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
The response filed 10/22/2025 was received and considered.
Claims 1-6, 9-11, 13-16, 18 and 20-23 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s remarks (p. 7) argue:
“The Examiner uses Reshidko only as a structural base of a "Wearable Lens Device." There is no assertion that it teaches a GPS or authentication. Therefore, the Examiner's rationale presumes that the optical and control systems in Reshidko could accept additional subsystems-GPS gating, remote authentication, and disablement-without affecting operation. This presumption is unsupported”.
The Examiner disagrees. The proposed combination of teachings would “affect operation” of Reshidko, in that Reshidko would, after the proposed modification, have different functionality. However, the modifications would not destroy Reshidko or render it inoperable for its intended purposes. For example, including of security subsystems to, for example disable a device based on a location-based policy would not destroy Reshidko, but rather add a layer of security. The Examiner submits that a skilled artisan would have turned to the cited references for the purpose of increased despite what a skilled artisan might consider known drawbacks (such as additional hardware, software or additional coding/procedures to implement the security). Such a skilled artisan would have understood the well-known and accepted tradeoff between such potential drawbacks and the need for security, similarly to the manner in which requiring a password to access a device necessarily affects the operation of a device, but was nonetheless known and used to achieve widely accepted security benefits.
Applicant’s remarks (p. 7) argue:
“In this regard, a person having ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that any operability logic dependent on external signals (GPS, servers, or administrators) would introduce latency and failure modes that contradict Reshidko's fundamental operating principle. The Examiner provides no reasoning why a skilled artisan would disrupt a latency-sensitive AR pipeline with intermittent external checks.”
The Examiner disagrees. Applicant has provided no evidence of the assertion that such modifications would have introduced latency to such an extent as to disrupt the “latency-sensitive AR pipeline with intermitted external checks” such that the disruption would destroy Reshidko’s system.
Applicant’s remarks (p. 7) argue:
“The disclosure repeatedly emphasizes continuous real-time rendering and synchronization between the eye-tracking subsystem and the displayed image (¶¶ 1-7, 31-36, 45-54). The reference does not (and cannot) contain any disclosure of GPS, geolocation, authentication, disablement, or external control logic because its architecture presumes continuous low-latency operation to maintain stable AR imagery.”
The Examiner disagrees. Applicant has provided no evidence of the assertion that reference “contain any disclosure of GPS, geolocation, authentication, disablement, or external control logic because its architecture presumes continuous low-latency operation to maintain stable AR imagery” such that any consideration of security within the claimed HMD would inherently destroy Reshidko’s system.
Applicant’s remarks (p. 8) argue:
“Consequently, the Examiner's assumption that Reshidko is a "base device" of the Combination that could be modified with GPS-based enable/disable features is technically unsound. Reshidko's design goal-uninterrupted optical operation-teaches away from conditional operability gating. Because this assumption underlies the entire combination, the rejection rests on an improper premise.”
The Examiner disagrees. Applicant has provided no evidence of the assertion that such modifications would have introduced latency to such an extent as to disrupt to the point that such a modification would necessarily destroy or render inoperable Reshidko’s system. Further, the Examiner respectfully maintains that a skilled artisan would have understood the well-known and accepted tradeoff between such potential drawbacks and the need for security, similarly to the manner in which requiring a password to access a device affects the operation of a device, but was nonetheless known and used to achieve widely accepted security benefits.
Applicant’s remarks (pp. 8-9) argue that the combination “does not disclose “the WLD is operative only when the GPS coordinates are within a predetermined geographical area””, arguing that:
“A. Snediker's disablement is reactive anti-theft control, not proactive operability gating. Paragraph 34 of Snediker describes that when a monitored device is removed from a designated retail or institutional area, the display may darken, input may be ignored, and the device may be remotely deactivated so it is "no longer usable.” Clearly, Snediker's purpose is to deter theft of demonstration or inventory devices, not to control ordinary operability. The device functions normally while inside or until it is removed. In contrast, the claimed WLD is operative only when inside; it cannot function at all outside the authorized region. Thus, the Combination in view of Snediker teaches the opposite relationship: "operate, then disable after removal," not "operate only when within."”.
