DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This office action is responsive to the Applicant’s amendment filed on 1/15/2026. Claims 1-3, 5-6, 10-17, and 19-20 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending and will be considered for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation 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 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
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.
3. Claims 6, 16, and 20 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.
Claim 6 recites the limitations “determine that a stability of the UI control element with respect to a UI element exceeds a stability threshold; and pre-render a selection result of receiving a selection of the UI element by way of the UI control element, prior to receiving the selection”, however, Examiner is unable to find support for the limitation. These limitations lack written description support in the Applicant's specification. Supported for this limitation is requested for further consideration. Please see at least paragraphs [0118]-[0119] at U.S. Publication Application No. 20250103197. If the Examiner has overlooked the portion of the original Specification that describes this feature/term of the present invention, then Applicant should point it out (by page number and line number) in the response to the Office Action.
Claims 16 and 20 are substantially similar to claim 6 and rejected under the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
4. Claims 1, 3, 10-11, 13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hoover et al. (US 2019/0130622 A1).
As in Claim 1, Hoover teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing executable instructions that when executed by at least one processor cause the at least one processor to (at least pars. 40, 48, 182, 256, computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations):
receive at least one sensor signal from at least one motion sensor of a head worn device (FIGS. 13A-13B, 14, and at least pars. 36, 59, 76, 131, a wearable device 200 receives a signal from at least one or more head pose sensors such as, e.g., an IMU of a head worn device (HMD)), the head worn device associated with a user interface (UI) displaying a UI control element (FIGS. 12B, 13A-13B, 14, and at least pars. 107, 120-122, the wearable device 200 (e.g., HMD) is associated with a user interface displaying a UI control elements (e.g., a reticle 1256 shown in FIG. 12B or a reticle 1356 shown in FIGS. 13A-13B));
determine a first value of the at least one sensor signal corresponding to a first position of the head worn device (at least pars. 111, 113, 121-129, 134, values/vectors for a user’s current or initial head pose of the HMD can be determined, which are received from the sensors (at least pars. 36, 59, 76, 131));
determine a second value of the at least one sensor signal corresponding to a second position of the head worn device (at least pars. 111, 113, 121-129, 134, values/vectors for a user’s new head pose of the HMD can be determined, which are received from the sensors (at least pars. 36, 59, 76, 131));
determine an initialization point within the UI (at least pars. 111, 116-117, 121-123, the system determines a reverence head pose vector, which acts as a baseline orientation for the user’s head pose);
determine a relative displacement of the UI control element, based on the initialization point, the first value, and the second value (at least pars. 121-123 and 131-139, the system determines an amount/values/degrees of the reticle to be moved, based on the reverence head pose vector and changes between the current head pose and the new pose); and
move the UI control element within the UI, based on the relative displacement (FIGS. 13A-13B, at least pars. 121-127, the reticle 1356 can be moved based on the determined amount; further see pars. 131-139).
As in Claim 3, Hoover teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Hoover further teaches that the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, are further configured to cause the at least one processor to:
receive the at least one sensor signal from at least one motion sensor including receiving at least an x-direction signal, a y-direction signal, and a z-direction signal from at least one inertial measurement unit (IMU) of the head worn device (FIGS. 13A-13B and at least pars. 84, 111, 113-114, 121-123, 131-133, 146, the system receives sensor signals/data from head pose sponsors (e.g., IMU) including an x-direction signal, a y-direction signal, and a z-direction signal (pitch, yaw, roll)); and
determine the relative displacement based on the x-direction signal, the y-direction signal, and the z-direction signal (FIGS. 13A-13B and at least pars. 84, 111, 113-114, 121-123, 131-133, 146, the system determines or calculates changed amount/values/angles based on a motion/movement with at least one of X, y, or Z axes (e.g., yaw, pitch, roll)).
As in Claim 10, Hoover teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Hoover further teaches that the HMD includes a pair of smartglasses, and the UI is generated by the smartglasses (see FIGS. 2 and 13B, pars. 36, 110, a wearable system 1320, such as system 200 of FIG. 2).
