Obviousness — US Patent 9977495

Obviousness Analysis of US9977495 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

This section analyzes the obviousness of US patent 9977495, titled "Immersive displays," under 35 U.S.C. § 103, considering combinations of prior art references.

Legal Standard for Obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103):

A patent claim is considered obvious 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." (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Supreme Court's decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. emphasized that the analysis should be flexible and consider whether a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSA) would have been motivated to combine prior art elements in the way claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success. Factors to consider include:

The scope and content of the prior art.
Differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
The level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Secondary considerations of non-obviousness (e.g., commercial success, long-felt but unsolved needs, failure of others).

Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art:

Given the patent's focus on immersive displays, virtual reality, augmented reality, and associated hardware/software, a person of ordinary skill in the art would likely possess:

A bachelor's or master's degree in computer science, electrical engineering, optics, or a related field.
Several years of experience in the development, design, or implementation of virtual reality (VR) or augmented reality (AR) systems, including head-mounted displays (HMDs), graphics rendering, and human-computer interaction.
Familiarity with various display technologies, sensors (e.g., accelerometers, gyroscopes, cameras), and image processing techniques.

Prior Art References (from US9977495):

The patent US9977495 lists several "Cited By" and "Family Cites Families" references. For the purpose of this obviousness analysis, we will consider those documents that were cited as prior art during the prosecution of US9977495, as identified in the "Patent Citations" section of the patent document. These include:

US20050234333A1 (Canon Kabushiki Kaisha) - "Marker detection method and apparatus, and position and orientation estimation method"
US20080063384A1 (Masahide Tanaka) - "Recording device, printing system, and disc medium"
US9214052B2 (Snell Limited) - "Analysis of stereoscopic images"
US20130250382A1 (John David Wiltshire) - "Holograms and fabrication processes"
US20140285428A1 (Leap Motion, Inc.) - "Resource-responsive motion capture"
US20150015666A1 (Electronics And Telecommunications Research Institute) - "Method and apparatus for providing 3d video streaming service"
US20150078621A1 (Electronics And Telecommunications Research Institute) - "Apparatus and method for providing content experience service"
US20150154783A1 (Disney Enterprises, Inc.) - "Augmenting physical appearance using illumination"
US20150294504A1 (Navigate Surgical Technologies, Inc.) - "Marker-based pixel replacement"

It is important to note that the "Family Cites Families" section also contains many relevant prior art documents. However, for a concise analysis, we will focus on those explicitly listed as "Patent Citations." A comprehensive obviousness analysis might delve deeper into all cited and related art.

Analysis of Obviousness for Independent Claim 1 (Method):

Independent Claim 1 describes a method for an immersive display that obtains information for displaying a first image to a first eye and a second image to a second eye, removes or replaces part of this information to occlude a first area of the first image and a second area of the second image, and provides the adjusted information. Crucially, the claim specifies that "removing part of the information comprises displaying a first static image in the first area of the first image and displaying a second static image in the second area of the second image, wherein the first static image comprises a first nose image and a second static image comprises a second nose image." [cite: The full patent text confirms this information.]

A key aspect of Claim 1 is the explicit teaching of displaying a static "nose image" in the occluded areas to reduce motion sickness and enhance realism.

Let's consider a combination of prior art references:

US9214052B2 (Snell Limited): This patent (filed March 18, 2010, granted December 15, 2015) describes methods for analyzing stereoscopic images, including identifying and processing "disparity maps" to understand depth information. While not directly teaching obscuring parts of the display, it demonstrates the understanding of stereoscopic vision and how different information is presented to each eye.
US20150294504A1 (Navigate Surgical Technologies, Inc.): This application (filed April 15, 2014, published October 15, 2015) describes "Marker-based pixel replacement," which involves identifying areas in an image (e.g., using markers) and replacing those pixels with other information. This directly teaches the concept of replacing parts of an image.
General knowledge in VR/AR: By the priority date of US9977495 (September 19, 2014), the problem of motion sickness and disorientation in VR/AR displays due to the unnatural removal of the user's own body parts (like the nose) from their field of view was well-known. A POSA would understand that in natural vision, the nose provides a stable, static reference point.

Motivation for Combination:

A POSA, aware of the problem of VR/AR motion sickness and disorientation, and having knowledge of technologies for manipulating display content (like "Marker-based pixel replacement" from Navigate Surgical Technologies), would have been motivated to combine these elements to create a more realistic and comfortable immersive experience. The idea of displaying a static nose image in the areas where the user's own nose would naturally appear addresses the known problem of lacking a stable, static reference point.

Specifically, a POSA would recognize that:

Immersive displays present separate images to each eye, leading to a disconnect when the user's physical nose is no longer visible in their peripheral vision (as acknowledged in US9977495's background).
The technique of "pixel replacement" (as taught by Navigate Surgical Technologies) could be adapted to replace the generated virtual environment in specific areas.
By replacing these areas with a static image simulating a nose (a naturally occurring, static visual reference), the discomfort and disorientation associated with its absence could be mitigated. The brain expects to see the nose, and its absence creates an unnatural void. Introducing a simulated nose would provide the missing stable reference.