The Examiner disagrees, noting that “ordinary operability” is neither defined in the specification nor in the claims and further noting that Snediker’s device is operating ordinarily when within its environment, i.e. home location. Snediker teaches (in the field of wireless device security, ¶25, including for wearable devices, ¶41), that it was known to prevent theft of wireless devices (¶31) by monitoring GPS coordinates of the wireless devices (¶43) and deactivating devices such that the device is no longer usable (¶34) if the device is moved outside a home location/security area (¶29, ¶37). Regarding Applicant’s argument that Snediker is distinguished from the claims because Snediker teaches "operate, then disable after removal," not "operate only when within”, the Examiner notes that Snediker teaches that the device operates only when within its intended environment, for example, a retail establishment, as required by the claim language. The Examiner respectfully maintains that the prior art meets the language of the claimed invention and that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the references, as proposed in the rejection.
Applicant’s remarks (p. 9) argue:
“B. Snediker's context is inventory security, not wearable device functionality. Snediker's disclosure (¶¶ 18-25) concerns institutions, retailers, or schools issuing portable electronics and tracking them for loss prevention. Although it mentions "wearable devices" in passing (¶ 41), the embodiments, figures, and control logic are all directed to store or institutional asset management, not to head-mounted or user-operated AR systems. Applying that scheme to Reshidko's mixed-reality headset would require the Combination to have an entirely different architecture: persistent network monitoring, location beacons, and remote disablement features incompatible with Reshidko's continuous AR rendering. Clearly, the Combination fails to satisfy to operate within Reshidko's intended purposes.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner maintains that Snediker’s teaching is relevant to the disclosure of Reshidko, as evidenced by Snediker’s contemplation of implementing the taught system within wearable devices (Snediker, ¶41) and known portable terminals (Figs. 1, 7, 9).
Applicant’s remarks (p. 9) argue:
”C. Functional and technical incompatibility with Reshidko. Reshidko is a real-time, low-latency optical system that relies on uninterrupted image generation and eye-tracking feedback (Reshidko ¶¶ 1-7, 31-36). Introducing Snediker's periodic GPS monitoring or network deactivation logic would (1) add unpredictable latency; (2) cause false shutdowns indoors where GPS is unreliable; and (3) defeat the continuous-operation design objective expressly described by Reshidko. A person of ordinary skill would understand that the Combination of these systems would degrade performance and teach away from Reshidko's intended purposes”.
The Examiner agrees that introducing Snediker's periodic GPS monitoring or network deactivation logic could add unpredictable latency, a tradeoff known to a skilled artisan to be present in nearly any network-connected or radio signal-receiving device. The Examiner maintains that a skilled artisan would not have considered this potential for latency as inherently disqualifying of GPS-based security. The Examiner agrees that introducing Snediker's periodic GPS monitoring to Reshidko could cause shutdowns indoors where GPS is unreliable (although it is noted that Applicant has provided no evidence to support the assertion), in the same manner forgetting a password on a device could prevent use. However, the Examiner maintains that a skilled artisan would not have considered this potential for unreliable GPS as inherently disqualifying of GPS-based security, noting both that (1) a skilled artisan would have been familiar with the multitude of network-reliant (and hence signal quality-reliant) technologies in portable devices, such as HMDs and phones and (2) Reshidko already includes a GPS subsystem integral to the HMD operation (Fig. 17, ¶82). The Examiner respectfully maintains that a skilled artisan would have understood the well-known and accepted tradeoff between such potential drawbacks and the need for security, similarly to the manner in which requiring a password to access a device affects the operation of a device, but was nonetheless known and used to achieve widely accepted security benefits.
Applicant’s remarks (pp. 9-10) argue:
“D. No suggestion to invert Snediker's logic. Moreover, Snediker never teaches or suggests enabling operation only within a geofence. Its teaching is limited to disabling devices after unauthorized removal. The Examiner's conclusion requires inverting the logic of Snediker and rewriting its control scheme to create an entirely new function. This would go well beyond any disclosure or reasonable inference from Snediker. Therefore, the Examiner's reliance on Snediker is incorrect, and the Combination fails to disclose the claimed invention”.
The Examiner disagrees. A skilled artisan would have noted that Snediker teaches that the device operates only when within its intended environment, for example, a retail establishment and would have recognized the benefit of such security-related restriction could reasonably apply to any device with processing capability for the purposes of security, such as theft-resistance. Applicant is reminded that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. The Examiner respectfully maintains that the prior art meets the language of the claimed invention and that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the references, as proposed in the rejection.
Applicant’s remarks (p. 10) argue:
“ “A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention." MPEP § 2141.02 (VI). It is clear that Snediker discloses the opposite of the claimed invention and, therefore, the proposed combination teaches away from the claimed subject matter. Under MPEP § 2141.02 (VI), a reference teaches away when a person of ordinary skill in the art, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path taken by the applicant. Here, Snediker teaches reactive deactivation of devices after removal from a secure area, while the claimed invention requires that the wearable lens device be operative only when within the area. Substituting Snediker's reactive disablement for Applicant's proactive operability gating would invert its purpose and contradict its explicit teaching, thereby discouraging a skilled artisan from adopting such a modification”.
The Examiner disagrees that the proposed modification would “invert [Reshidko’s] purpose”. The Examiner respectfully maintains that Snediker does not, as applicant asserts, “teach the opposite of the claimed subject matter”. Snediker teaches (in the field of wireless device security, ¶25, including for wearable devices, ¶41), teaches that it was known to prevent theft of wireless devices (¶31) by monitoring GPS coordinates of the wireless devices (¶43) and deactivating devices such that the device is no longer usable (¶34) if the device is moved outside a home location/security area (¶29, ¶37). A skilled artisan would have understood that Snediker teaches that the device operates only when within its intended environment, for example, a retail establishment and would have recognized the benefit of such security-related restriction could reasonably apply to any device with processing capability for the purposes of security, such as theft-resistance.
Applicant’s remarks (pp. 10-11) argue:
“F. The proposed modification changes the principle of operation of Reshidko. Furthermore, as explained in MPEP § 2143.01(V), a proposed modification is improper when it renders the prior-art device inoperable for its intended purpose. Reshidko's intended purpose is to provide continuous, low-latency optical rendering and eye-tracking for mixed-reality display. Incorporating Snediker's geofence-based deactivation logic-dependent on intermittent GPS fixes and network monitoring-would interrupt or disable that continuous operation, directly undermining Reshidko's core functionality. Thus, even if one were to attempt the Examiner's proposed combination, it would render Reshidko inoperable for its intended purpose, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have no motivation to pursue such a modification”.
The Examiner disagrees. The proposed combination of teachings would not destroy Reshidko or render it inoperable for its intended purposes. For example, including of security subsystems to, for example disable a device based on a location-based policy would not destroy Reshidko, but rather add a layer of security. The Examiner submits that a skilled artisan would have turned to the cited references for this purpose despite what a skilled artisan might consider drawbacks (such as additional hardware, software or additional coding/procedures to implement the security). Such a skilled artisan would have understood the well-known and accepted tradeoff between such potential drawbacks and the need for security, similarly to the manner in which requiring a password to access a device affects the operation of a device, but was nonetheless known and used to achieve widely accepted security benefits.
Applicant’s remarks (p. 11) argue that (regarding claim 11) “Applicant incorporates by reference all arguments presented above for Claim 1, as they apply equally here”. The Examiner refers to the response to those arguments provided with respect to claim 1.
Applicant’s remarks (p. 11) argue:
“A. Reshidko ¶ 67 does not disclose biometric or credential-based authentication. The Examiner alleges that Reshidko discloses this claimed limitation at para. 67 . See Non-Final Office Action at 7. However, this interpretation is incorrect because the cited paragraph belongs to the gaze-tracking section of Reshidko, not a user-login mechanism. Paragraph 67 of Reshidko describes IR illumination used to image the user's eyes for eye-tracking (see ¶¶ 31-36, 67). The disclosure supports gaze estimation for rendering mixed-reality content, not user identification. There is no comparison of captured eye data against stored biometric templates, no validation of user credentials, and no authentication step. Thus, Reshidko does not teach the limitation of authenticating a user's access based on biometric data and credentials”.
The Examiner disagrees. Reshidko discloses:
“The pixels may be used, for example, to illuminate particular features of the user's eye such as the iris for biometric identification and/or authentication. For example, the near-eye optical display system may be incorporated into an HMD device (e.g., a virtual- or mixed-reality HMD device) and iris scanning can be used to identify a particular user who dons the HMD device. Appropriate user preferences, settings, and the like can then be automatically loaded into the device, for example. In authentication scenarios, the HMD device can be fully or partially disabled when a user is determined to be a non-authorized user of the device based on a result of iris scanning.” (Reshidko, ¶67)
The Examiner notes that in ¶67, Reshidko explicitly discloses “biometric identification and/or authentication” and “identify a particular user who dons the HMD device” and “HMD device can be fully or partially disabled when a user is determined to be a non-authorized user of the device based on a result of iris scanning”. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “comparison of captured eye data against stored biometric templates”, “authentication step”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant’s remarks (pp. 11-12) argue:
“B. Salvador, Brown, Kottahachchi, and Hubner do not cure this deficiency. Salvador governs network resource access using GPS-based location rules (see ¶¶ 57-66) and does not perform user authentication. Brown (col. 3 ll. 35-38; col. 4 ll. 25-28; col. 5 ll. 25-35) teaches centralized server authentication and logging for domain workstations. Kottahachchi (¶¶ 39-40) manages directory-service accounts and disables logins after repeated failures. Hubner (¶¶ 21, 26) allows an administrator to disable a stolen device through a remote portal. None of these references discloses or suggests a local biometric-plus-credential authentication system within a self-contained wearable lens device. Nowhere in those paragraphs, nor anywhere else in the combined art, is there disclosure of comparing the captured image to a stored template, verifying identity, or evaluating credentials. In short, the Examiner's reliance on Reshidko is faulty because the "iris scanning" in Reshidko is a positional-tracking operation, not a biometric authentication function. The Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie showing of obviousness”.
