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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on April 4, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the prior art used in the 102 rejection, Mittal et. al., fails to describe that Mittal’s smartphone comprises “one or more sensors” as required, and “obtaining, via a first subset of the one or more sensors, sensor data for a physical environment”. However, Examiner disagrees because Mittal discloses a plurality of external devices that can be interpreted as either the egocentric cameras mounted to the HMD which has a plurality of sensors for capturing images of the surrounding physical environment, or a mobile phone, which is a coupled device capable of receiving image and distance sensor data to and receive display information from a mobile processor separate from the HMD (Mittal et. al. background, col 5 lines 61-67). Additionally, applicant argues that Mittal also fails to anticipate “performing the visual search using the subset of the physical environment in accordance with a determination that the physical object is within the threshold distance from the external electronic device”. Examiner disagrees because Mittal et. al. discloses that the HMD may be configured to recognize user inputs, which may be made through gestures that may be imaged by the camera. A distance to the recognized object within the image may be determined from data gathered from the captured image and distance sensors (Mittal et. al. col 5 lines 61-67). Thus, the prior art of record, Mittal et. al., is still effective in rejecting all amended claims using a different interpretation of the external devices that are recited in the claimed invention.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9-10, 13-14, 16-19, 21-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mittal et. al. (United State Patent US 11,262,835 B2).
Regarding claim 1, 9, and 17 Mittal et. al. discloses an electronic device (one or more egocentric cameras mounted on the glass frame of the HMD or mobile device, background, col 1, lines 20-31) and a method of operating an electronic device and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing one or more programs configured to be executed by one or more processors of an electronic device comprising (Mittal et. al. col 3, lines 34-41, the external device is HMD as an accessory to a mobile device with a processor and camera as a sensor; An HMD can also include optical sensors, accelerometers, GPS, gyroscopes, solid state compasses, RFID and wireless sensors): one or more sensors; one or more processors; and memory storing instructions configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the instructions for: obtaining, via a first subset of the one or more sensors, sensor data for a physical environment (Mittal et. al. col 5, lines 5-41); identifying, using the sensor data, an external electronic device in the physical environment (Mittal et. al., Fig. 1A sensors are on head mounted device, HMD); and selecting a subset of the physical environment for a visual search based on a position of the external electronic device (HMD) in the physical environment (Mittal et. al. Fig. 4, col. 7, lines 31-40, col 13, lines 35-37). For clarity, there are two separate electronic devices: an HMD (the external electronic device) and a corresponding mobile device (user’s smartphone, electronic device) or the egocentric cameras mounted on the glass frame that are linked via a communication subsystem. These two electronic devices operate in tandem in order to process the external environment and data. The electronic device is also construed as the mobile device linked to the HMD, with sensor data taken from the HMD and the equipped camera.
Regarding claim 2, 10, and 18 Mittal et. al. discloses the electronic device (mobile device or mounted cameras) defined in claim 1, the method defined in claim 9, the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium defined in claim 17, wherein the instructions further comprise instructions for: before identifying, using the sensor data, the external electronic device in the physical environment, receiving a trigger from the external electronic device; performing the visual search using the subset of the physical environment; and transmitting content associated with the visual search to the external electronic device, wherein obtaining the sensor data for the physical environment comprises obtaining the sensor data for the physical environment in response to receiving the trigger from the external electronic device and wherein the trigger is sent by the external electronic device in response to a gesture detected by the external electronic device or in response to an unsuccessful face recognition by the external electronic device (Mittal et. al. col 11 lines 5-17, HMD).
PNG
media_image1.png
196
474
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
442
576
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, 19, 20 Mittal et. al. discloses the electronic device defined in claim 2, the method defined in claim 10, and the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium defined in claim 18, wherein obtaining the sensor data for the physical environment comprises obtaining the sensor data for the physical environment in response to receiving the trigger from the external electronic device and wherein the trigger is sent by the external electronic device in response to a gesture detected by the external electronic device or in response to an unsuccessful face recognition by the external electronic device (Mittal et. al. col 11 lines 5-25).
Regarding claim 4, 13, 21 Mittal et. al. discloses the electronic device defined in claim 1, the method defined in claim 10, and the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium defined in claim 18, wherein the instructions further comprise instructions for: obtaining, via a second subset of the one or more sensors, point of gaze information; determining, using the point of gaze information, whether a point of gaze is within a threshold distance from the external electronic device; and performing the visual search using the subset of the physical environment in accordance with a determination that the point of gaze is within the threshold distance from the external electronic device (Mittal et. al. col 10 lines 21-44 where point of gaze information is gathered via tracking the user’s hand to define a ROI). The threshold distance from the external electronic device determines the field of interest and boundaries of the ROI.
PNG
media_image3.png
546
540
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, 14, 22 Mittal et. al. discloses the electronic device defined in claim 1, the method defined in claim 9, and the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium defined in claim 17, wherein the instructions further comprise instructions for: obtaining, via a third subset of the one or more sensors, depth information for the physical environment; determining, using the depth information, whether a physical object is within a threshold distance from the external electronic device; and performing the visual search using the subset of the physical environment in accordance with a determination that the physical object is within the threshold distance from the external electronic device (Mittal et. al. col 6 lines 15-39).