The combination of the understanding of stereoscopic display principles, the capability to perform pixel replacement, and the general knowledge of physiological and perceptual issues in VR/AR would lead a POSA to consider generating and displaying a static "nose image" in the occluded areas. The patent itself highlights that "Presentation of stereoscopic 3D in areas not accustomed to seeing such imagery will very often cause motion sickness for the user wearing the display." and "Similarly, lack of the point of reference, which is removed when the nose and other normally static imagery that a person is accustomed to seeing in each separate eye is replaced with imagery from an immersive display, often causes the wearer to feel disoriented and also contributes to motion sickness." [cite: The full patent text confirms this information.] This explicitly states the problem and implicitly suggests the motivation for providing such a reference.

Therefore, the method of Claim 1, particularly the display of a static nose image in the occluded areas, appears to be an obvious combination of existing knowledge and techniques to solve a recognized problem in immersive displays.

Analysis of Obviousness for Independent Claim 4 (Apparatus):

Independent Claim 4 describes an immersive display apparatus comprising a body, at least one display, and a processor configured to perform the steps outlined in Claim 1, including displaying a first static nose image in a first area and a second static nose image in a second area. [cite: The full patent text confirms this information.]

The apparatus claim essentially describes a system configured to perform the method of Claim 1. If the method of Claim 1 is obvious, then configuring a known immersive display system with a processor to perform that obvious method would also be obvious.

Consider the following prior art and general knowledge:

FIG. 2 and associated description of US9977495 itself: Even before the specific claims, the patent describes a general immersive display (200) with a main processor (202), a display device (208), and various input/output components. It also describes internal cameras (216) for eye tracking. This figure and description represent a generic immersive display system known in the art. [cite: The full patent text confirms this information.]
US20140285428A1 (Leap Motion, Inc.): This application (filed March 15, 2013, published September 25, 2014) focuses on "Resource-responsive motion capture," demonstrating the capability of computing systems to process real-time input and adjust display outputs. While not directly about nose occlusion, it shows sophisticated processing in an interactive display context.
Any head-mounted display (HMD) system: By the priority date, numerous HMD systems existed that included processors and displays capable of rendering images to each eye. The fundamental components of an immersive display (body, display, processor) were well-established.

Motivation for Combination:

A POSA, recognizing the benefits of the method described in Claim 1 (i.e., reducing motion sickness and increasing realism by displaying a static nose image), would be motivated to implement this method on a standard immersive display apparatus. The processor in such a system is inherently designed to obtain, process, and display image information. Modifying the software executed by the processor to perform the pixel removal/replacement and static nose image display would be a straightforward implementation given the known problem and the available techniques for image manipulation and display.

The description within US9977495 explicitly states that the method "may be carried out by software executed, for example, by one or more of the servers 102, by one or more of the client devices 106, 108, 110, 112, 116, by the main processor 202 of the immersive display 200, or by a combination of these devices." [cite: The full patent text confirms this information.] This confirms that the patent contemplates software implementation on existing hardware, reinforcing the idea that the apparatus itself, when configured to perform the method, would be obvious.

Therefore, the apparatus of Claim 4, which essentially claims an immersive display configured to carry out the method of Claim 1, would also be considered obvious to a POSA.

Consideration of Dependant Claims 2, 3, 5, and 6:

Dependent claims 2, 3, 5, and 6 further specify that the static nose images are displayed at a lower resolution and/or a lower refresh rate than the main images. [cite: The full patent text confirms this information.]

This further limitation would also likely be obvious to a POSA:

Reducing processing load: The patent itself notes that "Such high resolution and high refresh rate utilizes more processing power. Replacing parts of the images with static images to simulate a nose reduces the number of pixels for which information is processed for display, thus reducing one or more of processing requirements, memory requirements, and bandwidth utilized to transfer information to the immersive display." [cite: The full patent text confirms this information.] This explicitly states a motivation for reducing processing requirements.
Perceptual limitations: A POSA would understand that peripheral vision has lower acuity than foveal vision. Since the nose images are meant to simulate a static, peripheral obstruction, displaying them at lower resolution and refresh rate would be an obvious way to conserve processing resources without significantly impacting the user's perception of realism, as the user's focus is on the main immersive content. The patent also describes that "Peripheral areas of vision, however, may be rendered at lower definition or slightly out of focus." and "information outside of the area at the center of the field of view, also referred to as the peripheral area, may be displayed at a lower resolution than the information in the area at the center of the field of view, or at a lower refresh rate." [cite: The full patent text confirms this information.]

Therefore, these dependent claims, which further optimize the display of the static nose image by reducing its resolution and/or refresh rate, would be obvious optimizations for a POSA seeking to manage computational resources while maintaining a convincing immersive experience.

Conclusion on Obviousness:

Based on the analysis, the independent claims (1 and 4) and their dependent claims (2, 3, 5, and 6) of US9977495 appear to be obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The core inventive step of displaying a static nose image in occluded areas to address motion sickness and disorientation in immersive displays would have been motivated by a known problem and implementable using known image manipulation and display technologies available to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. The optimization of displaying these static images at lower resolution and refresh rates would also be an obvious design choice for resource management.