gazed object is based at least in part on a number of gazing occasions in the object area in a certain time period), or head and eyes toward the different gaze direction.
Perez Border Allen and Bell are analogous art as they each pertain to near-eye display systems. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Perez/Border/Allen with the inclusion of the use of the number of directed gazes approach of Bell. The motivation would have been in order to provide a technique for coordinating what the user is looking at with what is displayed in front of the user (Bell col 3 lines 35-44).
Regarding Claim 32 (New), Perez as modified teaches the head-mounted display system of claim 21, wherein
altering user perception comprises enhancing the image content that is moved to the central location of the vision field for the particular gaze direction (Perez Fig 15A, at least par 0141,0142, peripheral objects’ appearance is diminished, perhaps made more opaque, while central focal area objects’ appearance is enhanced, perhaps by highlighting edges, etc.).
Regarding Claim 33 (New), Perez as modified teaches the head-mounted display system of claim 32, wherein
enhancing the image content comprises magnifying the real or virtual object (Border par 0755 the information displayed in the outer peripheral zone is rendered differently compared to the central sharp zone; this can include using larger [magnified] font letters for the information presented in the outer peripheral zone).
Perez Allen and Bell are analogous art as they each pertain to near-eye display systems. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Perez/Bell/Allen with the inclusion of the peripheral object alteration of Border. The motivation would have been in order to make the information presented in the outer peripheral zone more easily viewable (Border par 0755).
Regarding Claim 36 (New), Perez as modified teaches the head-mounted display system of claim 21, wherein
moving the image content comprising the peripheral object from the peripheral location of the vision field for the particular gaze direction to the central location of the vision field for the particular gaze direction comprises moving the image content to a location corresponding to a projected light location of the eye of the user that is in a range of 0 to 10 degrees from the center of the fovea of the eye of the user (Perez par 0126 the central one or two degrees of the visual angle (the fovea) provide the bulk of visual information and the input from larger eccentricities (the periphery) is less informative).
Regarding Claim 37 (New), Perez as modified teaches the head-mounted display system of claim 21, wherein
altering user perception of the peripheral object within the vision field of the user for the particular gaze direction based at least in part on sensing the increased user focus on the peripheral object in a different gaze direction is performed without reliance on head movement towards the peripheral object (Bell col 3 lines 35-44 the frequency of gazing at various watching points may be evaluated; a weighting may be developed to give emphasis to the points watched closest to the time of a pertinent activity, such as a picture capture request; thus selection of a picture capture of a gazed object is based at least in part on a number of gazing occasions in the object area in a certain time period).
Perez Border Allen and Bell are analogous art as they each pertain to near-eye display systems. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Perez/Border/Allen with the inclusion of the use of the number of directed gazes approach of Bell. The motivation would have been in order to provide a technique for coordinating what the user is looking at with what is displayed in front of the user (Bell col 3 lines 35-44).
Regarding Claim 38 (New), Perez as modified teaches the head-mounted display system of claim 21, wherein,
when the peripheral object is a real object, moving the image content comprises moving a virtual copy of the real object to the central location of the vision field for the particular gaze direction (Perez Figs 16A-C par 0153-0154 based at least in part on the processing unit's sensing the increased focus, as noted above, on the clock as shown in Fig 16A in a peripheral portion of the user's field of vision and thus the clock comprising a real peripheral object, the processing unit de-emphasizes/diminishes image content in a portion of the vision field other than the clock; specifically as shown in Fig 16B image content in a portion of the vision field other than the clock comprising the objects 1106, 1110, 1116 and 1120; in Fig 16B dotted lines around the objects 1106, 1110, 1116 and 1120 indicate their diminished appearance; at least par 0003 the visualized information is prioritized by determining the user's inferred or expressed intent to interact with one or more objects in the user's environment. In one embodiment, an optimized [virtual copy] image is generated based on the prioritized visual information. The optimized image visually enhances the appearance of objects that the user intends to interact with in the user's environment [in the user’s central vision field for the gaze location] and/or diminishes the appearance of objects that the user does not intend to interact with in the user's environment).
Regarding Claim 39 (New), Perez as modified teaches the head-mounted display system of claim 21, wherein
the head-mounted display is configured to project light into the eye of the user (Perez Figs 1 and 2, par 0032, mounted to or inside temple 102 is an image source including micro- display assembly 120 for projecting an augmented reality virtual image and lens 122 for directing images from micro-display 120 into light guide 112 which transmits the image light to the eye140 of the user; paras 0043-0046) to display augmented reality image content to the vision field of the user at different amounts of divergences as if projected from different distances from the eye of the user (Perez reflecting surfaces 126 couple the light waves incident upon those reflecting surfaces out of the substrate into the eye 140 of the user; as different light rays will travel and bounce off the inside of the substrate at different angles, the different rays will hit the various reflecting surface 126 at different angles; Fig 2 par 0047 lines 21 -25).
Regarding Claim 40 (New), Perez as modified teaches the head-mounted display system of claim 39, wherein
at least a portion of the head-mounted display is a transparent portion (par 0033 see-through display device) and disposed at a location in front of the eye of the user when the user wears the head-mounted display system (Fig 2), such that the transparent portion transmits light from a portion of an environment in front of the user and the head-mounted display to the eye of the user to provide a view of the portion of the environment in front of the user and the head-mounted display (par 0047 Fig 2 light guide optical element 112 also allows light from in front of the head mounted display device 2 to be transmitted through light guide optical element 112 to eye 140, as depicted by arrow 142, thereby allowing the user to have an actual direct view of the space in front of head mounted display device 2 in addition to receiving a virtual image from micro display 120).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perez et al. (U.S. Patent Application 20120154557 A1, hereinafter “Perez”) in view of Border et al. (U.S. Patent Application 20160131912 A1, hereinafter “Border”) and further in view of Allen et al. (U.S. Patent Application 20180288405 A1, hereinafter “Allen”), Bell (U.S. Patent Application 6456262 B1), and Kim et al. (International Patent Application WO 2015099500 A1, hereinafter “Kim”).
