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 .
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of the amendment filed 7/14/2026. Claims 1-3, 9, 12, 16-17, 19 and 20 have been amended. Claim 21 has been added. Claim 7 has been canceled. Claims 1-6 and 8-21 are pending and an action is as follows.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6 and 8-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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) 1-6, 8, 10, 12-14 and 16-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seibert et al. US 2019/0387074 (hereinafter Seibert), in view of Uchiyama et al. US 11,589,198 (hereinafter Uchiyama).
Regarding claim 1, Seibert teaches a first multi-modal device for wireless communication, comprising:
([Seibert, Fig. 1, ¶46-¶47 and ¶78] The claimed first multi-modal device for wireless communication is shown in Fig. 1 as the Head Mounted Device (HMD) 102B (also referred to as HMD 102) may perform multi-modal communication to transmit data between another HMD 102A.)
PNG
media_image1.png
536
744
media_image1.png
Greyscale
one or more memories; and
([Seibert, ¶40] The HMD 102 comprises memory 203.)
one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories, configured to cause the first multi-modal device to:
([Seibert, Fig. 2, ¶37-¶40] The HMD 102 comprises one or more processors 201 and 204 with access to memory 203 executing program instructions to cause the HMD 102 to perform actions/functions.)
PNG
media_image2.png
404
530
media_image2.png
Greyscale
receive, from a second multi-modal device, perception data associated with a multi-modal session; and
([Seibert, ¶74 and ¶81] The HMD 102B receives location coordinates (i.e., Xa, Ya and Za) and/or gaze vector (i.e., Yawa, Pitcha and Rolla) from HMD 102A which represents the orientation data which is part of the perception data.)
communicate with a network node based at least in part on the perception data.
([Seibert, ¶24 and ¶82] HMD 102B communicates with its host IHS 103B (interpreted as a network node) based on the received location coordinates and gaze vector which is substituted for its own coordinates and gaze vector and communicated to the runtime in its own host IHS 103B. [Seibert, ¶13] The transports are switched/selected based on the perceived metric data (also interpreted as perception data) comprising signal-to-noise ratio.)
PNG
media_image3.png
378
580
media_image3.png
Greyscale
But while Seibert teaches perception data with in the form of collected sensor data (which further comprises measurements of wireless, inertial, acoustic, or optical sensors which are used to sense, observe and track the environment of the HMD to find the velocity and position of the HMD as well as its orientation, as well as sense, observe and track the objects in the environment. It is notably shown that the collected sensor data further comprises location coordinates and/or gaze vector as shown above [Seibert, ¶30-¶34]) related to the HMD which is obtained by the does not teach wherein the perception data includes blockage detection information.
However, Uchiyama teaches wherein the collected sensor data, which the Examiner notes above is what is comprised as the claimed perception data, includes blockage detection information indicating whether a communication link will be blocked by an object. This is disclosed by Uchiyama’s teachings that the Vehicle (which is a multi-modal device [Uchiyama, Col. 11, Lines 35-45 (having the attribute of multiple modes of communication)]) noted as the “own terminal” in Figure 5 of Uchiyama communicated transmits/receives to/from another vehicle labeled as “another terminal” captured sensor information from various sensors in each of the units of the vehicle, wherein the sensor information indicates the respective vehicle’s position information [Uchiyama, Fig. 5, Col. 9, Lines 32-45] and other information detailing the sensed environment and surroundings of each respective vehicle [Uchiyama, Col. 10, Lines 48- Col. 11, Lines 15]. This information of sensed environment and surroundings of each respective vehicle comprises information of observed and tracked objects, vehicles and obstacles in the environment surrounding the own/instant vehicle [Uchiyama, Col. 13, Lines 38-59]. The sensor information as mentioned above which comprises the position information as well as other tracked information of observable objects as mentioned above is analyzed by a prediction unit to extract the contained geographical information which is the information of the current or future positional relationship between terminals/vehicles [Uchiyama, Col. 17, Lines 48-51]. This geographical information in the sensor data indicates whether there is the possibility that the communication L151 (expressed by a cross ‘X’ in the drawing of Fig. 12 of Uchiyama) will be blocked between the own/instant vehicle 11-100 and another vehicle 11-102 in consideration of the fact that buildings (being the object) and the like exist in an area other than the roads 261-1 and 261-2, thus being a no line of sight (NLOS) state [Uchiyama, Col. 22, Lines 13-34]. The own/instant vehicle is able to communicate with a vehicle 11-101 (interpreted as the claimed “a network node”) by adjusting its communication parameters (comprising switching beams) by switching away from the beam L151 to the another vehicle 11-102 (being the claimed second multi-modal device) to the vehicle 11-101 (the claimed “a network node”) via beam L163 (interpreted as the claimed “a second beam”) based at least in part on the sensor data (geographical information) indicating the NLOS state/blockage due to buildings/objects indicated by the cross ‘X’ in L151 [Uchiyama, Fig. 12, Col. 22, Lines 17-Col 24, Lines 6]. It is further noted that the vehicles described above perform communication utilizing New Radio Vehicle to Everything (NRV2X), and as such NRV2X in the scenario described above comprises beam communication via the terminal-to-terminal (shown as V2V) link which is performed using transmission diversity (which requires multiple antennas, interpreted as the claimed antenna array) additionally the vehicles described above may also use the multiple antennas for other forms of communication in accordance with NRV2X [Uchiyama, Col. 1, Lines 1-24].
