DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Telephonic Interview Summary
On 12/30/2025 Applicant’s representative Ying Li, Reg. No. 65,924, and Examiner Brier discussed the amendment filed on 12/18/2025 and the attached Interview Agenda emailed on 12/30/2025. We discussed de Jeong relative to amended claim 1 and de Jeong’s Fig. 6 and paragraph [0041] where the user sets the timer. Examiner Brier noted in method claim 1 the actor of the monitoring and detecting is not defined and covers the user at the claimed device monitoring and detecting events such as stirring and setting the timer anew such as is done in real cooking. Applicant’s representative discussed a supplemental amendment would be filed clarifying the actor of the monitoring and detecting. No agreement was reached regarding the further discussed amendment to claim 1 and de Jeong and the prior art of record.
Response to Amendment and Supplemental Amendment
The amendment filed on 12/18/2025 and the supplemental amendment filed on 12/30/2025 both have been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 12/18/2025 and 12/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
de Jong describes in addition to the embodiment discussed during the telephone interview held on 12/30/2025 an automatic embodiment performed by server 110 which server 110 corresponds to Applicant’s claimed device, refer to FIG. 5, paragraphs [0011], [0041], [0045], [0046], and [0047], and claims 3, 8, 13, and 14. de Jong describes monitoring, by the server 110 which is a device, stirring which is events associated with the physical article, including detecting, by the device, an occurrence of a previous stirring which is a previous event associated with the physical article. de Jong describes in response to detecting the occurrence of the previous stirring event, setting, by the device, a timer that tracks an amount of time that has passed since the occurrence of the previous stirring event. Regarding the claimed device and de Jong’s server 110 refer to MPEP 2111-2111.05 Claim Interpretation; Broadest Reasonable Interpretation [R-10.2019].
Therefore, the previous rejection is maintained and modified to reflect the claim amendments.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Claims 1-5, 8, 10, 14, 16, 19-22, 25-28, and 30-32 have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) to not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) claim interpretation.
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.
Claims 1-4, 10, 16, 19-21, 25-28, 30, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by de Jong et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0410760, hereinafter de Jong.
Claim 1:
1. A method comprising:
at a device comprising a display, one or more processors, and a non-transitory memory (de Jong: FIGs. 1 and 2, paragraphs [0023]-[0035] and [0059].):
presenting, via the display, an extended reality (XR) environment that includes a representation of a physical article (de Jong: FIGs. 6-9.);
monitoring, by the device, events associated with the physical article, including detecting, by the device, an occurrence of a previous event associated with the physical article (de Jong: de Jong describes an automatic embodiment performed by server 110 which server 110 corresponds to Applicant’s claimed device, refer to FIG. 5, paragraphs [0011], [0041], [0045], [0046], and [0047], and claims 3, 8, 13, and 14; and de Jong describes monitoring, by the server 110 which is a device, stirring which is events associated with the physical article, including detecting, by the device, an occurrence of a previous stirring which is a previous event associated with the physical article.);
in response to detecting the occurrence of the previous event, setting, by the device, a timer that tracks an amount of time that has passed since the occurrence of the previous event (de Jong: FIGs. 4-9, paragraph [0041]; de Jong describes an automatic embodiment performed by server 110 which server 110 corresponds to Applicant’s claimed device, refer to FIG. 5, paragraphs [0011], [0041], [0045], [0046], and [0047], and claims 3, 8, 13, and 14; and de Jong describes in response to detecting the occurrence of the previous stirring event, setting, by the device, a timer that tracks an amount of time that has passed since the occurrence of the previous stirring event.); and
displaying, on the display, the timer an indicator of the amount of time proximate to the representation of the physical article (de Jong: FIGs. 4-9, paragraphs [0042], [0048], and [0050].).
Claim 2:
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the previous event comprises a user interaction with the physical article (de Jong: “an action such as, for example, stir, or another action”, paragraph [0048] and [0050].).
Claim 3:
3. The method of claim 1, further comprising determining a type of the previous event based on a type of the physical article (de Jong: paragraph [0046] “Next, server(s) 110 may use machine vision processing of the image information to determine whether an object corresponding to a known context object of the user, as learned from historical timer behavior of the user, is present according to the received image information (act 504).” and paragraph [0048] “In some embodiments, when captured image information is determined to be indicating that the action, for example, stirring, is taking place, timer 616 may be reset to 2 minutes (2:00) and may begin counting down a next interval of time.”.).
