Office Action 1: Non-Final Rejection (2024-01-26)
Rejection types: 102 - Lack of Novelty, 103 - Obviousness

CLAIMS:
Amendments to the Claims

This listing of claims will replace all prior versions, and listings, of claims in the application:

Listing of Claims:

1-20. (Cancelled) 219

21\. (New) A therapeutic training device comprising a head mounted display having an outward facing video display comprising a transparency that is variable, and further comprising a light having an adjustable brightness to illuminate the eyes of a wearer.

22\. (New) The therapeutic training device of claim 21, comprising a controller configured to inversely adjust the transparency of the outward facing video display and the brightness of the light.

23\. (New) The therapeutic training device of claim 21, wherein the outward facing video display a video projector, a LCD display, a LED display, or a quantum dot display.

24\. (New) The therapeutic training device of claim 21, wherein the outward facing video display comprises a plurality of outward facing video displays.

25\. (New) The therapeutic training device of claim 21, comprising eye tracking components and software.

26\. (New) The therapeutic training device of claim 21, comprising a controller configured to adjust a transparency of the outward facing video display, and adjust the brightness of the light.

27\. (New) A therapeutic training device, comprising:
eyeglass frames;
an outward facing video display positioned within the eyeglass frames; and a controller coupled to the outward facing video display to control a display of media content on the video display, such that the display of media content is viewable by a patient with the therapeutic training device is worn by a user.

28\. (New) The device of claim 27, wherein the outward facing video display is a video projector, a LCD display, a LED display, or a quantum dot display.

29\. (New) The device of claim 27, wherein the outward facing video display comprises a plurality of outward facing video displays.

30\. (New) The device of claim 27, comprising a light having an adjustable brightness to illuminate the eyes of the user.

31\. (New) The device of claim 27, wherein a transparency of the media content displayed on the outward facing video display is adjustable.

32\. (New) The device of claim 31, wherein the transparency of the media content displayed on the outward facing video display is adjusted manually by the user.

33\. (New) The device of claim 31, wherein the transparency of the media content displayed on the outward facing video display is adjusted by software.

34\. (New) The device of claim 27, comprising eye tracking components and software.

35\. (New) The device of claim 27, wherein a transparency of the media content displayed on the outward facing video display is variable, and wherein the device further comprises a light having an adjustable brightness and configured to illuminate, wherein a brightness of the light is adjustable to illuminate the eyes of the user.

36\. (New) The device of claim 35, comprising a controller configured to inversely adjust a transparency of the outward facing video display and the brightness of the light.
Page 2 of 5 Page 3 of 5