Regarding Claim 28 (New), Perez as modified teaches the head-mounted display system of claim 25. However, Perez as modified appears not to expressly teach wherein
the processing electronics are configured to alter user perception of the real or virtual object within the vision field of the user based at least in part on one or more data records regarding the user, the one or more data records comprising a driving record of the user.
Kim teaches wherein
the processing electronics are configured to alter user perception of the real or virtual object within the vision field of the user based at least in part on one or more data records regarding the user, the one or more data records comprising a driving record of the user (paras 11,12, the image normally displayed is a first image acquired by driving a camera provided outside the vehicle and a second image acquired by driving a camera provided inside the vehicle are divided and displayed on one screen; such is de-emphasized when the degree of impact of the driver corresponding to the received biometric information exceeds a reference value, the method may include controlling to record an image corresponding to the driver's gaze by using a camera provided in the wearable device; the de-emphasis is based on the driving record of the user wherein the driving record reflects the impact).
Perez Border Allen Bell and Kim are analogous art as they each pertain to near-eye display systems. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Perez/Border/Allen/Bell with the inclusion of the de-emphasis based on a driving record of Kim. The motivation would have been in order to provide, e.g., more efficient recording and storing of accident images (Kim par 22).
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perez et al. (U.S. Patent Application 20120154557 A1, hereinafter “Perez”) in view of Border et al. (U.S. Patent Application 20160131912 A1, hereinafter “Border”) and further in view of Allen et al. (U.S. Patent Application 20180288405 A1, hereinafter “Allen”), Bell (U.S. Patent Application 6456262 B1), and Vienne et al. (Cyril Vienne, Laurent Sorin, Laurent Blondé, Quan Huynh-Thu, Pascal Mamassian, Effect of the accommodation-vergence conflict on vergence eye movements, Vision Research, Volume 100, 2014, Pages 124-133, ISSN 0042-6989, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2014.04.017,
(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0042698914001126), hereinafter “Vienne”).
Regarding Claim 31 (New), Perez as modified teaches the head-mounted display system of claim 30. However, Perez as modified appears not to expressly teach wherein
sensing the increased user focus on the peripheral object is based on sensing the user struggling to view the peripheral object, and wherein
sensing the user struggling to view the peripheral object comprises detecting fluctuations in accommodation of an eye of the user
or
detecting fluctuations in vergence of the eye of the user.
Vienne teaches wherein
sensing the increased user focus on the peripheral object is based on sensing the user struggling to view the peripheral object, and wherein
sensing the user struggling to view the peripheral object comprises detecting fluctuations in accommodation of an eye of the user
or
detecting fluctuations in vergence of the eye of the user (page 125 2. Experiment 1; 2.1.1 Participants; user difficulty/delay in viewing/fixating the peripheral object was determined by measurement of variations in vergence amplitude and response time).
Perez Border Allen Bell and Vienne are analogous art as they each pertain to near-eye display systems. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Perez/Border/Allen/Bell with the inclusion of the sensing of increased user focus based on vergence fluctuations of Vienne. The motivation would have been in order to apply the finding that changes in vergence dynamics can be considered as objective indicators of adaptation in stereoscopic viewing (Vienne Conclusion).
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 a being unpatentable over Perez et al. (U.S. Patent Application 20120154557 A1, hereinafter “Perez”) in view of Border et al. (U.S. Patent Application 20160131912 A1, hereinafter “Border”) and further in view of Allen et al. (U.S. Patent Application 20180288405 A1, hereinafter “Allen”), Bell (U.S. Patent Application 6456262 B1), and Guelbahar (Europe Patent Publication EP 2689587 B1).
Regarding Claim 34 (New), Perez as modified teaches the head-mounted display system of claim 32. However, Perez as modified appears not to expressly teach wherein
moving the image content comprising the peripheral object comprises moving the image content to a depth plane in the central location that is closer to the user than a depth plane at which the peripheral object is located in the peripheral location.
Guelbahar teaches wherein
moving the image content comprising the peripheral object comprises moving the image content to a depth plane in the central location that is closer to the user than a depth plane at which the peripheral object is located in the peripheral location (par 0060 Fig 1 content 2’ moved to the central location is displayed at a depth plane closer to the user than information 2’’ still in the periphery at a lower, further away depth plane).
Perez Border Allen Bell and Guelbahar are analogous art as they each pertain to near-eye display systems. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Perez/Border/Allen/Bell with the inclusion of the central and peripheral depth plane presentations of Guelbahar. The motivation would have been in order to provide representation of digital objects which is favorable for the user (Guelbahar par 0007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 35 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 35:
While closest prior art Perez (20120154557 A1), Border (20160131912 A1), Allen (20180288405 A1), and Bell (6456262 B1) teach portions of the limitations of Claim 35, the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest the particular limitations of Claim 35, namely "wherein a degree of enhancement of the image content is based at least in part on one of a distance from the fovea of the eye of the user, a minimum distance for two-point distinction, and spatial resolution of an eye of the user" in combination with all other limitations of the claim and of claims on which the claim depends.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK EDWARDS whose telephone number is (571)270-7731. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9a-5p 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, Chanh Nguyen can be reached on 571-272-7772. 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.
/MARK EDWARDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2624
Prosecution Insights