Claim 4:
4. The method of claim 1, further comprising changing a visual property of the indicator based on a time scale of the indicator (de Jong: visual property of count-up timer and visual property of countdown timer are different, paragraph [0018]; and visual property of “seconds” scale are different than visual property of “or another suitable unit of time” scale, paragraph [0018].).
Claim 10:
10. The method of claim 1, further comprising
detecting a user input directed to the indicator, wherein the user input comprises a gesture input, a gaze input or an audio input (de Jong: FIGs. 6 and 7 and paragraph [0048] stirring directed to STIR 616/716 and FIG. 9 and paragraph [0052] user selects a selection in feedback 902.).
Claim 16:
16. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
detecting a user interaction with the physical article (de Jong: paragraph [0048] “In some embodiments, when captured image information is determined to be indicating that the action, for example, stirring, is taking place, timer 616 may be reset to 2 minutes (2:00) and may begin counting down a next interval of time.”.); and
resetting the amount of time in response to detecting the user interaction with the physical article (de Jong: paragraph [0048] “In some embodiments, when captured image information is determined to be indicating that the action, for example, stirring, is taking place, timer 616 may be reset to 2 minutes (2:00) and may begin counting down a next interval of time.”.).
Claim 19:
19. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
compositing an affordance with the representation of the physical article (de Jong: FIG. 9, prompt 902, paragraph [0052]; and edit the timer paragraph [0019], [0039], and [0055].);
detecting a user input directed to the affordance (de Jong: FIG. 9, prompt 902, user selected “just right”, paragraph [0052] ]; and edit the timer paragraph [0019], [0039], and [0055].); and
resetting the amount of time in response to detecting the user input (de Jong: FIG. 9, prompt 902, paragraph [0052], “too short” and “too long” conveys correcting the time]; and edit the timer paragraph [0019], [0039], and [0055].).
Claim 20:
20. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
resetting the amount of time (de Jong: paragraph [0048] “In some embodiments, when captured image information is determined to be indicating that the action, for example, stirring, is taking place, timer 616 may be reset to 2 minutes (2:00) and may begin counting down a next interval of time.”.); and
adjusting the displayed indicator of the amount of time in response to resetting the amount of time (de Jong: paragraph [0048] “In some embodiments, when captured image information is determined to be indicating that the action, for example, stirring, is taking place, timer 616 may be reset to 2 minutes (2:00) and may begin counting down a next interval of time.”.).
Claim 21:
21. The method of claim 1, further comprising determining a plurality of respective time periods corresponding to a plurality of events associated with the physical article (de Jong: FIGs. 5-9, context of the object determines a respective time period based on historical time use, paragraphs [0045] and [0046].).
Claim 25:
25. The method of claim 1, wherein the device comprises a head-mountable device (HMD) (de Jong: headset, paragraph [0022].).
Claim 26:
26. The method of claim 1, wherein presenting the XR environment comprises presenting a pass-through representation of a physical environment of the device on the display, and wherein displaying the indicator comprises overlaying the indicator on the pass-through representation of the physical environment (de Jong: FIGS. 6 and 8, paragraph [0016] “a real world environment is enhanced by virtual details” and paragraph [0022] “Each of user devices 104, 106, 108 may be any one of a headset, a smartphone, a tablet, or other device capable of showing a real world environment augmented with virtual objects.”.).
Claims 27 and 30:
Claims 27 and 30 are device claim versions of method claims 1 and 2 and device claims 27 and 30 are rejected for the same reasons given for method claims 1 and 2.
Claims 28 and 32:
Claims 28 and 32 are non-transitory memory claim versions of method claims 1 and 10 and non-transitory memory claims 28 and 32 are rejected for the same reasons given for method claims 1 and 10.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 5, 8, 14, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over de Jong et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0410760, hereinafter de Jong, in view of Khalid et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0285737, hereinafter Khalid.
Claim 5:
5. The method of claim 4, wherein the visual property comprises a combination of a dimension of the indicator, a color of the indicator and a brightness of the indicator.
de Jong is silent at to the claimed “wherein the visual property comprises a combination of a dimension of the indicator, a color of the indicator and a brightness of the indicator”.