OFFICE ACTION:
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 Claims
This office action is in response to the patent application 17/181,544 originally filed on February 22, 2021. Claims 1-20 were originally presented for examination.
A preliminary amendment was filed on February 22, 2021 in which claims 1-20 were canceled and claims 21-36 were presented as new claims. Claims 21 and 27 are independent.
Claims 21-36 remain pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on March 12, 2021 has been considered. The foreign patent document Cite No 1 was not considered because no English translation or abstract was submitted. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Priority
This application is a continuation of US application 16/834,898, filed March 30, 2020. This application has a US provisional application 62/827,557, filed April 1, 2019.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 27-29 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ive et al. (hereinafter “Ive,” US 2024/0012601).
Regarding claim 27, Ive discloses a therapeutic training device, comprising:
eyeglass frames (Ive [0003], “HMDs take various forms, including goggles, helmets, masks, visors, glasses…”);
an outward facing video display positioned within the eyeglass frames (Ive [0044], “The embodiments herein are generally directed to head-mounted displays (HMDs), and more particularly, to HMDs that have an outward-facing output system (including display(s), a speaker(s), or the like)”; also Ive [0146], “these concepts apply equally or by analogy to head mounted displays or wearable electronic devices or systems of other configurations as well, including without limitation visors, glasses…”); and
a controller coupled to the outward facing video display to control a display of media content on the video display, such that the display of media content is viewable by a patient with the therapeutic training device is worn by a user (Ive [0055], “The HMD 102 also includes an external or outward-facing display 106. The outward-facing display 106 may define a display surface that faces away from the wearer, and may be configured to display visual output (e.g., still images, video images) to persons other than the wearer 100. As noted above and described herein, such visual output may include real-time or pre-captured video or still images of at least a part of the wearer's 100 face (e.g., the wearer's eyes and eyebrows).”).
Regarding claim 28, Ive discloses that the outward facing video display is a video projector, a LCD display, a LED display, or a quantum dot display (Ive [0127], “The outward-facing display 106 may be any suitable type of display, including a liquid-crystal display (LCD), organic light emitting diode (OLED) display, LED display, or the like.”).
Regarding claim 29, Ive discloses that the outward facing video display comprises a plurality of outward facing video displays (Ive [0129], “while the outward-facing display 106 is often shown and described herein as a single display component, it may include multiple different displays, such as two or more displays in a side-by-side arrangement, or two or more displays in an over-under arrangement.”).
Regarding claim 34, Ive discloses eye tracking components and software (Ive [0142], “The HMD 2000 may also include wearer-facing sensors 2024 that may be used to sense, capture, and/or detect information about a wearer of the head-mounted display (including video and/or still images). Example wearer-facing sensors 2024 include, without limitation, cameras, eye-tracking sensors”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 21-26, 35, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ive in view of Saur et al. (hereinafter “Saur,” US 2018/0308451), and in further view of Samec et al. (hereinafter “Samec,” US 2016/0270656).
Regarding claim 21, and substantially similar limitations in claim 35, Ive discloses a therapeutic training device comprising a head mounted display having an outward facing video display (Ive [0044], “The embodiments herein are generally directed to head-mounted displays (HMDs), and more particularly, to HMDs that have an outward-facing output system (including display(s), a speaker(s), or the like)”).
Ive does not explicitly teach a video display comprising a transparency that is variable.
However, Saur discloses a video display comprising a transparency that is variable (Saur [0016], “modifying a degree of transparency of at least one playback arrangement of the head-wearable presentation apparatus”; also Saur [0017], “a head-mounted display (also referred to as HMD) is understood to be a visual output appliance that is worn on the head. It presents images on a display of the playback arrangement. By way of example, the display can be a display arranged in front of the eyes, the degree of transparency of which for optical signals can be modified by applying a voltage… The degree of transparency of the display, of the reflection area or of the device for reducing ambient light that is incident on the beam splitter can be set, in particular, in a range from 0% (opaque) to 100% (transparent) as desired.”).
Saur is analogous to Ive, as both are drawn to the art of head mounted displays. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Ive, to include a video display comprising a transparency that is variable, as taught by Saur, because it combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Ive in view of Saur does not explicitly teach a head mounted display comprising a light having an adjustable brightness to illuminate the eyes of a wearer.
However, Samec discloses a head mounted display comprising a light having an adjustable brightness to illuminate the eyes of a wearer (Samec [1858], “The augmented reality/virtual reality device can comprise a head mounted display… The generated thin illuminating beam can be conditioned by one or more lenses and filters and directed into the eye of a user… the angle of incidence and/or the brightness of the thin illuminating beam on the eye can also be adjusted…”).
Samec is analogous to Ive in view of Saur, as both are drawn to the art of head mounted displays. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Ive in view of Saur, to include a head mounted display comprising a light having an adjustable brightness to illuminate the eyes of a wearer, as taught by Samec, in order to provide imaging output of various portions of the wearer’s eyes for ophthalmic use cases (Samec [1858]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 22, and substantially similar limitations in claim 36, Ive does not explicitly teach a controller configured to inversely adjust the transparency of the outward facing video display and the brightness of the light.
However, Saur discloses a controller configured to inversely adjust the transparency of the outward facing video display (Saur [0016], “modifying a degree of transparency of at least one playback arrangement of the head-wearable presentation apparatus”; also Saur [0017], “a head-mounted display (also referred to as HMD) is understood to be a visual output appliance that is worn on the head. It presents images on a display of the playback arrangement. By way of example, the display can be a display arranged in front of the eyes, the degree of transparency of which for optical signals can be modified by applying a voltage… The degree of transparency of the display, of the reflection area or of the device for reducing ambient light that is incident on the beam splitter can be set, in particular, in a range from 0% (opaque) to 100% (transparent) as desired,” the transparency of the display can be adjusted to be more opaque or more transparent).
Saur is analogous to Ive, as both are drawn to the art of head mounted displays. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Ive, to include a controller configured to inversely adjust the transparency of the outward facing video display, as taught by Saur, because it combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Samec discloses a controller configured to inversely adjust the brightness of the light (Samec [1858], “The augmented reality/virtual reality device can comprise a head mounted display… The generated thin illuminating beam can be conditioned by one or more lenses and filters and directed into the eye of a user… the angle of incidence and/or the brightness of the thin illuminating beam on the eye can also be adjusted,” the brightness of the light can be adjusted to both brighter and dimmer).
Samec is analogous to Ive in view of Saur, as both are drawn to the art of head mounted displays. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Ive in view of Saur, to include a controller configured to inversely adjust the brightness of the light, as taught by Samec, in order to provide imaging output of various portions of the wearer’s eyes for ophthalmic use cases (Samec [1858]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 23, Ive in view of Saur and Samec discloses that the outward facing video display a video projector, a LCD display, a LED display, or a quantum dot display (Ive [0127], “The outward-facing display 106 may be any suitable type of display, including a liquid-crystal display (LCD), organic light emitting diode (OLED) display, LED display, or the like.”).
Regarding claim 24, Ive in view of Saur and Samec discloses that the outward facing video display comprises a plurality of outward facing video displays (Ive [0129], “while the outward-facing display 106 is often shown and described herein as a single display component, it may include multiple different displays, such as two or more displays in a side-by-side arrangement, or two or more displays in an over-under arrangement.”).
Regarding claim 25, Ive in view of Saur and Samec discloses eye tracking components and software (Ive [0142], “The HMD 2000 may also include wearer-facing sensors 2024 that may be used to sense, capture, and/or detect information about a wearer of the head-mounted display (including video and/or still images). Example wearer-facing sensors 2024 include, without limitation, cameras, eye-tracking sensors”).
Regarding claim 26, Ive does not explicitly teach a controller configured to adjust a transparency of the outward facing video display, and adjust the brightness of the light.
However, Saur discloses a controller configured to adjust a transparency of the outward facing video display (Saur [0016], “modifying a degree of transparency of at least one playback arrangement of the head-wearable presentation apparatus”; also Saur [0017], “a head-mounted display (also referred to as HMD) is understood to be a visual output appliance that is worn on the head. It presents images on a display of the playback arrangement. By way of example, the display can be a display arranged in front of the eyes, the degree of transparency of which for optical signals can be modified by applying a voltage… The degree of transparency of the display, of the reflection area or of the device for reducing ambient light that is incident on the beam splitter can be set, in particular, in a range from 0% (opaque) to 100% (transparent) as desired,” the transparency of the display can be adjusted to be more opaque or more transparent).
Saur is analogous to Ive, as both are drawn to the art of head mounted displays. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Ive, to include a controller configured to adjust a transparency of the outward facing video display, as taught by Saur, because it combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Samec discloses a controller configured to adjust the brightness of the light (Samec [1858], “The augmented reality/virtual reality device can comprise a head mounted display… The generated thin illuminating beam can be conditioned by one or more lenses and filters and directed into the eye of a user… the angle of incidence and/or the brightness of the thin illuminating beam on the eye can also be adjusted,” the brightness of the light can be adjusted to both brighter and dimmer).
Samec is analogous to Ive in view of Saur, as both are drawn to the art of head mounted displays. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Ive in view of Saur, to include a controller configured to adjust the brightness of the light, as taught by Samec, in order to provide imaging output of various portions of the wearer’s eyes for ophthalmic use cases (Samec [1858]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ive in view of Samec.
Regarding claim 30, Ive does not explicitly teach a light having an adjustable brightness to illuminate the eyes of the user.
However, Samec discloses a light having an adjustable brightness to illuminate the eyes of the user (Samec [1858], “The augmented reality/virtual reality device can comprise a head mounted display… The generated thin illuminating beam can be conditioned by one or more lenses and filters and directed into the eye of a user… the angle of incidence and/or the brightness of the thin illuminating beam on the eye can also be adjusted…”).
Samec is analogous to Ive, as both are drawn to the art of head mounted displays. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Ive, to include a light having an adjustable brightness to illuminate the eyes of the user, as taught by Samec, in order to provide imaging output of various portions of the wearer’s eyes for ophthalmic use cases (Samec [1858]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 31-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ive in view of Saur.
Regarding claim 31, Ive does not explicitly teach that a transparency of the media content displayed on the outward facing video display is adjustable.
However, Saur discloses a transparency of the media content displayed on the outward facing video display is adjustable (Saur [0016], “modifying a degree of transparency of at least one playback arrangement of the head-wearable presentation apparatus”; also Saur [0017], “a head-mounted display (also referred to as HMD) is understood to be a visual output appliance that is worn on the head. It presents images on a display of the playback arrangement. By way of example, the display can be a display arranged in front of the eyes, the degree of transparency of which for optical signals can be modified by applying a voltage… The degree of transparency of the display, of the reflection area or of the device for reducing ambient light that is incident on the beam splitter can be set, in particular, in a range from 0% (opaque) to 100% (transparent) as desired.”).
Saur is analogous to Ive, as both are drawn to the art of head mounted displays. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Ive, to include a transparency of the media content displayed on the outward facing video display is adjustable, as taught by Saur, because it combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 32, Ive does not teach that the transparency of the media content displayed on the outward facing video display is adjusted manually by the user.
However, Saur discloses the transparency of the media content displayed on the outward facing video display is adjusted manually by the user (Saur [0031], “an actuation unit for modifying a degree of transparency of at least one playback arrangement of the head-wearable presentation apparatus”; also Saur [0034], “The evaluation unit and/or the actuation unit can be integrated into the head-wearable presentation apparatus or realized as software on a computer.”).
Saur is analogous to Ive, as both are drawn to the art of head mounted displays. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Ive, to include the transparency of the media content displayed on the outward facing video display is adjusted manually by the user, as taught by Saur, because it combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 33, Ive does not teach that the transparency of the media content displayed on the outward facing video display is adjusted by software.
However, Saur discloses the transparency of the media content displayed on the outward facing video display is adjusted by software (Saur [0031], “an actuation unit for modifying a degree of transparency of at least one playback arrangement of the head-wearable presentation apparatus”; also Saur [0034], “The evaluation unit and/or the actuation unit can be integrated into the head-wearable presentation apparatus or realized as software on a computer.”).
Saur is analogous to Ive, as both are drawn to the art of head mounted displays. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Ive, to include the transparency of the media content displayed on the outward facing video display is adjusted by software, as taught by Saur, because it combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Jacobs et al. (US 2014/0340495) Easter state transitioning for continuous adjustable 3Deeps filter spectacles using multi-layered variable tint materials
Mei (US 2019/0035293) System and method for intervention with attention deficient disorders
Ballagas et al. (US 2021/0042979) Animated gazes on head mounted displays

