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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11-12-2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3-17-2026 have been fully considered but they are not found persuasive. The combination of references applied to independent claim 14 have changed based on Applicant’s amendment. Examiner notes that any omitted arguments not specifically addressed are also traversed and not to be interpreted as an agreement. Examiner proposed an Examiner’s Amendment in an interview on 3-26-2026 requesting a response to cancel rejected claims to place the application in condition for allowance by 3-31-2026, of which no response has been received and interpreted as constructively declined by Applicant.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 14, 15, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Most recent amendment of claim 14 includes “a control command” that does not appear to have support in the specification. Specific citation is respectfully requested. Dependent claims inherit this deficiency and similarly rejected.
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.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Hudman et al. (US App. 20210247842 hereinafter referred to as “Hud”) in view of Goff et a. (US App. 20230010006) in further view of Pombo et al. (US App. 20140002357 hereinafter referred to as “Pom”).
In regard to claim 14, Hud teaches a method (see Abstract), comprising: receiving, at a head-wearable display (HWD) (see Para. 53-55, and 61-62 track HMD using received light angles from emitters in handheld controllers), angle of arrival (AOA) data determined from a signal (see at least Para. 12 angle-of-arrival of light and angle sensitive detectors); receiving at the HWD, inertial data generated by an inertial measurement unit (IMU) of the HWD (Para. 44 and 62, IMU); fusing the AOA data and the inertial data (see at least Para. 44 and 82 fuse sensor data) using a stochastic estimation process or at least one machine learning model (see Abstract) to determine a six degrees of freedom relative pose of the HWD and an additional device (see Para. 56).
Hud is not relied upon to teach the signal is radio-frequency (RF); identifying user input information based on the six degrees of freedom relative pose
However, Goff teaches the signal is radio-frequency (RF) (see Abstract, Para. 7, 80,120, Fig. 10, RF signals); identifying user input information based on the six degrees of freedom relative pose (See Fig. 15-16 and Para. 41-43 rendering image based on orientation of handheld controller and HMD with six-degrees of freedom results).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the HWD of Hud with the RF of Goff to allow tracking without line-of-sight (See Para. 4). Examiner also notes Hud discloses the base product/process of HMD tracking with light while Goff teaches the known technique of HMD tracking with RF so as to yield predictable results of tracking through objects in the device of Hud.
Hud and Goff are not relied upon to teach representing a control command.
However, Pom teaches representing a control command (see Para. 39, tracked head movements to provide commands).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the HWD of Hud with the RF of Goff to generate commands for augmenting hands free mobile devices (see Para. 2). Examiner also notes Hud and Goff discloses the base product/process of HMD RF tracking while Pom teaches the known technique of tracking for control commands so as to yield predictable results of tracking for command input in the HMD of Hud as modified by Goff.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Hudman et al. (US App. 20210247842 hereinafter referred to as “Hud”) in view of Goff et a. (US App. 20230010006) and Pom in further view of Dawar et al. (US Pat. 11892550 hereinafter “Daw”).
Regarding Claim 15, Hud and Goff and Pom teaches all the limitations of claim 14. Hud further teaches generating AOA data at the HWD based on transmitting signal (see Para. 45). Hud and Goff and Pom are not relied upon to teach ultra-wideband, UWB signal from the HWD to the additional device.
However, Daw teaches Daw teaches AOA, ultra-wideband, UWB signal from the HWD to the additional device (see Col. 4, Ln 60-Col. 5 Ln 5).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the
tracking system of Hud and Goff and Pom with the UWB of Daw for centimeter measurements (see Col. 4, Ln 15-30).
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hud and Goff and Pom and in further view of Pathirana (US App. 20150375108 hereinafter referred to as “Path”).
Regarding claim 27 Hud in view of Goff and Pom teach all the limitations of claim 14 Hud and Goff and Pom are not relied upon to teach wherein the additional device is a wearable device.
However, Path teaches wherein the additional device is a wearable device (see at least Para. 251, watch).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the tracking system of Hud and Goff and Pom to include the wearable device of Path so as to detect the movement of a human that is more convenient and less expensive (see Para. 5). Examiner also notes Hud in view of Goff and Pom discloses the base product/process of HMD communication using antennas between devices while Path teaches the known technique of antennas on multiple wearable devices so as to yield predictable results of tracking between the HMD and wearable device in the system of Hud as modified by Goff.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 16, 17, 19, 20, 23, 24, 25, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33 are allowed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure includes Lam et al. (US Pat. 11199379) and Mutschler et al. (US App. 20190346280).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW YEUNG whose telephone number is (571)272-4115. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm EST.
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, William Boddie can be reached at 571-272-0666. 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.
/MATTHEW YEUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2625