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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/26/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that McKenzie does not disclose “wherein the auto-pairing is initiated after determining that the second RV is aligned with the first RV” on page 6 of Applicant’s remarks. The examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant. Applicant states “McKenzie explains a way to pair the HMD 100 and the controller 102 with each other. In general, the controller 102 sends an electromagnetic signal, and the HMD 100 may detect the signal. In response to the detection of the controller 102 (the sender), the HMD 100 (the receiver) initiate a process to pair the HMD 100 and the controller 102. McKenzie, [0020] - [0024]. That is, the pairing process is initiated before determining whether or not the controller 102 and the HMD 100 are aligned” on page 7 of Applicant’s remarks. Paragraph 24 of McKenzie states “the HMD 100 (the receiver, in this example) may initiate a process to pair the HMD 100 and the controller 102, including verification of the user's intention to pair the detected controller 102 with the HMD 100. This will be described in more detail with reference to FIGS. 5A-5D”. The examiner agrees, that a process to pair the HMD and the controller is initiated, however, this is not the auto-pairing. As seen in figures 5A-5C and corresponding text, the verification of the user’s intention to pair the detected controller is made prior to automatically (initiating) pairing. That is the devices are in a pairing mode, as seen in paragraph 25, then the user verifies the device that is to be paired by aligning the device into the virtual indicator, as seen in paragraph 27 and figures 5A-C, and then the pairing is made. Paragraph 36 further confirms “verification of the user’s intention to pair” and upon verification “the designated pairing sequence may be completed, and the HMD 100 and controller 102 may be paired, enabling communication between the HMD 100 and the controller 102 as described above via, for example, Bluetooth, WiFi, or other communication available to the HMD 100 and the controller 102.” This is not different from Applicant’s own disclosure of paragraph 62 which is an expansion of block 530 of figure 5.
In regards to Applicant’s arguments that figure 7 teaches the initiation of auto-pairing prior to the confirmation of the rotational vectors (page 8 of Applicant’s remarks), the prior art teaches that the initiation is of a process to pair and not the actual pairing itself. See arguments above and paragraph 41, “an electromagnetic signal may be detected by a receiving device such as an HMD worn by the user, indicating that a sending device, such as a controller operated by the user, is available and eligible for pairing with HMD based on properties of the electromagnetic signal transmitted by the controller and received and processed by the HMD (blocks 710 and 720). From the processed signal, the HMD may determine a physical proximity of the HMD and the controller, and may extract identification information associated with the controller to be used in pairing the HMD and the controller… Upon determination that the pairing criteria has been fulfilled (block 740), the HMD and the controller may be paired (block 750).” Block 750 of figure 7 is the auto-pairing. Again, similar to Applicant’s disclosure in paragraph 45, “Upon determining that the RV1 and RV2 are aligned, the first device may automatically pair with the second device.” Therefore, the examiner takes the position that the prior art of McKenzie discloses the newly added limitations of wherein the auto-pairing is initiated after determining that the second RV is aligned with the first RV.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McKenzie et al.
1. McKenzie discloses a first device comprising: a memory; a communicator; and a processor communicatively connected to the memory and the communicator (fig 3 and corresponding text), the processor being configured to:
determine, utilizing an inertial measurement unit (IMU), a first rotation vector (RV) of a first camera of the first device (para 46; see also para 27-34 and fig 3 and corresponding text]);
receive one or more RVs from one or more devices including a second RV from a second device, the second RV being an RV of a second camera of the second device (para 27, detect an electromagnetic signal generated by the sender, or controller … allow the user, wearing the HMD 100, to control the position and orientation of the controller 102 as the user moves the controller 102 in the physical space, to bring and maintain the controller 102 into alignment; see also para 31, he controller 102 may be detected, and the movement of the detected controller 102 may tracked by the system; para 33, the electromagnetic signal may include a position and orientation vector identifying the controller 102 in physical proximity of the HMD 100; see also para 47);
determine whether the second RV is aligned with the first RV (para 27-34, moves the controller 102 in the physical space, to bring and maintain the controller 102 into alignment .. movement and sustained alignment of the controller 102 with the virtual pairing indicator 500 may allow for verified, secure pairing of the controller 102); and
auto-pair with the second device when the second RV is aligned with the first RV (para 27-34, see above), wherein the auto-pairing is initiated after determining that the second RV is aligned with the first RV (para 25-27).