PNG
media_image4.png
472
504
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
546
724
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Seibert teaching that a first multi-modal device may receive from a second multi-modal device perception data associated with a first multi-modal session and communicate with a network node based on the perception data, with the teachings of Uchiyama, indicating that the perception data includes blockage detection information and that the communication to a network node comprises switching from a first beam to a second beam based on at least in part on the perception data. The resulting benefit of the combination would have been the ability to improve communication and realize a highly reliable communication by realizing adjustment of parameters and switching of communication methods according to the communication state before the communication state becomes so poor that communication cannot be performed, thereby maintaining a stable communication state [Uchiyama, Col. 21, Lines 23-27].
Regarding claim 12, Seibert teaches a first multi-modal device for wireless communication, comprising:
([Seibert, Fig. 1, ¶46-¶47 and ¶78] The claimed first multi-modal device for wireless communication is shown in Fig. 1 as the Head Mounted Device (HMD) 102A (also referred to as HMD 102) may perform multi-modal communication to transmit data between another HMD 102B.)
PNG
media_image1.png
536
744
media_image1.png
Greyscale
one or more memories; and
([Seibert, ¶40] The HMD 102 comprises memory 203.)
one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories, configured to cause the first multi-modal device to:
([Seibert, Fig. 2, ¶37-¶40] The HMD 102 comprises one or more processors 201 and 204 with access to memory 203 executing program instructions to cause the HMD 102 to perform actions/functions.)
PNG
media_image2.png
404
530
media_image2.png
Greyscale
generate perception data associated with a multi-modal session; and
([Seibert, ¶74 and ¶81] HMD 102A generates perception data in the form of location coordinates (i.e., Xa, Ya and Za) and/or gaze vector (i.e., Yawa, Pitcha and Rolla- which represents the orientation data which is part of the perception data associated with an ongoing “See What I See” (SWIS) mode session with the HMD 102B).)
transmit, to a second multi-modal device, the perception data associated with the multi-modal session.
([Seibert, ¶74 and ¶81] HMD 102A generates perception data in the form of location coordinates (i.e., Xa, Ya and Za) and/or gaze vector (i.e., Yawa, Pitcha and Rolla) that when in See What I See (SWIS) mode will be transmitted to the HMD 102B which receives the location coordinates (i.e., Xa, Ya and Za) and/or gaze vector (i.e., Yawa, Pitcha and Rolla - which represents the orientation data which is part of the perception data) from HMD 102A presentation to the student 101B)
PNG
media_image3.png
378
580
media_image3.png
Greyscale
But while Seibert teaches perception data with in the form of collected sensor data (which further comprises measurements of wireless, inertial, acoustic, or optical sensors which are used to sense, observe and track the environment of the HMD to find the velocity and position of the HMD as well as its orientation, as well as sense, observe and track the objects in the environment. It is notably shown that the collected sensor data further comprises location coordinates and/or gaze vector as shown above [Seibert, ¶30-¶34]) related to the HMD which is obtained by the does not teach wherein the perception data includes blockage detection information.