APPLICANT REBUTTAL: REMARKS/ARGUMENTS
This paper is submitted as a Supplemental Response to the Response filed on May 24, 2024 (in response to the non-final Office Action mailed January 26, 2024 (the "Action"), and further in response to the Notice. At the time of receiving the Action, claims 21-36 were pending, and claims 1-20 were cancelled. In the Action, claims 27-29 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Ive et al. (US 2024/0012601; hereinafter "Ive"). Additionally, claims 21-26, 35, and 36 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Ive in view of Saur et al. (US 2018/0308451; hereinafter "Saur") and further in view of Samec et al. (US 2016/0270656; hereinafter "Samec"). Furthermore, claim 30 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Ive in view of Samec, and claims 31-33 were rejected as unpatentable over Ive in view of Saur.
By this paper, Applicant amends claims 21, 23, 25-28, and 35, and amends the Listing of the Claims to include previously cancelled claims 1-20. No claims are presently cancelled or added, and no new matter is added.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C.
@@
All the pending claims were rejected under either 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Ive or under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Ive in view of Saur or Samec (or both). Applicant respectfully traverses these rejections.
The standard for a Section 102 rejection is set forth in M.P.E.P 706.02, which provides:
"... for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. 102, the reference must teach every aspect of the claimed invention either explicitly or impliedly. Any feature not directly
taught must be inherently present."
Additionally, M.P.E.P. § 2141 sets forth the Graham factual enquiries that should be considered when making an obviousness rejection under Section 103: 1) ascertaining the scope and content of the prior art; 2) ascertaining the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art; and 3) resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. (Citing Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966).) In addition, M.P.E.P. §§ 2141 and 2142 set forth that "the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit." (Citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).)
For a rejection under Section 103 to stand, it must explicitly set forth 1) factual findings showing that each claim element was known in the art at the time of the invention, and 2) factual findings showing that one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, would have found it obvious to modify or combine the teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. (See,for example, the enumerated required articulations set forth in M.P.E.P. § 2143 for each lettered rationale.)
All of the rejections rely on Ive. Accordingly, the independent claims are now amended to overcome the Ive reference, as explained in more detail below.
Independent claim 21 is amended to recite a therapeutic training device comprising: a head mounted display comprising: an outward facing video display comprising a transparency that is variable; and a light having an adjustable brightness to illuminate eyes of a wearer, wherein adjusting at least one of the transparency and the brightness allows an observer to see the eyes of the wearer through the outward facing video display.
Similarly, independent claim 27 recites a therapeutic training device, comprising: eyeglass frames; an outward facing video display positioned within the eyeglass frames; and a controller coupled to the outward facing video display to control a display of media content on the video display, such that the display of media content is viewable by a patient when the therapeutic training device is worn by a user, wherein the outward facing video display is see-through from the side of the user.
In both cases, the video display is see-through (e.g., so that an observer can directly see the user's eyes, or so that the user can see the surrounding world past the display). This differs substantially from Ive, in which the user can see only an inward-facing screen (which can display the user's surroundings, but which is not see-through to allow the user to see their surroundings directly). Similarly, although an observer of the Ive device can, in some cases, see a representation of the user's eyes on an outward facing screen, the observer cannot see the user's actual eyes, because the display is not transparent. Indeed, if the Ive device were to lose power or malfunction, the wearer would need to remove the device in order to see their surroundings or to allow observers to see their eyes.
Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not think to modify Ive to make it transparent (by combining it with other references or otherwise), thereby allowing an observer to see the user's actual eyes. Indeed, it does not appear that doing so would work, because making the outer display of Ive transparent would not allow an observer to see the user's eyes; rather, the
observer would see a solid panel (e.g., the HMD housing) behind the display, circuitry elements, and/or the inward-facing screens configured to allow the user to perceive their surroundings. (See Ive paragraphs [0123]-[0126]). Indeed, Ive would require significant and substantial modification and restructuring in order to allow for an observer to see a wearer's actual eyes (and not a displayed representation thereof) or vice versa, such that it would not be obvious to the skilled artisan to do so (whether alone or in combination with any other references).
In light of the foregoing, it is Applicant's belief that the claim set as provided herein overcomes all rejections made by the Office in the Action. Thus, Applicant respectfully submits that for at least the reasons provided herein, the claim set as provided herein overcomes all rejections made by the Office in the Action.
Applicant also submits that the amendments to the claims are supported by the original disclosure as filed, as evidenced by at least paragraphs [0010] and [0113] of the specification.
CONCLUSION