Khalid describes a count up timer which covers the claimed “wherein the visual property comprises a combination of a dimension of the indicator, a color of the indicator and a brightness of the indicator”. Refer to FIG. 7A and paragraphs [0071]-[0072] which describes a dimension of the indicator in 702 which grows with count up of time, a color of the indicator and a brightness of the indicator where 702 starts small and increases in size with count up of time with when 702 is small 700 appears bright white and when 702 is large 700 appears darker black.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in view of Khalid to substitute in de Jong the timer indicator 604,608,612,616 illustrated in FIGs. 6 and 8 with timer indicator illustrated in FIG. 7A of Khalid because the graphical timer indicator of Khalid is an alternative to the digital time indicator of de Jong both having predictable results of conveying timer information to a user.
Claim 8:
8. The method of claim 1, wherein the indicator comprises a plurality of rings separated by a distance that changes based on the amount of time.
de Jong is silent at to the claimed “wherein the indicator comprises a plurality of rings separated by a distance that changes based on the amount of time”.
Khalid describes a count up timer which covers the claimed “wherein the indicator comprises a plurality of rings separated by a distance that changes based on the amount of time”. Refer to FIG. 7A and paragraphs [0071]-[0072] which describes a an outer circle 704 and edge of cursor 702 which moves in direction 706 towards outer circle 704 with count up of time which corresponds to claimed a plurality of rings separated by a distance that changes based on the amount of time.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in view of Khalid to substitute in de Jong the timer indicator 604,608,612,616 illustrated in FIGs. 6 and 8 with timer indicator illustrated in FIG. 7A of Khalid because the graphical timer indicator of Khalid is an alternative to the digital time indicator of de Jong both having predictable results of conveying timer information to a user.
Claim 31:
Claim 31 is a non-transitory memory claim version of method claim 8 and non-transitory memory claim 31 is rejected for the same reasons given for method claim 8.
Claim 14:
14. The method of claim10, further comprising, in response to the user input, displaying a collapsed indicator or an expanded indicator.
de Jong is silent at to the claimed “in response to the user input, displaying a collapsed indicator or an expanded indicator”.
de Jong describes user input that edit alters the timer which will alter the time displayed by the timer, refer to paragraphs [0019], [0039], and [0055].
Khalid describes a count up timer which covers the claimed “in response to the user input, displaying a collapsed indicator or an expanded indicator”. Refer to FIG. 7A and paragraphs [0071]-[0072] which describes a an outer circle 704 and edge of cursor 702 which moves in direction 706 towards outer circle 704 with count up of time which corresponds to claimed a plurality of rings separated by a distance that changes based on the amount of time which when edited will alter in FIG. 7A graphical indicator 700 such that 702 may collapse or expand based on the edit.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in view of Khalid to substitute in de Jong the timer indicator 604,608,612,616 illustrated in FIGs. 6 and 8 with timer indicator illustrated in FIG. 7A of Khalid because the graphical timer indicator of Khalid is an alternative to the digital time indicator of de Jong both having predictable results of conveying timer information to a user because the graphical timer indicator of Khalid is an alternative to the digital time indicator of de Jong both having predictable results of conveying timer information to a user.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over de Jong et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0410760, hereinafter de Jong, in view of Jooris et al., WO 2020165042 A1, hereinafter Jooris.
Claim 22:
22. The method of claim 21, further comprising displaying a combination of a trend, an average and historical information associated with the plurality of respective time periods.
de Jong is silent at to the claimed “displaying a combination of a trend, an average and historical information associated with the plurality of respective time periods”.
Jooris describes on page 45 “FIG. 8 shows a GUI (200, f) displaying current DoSI for the subject (240) during a therapeutic session over time. Historical or trending datapoints (244) are also shown, and an average of the historical or trending data points is shown as a dashed line (242).”. FIG. 8 illustrates displaying a combination of a trend (244), an average (242) and historical (242) information.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in view of Jooris to add to de Jong the claimed “displaying a combination of a trend, an average and historical information associated with the plurality of respective time periods” to facilitate review of the historical event data, Jooris at page 41 line 18 to page 43 line 9
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Stolzenberg et al., US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0232212, describes display of a countdown timer, refer to FIGs. 4 and 5B and paragraphs [0033] and [0034].
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JEFFERY A BRIER whose telephone number is (571)272-7656. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri from 8:30am-3:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Xiao M Wu, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-7761. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
JEFFERY A. BRIER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2613
/JEFFERY A BRIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2613