However, Uchiyama teaches wherein the collected sensor data, which the Examiner notes above is what is comprised as the claimed perception data, includes blockage detection information indicating whether a communication link will be blocked by an object. This is disclosed by Uchiyama’s teachings that the Vehicle (which is a multi-modal device [Uchiyama, Col. 11, Lines 35-45 (having the attribute of multiple modes of communication)]) noted as the “own terminal” in Figure 5 of Uchiyama communicated transmits/receives to/from another vehicle labeled as “another terminal” captured sensor information from various sensors in each of the units of the vehicle, wherein the sensor information indicates the respective vehicle’s position information [Uchiyama, Fig. 5, Col. 9, Lines 32-45] and other information detailing the sensed environment and surroundings of each respective vehicle [Uchiyama, Col. 10, Lines 48- Col. 11, Lines 15]. This information of sensed environment and surroundings of each respective vehicle comprises information of observed and tracked objects, vehicles and obstacles in the environment surrounding the own/instant vehicle [Uchiyama, Col. 13, Lines 38-59]. The sensor information as mentioned above which comprises the position information as well as other tracked information of observable objects as mentioned above is analyzed by a prediction unit to extract the contained geographical information which is the information of the current or future positional relationship between terminals/vehicles [Uchiyama, Col. 17, Lines 48-51]. This geographical information in the sensor data indicates whether there is the possibility that the communication L151 (expressed by a cross ‘X’ in the drawing of Fig. 12 of Uchiyama) will be blocked between the own/instant vehicle 11-100 and another vehicle 11-102 in consideration of the fact that buildings (being the object) and the like exist in an area other than the roads 261-1 and 261-2, thus being a no line of sight (NLOS) state [Uchiyama, Col. 22, Lines 13-34]. The own/instant vehicle is able to communicate with a vehicle 11-101 (interpreted as the claimed “a network node”) by adjusting its communication parameters (comprising switching beams) by switching away from the beam L151 to the another vehicle 11-102 (being the claimed second multi-modal device) to the vehicle 11-101 (the claimed “a network node”) via beam L163 (interpreted as the claimed “a second beam”) based at least in part on the sensor data (geographical information) indicating the NLOS state/blockage due to buildings/objects indicated by the cross ‘X’ in L151 [Uchiyama, Fig. 12, Col. 22, Lines 17-Col 24, Lines 6]. It is further noted that the vehicles described above perform communication utilizing New Radio Vehicle to Everything (NRV2X), and as such NRV2X in the scenario described above comprises beam communication via the terminal-to-terminal (shown as V2V) link which is performed using transmission diversity (which requires multiple antennas, interpreted as the claimed antenna array) additionally the vehicles described above may also use the multiple antennas for other forms of communication in accordance with NRV2X [Uchiyama, Col. 1, Lines 1-24].
PNG
media_image4.png
472
504
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
546
724
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Seibert teaching that a first multi-modal device may receive from a second multi-modal device perception data associated with a first multi-modal session and communicate with a network node based on the perception data, with the teachings of Uchiyama, indicating that the perception data includes blockage detection information and that the communication to a network node comprises switching from a first beam to a second beam based on at least in part on the perception data. The resulting benefit of the combination would have been the ability to improve communication and realize a highly reliable communication by realizing adjustment of parameters and switching of communication methods according to the communication state before the communication state becomes so poor that communication cannot be performed, thereby maintaining a stable communication state [Uchiyama, Col. 21, Lines 23-27].
Regarding claim 19, Seibert teaches a method of wireless communication performed by a first multi-modal device, comprising:
([Seibert, Fig. 1, ¶46-¶47 and ¶78] The claimed first multi-modal device for wireless communication is shown in Fig. 1 as the Head Mounted Device (HMD) 102B (also referred to as HMD 102) may perform multi-modal communication to transmit data between another HMD 102A.)
PNG
media_image1.png
536
744
media_image1.png
Greyscale
receiving, from a second multi-modal device, perception data associated with a multi-modal session; and
([Seibert, ¶74 and ¶81] The HMD 102B receives location coordinates (i.e., Xa, Ya and Za) and/or gaze vector (i.e., Yawa, Pitcha and Rolla) from HMD 102A which represents the orientation data which is part of the perception data.)
communicating with a network node based at least in part on the perception data.
([Seibert, ¶24 and ¶82] HMD 102B communicates with its host IHS 103B (interpreted as a network node) based on the received location coordinates and gaze vector which is substituted for its own coordinates and gaze vector and communicated to the runtime in its own host IHS 103B. [Seibert, ¶13] The transports are switched/selected based on the perceived metric data (also interpreted as perception data) comprising signal-to-noise ratio.)
