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 .
Procedural Summary
This is responsive to the claims amendments filed 2/26/2026.
Claims 1-7 are amended, with new claims 8-12 presented.
Claims 1-20 are now pending.
Signed copies of the IDS’ filed 4/7/2026 are attached.
Response to Arguments and Amendment
Applicant’s arguments (2/26/2026, Pages 8-12) drawn to the § 101 rejections are persuasive. This rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s remaining arguments (2/26/2026, Pages 12-15) have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. These arguments are addressed and answered in the new grounds of rejection, infra.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (U.S. Pub. No.: 2021/0173471 A1) in view of Black U.S. Pub. No.: 2020/0238177 A1.
Regarding Claims 1-20: Johnson discloses an information processing device (Fig. 1), comprising: a play area setting unit that sets a play area where a user wearing a head mounted display is movable during play of an application in a space around the user, (Fig. 2A, HMD 200, Fig. 4, 400, related descriptions, ¶ 63 noting user-defined movement areas); and a determination unit that determines to operate the application in a user movable mode, (e.g., Fig. 5, 500, 506, ¶ 67, movement in virtual and user-defined space using HMD).
Johnson makes explicit avoiding collisions in a virtual play area defined by the user, wherein threshold regions can be greater or smaller based on posture, e.g. Fig 500, 506/507, Fig. 7B, and for instance, displaying a red colored grid via the HMD, (e.g., ¶ 27, Fig. 4, 5, related description.
Regarding the amendment: Johnson discloses the invention substantially but does not make explicit, control the application such that, during play of the application, the head mounted display permits a movement of the user in the physical space in accordance with changes in a physical position of the user within the play area when operating in the user movable mode, and prohibits the movement of the user in the physical space when operating in the user unmovable mode.
However, in a related HMD invention, Black shows these limitations, (Black, e.g., Fig. 3 and related descriptions, noting ¶¶ 24, 40-44, 47, 51, 54, 55). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s filing to have provided Black’s safety systems in Johnson’s HMD device for the purpose of reducing the potential of user injury. As evidenced by Black, the concept of using HMDs safely with moveable and unmovable regions is well-known in the art: This yields the predictable results of helping minimize injury by, for example, alerting a user to obstacles or stairs. Changes to the prior art utilizing well-known techniques yielding predictable and expected results is considered obvious.
Johnson discloses a notification unit that notifies the application that the user is movable in a case where the determination unit determines to operate the application in the user movable mode, and notifies the application that the user is unmovable in a case where the determination unit determines to operate the application in the user unmovable mode, (Johnson, e.g., ¶ 27, Fig. 4, 5, related description).
Johnson discloses a display control unit that causes the head mounted display to display that the user is unmovable during play of the application, in a case where the determination unit determines to operate the application in the user unmovable mode, (Johnson, e.g., ¶ 27, Fig. 4, 5, related description).
Conclusion
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 OMKAR A DEODHAR whose telephone number is (571)272-1647. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, generally 9am-5:30 pm.
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, David Lewis can be reached on 571-272-7673. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/OMKAR A DEODHAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights