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 5/8/2026 was received and considered.
Claims 1-6, 9-11, 13-16, 18 and 20-23 are pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/8/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-6, 9-11, 13-16, 18 and 20-23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s remarks (p. 6) suggest that claims 1 and 11, as amended, include new limitations not taught in the art of record. The Examiner agrees. 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 and lacks wherein the predetermined geographical area is defined per user and stored in the authentication system associated with a user account of the user. However, US 2022/0131871 A1 to Huang et al. (Huang), in an analogous art to Reshidko (protecting a user device via geofencing), teaches that it was known to include in a user device a Geo-Positioning System (GPS) transmitter (geolocation acquisition module 214, Fig. 2A, including a global positioning system (GPS), ¶48), wherein the GPS transmitter is configured to periodically transmit GPS coordinates of the WLD (geolocation data is transmitted when user is authenticated and/or when the user requests access to certain data, ¶54; geolocation can be represented by an area of a latitude-longitude polygon, ¶50), wherein the WLD receives secure data when the GPS coordinates are within a predetermined geographical area (application server provides access to resources, ¶49, where certain data is restricted to certain geological boundaries, ¶¶52-53) and to utilize a user device to access a user account associated with the user (¶49), where user account is associated with a geofence (¶67) and the device is required to be within a geofence (¶50), including requesting geolocation data from the user device (¶50) and, if the device is within the required geofence, access is granted (¶51). Access to certain data can be protected via the geofence (¶¶52-53) and the user’s location can be verified at login time (¶54). Huang teaches that restrictions on data access to and operation of a device can be specified based on the user using the device. 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 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 and such that the predetermined geographical area is defined per user and stored in the authentication system associated with a user account of the user to utilize known means of reporting a device geolocation and to increase flexibility by enabling users to have different access requirements, as taught by Huang.
Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that the application is not yet in condition for allowance with respect to the prior art.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: The limitation “the secure data” should be replaced with “secure data”.
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 2022/0131871 A1 to Huang et al. (Huang), US 2016/0182565 A1 to Salvador, US 6,618,806 B1 to Brown et al. (Brown), US 2009/0077645 A1 to Kottahachchi 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 and lacks wherein the predetermined geographical area is defined per user and stored in the authentication system associated with a user account of the user. However, Huang, in an analogous art (protecting a user device via geofencing), teaches that it was known to include in a user device a Geo-Positioning System (GPS) transmitter (geolocation acquisition module 214, Fig. 2A, including a global positioning system (GPS), ¶48), wherein the GPS transmitter is configured to periodically transmit GPS coordinates of the WLD (geolocation data is transmitted when user is authenticated and/or when the user requests access to certain data, ¶54; geolocation can be represented by an area of a latitude-longitude polygon, ¶50), wherein the WLD receives secure data when the GPS coordinates are within a predetermined geographical area (application server provides access to resources, ¶49, where certain data is restricted to certain geological boundaries, ¶¶52-53) and to utilize a user device to access a user account associated with the user (¶49), where user account is associated with a geofence (¶67) and the device is required to be within a geofence (¶50), including requesting geolocation data from the user device (¶50) and, if the device is within the required geofence, access is granted (¶51). Access to certain data can be protected via the geofence (¶¶52-53) and the user’s location can be verified at login time (¶54). 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 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 and such that the predetermined geographical area is defined per user and stored in the authentication system associated with a user account of the user. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to utilize known means of reporting a device geolocation and to increase flexibility by enabling users to have different access requirements, as taught by Huang. As modified, Snediker lacks explicitly sending GPS coordinates. 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. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to provide location-based access to resources using known GPS coordinates, 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 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 teaches wherein the WLD is only operative for certain function when the GPS coordinates are within a predetermined geographical area (for example Reshidko, in view of Huang, teaching where general login and certain data are restricted to certain geological boundaries, Huang ¶¶51-53), lacks where the WLD device is itself 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 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) and an authentication system configured to authenticate a user’s access to the WLD based on biometric data and user credentials (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 and lacks wherein the predetermined geographical area is defined per user and stored in the authentication system associated with a user account of the user. However, Huang, in an analogous art (protecting a user device via geofencing), teaches that it was known to include in a user device a Geo-Positioning System (GPS) transmitter (geolocation acquisition module 214, Fig. 2A, including a global positioning system (GPS), ¶48), wherein the GPS transmitter is configured to periodically transmit GPS coordinates of the WLD (geolocation data is transmitted when user is authenticated and/or when the user requests access to certain data, ¶54; geolocation can be represented by an area of a latitude-longitude polygon, ¶50), wherein the WLD receives secure data when the GPS coordinates are within a predetermined geographical area (application server provides access to resources, ¶49, where certain data is restricted to certain geological boundaries, ¶¶52-53) and to utilize a user device to access a user account associated with the user (¶49), where user account is associated with a geofence (¶67) and the device is required to be within a geofence (¶50), including requesting geolocation data from the user device (¶50) and, if the device is within the required geofence, access is granted (¶51). Access to certain data can be protected via the geofence (¶¶52-53) and the user’s location can be verified at login time (¶54). 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 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 and such that the predetermined geographical area is defined per user and stored in the authentication system associated with a user account of the user. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to utilize known means of reporting a device geolocation and to increase flexibility by enabling users to have different access requirements, as taught by Huang. As modified, Snediker lacks explicitly sending GPS coordinates. 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; 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. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to provide location-based access to resources using known GPS coordinates, as taught by Salvador. 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 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 teaches wherein the WLD is only operative for certain function when the GPS coordinates are within a predetermined geographical area (for example Reshidko, in view of Huang, teaching where general login and certain data are restricted to certain geological boundaries, Huang ¶¶51-53), lacks where the WLD device is itself 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.