PNG
media_image3.png
378
580
media_image3.png
Greyscale
But while Seibert teaches perception data with in the form of collected sensor data (which further comprises measurements of wireless, inertial, acoustic, or optical sensors which are used to sense, observe and track the environment of the HMD to find the velocity and position of the HMD as well as its orientation, as well as sense, observe and track the objects in the environment. It is notably shown that the collected sensor data further comprises location coordinates and/or gaze vector as shown above [Seibert, ¶30-¶34]) related to the HMD which is obtained by the does not teach wherein the perception data includes blockage detection information.
However, Uchiyama teaches wherein the collected sensor data, which the Examiner notes above is what is comprised as the claimed perception data, includes blockage detection information indicating whether a communication link will be blocked by an object. This is disclosed by Uchiyama’s teachings that the Vehicle (which is a multi-modal device [Uchiyama, Col. 11, Lines 35-45 (having the attribute of multiple modes of communication)]) noted as the “own terminal” in Figure 5 of Uchiyama communicated transmits/receives to/from another vehicle labeled as “another terminal” captured sensor information from various sensors in each of the units of the vehicle, wherein the sensor information indicates the respective vehicle’s position information [Uchiyama, Fig. 5, Col. 9, Lines 32-45] and other information detailing the sensed environment and surroundings of each respective vehicle [Uchiyama, Col. 10, Lines 48- Col. 11, Lines 15]. This information of sensed environment and surroundings of each respective vehicle comprises information of observed and tracked objects, vehicles and obstacles in the environment surrounding the own/instant vehicle [Uchiyama, Col. 13, Lines 38-59]. The sensor information as mentioned above which comprises the position information as well as other tracked information of observable objects as mentioned above is analyzed by a prediction unit to extract the contained geographical information which is the information of the current or future positional relationship between terminals/vehicles [Uchiyama, Col. 17, Lines 48-51]. This geographical information in the sensor data indicates whether there is the possibility that the communication L151 (expressed by a cross ‘X’ in the drawing of Fig. 12 of Uchiyama) will be blocked between the own/instant vehicle 11-100 and another vehicle 11-102 in consideration of the fact that buildings (being the object) and the like exist in an area other than the roads 261-1 and 261-2, thus being a no line of sight (NLOS) state [Uchiyama, Col. 22, Lines 13-34]. The own/instant vehicle is able to communicate with a vehicle 11-101 (interpreted as the claimed “a network node”) by adjusting its communication parameters (comprising switching beams) by switching away from the beam L151 to the another vehicle 11-102 (being the claimed second multi-modal device) to the vehicle 11-101 (the claimed “a network node”) via beam L163 (interpreted as the claimed “a second beam”) based at least in part on the sensor data (geographical information) indicating the NLOS state/blockage due to buildings/objects indicated by the cross ‘X’ in L151 [Uchiyama, Fig. 12, Col. 22, Lines 17-Col 24, Lines 6]. It is further noted that the vehicles described above perform communication utilizing New Radio Vehicle to Everything (NRV2X), and as such NRV2X in the scenario described above comprises beam communication via the terminal-to-terminal (shown as V2V) link which is performed using transmission diversity (which requires multiple antennas, interpreted as the claimed antenna array) additionally the vehicles described above may also use the multiple antennas for other forms of communication in accordance with NRV2X [Uchiyama, Col. 1, Lines 1-24].
PNG
media_image4.png
472
504
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
546
724
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Seibert teaching that a first multi-modal device may receive from a second multi-modal device perception data associated with a first multi-modal session and communicate with a network node based on the perception data, with the teachings of Uchiyama, indicating that the perception data includes blockage detection information and that the communication to a network node comprises switching from a first beam to a second beam based on at least in part on the perception data. The resulting benefit of the combination would have been the ability to improve communication and realize a highly reliable communication by realizing adjustment of parameters and switching of communication methods according to the communication state before the communication state becomes so poor that communication cannot be performed, thereby maintaining a stable communication state [Uchiyama, Col. 21, Lines 23-27].
Regarding claim 2, claim 16 and claim 20, the combination of Seibert, in view of Uchiyama teaches the first multi-modal device of claim 1, the first multi-modal device of claim 12 and the method of claim 19 respectively, wherein the perception data further includes one or more of:
a radio frequency map,
position information indicating a position of a user, or
information indicating an orientation of the user.