As in Claim 11, Hoover teaches a head mounted device (HMD) comprising (pars. 32, 36, a head-mountable device):
at least one frame (FIGS. 2 and 13B, pars. 36-37, a frame 230 of a wearable device/system 200);
at least one display displaying a user interface (UI) having a UI selection element (FIGS. 2, 12, 13B and pars. 36, 107, 120-122, a display 220 of the wearable device 200 displays a user interface having a UI selection element (e.g., a reticle 1256 shown in FIG. 12B or a reticle 1356 shown in FIGS. 13A-13B));
at least one motion sensor (at least pars. 36, 59, 76, 131, at least one or more head pose sensors such as, e.g., an IMU);
at least one processor (at least pars. 40-41, one or more processors); and
at least one memory, the at least one memory storing a set of instructions, which, when executed, cause the at least one processor to: (at least pars. 40, 48, 182, 256, at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations). Claim 11 is substantially similar to Claim 1 and rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 13 is substantially similar to Claim 3 and rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 17 is substantially similar to Claim 1 and rejected under the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
5. Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoover et al. (US 2019/0130622 A1) in view of Karkkainen et al. (US 10390170 B1).
As in Claim 2, Hoover teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Hoover does not teach that the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, are further configured to cause the at least one processor to: process the first value and the second value using a machine learning model trained to relate sensor values of the at least one sensor signal to corresponding relative displacements of the UI control element within the UI.
However, in the same field of the invention, Karkkainen teaches that the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, are further configured to cause the at least one processor to: process the first value and the second value using a machine learning model trained to relate sensor values of the at least one sensor signal to corresponding relative displacements of the UI control element within the UI (col. 1, lines 38-57, col. 7, lines 4-27, col. 8, lines 4-38, and col. 12, line 31 – col. 13, line 24, machine learning techniques can train models that estimate the position and orientation of head-mounted devices (HMDs) when it detects the HMD movements based on detected movement and wireless signal data).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for moving the reticle based on the displacement value of the HMD (e.g., head pose or movement), as taught by Hoover, and to incorporate the machine learning techniques for position and orientation of HMD, as taught by Karkkainen. The motivation is to predict or estimate positions and orientations using the machine learning techniques, improving accuracy in complex or noisy conditions.
Claim 12 is substantially similar to Claim 2 and rejected under the same rationale.
6. Claims 4, 14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoover et al. (US 2019/0130622 A1) in view of Nair et al. (US 2023/0343028 A1).
As in Claim 4, Hoover teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Hoover further teaches the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, are further configured to cause the at least one processor to:
determine that a variance in the at least one sensor signal exceeds a variance threshold (at least pars. 134, 142-143m the system determines whether the user tilts or turns the user’s head too far in one direction, such as greater than a maximum head pitch, yaw, or roll threshold).
Hoover does not appear to explicitly teach: in response, expand at least one distance between a plurality of UI elements displayed in the UI.
However, in the same filed of the invention, Nair teaches: in response, expand at least one distance between a plurality of UI elements displayed in the UI (see FIGS. 5C-5D with the accompanying paragraphs, pars. 118-125, the content can be moved in response to the head movement exceeding the displacement threshold, and the distance between that content and other displayed elements may inherently change –for example, becoming greater or appearing farther apart as shown in FIGS. 5C-5D; further see pars. 96-97, 137, 148, 154, 157-158).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for moving the reticle based on the displacement value of the HMD (e.g., head pose or movement), as taught by Hoover, and to incorporate the way to expand the distance between content when exceeding displacement thresholds, as taught by Nair. The motivation is to improve readability, reduce errors, and make UI elements easier to distinguish and interact with by providing clear visual separation.
Claims 14 and 18 are substantially similar to Claim 4 and rejected under the same rationale.
7. Claims 5, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoover et al. (US 2019/0130622 A1) in view of Hicks et al. (US 2018/0075820 A1).
As in Claim 5, Hoover teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Hoover does not teach that the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, are further configured to cause the at least one processor to: determine an acceleration of the head worn device in a direction of the relative displacement; identify a UI element, based on the relative displacement and on the acceleration; and pre-render a selection result of receiving a selection of the UI element by way of the UI
However, in the same filed of the invention, Hicks teach that the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, are further configured to cause the at least one processor to:
determine an acceleration of the head worn device in a direction of the relative displacement (pars. 50, 56-57, and 59);
identify a UI element, based on the relative displacement and on the acceleration (pars. 50, 56-57, and 59); and
pre-render a selection result of receiving a selection of the UI element by way of the UI selection element, prior to receiving the selection (pars. 50, 56-57, and 59).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for moving the reticle based on the displacement value of the HMD (e.g., head pose or movement), as taught by Hoover, and to incorporate the way to prerender the content based on the speed of HMD, as taught by Hicks. The motivation is to enable foveated rendering and view adjustments, further enhancing responsiveness and perceived visual quality.
Claims 15 and 19 are substantially similar to Claim 5 and rejected under the same rationale.
8. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoover et al. (US 2019/0130622 A1) in view of Champel et al. (US 11363086 B2).
As in Claim 7, Hoover teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Hoover does not teach that the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, are further configured to cause the at least one processor to: determine the initialization point as a centroid of a plurality of UI elements of the UI.
However, in the same filed of the invention, Champel teaches that the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, are further configured to cause the at least one processor to: determine the initialization point as a centroid of a plurality of UI elements of the UI (col. 7, line 66-col. 8, line 19, the center point (also called VR origin) can be defied as a reference point for the entire spatial object, not just individual pieces of content; further see col. 8, lines 39-49 and lines 58-63).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for moving the reticle based on the displacement value of the HMD (e.g., head pose or movement), as taught by Hoover, and to incorporate the way to set the initial point by determining the center point for the entire spatial object, as taught by Champel. The motivation is to provide a reference point from for entire spatial object, ensuring consistent orientation and viewpoint tracking in VR experience.
9. Claims 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoover et al. (US 2019/0130622 A1) in view of Raffle et al. (US 8947323 B1).
As in Claim 9, Hoover teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Hoover does not teach that wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, are further configured to cause the at least one processor to: relate the first value and the second value to the relative displacement using an adjustable sensitivity factor.
However, in the same filed of the invention, Raffle teaches that wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, are further configured to cause the at least one processor to: relate the first value and the second value to the relative displacement using an adjustable sensitivity factor (col. 11, line 46 - col. 12, line 2, line 5, col. 16, line 37- col. 17, line 21, col. 18, lines 14 – 53, the sensitivity level for the values (e.g., movement values/data) can be dynamically adjusted; further see col. 7, lines 40-63, col. 12, line 63 - col. 13).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for moving the reticle based on the displacement value of the HMD (e.g., head pose or movement), as taught by Hoover, and to incorporate the way to adjust the senility level for the values, as taught by Raffle. The motivation is to dynamically adjust sensor sensitivity to accurately distinguish intentional user interface, ensuring reliable control across different activities and environments.
Allowable Subject Matter
10. Claims 6, 16, and 20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in an independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
11. Applicant's arguments with respect to the claims 1-20 have been fully considered, but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 extension fee 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. The following references have been cited to further show the state of the art with respect to monitoring health events.
Nishizawa et al. (US 2018/0196505 A1) (See FIGS. 9-14 and pars. 32-33, 168-174, 180-199, 200-204, 208-213, 230, and 250-256)
Venable et al. (US 2015/0193018 A1) (See FIGS. 7-9 and pars. 32-33, 44-45, 49, 52-53, 57-60, and 64-71))
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rinna Yi whose telephone number is (571) 270-7752 and fax number is (571) 270-8752. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Fred Ehichioya can be reached on (571) 272-4034.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center or Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center or the Private PAIR system, 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.
/RINNA YI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2179
Prosecution Insights