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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/11/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/11/2026 with respect to claims 1, 18, and 19 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Firstly, the Applicant argues that cited prior arts fails to teach “determining whether an object is with a subject” (pages 12-13, Remarks). More specifically, the Applicant asserts that Hill discloses a method of determining whether a user is gazing at an object; and identifying the object to be an object of interest (or a selected object). Therefore, Hill does not teach that “determining whether an object is with a subject”. The Office respectfully submits that the claim limitation should be read in light of the specification, instead of reading features from the specification into a claim. The limitation “an object is with a subject” can be interpreted, under Broadest Reasonable Interpretation, as “determining whether an object is looked (or gazed) by a user”. In other words, the object is with the user’s gaze (or the user’s interest). In the system of Hill, for example in Figure 3B, graphical elements (e.g., 303A and 303B) are displayed when an object (e.g., a first lamp 104D) is selected (or looked at). In Figure 3D, when the user shifts his/her viewing direction to a second lamp 104E, the system is configured to display graphical elements (e.g., 303C and 303D) associated with the second lamp 104E and forgoes displaying the graphical elements (e.g., 303A and 303B) associated with the first lamp 104D. Hill further discloses that the graphical elements can be removed from the view 300′ when the user 101 looks away from the first lamp 104D (Hill, para. [0067]). Therefore, Hill discloses that, if the object is not with the subject (e.g., the user is not looking at the lamp 104D), the system would forgo outputting the graphical element associated with the object (e.g., the first lamp 104D).
Secondly, the Applicant argues that the combination of Hill and Lauren is improper. The Applicant asserts that Hill already provides “status” of an object. Therefore, there is no need to combine with Laurent to use voice command to request additional statuses (pages 14-15, Remarks). The Office respectfully submits that the graphical element may not display all status data associated with a selected object. Therefore, in order to obtain additional status data, the user may need to provide a request (e.g., voice command). Hill further discloses that the user device 102 may modify the display of the graphical elements related to the first lamp 104D based on one or more actions, such as a voice input (Hill, para. [0067]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the system of Hill to include the teaching of Lauren of using a voice command to request for a battery status.
In addition, the Office also notes that, in the system of Hill, when the user device 102 establishes a communication with the selected object, the user may control operations of the selected object by using a voice command. For example, the user may be looking at a thermostat among a plurality of objects and state “turn the heat up to 72 degrees” (Hill, para. [0071]). In other words, the voice command is ambiguous (i.e., without specifying a particular device).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 52-54 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.
In view of amendment, a new reference of Pejsa et al. (US Pub. 2025/0173888 A1) is applied to a new ground of rejection.
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.
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 1-4, 6-13, 15-19, 20-22, 24-31, 33-38, 40-47 and 49-51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hill et al. (US Pub. 2016/0313902 A1) in view of Laurens et al. (US Pub. 2017/0358300 A1).
Regarding claim 1; Hill teaches a method, comprising:
at a computer system (a user device 102, Fig.1) that is in communication with one or more input devices (Fig.2, para. [0036, 0044, and 0045], the user device 102 comprises a sensor 120 and an input device 119 configured to receive an input. The sensor 120 may include a camera, a touch sensor, a proximity sensor, a death field camera, or any other type of input device) and one or more output devices (para. [0047-0051], the user device 102 comprises a hardware display surface 118 configured to display images):
detecting, via the one or more input devices (para. [0045], the sensor 120 and the input device 119 detect an input), an input (1) corresponding to a first subject (Fig.1, para. [0036], the sensor 120 and the input device 119 detect input commands corresponding to a user 101); and
in response to detecting the input corresponding to the first subject (Para. [0036], the input command may include a gesture, for example, the user is looking at an object):
in accordance with a determination that a first object (Para. [0009 and 0061], Figs. 3B-3D, the user may select an object (e.g., a first lamp 104D, Fig.3B) by performing a gesture. In particular, the user 101 can utilize the user device 102 to select one of the two objects 104 by directing the field of view of the user device 102 toward the desired object 104. Such an action can be performed, for example, when the user 101 turns to look at an object of interest), different from the computer system (Fig.1, the objects 104A-104D are different from the user device 102), is with the first subject, outputting, via the one or more output devices, a first attribute of the first object (e.g., Fig.3B, para. [0062-0063], in response to the selection of the first lamp 104, the user device 102 can cause the display of one or more graphical elements along with the real-world view of the first lamp 104D. In this example, a first graphical element 303A indicates a status of the first lamp 104D. Specifically, the first graphical element 303A, by the use of rendered lines and a circle, indicates that the first lamp 104D is turned on. In FIG. 3B, a second graphical element 303B comprises status data and selectable control elements for controlling the fourth controller device 103D and the first lamp 104D); and
in accordance with a determination that the first object is not with the first subject, forgoing outputting, via the one or more output devices, the first attribute of the first object (It is understood that, if the user 101 does not look at an object, the user device 102 would not display a graphical element indicating a status of the object).
Hill does not teach that the input (2) including an identification of a first attribute (Hill discloses a method of detecting a gaze of a user to determine a device of interest; and controlling the device of interest by using a voice command. However, Hill does not explicitly disclose that the voice command includes an identification of an attribute).
Laurens teaches a voice input including an identification of a first attribute (Figs. 8A-8E, a device 800 is in communication with a plurality of peripheral devices (e.g., a tablet 850, a watch 830, a headset 840…). A user may acquire an attribute of a peripheral device by using speech inputs (e.g., 824A-824E). For example, the speech input may include “How is the battery level?” (Fig.8C). In this instance, the battery level is an identification of the attribute).