([Seibert, ¶27] The perception data as claimed is met by the disclosure of Seibert which teaches the users physical location which is functionally the same as the position information indicating the position of the user as claimed above.)
Regarding claim 3 and claim 17, the combination of Seibert, in view of Uchiyama teaches the first multi-modal device of claim 1 and the first multi-modal device of claim 12 respectively, wherein the blockage detection information includes one or more of:
image data obtained by one or more cameras of the second multi-modal device,
([Seibert, ¶30, ¶32-¶34, ¶43] A camera 108 is built into the HMDs 102A and 102B and is disclosed as being an optical sensor that performs optical tracking and image extraction to produce data of the HMD 102B. Additionally, the one or more cameras also perform hand tracking and gesture recognition in a 3D space where in the tracked hands and gestures are also interpreted as image data obtained by the cameras.)
data corresponding to a depth map, or
data corresponding to a three-dimensional representation of an environment of a user.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Seibert, in view of Uchiyama teaches the first multi-modal device of claim 1, wherein a multi-modal session identifier associated with the first multi-modal device is also associated with the second multi-modal device. ([Seibert, ¶81] The session ID is associated with both HMD 102B and HMD 102A.)
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Seibert, in view of Uchiyama teaches the first multi-modal device of claim 1, wherein the first multi-modal device is not configured to generate the perception data.
([Seibert, ¶73-¶77 and ¶80-¶82] When HMD 102B which is worn by the student user enters a “See-What-I-See” (SWIS) mode of operation with coordinate override turned on, the HMD 102B receives location coordinates and/or gaze vector (interpreted as the claimed perspective data) from instructor worn HMD 102A’s perspective instead of generating its own. Thus, when student worn HMD 102B has entered in to SWIS mode of operation it is not configured to generate the claimed perception data of its own from its perspective because it solely relies on the perception data of the instructor worn HMD 102A which overrides the student worn HMD 102B’s configuration for generating its own perception data resulting in the student worn HMB 102B not being configured to generate its own perception data as claimed.)
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Seibert, in view of Uchiyama teaches the first multi-modal device of claim 1, wherein the perception data comprises a first set of perception data, and wherein the first multi-modal device is configured to generate a second set of perception data that is different from the first set of perception data.
([Seibert, ¶27] Seibert discloses that a first set of perception data may be the physical location (Euclidian or Cartesian coordinates x, y, and z) and the second set of perception data may be the gaze vector/orientation (pitch, yaw and roll), wherein the first set of perception data and the second set of perception data generated by the HMD 102B are different from each other.)
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Seibert, in view of Uchiyama teaches the first multi-modal device of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the first multi-modal device to: adapt one or more link parameters based at least in part on the perception data.
([Seibert, ¶66-¶67] Depending on HMD sensed changes in the environmental conditions or HMD movement/location (interpreted as perception data) the priority will be assigned to preferred receive (Rx) mechanisms (interpreted as a link parameter). Also based on the measured SNR (also interpreted as perception data) the transport may be changed by selecting another transport (interpreted as a link parameter))
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Seibert, in view of Uchiyama teaches that the first multi-modal device of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the first multi-modal device to:
modify, based at least in part on the perception data, one or more parameters, wherein the one or more parameters are associated with providing content to a user.
([Seibert, ¶53-¶58] Modifications, based on the assessments of each HMD’s physical environment that is periodically assessed according to SNRs and other various sensors, are made to parameters comprising the mode or the transport of communication between the HMDs 102A-102B used to provide content for display to the user (the instructor 101A or the student 101B).)
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Seibert, in view of Uchiyama teaches the first multi-modal device of claim 12, wherein the perception data is transmitted to the second multi-modal device based at least in part on a channel correlation between the first multi-modal device and the second multi-modal device.
([Seibert, ¶52-¶55 (The HMDs negotiate a communications channel interpreted as a channel correlation between the first and second multi-modal device), ¶68-¶69, ¶81 and ¶84-¶85 (sharing location coordinates and/or pose via the negotiated direct HMD-to-HMD communications)] The HMD’s physical location/coordinates and other types perception data such as the gaze vector/orientation are transmitted by the instructor’s HMD 102A to the student’s HMD 102B base at least in part on a channel correlation between the instructor’s HMD 102A and the student’s HMD 102B which is discloses as the negotiated point-to-point communications channels between the HMDs 102A-102B.)
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Seibert, in view of Uchiyama teaches the first multi-modal device of claim 12, wherein the perception data is transmitted to the second multi-modal device based at least in part on a distance between the first multi-modal device and the second multi-modal device.