The Examiner disagrees. The Examiner notes that in ¶67, Reshidko explicitly discloses “biometric identification and/or authentication” and “identify a particular user who dons the HMD device” and “HMD device can be fully or partially disabled when a user is determined to be a non-authorized user of the device based on a result of iris scanning”. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “comparing the captured image to a stored template”, “verifying identity”, “evaluating credentials”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant’s remarks (p. 12) argue:
“The Examiner asserts that Salvador teaches transmitting secure data "only when" the device is within an authorized geographical area (¶¶ 57-66, 73), and concludes that it would have been obvious to modify Reshidko to restrict secure data transmission based on location, thereby rendering claim 18 obvious. (See Non-Final Office Action, pp. 7-9.) Applicant respectfully disagrees. The Examiner's reliance on Salvador to satisfy this limitation is misplaced. Salvador neither teaches nor suggests transmitting secure data only when a device is located within a predetermined geographical area”.
The Examiner disagrees. Salvador, in an analogous art to Reshidko (accessing content using wearable devices, ¶37), teaches that it was known to provide protected resources to user devices (¶38), including the device comprising a Geo-Positioning System (GPS) transmitter (device provides GPS coordinates, ¶45, ¶66), wherein the GPS transmitter is configured to periodically transmit GPS coordinates of the device (GPS coordinates can be periodically sent, ¶66), wherein the WLD receives secure data when the GPS coordinates are within a predetermined geographical area (device is provided access to a resource only when rules are satisfied, ¶65, ¶73, where the rules can specify that a connection is authorized with a geographical area, defined such as within a country, ¶57 or within a particular distance from a coordinate, ¶60). The Examiner maintains that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Reshidko to include a Geo-Positioning System (GPS) transmitter, wherein the GPS transmitter is configured to periodically transmit GPS coordinates of the WLD, wherein the WLD receives secure data when the GPS coordinates are within a predetermined geographical area to provide location-based access to resources, as taught by Salvador. It is noted that the WLD in Salvador receives secure data when the GPS coordinates are within a predetermined geographical area (device is provided access to a resource only when rules are satisfied, ¶65, ¶73, where the rules can specify that a connection is authorized with a geographical area, defined such as within a country, ¶57 or within a particular distance from a coordinate, ¶60). Further, Salvador explicitly teaches “firewall 470 can be configured to authenticate the user device 460 based on the received location coordinates and any applicable location-specific rules associated with the resource at issue, and the authentication can then be confirmed/communicated through message 464 back to the user device 460, based on which the user 460 can then communicate with the resource stored on/in the server 480 through interactions such as 472 and 482”, indicating that the secure data (on the server of Salvador) is only transmitted when the device is located within a predetermined geographical area.
Applicant’s remarks (p. 13) argue:
“A. Salvador governs server-side access, not on-device data transmission. The cited portions of Salvador describe a network firewall or security appliance that determines whether to allow a connection based on a client device's reported location (see ¶¶ 57-66). Paragraph 65 explains that the network security device evaluates a location-specific rule to decide whether a user device may access a protected resource. Paragraph 66 further describes that the user device may transmit its GPS coordinates as part of the access request. Nowhere does Salvador teach that data is transmitted only when the device itself is within the authorized area. Instead, the device always transmits an access request and its location; the server decides whether to grant or deny access. The data restriction therefore occurs on the server side, not the client (device) side.”
The Examiner notes that claim 18 recites “wherein the secure data is transmitted to the WLD only when the GPS coordinates are within a predetermined geographical area” (emphasis added). Thus, Salvador’s disclosure of enabling transmission of data from the server to the user device, only when the user device is within specific GPS coordinates meets the claimed limitation.