Regarding claims 2 and 13, 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).
Regarding claims 3 and 14, 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).
Regarding claims 4 and 15, 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).
Regarding claim 6, 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).
Regarding claim 9, 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).
Regarding claim 10, Reshidko discloses wherein the display system allows overlaying of virtual objects onto the real world through the optical lens (mixed-reality display, ¶33).
Regarding claims 22-23, Reshidko, as modified, lacks wherein 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. However, Snediker also 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). 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 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. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to discourage theft, as taught by Snediker.3
Claims 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Reshidko, Huang, Salvador, Brown, Kottahachchi and Snediker, as applied to claims 3 and 14, in view of US 2020/0050257 A1 to Lee et al. (Lee).
Regarding claims 5 and 16, Reshidko, as modified, lacks wherein the biometric scanner measures and records the distance between a user's eye and the WLD. However, Lee, in an analogous art (head-mounted displays) teaches that it was known to measures and records the distance between a user's eye and a head-mounted display (¶115) to detect motion of the eyes and modify operations of the device (¶117). 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 biometric scanner measures and records the distance between a user's eye and the WLD. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to detect motion of the user’s eyes and control lights sources, lenses, etc. based on the identified motion, as taught by Lee.
Claims 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Reshidko, Huang, Salvador, Brown, Kottahachchi and Snediker, as applied to claims 11 and 1, in view of US 2022/0301369 A1 to Jakes et al. (Jakes).
Regarding claim 20, Reshidko, as modified, lacks wherein the secure data is not transmitted after a predetermined time period of determining that the GPS coordinates are not within the predetermined geographical area. However, Jakes teaches that it was known to lock a device based on a geofence, where the device is locked if the device has been out of a predetermined area for a threshold amount of time, to avoid false triggers (¶55, ¶73). 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 secure data is not transmitted after a predetermined time period of determining that the GPS coordinates are not within the predetermined geographical area (as specifically modified by Salvador). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to avoid false triggers in determining the device is outside the predetermined geographical area, as taught by Jakes.
Regarding claim 21, Reshidko, as modified, lacks wherein the WLD becomes non-operative after a predetermined time period of determining that the GPS coordinates are not within the predetermined geographical area. However, Jakes teaches that it was known to lock a device based on a geofence, where the device is locked if the device has been out of a predetermined area for a threshold amount of time, to avoid false triggers (¶55, ¶73). 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 location determination is made based on a predetermined time period of the WLD not being within the predetermined geographical area. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to avoid false triggers in determining the device is outside the predetermined geographical area, as taught by Jakes.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J SIMITOSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-3841. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:00-3:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Carl Colin can be reached at 571-272-3862. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Michael Simitoski/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2493
June 11, 2026
1 US 2022/0116404 A1 (Manasse et al.) similarly teaches data, for example limited to certain jurisdictions (¶25), is transmitted to the device only when the GPS coordinates are within a predetermined geographical area (determining a device location, ¶88, comparing the location to a geofence location associated with content, ¶¶93-94, and sending the content to the device, ¶95)
2 US 20170164267 A1 (Marka; Szabolcs et al.) (¶1, ¶21) and US 20080293397 A1 (Gajdos; Tom et al.) (¶46, ¶57) teach similar concepts.
3 US 20170164267 A1 (Marka; Szabolcs et al.) teaches a similar concept (¶57).
Prosecution Insights