([Seibert, ¶47 (WiFi or WiFi direct which has a well-known a maximum outdoor communication range of about a few hundred feet in distance with a clear line of sight with an indoor range that is considerably less – also see ¶53), ¶81, ¶84-¶85 (sharing HMD physical location/coordinates and/or gaze vector/orientation between HMDs 102A-102B using direct HMD-to-HMD communications)] The perception data shown as the physical location/coordinates and/or gaze vector/orientation of the instructor’s HMD 102A are transmitted to the student’s HMD 102B based at least in part on a distance between the instructor’s HMD 102A the student’s HMD 102B which is the limitation of the physical communication distance allowed by the communications technology being utilized for the direct HMD-to-HMD communication which Seibert in ¶47 discloses as being WiFi technology. It is further noted that this communication distance is illustrated by the wireless communication signals between the HMDs 102A-102B over the illustrated displacement between the HMDs 102A-102B)
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Seibert, in view of Uchiyama teaches the first multi-modal device of claim 12, wherein the perception data comprises a first type of perception data, and wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the first multi-modal device to:
receive information indicating that the second multi-modal device is not configured to generate the first type of perception data, wherein the perception data is transmitted to the second multi-modal device based at least in part on the second multi-modal device not being configured to generate the first type of perception data.
([Seibert, ¶72-¶77 (Coordinate Override and SWIS), ¶80-¶82 and ¶84 (SWIS request from HMD 102A to HMD 102B)] Seibert teaches wherein the perception data comprises a first type of perception data related to the physical location/coordinates of the user and wherein the processor is further configured to cause the HMD 102A (interpreted as the first multi-modal device) to receive information indicating that the HMD 102B (interpreted as the second multi-modal device) is not configured to generate the first type of perception data related to the physical location/coordinates (according to the Coordinate Override configuration) as it is configured to instead utilize the physical location/coordinates of the instructor’s HMD 102A as a substitution for generating its own physical location/coordinates at the student’s HMD 102B as indicated by the request to join the “See What I See” (SWIS) mode session of the instructor’s HMD 102A; wherein the instructor’s HMD 102A transmits its physical location/coordinates to the student’s HMD 102B while participating in the SWIS mode session based at least in part of the student’s HMD 102B not being configured to generate its own physical location/coordinates and instead utilizing the substitution for the instructor’s HMD 102A physical location/coordinates.)
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Seibert, in view of Uchiyama teaches the first multi-modal device of claim 1, wherein switching from the first beam to the second beam is based at least in part on the blockage detection.
(Uchiyama teaches wherein the switching from the first beam L151 by the vehicle 11-100, which is interpreted as a multi-modal device having multi-modal communications ability as indicated above, to the second beam L163 is based at least in part on blockage detection, which is indicated as the detection of the blockage noted in Fig. 12 as the cross ‘X’ in the communication beam link L151 in consideration of the blockage of the beam by buildings in the area other than the roadways 261-1 and 261-2 [Uchiyama, Fig. 12, Col 22, Lines 13-34].)
The rationale for obviousness and motivation to combine Seibert, in view of Uchiyama is the same as the rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 11 and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The Examiner has conducted an prior art search of the available Patent and Non-Patent Literature and was unable to find any prior art which teaches either solely or in combination with another reference the claim limitations of (with respect to claim 9), “the first multi-modal device of claim 8, wherein the one or more processors, to cause the first multi-modal device to adapt the one or more link parameters, are configured to cause the first multi-modal device to: utilize a Doppler spread estimate that is utilized by the second multi-modal device”, (with respect to claim 11) “causing the first multi-modal device to modify the one or more parameters associated with providing the content to the user, are configured to cause the first multi-modal device to: adjust a frame insertion rate associated with providing the content to the user; or adapt a video rate associated with providing the content to the user” or (with respect to claim 15) “determining that a distance from the first multi-modal device to a third multi-modal device satisfies a condition, wherein the perception data is not transmitted to the third multi-modal device based at least in part on the distance from the first multi-modal device to the third multi-modal device satisfying the condition”, in combination with all the other claim limitations of the respective base claim and any intervening claims.
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 LONNIE V SWEET whose telephone number is (571)270-3622. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Hassan Phillips can be reached at 571-272-3940. 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.
/LONNIE V SWEET/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2467
Prosecution Insights