Applicant’s remarks (p. 13) argue:
“B. The Examiner's interpretation changes Salvador's direction of control. The claim requires that secure data is transmitted to the WLD only when the coordinates are within the defined area, meaning, the device receives or is permitted to receive secure data conditionally. In contrast, Salvador teaches that a firewall selectively allows network responses based on rules. The device's transmission behavior is unchanged; it is the firewall that filters. Thus, Salvador does not disclose or suggest a system in which the wearable lens device itself enforces the geographic restriction on receiving data”.
The Examiner notes that claim 18 recites “wherein the secure data is transmitted to the WLD only when the GPS coordinates are within a predetermined geographical area”. It is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “system in which the wearable lens device itself enforces the geographic restriction on receiving data”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant’s remarks (p. 13) argue:
“C. Snediker's disclosure does not bridge this gap. Although the Examiner elsewhere cites Snediker (¶¶ 29-37, 43) for geofence-based control, Snediker teaches disabling a device after removal from a security area to prevent theft. It does not describe conditional transmission or receipt of secure data, nor any relationship between GPS location and data flow. Therefore, Snediker cannot supplement Salvador to meet the claim limitation”.
However, Snediker is not relied on to teach the limitations of claim 18.
Applicant’s remarks (pp. 13-14) argue:
“D. Technical incompatibility and lack of motivation. Implementing Salvador's firewall policy within Reshidko's headset would require the device to act as its own network security appliance-contrary to Salvador's design. Reshidko describes a self-contained AR optical system focused on continuous rendering and eye tracking (¶¶ 1-7, 31-36). Adding a network firewall layer and conditional data gating at the device level would introduce latency, inconsistent with Reshidko's purpose. Under MPEP § 2143.01(V), a modification that renders the primary reference unsatisfactory for its intended purpose cannot support obviousness. Accordingly, the rejection of Claim 18 should be withdrawn”.
The Examiner disagrees. Claim 18 recites “wherein the secure data is transmitted to the WLD only when the GPS coordinates are within a predetermined geographical area”. It is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “act as its own network security appliance”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Further, Applicant has provided no evidence of the assertion that such modifications would have introduced latency to such an extent as to disrupt to the point that such a modification would necessarily destroy or render inoperable Reshidko’s system. The Examiner respectfully maintains that a skilled artisan would have understood the well-known and accepted tradeoff between such potential drawbacks and the need for security, similarly to the manner in which requiring a password to access a device affects the operation of a device, but was nonetheless known and used to achieve widely accepted security benefits.
Applicant’s remarks (p. 13) argue:
“The Examiner alleges that Reshidko teaches wherein the display system comprises a micro-display panel (¶ 33); a waveguide (Fig. 6, 505, ¶ 46) comprising at least one grating layer (Fig. 6, 520, ¶¶ 51, 72), wherein the waveguide is formed by embedding the at least one grating layer between the at least one optical lens (Fig. 6, 530, 605). Applicant acknowledges that Reshidko discloses a microdisplay coupled to a waveguide for presenting mixed-reality imagery (¶¶ 33, 46, 51, 72). However, Reshidko does not disclose that the waveguide is formed by embedding the grating layer between optical lenses, as claimed. Figure 6 of Reshidko depicts a planar waveguide layer structure used to direct display light into the user's eye, not a lens-embedded waveguide assembly. Paragraphs 46 and 51 describe that the waveguide contains in-coupling and out-coupling gratings (elements 505, 520) formed on or within the waveguide substrate, not between optical lenses. Paragraph 605 (Fig. 6 element number) refers to the front optical component, not a layered lens pair surrounding the grating structure. Accordingly, Reshidko teaches a discrete waveguide optic, not a waveguide embedded between optical lenses as recited. The Examiner's interpretation is inconsistent with the reference. The Combination fails to disclose the claimed limitation”.
The Examiner disagrees. Claim 2 requires: “wherein the display system comprises: a micro-display panel; a waveguide comprising at least one grating layer, wherein the waveguide is formed by embedding the at least one grating layer between the at least one optical lens”.
Reshidko Fig. 6 discloses:
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Examiner respectfully maintains that Reshidko’s Fig. 6 teaches a waveguide comprising at least one grating layer (couplers comprise grating structures, ¶51; see also Fig. 14), wherein the waveguide is formed by embedding the at least one grating layer between the at least one optical lens (the grating layers are situated between the lenses, Fig. 6, 530, 605). It is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “layered lens pair”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant’s remarks (p. 15) argue:
“The Examiner alleges that Reshidko teaches a biometric scanner, wherein the biometric scanner provides at least one of authentication or identification of the user (biometric identification and/or authentication, ¶ 67). Paragraph 67 of Reshidko describes that infrared light may be used to illuminate the user's eyes for imaging of the iris region-part of the eye-tracking subsystem, not biometric identification. See Reshidko ¶¶ 31-36, 67. The captured data are used to determine gaze direction and to render mixed-reality imagery, not to verify the user's identity. Reshidko neither compares these eye images against stored biometric templates nor performs user authentication. Thus, the cited paragraph does not disclose a "biometric scanner" performing authentication or identification as recited. The Combination fails to disclose the claimed limitation.”