2. McKenzie discloses the first device of claim 1, wherein in determining whether the second RV is aligned with the first RV, the processor is configured to: determine that the second RV is aligned with the first RV when the first and second RVs have comparable orientations, the first and second RVs having comparable orientation if an orientation of the first RV is opposite to an orientation of the second RV within a threshold angle, or the orientation of the first RV is same as the orientation of the second RV within the threshold angle (para 27, maintaining alignment and substantially aligned indicated a threshold of alignment; see also para 47).
3. McKenzie discloses the first device of claim 2, wherein in determining whether the second RV is aligned with the first RV, the processor is further configured to: determine that the second RV is aligned with the first RV when the orientations of the first and second RVs remain comparable for a threshold time (para 27, maintaining alignment of the controller in the virtual alignment area for a set amount of time).
4. McKenzie discloses the first device of claim 2, wherein in determining whether the second RV is aligned with the first RV, the processor is further configured to: determine whether the first and second RVs have comparable orientations, the first and second RVs having comparable orientation if an orientation of the first RV is opposite to an orientation of the second RV within a threshold angle, or the orientation of the first RV is same as the orientation of the second RV within the threshold angle (para 27, see above); and determine whether an object associated with the second device is detected within a first camera view, the first camera view being a view of the first camera, wherein it is determined that the second RV is aligned with the first RV when the first and second RVS have comparable orientations and the object associated with the second device is detected within the first camera view (para 27-34).
5. McKenzie discloses the first device of claim 4, wherein the object associated with the second device is any one or more of a face, a wearable unit, and a mobile device (figs 5A-5D and fig 3 and corresponding text, controller is a mobile device).
6. McKenzie discloses the first device of claim 5, wherein the wearable unit are smart glasses (figs 5A-5D and fig 3 and corresponding text, controller is a mobile device [further defining the wearable unit does not require the wearable unit to be the object]).
Claims 21-23 are similar in scope to claims 1-6 and are rejected under similar rationale.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McKenzie as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lesner et al. (US 9,392,637) hereafter Lesner.
7. McKenzie discloses the first device of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor is further configured to: broadcast the first RV. However, in an analogous art, Lesner discloses peer-to-peer proximity pairing of electronic devices with cameras including wherein the processor is further configured to: broadcast the first RV (Col 5:55-Col 6:9). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the implementation of McKenzie with the implementation of Lesner in order to prevent replay attack or interference (Col 1:33-47).
Claim(s) 8-10, 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McKenzie as applied to claim 1 and 21 above, and further in view of Shrubsole et al. (US 2017/0359456) hereafter Shrubsole.
8. McKenzie discloses the first device of claim 1 and a view after rendering the first camera view (para 15, 25, 41, augmented reality), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor is further configured to: share, subsequent to auto-pairing with the second device, a first shared view with the second device, the first shared view being a first camera view or a first rendered view, the first camera view being a view of the first camera, and the first rendered view being a view after rendering the first camera view. However, in an analogous art, Shrubsole discloses a communication system comprising head wearable devices including subsequent to auto-pairing with the second device, a first shared view with the second device, the first shared view being a first camera view or a first rendered view, the first camera view being a view of the first camera, and the first rendered view (para 69-70). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the implementation of McKenzie with the implementation of Shrubsole in order to communicate with an individual co-worker without disturbing others in the space (para 70).
9. McKenzie and Shrubsole disclose the first device of claim 8, wherein the first rendered view is an augmented reality (AR) view of the first camera view, an extended reality (XR) view of the first camera view, or both (McKenzie, para 15, 25, 41; Shrubsole, para 69-70).
10. McKenzie discloses the first device of claim 1 and a view after rendering the first camera view (para 15, 25, 41, augmented reality), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor is further configured to: display, subsequent to auto-pairing with the second device, a second shared view received from the second device, the second shared view being a second camera view or a second rendered view, the second camera view being a view of the second camera, and the second rendered view being a view after rendering the second camera view. However, in an analogous art, Shrubsole discloses a communication system comprising head wearable devices including subsequent to auto-pairing with the second device, a second shared view received from the second device, the second shared view being a second camera view or a second rendered view, the second camera view being a view of the second camera, and the second rendered view being a view after rendering the second camera view (para 69-70). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the implementation of McKenzie with the implementation of Shrubsole in order to communicate with an individual co-worker without disturbing others in the space (para 70).
Claims 24-25 are similar in scope to claims 8-9 and are rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES R TURCHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1378. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 7-3.
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, Luu Pham can be reached at 571-270-5002. 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.
/JAMES R TURCHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2439