NEXT OFFICE ACTION: 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 Claims
This office action is in response to arguments and amendments entered on July 12, 2024 for the patent application 17/181,544 originally filed on February 22, 2021. Claims 21, 23, 25-28, and 35 are amended. Claims 1-20 are canceled. Claims 21-36 remain pending. The first office action of January 26, 2024 is fully incorporated by reference into this office action.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have been noted by the Examiner.
The Applicant’s amendments are sufficient to overcome the outstanding rejections under 35 USC 102 and 35 USC 103. However, new rejections under 35 USC 103 apply to claims 27-36, as set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 27-29 and 31-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ive et al. (hereinafter “Ive,” US 2024/0012601) in view of Saur et al. (hereinafter “Saur,” US 2018/0308451).
Regarding claim 27, Ive discloses a therapeutic training device, comprising:
eyeglass frames (Ive [0003], “HMDs take various forms, including goggles, helmets, masks, visors, glasses…”);
an outward facing video display positioned within the eyeglass frames (Ive [0044], “The embodiments herein are generally directed to head-mounted displays (HMDs), and more particularly, to HMDs that have an outward-facing output system (including display(s), a speaker(s), or the like)”; also Ive [0146], “these concepts apply equally or by analogy to head mounted displays or wearable electronic devices or systems of other configurations as well, including without limitation visors, glasses…”); and
a controller coupled to the outward facing video display to control a display of media content on the video display, such that the display of media content is viewable by a patient when the therapeutic training device is worn by a user (Ive [0055], “The HMD 102 also includes an external or outward-facing display 106. The outward-facing display 106 may define a display surface that faces away from the wearer, and may be configured to display visual output (e.g., still images, video images) to persons other than the wearer 100. As noted above and described herein, such visual output may include real-time or pre-captured video or still images of at least a part of the wearer's 100 face (e.g., the wearer's eyes and eyebrows).”).
Ive does not teach wherein the outward facing video display is see-through from the side of the user.
However, Saur discloses wherein the video display is see-through from the side of the user (Saur [0047], “LCD displays with LCD shutter technology are used as displays 5A, 5B in the present exemplary embodiment. The LCD shutter technology renders it possible to set the degree of transparency of the LCD displays as desired between 0% (opaque) and 100% (transparent) by applying a control voltage.”; also Saur [0054], “control of the head-mounted display 1 is facilitated for the situation-dependent switch-over between various modes such as clear view, AR and/or VR,” transparency of the video display may be between opaque and fully transparent. Saur discloses modifying transparency of an inward-facing video. In full VR mode, the display is opaque and transparency is set to 0%. In clear view mode, the display is fully transparent and set to 100% transparency. In AR mode, the view is partially transparent. When the display has transparency, the wearer can see through the video display).
Saur is analogous to Ive, as both are drawn to the art of head mounted displays. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Ive, to include wherein the video display is see-through from the side of the user, as taught by Saur, because it combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 28, Ive in view of Saur discloses that the outward facing video display comprises a display selected from the group consisting of a video projector, a LCD display, a LED display, or a quantum dot display (Ive [0127], “The outward-facing display 106 may be any suitable type of display, including a liquid-crystal display (LCD), organic light emitting diode (OLED) display, LED display, or the like.”).
Regarding claim 29, Ive in view of Saur discloses that the outward facing video display comprises a plurality of outward facing video displays (Ive [0129], “while the outward-facing display 106 is often shown and described herein as a single display component, it may include multiple different displays, such as two or more displays in a side-by-side arrangement, or two or more displays in an over-under arrangement.”).
Regarding claim 31, Ive does not explicitly teach that a transparency of the media content displayed on the outward facing video display is adjustable.
However, Saur discloses a transparency of the media content displayed on the outward facing video display is adjustable (Saur [0016], “modifying a degree of transparency of at least one playback arrangement of the head-wearable presentation apparatus”; also Saur [0017], “a head-mounted display (also referred to as HMD) is understood to be a visual output appliance that is worn on the head. It presents images on a display of the playback arrangement. By way of example, the display can be a display arranged in front of the eyes, the degree of transparency of which for optical signals can be modified by applying a voltage… The degree of transparency of the display, of the reflection area or of the device for reducing ambient light that is incident on the beam splitter can be set, in particular, in a range from 0% (opaque) to 100% (transparent) as desired.”).
Saur is analogous to Ive, as both are drawn to the art of head mounted displays. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Ive, to include a transparency of the media content displayed on the outward facing video display is adjustable, as taught by Saur, because it combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 32, Ive does not teach that the transparency of the media content displayed on the outward facing video display is adjusted manually by the user.
However, Saur discloses the transparency of the media content displayed on the outward facing video display is adjusted manually by the user (Saur [0031], “an actuation unit for modifying a degree of transparency of at least one playback arrangement of the head-wearable presentation apparatus”; also Saur [0034], “The evaluation unit and/or the actuation unit can be integrated into the head-wearable presentation apparatus or realized as software on a computer.”).
Saur is analogous to Ive, as both are drawn to the art of head mounted displays. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Ive, to include the transparency of the media content displayed on the outward facing video display is adjusted manually by the user, as taught by Saur, because it combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 33, Ive does not teach that the transparency of the media content displayed on the outward facing video display is adjusted by software.
However, Saur discloses the transparency of the media content displayed on the outward facing video display is adjusted by software (Saur [0031], “an actuation unit for modifying a degree of transparency of at least one playback arrangement of the head-wearable presentation apparatus”; also Saur [0034], “The evaluation unit and/or the actuation unit can be integrated into the head-wearable presentation apparatus or realized as software on a computer.”).
Saur is analogous to Ive, as both are drawn to the art of head mounted displays. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Ive, to include the transparency of the media content displayed on the outward facing video display is adjusted by software, as taught by Saur, because it combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 34, Ive in view of Saur discloses eye tracking components and software (Ive [0142], “The HMD 2000 may also include wearer-facing sensors 2024 that may be used to sense, capture, and/or detect information about a wearer of the head-mounted display (including video and/or still images). Example wearer-facing sensors 2024 include, without limitation, cameras, eye-tracking sensors”).
Claims 30, 35, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ive in view of Saur, and in further view of Samec et al. (hereinafter “Samec,” US 2016/0270656).
Regarding claim 30, Ive in view of Saur does not explicitly teach a light having an adjustable brightness to illuminate the eyes of the user.
However, Samec discloses a light having an adjustable brightness to illuminate the eyes of the user (Samec [1858], “The augmented reality/virtual reality device can comprise a head mounted display… The generated thin illuminating beam can be conditioned by one or more lenses and filters and directed into the eye of a user… the angle of incidence and/or the brightness of the thin illuminating beam on the eye can also be adjusted…”).
Samec is analogous to Ive in view of Saur, as both are drawn to the art of head mounted displays. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Ive in view of Saur, to include a light having an adjustable brightness to illuminate the eyes of the user, as taught by Samec, in order to provide imaging output of various portions of the wearer’s eyes for ophthalmic use cases (Samec [1858]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 35, Ive discloses a therapeutic training device comprising a head mounted display having an outward facing video display (Ive [0044], “The embodiments herein are generally directed to head-mounted displays (HMDs), and more particularly, to HMDs that have an outward-facing output system (including display(s), a speaker(s), or the like)”).
Ive does not explicitly teach a video display comprising a transparency that is variable.
However, Saur discloses a video display comprising a transparency that is variable (Saur [0016], “modifying a degree of transparency of at least one playback arrangement of the head-wearable presentation apparatus”; also Saur [0017], “a head-mounted display (also referred to as HMD) is understood to be a visual output appliance that is worn on the head. It presents images on a display of the playback arrangement. By way of example, the display can be a display arranged in front of the eyes, the degree of transparency of which for optical signals can be modified by applying a voltage… The degree of transparency of the display, of the reflection area or of the device for reducing ambient light that is incident on the beam splitter can be set, in particular, in a range from 0% (opaque) to 100% (transparent) as desired.”).
Saur is analogous to Ive, as both are drawn to the art of head mounted displays. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Ive, to include a video display comprising a transparency that is variable, as taught by Saur, because it combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Ive in view of Saur does not explicitly teach a head mounted display comprising a light having an adjustable brightness to illuminate the eyes of the user.
However, Samec discloses a head mounted display comprising a light having an adjustable brightness to illuminate the eyes of the user (Samec [1858], “The augmented reality/virtual reality device can comprise a head mounted display… The generated thin illuminating beam can be conditioned by one or more lenses and filters and directed into the eye of a user… the angle of incidence and/or the brightness of the thin illuminating beam on the eye can also be adjusted…”).
Samec is analogous to Ive in view of Saur, as both are drawn to the art of head mounted displays. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Ive in view of Saur, to include a head mounted display comprising a light having an adjustable brightness to illuminate the eyes of the user, as taught by Samec, in order to provide imaging output of various portions of the wearer’s eyes for ophthalmic use cases (Samec [1858]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 36, Ive does not explicitly teach a controller configured to inversely adjust the transparency of the outward facing video display and the brightness of the light.
However, Saur discloses a controller configured to inversely adjust the transparency of the outward facing video display (Saur [0016], “modifying a degree of transparency of at least one playback arrangement of the head-wearable presentation apparatus”; also Saur [0017], “a head-mounted display (also referred to as HMD) is understood to be a visual output appliance that is worn on the head. It presents images on a display of the playback arrangement. By way of example, the display can be a display arranged in front of the eyes, the degree of transparency of which for optical signals can be modified by applying a voltage… The degree of transparency of the display, of the reflection area or of the device for reducing ambient light that is incident on the beam splitter can be set, in particular, in a range from 0% (opaque) to 100% (transparent) as desired,” the transparency of the display can be adjusted to be more opaque or more transparent).
Saur is analogous to Ive, as both are drawn to the art of head mounted displays. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Ive, to include a controller configured to inversely adjust the transparency of the outward facing video display, as taught by Saur, because it combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Samec discloses a controller configured to inversely adjust the brightness of the light (Samec [1858], “The augmented reality/virtual reality device can comprise a head mounted display… The generated thin illuminating beam can be conditioned by one or more lenses and filters and directed into the eye of a user… the angle of incidence and/or the brightness of the thin illuminating beam on the eye can also be adjusted,” the brightness of the light can be adjusted to both brighter and dimmer).
Samec is analogous to Ive in view of Saur, as both are drawn to the art of head mounted displays. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the method as taught by Ive in view of Saur, to include a controller configured to inversely adjust the brightness of the light, as taught by Samec, in order to provide imaging output of various portions of the wearer’s eyes for ophthalmic use cases (Samec [1858]). Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-26 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 21-26, as amended, are allowable because they are directed to at least a video display having a variable transparency, having an adjustable brightness to illuminate the eyes of a wearer, and adjusting the transparency or brightness so that an observer can see the eyes of the wearer through the video display. These features are not disclosed by the primary reference Ive.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments filed on July 12, 2024 have been fully considered by the Examiner.
The Applicant respectfully argues that for both independent claims 21 and 27, “the video display is see-through (e.g., so that an observer can directly see the user's eyes, or so that the user can see the surrounding world past the display). This differs substantially from Ive, in which the user can see only an inward-facing screen (which can display the user's surroundings, but which is not see-through to allow the user to see their surroundings directly). Similarly, although an observer of the Ive device can, in some cases, see a representation of the user's eyes on an outward facing screen, the observer cannot see the user's actual eyes, because the display is not transparent. Indeed, if the Ive device were to lose power or malfunction, the wearer would need to remove the device in order to see their surroundings or to allow observers to see their eyes.”
While this appears to be true for independent claim 21, the Examiner respectfully disagrees that claim 27 is limited by these features. Independent claim 27 does not recite a video display having a variable transparency, having an adjustable brightness to illuminate the eyes of a wearer, and adjusting the transparency or brightness so that an observer can see the eyes of the wearer through the video display, as claim 21 does. Notably, claim 27 instead recites that the outward facing video display “is see-through from the side of the user.” This implies that the display is not necessarily see-through from the side of the viewer. Claim 27 has no mention of transparency, illumination, or seeing the eyes of the wearer, and therefore remains rejected under 35 USC 103 in view of Ive and Saur supra.
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.