The Examiner disagrees. Reshidko discloses:
“The eye tracker sensor, or a separate inward-facing camera
or sensor in the HMD device, may be adapted to capture
details of the illuminated iris for biometric identification or
authentication. Iris scanning captures a biometric signature that may provide a more secure alternative to passwords for the user to access or be authenticated by the HMD device or an associated device.” (Reshidko, ¶5);
“The pixels may be used, for example, to illuminate particular features of the user's eye such as the iris for biometric identification and/or authentication. For example, the near-eye optical display system may be incorporated into an HMD device (e.g., a virtual- or mixed-reality HMD device) and iris scanning can be used to identify a particular user who dons the HMD device. Appropriate user preferences, settings, and the like can then be automatically loaded into the device, for example. In authentication scenarios, the HMD device can be fully or partially disabled when a user is determined to be a non-authorized user of the device based on a result of iris scanning.” (Reshidko, ¶67)
The Examiner notes that in ¶67, Reshidko explicitly discloses “biometric identification and/or authentication” and “identify a particular user who dons the HMD device” and “HMD device can be fully or partially disabled when a user is determined to be a non-authorized user of the device based on a result of iris scanning”. The HMD in Reshidko is acting as a “biometric scanner” (eye tracker sensor, ¶5, iris scanning, ¶67).
Applicant’s remarks (p. 15) argue:
“The Examiner alleges that Reshidko teaches wherein the biometric scanner is at least one of a retinal scanner, iris scanner, eye vein verification system, an ocular-based biometric scanner, or a fingerprint scanner (iris, ¶ 67). As explained above, Reshidko ¶ 67 refers to iris imaging for gaze detection, not biometric authentication. The mere mention of "iris scanning" within an optical-tracking context does not transform it into an authentication system. No disclosure exists of retinal scanning, eye vein verification, or fingerprint scanning, nor any use of biometric data for access control. Consequently, Reshidko does not teach the recited biometric scanner types in the claimed context of user identification or authentication”.
The Examiner disagrees. Reshidko discloses:
“The eye tracker sensor, or a separate inward-facing camera
or sensor in the HMD device, may be adapted to capture
details of the illuminated iris for biometric identification or
authentication. Iris scanning captures a biometric signature that may provide a more secure alternative to passwords for the user to access or be authenticated by the HMD device or an associated device.” (Reshidko, ¶5);
“The pixels may be used, for example, to illuminate particular features of the user's eye such as the iris for biometric identification and/or authentication. For example, the near-eye optical display system may be incorporated into an HMD device (e.g., a virtual- or mixed-reality HMD device) and iris scanning can be used to identify a particular user who dons the HMD device. Appropriate user preferences, settings, and the like can then be automatically loaded into the device, for example. In authentication scenarios, the HMD device can be fully or partially disabled when a user is determined to be a non-authorized user of the device based on a result of iris scanning.” (Reshidko, ¶67)
The Examiner notes that in ¶67, Reshidko explicitly discloses “biometric identification and/or authentication” and “identify a particular user who dons the HMD device” and “HMD device can be fully or partially disabled when a user is determined to be a non-authorized user of the device based on a result of iris scanning”. The HMD in Reshidko is acting as a “biometric scanner” (eye tracker sensor, ¶5, iris scanning, ¶67).
Applicant’s remarks (p. 16) argue:
“The Examiner alleges that Reshidko discloses wherein data becomes available through the WLD upon successful authentication or identification of the user (user gains access to HMD when authenticated, ¶ 67). Reshidko contains no disclosure that "data becomes available ... upon authentication." Paragraph 67 simply describes optical eye-tracking illumination and image capture; the reference never discusses user access, data gating, or conditional availability of content. The Examiner's assertion that "user gains access to the HMD when authenticated" is unsupported-no such mechanism or statement appears in Reshidko. Thus, this limitation is not taught or suggested. The Combination fails to disclose the claimed limitation.”
The Examiner disagrees. Reshidko discloses:
“The eye tracker sensor, or a separate inward-facing camera
or sensor in the HMD device, may be adapted to capture
details of the illuminated iris for biometric identification or
authentication. Iris scanning captures a biometric signature that may provide a more secure alternative to passwords for the user to access or be authenticated by the HMD device or an associated device.” (Reshidko, ¶5);
“The pixels may be used, for example, to illuminate particular features of the user's eye such as the iris for biometric identification and/or authentication. For example, the near-eye optical display system may be incorporated into an HMD device (e.g., a virtual- or mixed-reality HMD device) and iris scanning can be used to identify a particular user who dons the HMD device. Appropriate user preferences, settings, and the like can then be automatically loaded into the device, for example. In authentication scenarios, the HMD device can be fully or partially disabled when a user is determined to be a non-authorized user of the device based on a result of iris scanning.” (Reshidko, ¶67)
The Examiner respectfully maintains that Reshidko’s teaching of either “user preferences, settings, and the like can then be automatically loaded into the device” or “HMD device can be fully or partially disabled when a user is determined to be a non-authorized user” in ¶67 meets the limitation “data becomes available through the WLD upon successful authentication or identification of the user”.
Applicant’s remarks (p. 16) argue:
“The Examiner alleges that Reshidko, as modified, teaches wherein the WLD is operative only when GPS coordinates are within a predetermined geographical area (as modified by Snediker, ¶¶34-37). As addressed in detail for Claim 1, Snediker (¶¶ 29-37) teaches disabling inventory or demonstration devices after removal from a retail or institutional area to prevent theft. The device operates normally until moved outside the area, at which point it may be remotely deactivated. This is the opposite of the claimed relationship ("operative only when within"). Snediker provides reactive disablement, not proactive operability gating. Accordingly, even in combination, Reshidko and Snediker fail to teach or suggest the claimed limitation. The Combination fails to disclose the claimed limitation”.
The Examiner disagrees. Snediker teaches (in the field of wireless device security, ¶25, including for wearable devices, ¶41), teaches that it was known to prevent theft of wireless devices (¶31) by monitoring GPS coordinates of the wireless devices (¶43) and deactivating devices such that the device is no longer usable (¶34) if the device is moved outside a home location/security area (¶29, ¶37). The Examiner notes that Snediker teaches that the device operates only when within its intended environment, for example, a retail establishment. The Examiner respectfully maintains that the prior art meets the language of the claimed invention and that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the references, as proposed in the rejection.
Applicant’s remarks (p. 27) argue that:
“There is no teaching in Snediker of a capture mode triggered by authentication failure, nor any disclosure that a camera on a wearable headset would activate when GPS coordinates fall outside an area. Combining such retail monitoring logic with Reshidko's real-time AR headset would require substantial redesign, adding network infrastructure and external monitoring inconsistent with Reshidko's continuous optical pipeline”.
However, Snediker teaches that it was known to monitor a device location for removal from a security area (geofence) and, in response to removal, output an image of the user carrying the device that is currently being captured by a camera on the device (¶48), to discourage theft (¶32). The Examiner respectfully maintains that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Reshidko such that the WLD is further configured to enable a capture mode using a camera system upon the detection of the determining unauthorized access attempt or when the GPS coordinates are not within the predetermined geographical area to discourage theft, as taught by Snediker. Applicant has provided no evidence that the proposed combination would “require substantial redesign, adding network infrastructure and external monitoring inconsistent with Reshidko's continuous optical pipeline”. The Examiner respectfully maintains that activating a camera (which already exists on Reshidko, ¶5, ¶67) when the GPS coordinates are not within the predetermined geographical area (as monitored in Snediker (¶48) would have been considered by a skilled artisan as an obvious modification of Reshidko.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: The limitation “the secure data” should be replaced with “secure data”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: The limitation “the secure data” should be replaced with “secure data”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 6, 9-11, 13-15, 18 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0300073 A1 to Reshidko et al. (Reshidko) in view of US 2016/0182565 A1 to Salvador, US 6,618,806 B1 to Brown et al. (Brown), US 2009/0077645 A1 to Kottahachchi, US 2011/0145927 A1 to Hubner et al. (Hubner) and US 2018/0349651 A1 to Snediker et al. (Snediker).