PNG
media_image4.png
572
546
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, 16, 23, 24 Mittal et. al. discloses the electronic device defined in claim 1, the method defined in claim 9, and the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium defined in claim 17, wherein the first subset of the one or more sensors comprises an outward-facing camera and wherein the electronic device further comprises: one or more displays; and one or more speakers, wherein the instructions further comprise instructions for: presenting, using the one or more displays, a visual indicator that identifies the subset of the physical environment for the visual search; and in response to selecting the subset of the physical environment for the visual search, presenting, using the one or more speakers, audio feedback (Mittal et. al. col 3 lines 50-55).
PNG
media_image5.png
136
560
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 25, Mittal et. al. discloses the electronic device defined in claim 1, wherein the electronic device is a head-mounted device and wherein the external electronic device is a cellular telephone (Mittal et. al. col 5, lines 63-67: The HMD may provide image and distance sensor data to and receive display information from a mobile processor which may be separate from the HMD such as in a smartphone or other mobile device).
Regarding claim 26, Mittal et. al. discloses the electronic device defined in claim 1, wherein the first subset of the one or more sensors comprises a camera, wherein the sensor data for the physical environment comprises images of the physical environment (Mittal et. al. background col 1, lines 20-31: An HMD can include one or more egocentric cameras mounted on the glass frame. An HMD can also include optical sensors, accelerometers, GPS, gyroscopes, solid state compasses, RFID and wireless sensors. Using the built-in cameras, an HMD can capture images and videos according to user’s input), and wherein identifying the external electronic device in the physical environment comprises identifying the external electronic device in the images of the physical environment Mittal et. al. Fig. 4, col. 7, lines 31-40, col 13, lines 35-37; col. 5 lines 59-67: The HMD may provide image and distance sensor data to and receive display information from a mobile processor which may be separate from the HMD, such as in a smartphone or other mobile device.).
Regarding claim 27, Mittal et. al. discloses the electronic device defined in claim 1, further comprising: a transparent display through which the external electronic device is viewable while obtaining the sensor data for the physical environment (Mittal et. al. col. 5 lines 59-67: The HMD may provide image and distance sensor data to and receive display information from a mobile processor which may be separate from the HMD, such as in a smartphone or other mobile device. Figure 4).
Regarding claim 28, Mittal et. al. discloses the electronic device defined in claim 2, wherein obtaining the sensor data for the physical environment comprises obtaining the sensor data for the physical environment in response to receiving the trigger from the external electronic device and wherein the trigger is sent by the external electronic device in response to an unsuccessful face recognition by the external electronic device (Mittal et. al. col 11 lines 5-17, HMD, Figure 2: Region of interest defined by user’s gesture.).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mittal et. al. (United States Patent US 11,262,835 B2) in view of Starner et. al. (United States Patent 9,536,354 B2).
Regarding claim 7, Mittal et. al. discloses the electronic device defined in claim 1. However, Mittal et. al. fails to disclose wherein identifying the external electronic device in the physical environment comprises identifying that the external electronic device is being held by a first hand while a physical object is being held by a second hand and wherein selecting the subset of the physical environment for the visual search comprises selecting the physical object for the visual search.
Starner et. al. teaches wherein identifying the external electronic device in the physical environment comprises identifying that the external electronic device is being held by a first hand while a physical object is being held by a second hand and wherein selecting the subset of the physical environment for the visual search comprises selecting the physical object for the visual search (Starner et. al. Fig. 2B, col 6 lines 34-58, a pointing finger is touching the physical object, a coffee cup to initiate a search).
It is important to the claimed invention to be able to identify physical objects rather than AR objects for visual searches. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the teachings of Starner et. al. with the teachings of Mittal et. al. so that both AR and physical objects can be identified and searched.
Regarding claim 8, Mittal et. al. discloses the electronic device defined in claim 1. However, Mittal et. al. fails to disclose wherein identifying the external electronic device in the physical environment comprises identifying that the external electronic device is being held by a first hand while a physical object is being pointed to by a second hand and wherein selecting the subset of the physical environment for the visual search comprises selecting the physical object for the visual search. Starner et. al. teaches wherein identifying the external electronic device in the physical environment comprises identifying that the external electronic device is being held by a first hand while a physical object is being pointed to by a second hand and wherein selecting the subset of the physical environment for the visual search comprises selecting the physical object for the visual search (Starner et. al. Fig. 2B, col 6 lines 34-58, a pointing finger is touching the physical object, a coffee cup to initiate a search).
It is important to the claimed invention to be able to identify physical objects rather than AR objects for visual searches. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the teachings of Starner et. al. with the teachings of Mittal et. al. so that both AR and physical objects can be identified and searched.
Conclusion
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges the amendments to the claims and has carefully considered the changes. However, the prior arts of record are still effective in rejecting all claims, with a changed interpretation of the original claims with the cited prior art references in regards to the external electronic devices.
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 JESSICA YIFANG LIN whose telephone number is (571)272-6435. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00am-6:15pm, with optional day off.
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, Vu Le can be reached at 571-272-7332. 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.
/JESSICA YIFANG LIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2668 June 23, 2026
/VU LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2668
Prosecution Insights