CITED REFERENCE SUMMARIES: Ref US20240012601A1: Claims:
A wearable electronic device, comprising: a housing; a wearer-facing camera positioned in the housing and configured to capture first images of a wearer; and an outward-facing display positioned in the housing and configured to display second images based on the captured images.
a wearer-facing camera positioned in the housing and configured to capture first images of a wearer; and
an outward-facing display positioned in the housing and configured to display second images based on the captured images.
The wearable electronic device of claim 1 , further comprising a processor operatively coupled to the wearer-facing camera and the outward-facing display and configured to modify the captured first images to produce the second images.
The wearable electronic device of claim 1 , wherein the second images have the same content as the captured first images.
The wearable electronic device of claim 1 , wherein: the captured first images include video images of the wearer's eyes; and the second images include video images of different eyes that are coordinated with the video images of the wearer's eyes.
the captured first images include video images of the wearer's eyes; and
the second images include video images of different eyes that are coordinated with the video images of the wearer's eyes.
The wearable electronic device of claim 2 , wherein: the wearable electronic device further comprises an outward-facing sensor configured to detect an environmental condition of an environment surrounding the wearable electronic device; and the processor is further configured to modify the captured first images based on the environmental condition.
the wearable electronic device further comprises an outward-facing sensor configured to detect an environmental condition of an environment surrounding the wearable electronic device; and
the processor is further configured to modify the captured first images based on the environmental condition.
The wearable electronic device of claim 5 , wherein: the environmental condition is a lighting condition; and the processor is further configured to modify the captured first images to substantially match the lighting condition.
the environmental condition is a lighting condition; and
the processor is further configured to modify the captured first images to substantially match the lighting condition.
The wearable electronic device 5 , wherein: the environmental condition is a presence of an observer; and the processor is further configured to: determine whether the observer matches a known contact of the wearer; and in response to determining that the observer matches a known contact of the wearer, modifying the captured first images by obscuring identifiable physical features of the wearer.
the environmental condition is a presence of an observer; and
the processor is further configured to: determine whether the observer matches a known contact of the wearer; and in response to determining that the observer matches a known contact of the wearer, modifying the captured first images by obscuring identifiable physical features of the wearer.
determine whether the observer matches a known contact of the wearer; and
in response to determining that the observer matches a known contact of the wearer, modifying the captured first images by obscuring identifiable physical features of the wearer.
A wearable electronic device, comprising: a housing; a first camera positioned in the housing and configured to capture images of a wearer; a second camera positioned in the housing and configured to capture images of an observer; a wearer-facing display positioned in the housing and configured to display first visual output based on the images of the observer; an outward-facing display positioned in the housing and configured to display second visual output based on the images of the wearer; and a processor operatively coupled to the first camera, the second camera, the wearer-facing display, and the outward-facing display.
a first camera positioned in the housing and configured to capture images of a wearer;
a second camera positioned in the housing and configured to capture images of an observer;
a wearer-facing display positioned in the housing and configured to display first visual output based on the images of the observer;
an outward-facing display positioned in the housing and configured to display second visual output based on the images of the wearer; and
a processor operatively coupled to the first camera, the second camera, the wearer-facing display, and the outward-facing display.
The wearable electronic device of claim 8 , wherein the processor is configured to: generate an at least partially virtual scene for display on the wearer-facing display; and integrate the images of the observer into the at least partially virtual scene.
generate an at least partially virtual scene for display on the wearer-facing display; and
integrate the images of the observer into the at least partially virtual scene.
The wearable electronic device of claim 8 , wherein the processor is configured to: generate an at least partially virtual scene for display on the wearer-facing display; and cause the images of the observer to be displayed in a discrete window that overlays the at least partially virtual scene.
cause the images of the observer to be displayed in a discrete window that overlays the at least partially virtual scene.
The wearable electronic device of claim 8 , wherein: the processor is configured to colorize the images of the wearer, thereby producing colorized images of the wearer; and the first visual output comprises the colorized images of the wearer.
the processor is configured to colorize the images of the wearer, thereby producing colorized images of the wearer; and
the first visual output comprises the colorized images of the wearer.
The wearable electronic device of claim 8 , wherein the processor is configured to cause the first visual output and the second visual output to be displayed at substantially the same time.
The wearable electronic device of claim 8 , wherein the processor is configured to: analyze the captured images to detect a first physical characteristic of the wearer; determine whether the first physical characteristic is indicative of a particular expression; and in accordance with a determination that the first physical characteristic is indicative of the particular expression, produce the second visual output by modifying the captured images to exaggerate a second physical characteristic of the wearer.
analyze the captured images to detect a first physical characteristic of the wearer;
determine whether the first physical characteristic is indicative of a particular expression; and
in accordance with a determination that the first physical characteristic is indicative of the particular expression, produce the second visual output by modifying the captured images to exaggerate a second physical characteristic of the wearer.
The wearable electronic device of claim 13 , wherein the processor is further configured to, in accordance with a determination that the first physical characteristic is not indicative of the particular expression, produce the second visual output without exaggerating the second physical characteristic of the wearer.
The wearable electronic device of claim 13 , wherein the first physical characteristic and the second physical characteristic are the same physical characteristic.
The wearable electronic device of claim 15 , wherein the first physical characteristic and the second physical characteristic comprise a size of an eye.
A wearable electronic device, comprising: a housing; a camera positioned in the housing and configured to capture images of a wearer; a sensor configured to detect an environmental condition of an environment surrounding the wearable electronic device; and an outward-facing display positioned in the housing and configured to display visual output based on the captured images.
a camera positioned in the housing and configured to capture images of a wearer;
a sensor configured to detect an environmental condition of an environment surrounding the wearable electronic device; and
an outward-facing display positioned in the housing and configured to display visual output based on the captured images.
The wearable electronic device of claim 17 , wherein: detecting the environmental condition comprises detecting a position of an observer relative to the outward-facing display; and the wearable electronic device is configured to produce the visual output by skewing and/or stretching the captured images in accordance with the detected position.
detecting the environmental condition comprises detecting a position of an observer relative to the outward-facing display; and
the wearable electronic device is configured to produce the visual output by skewing and/or stretching the captured images in accordance with the detected position.
The wearable electronic device of claim 18 , wherein the wearable electronic device is configured to: periodically update the detected position of the observer relative to the outward-facing display; and periodically update the visual output by skewing and/or stretching the captured images in accordance with the updated detected position.
periodically update the detected position of the observer relative to the outward-facing display; and
periodically update the visual output by skewing and/or stretching the captured images in accordance with the updated detected position.
The wearable electronic device of claim 17 , wherein the sensor is selected from the group consisting of: a light detection and ranging sensor; a radio detection and ranging sensor; an optical object detection sensor; and an acoustic object detection sensor.
Ref US20180308451A1: [content unavailable]
Ref US20160270656A1: [content unavailable]
Ref US20140340495A1: [content unavailable]
Ref US20190035293A1: Claims:
A display system for treating autism spectrum and other cognitive disorders affecting attention in a user in need thereof, the display system comprising a head-mounted display equipped with an eye tracking device, the head-mounted display configured to: display a scene that includes a primary object and at least one secondary object; determine, using at least the eye tracking device, whether the user's gaze is directed to the primary object or one of the secondary objects; determine whether the user's gaze is directed to one of the secondary objects beyond a threshold distraction criterion and, upon exceeding the threshold distraction criterion, remove the secondary object from the displayed scene; and determine whether user's gaze is directed to the primary object beyond a threshold attention criterion and, upon exceedance of the threshold attention criterion, reintroduce at least one removed secondary object to the displayed scene.
a head-mounted display equipped with an eye tracking device, the head-mounted display configured to:
display a scene that includes a primary object and at least one secondary object;
determine, using at least the eye tracking device, whether the user's gaze is directed to the primary object or one of the secondary objects;
determine whether the user's gaze is directed to one of the secondary objects beyond a threshold distraction criterion and, upon exceeding the threshold distraction criterion, remove the secondary object from the displayed scene; and
determine whether user's gaze is directed to the primary object beyond a threshold attention criterion and, upon exceedance of the threshold attention criterion, reintroduce at least one removed secondary object to the displayed scene.
The display system of claim 1 , wherein the threshold distraction criterion is a time threshold within a range of 0.1 seconds to 240 seconds.
The display system of claim 1 , wherein the threshold distraction criterion is customized based on the user.
The display system of claim 3 , wherein the threshold distraction criterion is customized based on a historical data associated with the user's interaction with the display system or other display device.
In a system including a display and an eye tracking device, a method for treating autism spectrum and other cognitive disorders affecting attention in a user in need thereof, the method comprising the steps of: displaying a scene by the display that includes a principal object and at least one secondary object; tracking, upon display of the principal and secondary objects, a direction of the user's gaze and correlating the tracked direction with the displayed principal and secondary objects; determining, based on the tracked direction and correlation, whether the user's gaze has a correlation with a secondary object above a threshold distraction criterion; removing, upon exceedance of the threshold distraction criterion, the correlated secondary object from the displayed scene; and reintroducing, based upon exceedance of a second criterion, the removed secondary object to the displayed scene.
displaying a scene by the display that includes a principal object and at least one secondary object;
tracking, upon display of the principal and secondary objects, a direction of the user's gaze and correlating the tracked direction with the displayed principal and secondary objects;
determining, based on the tracked direction and correlation, whether the user's gaze has a correlation with a secondary object above a threshold distraction criterion;
removing, upon exceedance of the threshold distraction criterion, the correlated secondary object from the displayed scene; and
reintroducing, based upon exceedance of a second criterion, the removed secondary object to the displayed scene.
The method of claim 5 , further comprising the step of determining, based on the tracked direction and correlation, whether the user's gaze has a correlation with the primary object above a threshold attention criterion, wherein the second criterion comprises the threshold attention criterion.
The method of claim 5 , wherein the threshold distraction criterion is a time threshold within a range of 0.1 seconds to 240 seconds.
The method of claim 5 , wherein the threshold distraction criterion is customized based on the user.
The method of claim 8 , wherein the threshold distraction criterion is customized based on a historical data associated with the user's interaction with the display system or other display device.
The method of claim 5 , wherein the second criterion is a time threshold within a range of 0.1 seconds to 240 seconds.
A method comprising: outputting, via a display of a headset, a virtual scene to a user, wherein the virtual scene comprises one or more principal objects intended to hold an attention of the user and one or more secondary objects; capturing, during output of the virtual scene and using a sensor of the headset, eye tracking data of one or more eyes of the user; determining, based on the eye tracking data, gaze information indicative of a gaze of the user at the virtual scene; determining, based on the gaze information, that the user is distracted from the one or more principal objects by a first object of the one or more secondary objects; and updating, based on the determination that the user is distracted, the virtual scene to cause the first object to be removed from display while continuing to display a remainder of the virtual scene to the user, wherein the first object is removed from display until a condition is met indicative of the user being attentive to the one or more principal objects.
outputting, via a display of a headset, a virtual scene to a user, wherein the virtual scene comprises one or more principal objects intended to hold an attention of the user and one or more secondary objects;
capturing, during output of the virtual scene and using a sensor of the headset, eye tracking data of one or more eyes of the user;
determining, based on the eye tracking data, gaze information indicative of a gaze of the user at the virtual scene;
determining, based on the gaze information, that the user is distracted from the one or more principal objects by a first object of the one or more secondary objects; and
updating, based on the determination that the user is distracted, the virtual scene to cause the first object to be removed from display while continuing to display a remainder of the virtual scene to the user, wherein the first object is removed from display until a condition is met indicative of the user being attentive to the one or more principal objects.
The method of claim 11 , wherein determining, based on the gaze information, that the user is distracted by the first object of the one or more secondary objects comprises: determining, based on the gaze information, that the user is focused on the first object; and comparing an amount of time that the user is focused on the first object to a distraction threshold indicative of the user being distracted.
determining, based on the gaze information, that the user is focused on the first object; and
comparing an amount of time that the user is focused on the first object to a distraction threshold indicative of the user being distracted.
The method of claim 11 , wherein capturing, during output of the virtual scene and using the sensor of the headset, eye tracking data of one or more eyes of the user comprises capturing one or more images of the one or more eyes of the user.
The method of claim 11 , further comprising: determining, based on the gaze information, that the user is distracted from the one or more principal objects by a second object of the one or more secondary objects, wherein updating the virtual scene to cause the first object to be removed from display comprising updating the virtual scene to cause the first object and the second object to be removed from display.
determining, based on the gaze information, that the user is distracted from the one or more principal objects by a second object of the one or more secondary objects, wherein updating the virtual scene to cause the first object to be removed from display comprising updating the virtual scene to cause the first object and the second object to be removed from display.
The method of claim 14 , further comprising updating the virtual scene to cause the first object to be displayed while the second object continues to be removed from display, wherein the second object is caused to be displayed again if the user is determined to give a threshold attention to the principal object.
The method of claim 11 , wherein determining, based on the gaze information, that the user is distracted from the one or more principal objects by the first object of the one or more secondary objects comprises: determining a direction of the gaze within the virtual scene; and determining, based on the direction, that the first object is within a path of the gaze.
determining a direction of the gaze within the virtual scene; and
determining, based on the direction, that the first object is within a path of the gaze.
The method of claim 11 , wherein determining, based on the gaze information, that the user is distracted from the one or more principal objects by the first object of the one or more secondary objects comprises: determining that the gaze is outside of a threshold region within the virtual scene where the principal object is located for a threshold amount of time; and determining that the first object is within an area to which the gaze was directed.
determining that the gaze is outside of a threshold region within the virtual scene where the principal object is located for a threshold amount of time; and
determining that the first object is within an area to which the gaze was directed.
The method of claim 11 , wherein updating the virtual scene comprises changing one or more of a visibility value or opacity associated with the first
[Truncated to input limit]