Regarding claim 1, Reshidko discloses a Wearable Lens Device (WLD) comprising (device 100, Fig. 1): at least one optical lens (glass lens, ¶33, ¶35); a processing system (processor 125, ¶34); and a display system (microdisplay, ¶33), coupled to the processing system, configured to present at least one of an augmented reality, virtual reality, or mixed reality artifact on the at least one optical lens (present mixed-reality experience, ¶33, ¶35), wherein a user is granted access to the WLD when an authentication system authenticates the user (device enabled/disabled based on authentication of the user, ¶67). Reshidko lacks a Geo-Positioning System (GPS) transmitter, wherein the GPS transmitter is configured to periodically transmit GPS coordinates of the WLD, wherein the WLD receives secure data when the GPS coordinates are within a predetermined geographical area. However, Salvador, in an analogous art (accessing content using wearable devices, ¶37), teaches that it was known to provide protected resources to user devices (¶38), including the device comprising a Geo-Positioning System (GPS) transmitter (device provides GPS coordinates, ¶45, ¶66), wherein the GPS transmitter is configured to periodically transmit GPS coordinates of the device (GPS coordinates can be periodically sent, ¶66), wherein the WLD receives secure data when the GPS coordinates are within a predetermined geographical area (device is provided access to a resource only when rules are satisfied, ¶65, ¶73, where the rules can specify that a connection is authorized with a geographical area, defined such as within a country, ¶57 or within a particular distance from a coordinate, ¶60). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Reshidko to include a Geo-Positioning System (GPS) transmitter, wherein the GPS transmitter is configured to periodically transmit GPS coordinates of the WLD, wherein the WLD receives secure data when the GPS coordinates are within a predetermined geographical area. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to provide location-based access to resources, as taught by Salvador.1 As modified, Reshidko lacks wherein the authentication system is configured to record and maintain a log of access attempts and can disable the access of the user to the WLD upon administrator authorization or upon detection of unauthorized access attempts. However, Brown, in an analogous art (accessing content using a networked device based on biometrics, col. 2, lines 13-17), teaches that it was known to utilize an authentication system (SAF server, col. 3, lines 51-54) to control a user’s access to a device (col. 5, lines 25-35), where the authentication system is configured to record and maintain a log of access attempts (SAF server maintains the state of all workstations in the domain and logs failed verification requests, col. 4, lines 25-28) and can disable the access of the user to the workstation upon detection of unauthorized access attempts (workstation can be locked, col. 3, lines 35-38, where the user’s biometrics is required to unlock, which will fail in the event of an unauthorized access attempt, col. 3, lines 39-44). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Reshidko such that the authentication system is configured to record and maintain a log of access attempts and can disable the access of the user to the WLD upon detection of unauthorized access attempts. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to provide strong authentication against insecure local logons (col. 4, lines 9-15) and to enable an administrator to maintain user authorization (col. 4, lines 48-55), as taught by Brown. The Examiner maintains that Brown teaches disabling access based on requiring an authorized user to log in. However, in the interest of compact prosecution (where the “disabling” is an active response), Kottahachchi is cited for teaching maintaining an account state, including unsuccessful authentication attempts (¶39) and disabling access to an account upon the number of attempts reaching a threshold (¶40). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Reshidko to include actively disabling access upon detection of unauthorized attempts. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to limit the number of authentication attempts by an attacker, but to allow repeated authentication by a potential authorized user, as taught by Kottahachchi. As modified, Reshidko lacks enabling the authentication system to disable the access of the user to the workstation upon administrator authorization. However, Hubner, in an analogous art (preventing unauthorized control of a user device, ¶21), teaches that it was known to enable an authorized administrator to disable access of a user to a portable device (indicating a device as stolen to a portal interface results in the device being reconfigured, including disabling the device, ¶26). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Reshidko such that the authentication system can disable the access of the user to the WLD upon administrator authorization. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to maintain control of the device’s data when the device is stolen, as taught by Hubner. As modified, Reshidko lacks where the WLD is operative only when the GPS coordinates are within a predetermined geographical area. However, Snediker, in an analogous art (wireless device security, ¶25, including wearable devices, ¶41), teaches that it was known to prevent theft of devices (¶31) by monitoring GPS coordinates of wireless devices (¶43) and deactivating devices such that the device is no longer usable (¶34) if the device is moved outside a home location/security area (¶29, ¶37). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Reshidko such that the WLD is operative only when the GPS coordinates are within a predetermined geographical area. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to enable use of the device, while protecting the device from being stolen, as taught by Snediker.2
Regarding claims 11 and 18, Reshidko discloses a system comprising a Wearable Lens Device (WLD) comprising (device 100, Fig. 1): at least one optical lens (glass lens, ¶33, ¶35); a processing system (processor 125, ¶34); and a display system (microdisplay, ¶33), coupled to the processing system, configured to prese