At the time of invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Hill of using a gaze detection to select a device of interest and using a voice input to control the device of interest to include the teaching of Laurens of providing a speech input including an identification of an attribute of a peripheral device (e.g., battery level). The motivation would have been in order to improve the user experience.
Regarding claim 2; Hill in view of Laurens teaches the method of claim 1 as discussed above. Hill further teaches the first object is not in communication with the computer system while detecting the input corresponding to the first subject (Para. [0009 and 0059], at first, the user 101 selects an object 104 (i.e., remote computing device). Then, the user device 102 will initiate communication with the remote computing device. In other words, the remote computing device (or object 104) is not in communication with the user device 102 while detecting the input corresponding to the user 101).
Regarding claim 3; Hill in view of Laurens teaches the method of claim 1 as discussed above. Hill further teaches the first object is in communication with the computer system (Para. [0009 and 0059], the user 101 selects an object 104 (i.e., remote computing device). Then, the user device 102 will initiate communication with the remote computing device).
Regarding claim 4; Hill in view of Laurens teaches the method of claim 1 as discussed above. Hill further teaches the first object is a physical object (Para. [0051], the user device 102 may be an augmented reality system including a “see through display”. Accordingly, the object (e.g., first lamp 104D, Fig.3B) is a physical object).
Regarding claim 6; Hill in view of Laurens teaches the method of claim 1 as discussed above. Hill further teaches the one or more output devices includes a display generation component (para. [0047-0051], the user device 102 comprises a hardware display surface 118 configured to display images), and wherein outputting the first attribute of the first object includes displaying, via the display generation component, an indication of the first attribute of the first device (see Fig.3B and the analysis of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 7; Hill in view of Laurens teaches the method of claim 1 as discussed above. Hill further teaches the one or more output devices includes an audio generation component, and wherein outputting the content includes outputting, via the audio generation component, audio (para. [0061, 0064, 0070, and 0163], the user device 101 may include audio I/O interface component (e.g., headphone or speaker) to generate an audio signal which can be used to indicate an association between an object and displayed content).
Regarding claim 8; Hill in view of Laurens teaches the method of claim 1 as discussed above. Hill further teaches the input is a first input, the method further comprising: detecting a second input corresponding to the first subject; and in response to detecting the second input corresponding to the first subject, outputting, via the one or more output devices, a second attribute different from the first attribute (Figs.3A-3B, para. [0061-0063], the user 101 looks at the first lamp 104D. The user device 102 displays information 303B associated with the first lamp 104D. Later, Figs.4A-4B, the user may turn to look at a garage door opener 104A. Then, the user device 102 displays information 402 associated with the garage door opener 104A).
Regarding claim 9; Hill in view of Laurens teaches the method of claim 1 as discussed above. Hill further teaches in accordance with a determination that a third object, different from the computer system and the first object, is with the first subject, outputting, via the one or more output devices, a third attribute of the third object (Figs.3A-3D and 4A-4C, para. [0061-0063], the user 101 may turn to look at another object (e.g., 104E). The user device 102 would be configured to display information associated with the object 104E).
Regarding claim 10; Hill in view of Laurens teaches the method of claim 1 as discussed above. Hill further teaches the input is a voice input (Para. [0045, 0067, 0070, 0071, and 0084], the sensor 120 may include a microphone to receive a voice command).
Regarding claim 11; Hill in view of Laurens teaches the method of claim 1 as discussed above. Hill further teaches the input does not include an identification of the first object (Para. [0045, 0067, 0070, 0071, and 0084], the input may include a gesture, a voice command, or a gaze direction which does not include an identification of the object. In other words, Hill discloses a method of identifying a device of interest by detecting a user’s gaze; and providing a voice command to control the device of interest (e.g., “turn the light on”). Therefore, the input does not include an identification of the device).
Regarding claim 12; Hill in view of Laurens teaches the method of claim 1 as discussed above. Hill further teaches the one or more input devices includes a first set of one or more cameras, and wherein the input is detected via the first set of one or more cameras (Para. [0036, 0044, 0051, 0052, and 0055], the sensor and input device may include a camera to generate a signal indicating a user interaction).
Regarding claim 13; Hill in view of Laurens teaches the method of claim 1 as discussed above. Hill further teaches the determination that the first object is with the first subject is performed using one or more images (Para. [0036, 0044, 0051, 0052, 0055, and 0058], the sensor and input device may include a camera to detect the user looking at an object. In particular, the user device 102, such as an HMD, can determine a selection of an object 104 by capturing and analyzing input data 113 defining a performance of one or more gestures or other forms of input).
Regarding claim 15; Hill in view of Laurens teaches the method of claim 1 as discussed above. Hill further teaches the first attribute is stored by the first object (Para. [0008, 0023], status data is received from the second computing device (i.e., included in the object 104). Para. [0039 and 0041], Fig.2, status data 114 is stored in a local memory 180 of the controller device 103 of the object 104).
Regarding claim 16; Hill in view of Laurens teaches the method of claim 1 as discussed above. Hill further teaches in response to detecting the input corresponding to the first subject and in accordance with the determination that the first object is not with the first subject, outputting, via the one or more output devices, a fourth attribute of a fourth object different from the first object (Figs.3A-3B, para. [0061-0063], the user 101 looks at the first lamp 104D. The user device 102 displays information 303B associated with the first lamp 104D. Later, Figs.4A-4B, the user may turn to look at a garage door opener 104A. Then, the user device 102 displays information 402 associated with the garage door opener 104A. It is understood that, if the user is looking at a fourth object (i.e., the user is not looking at the first lamp 104D), the user device would be configured to display status information related to the fourth object).
Regarding claim 17; Hill in view of Laurens teaches the method of claim 1 as discussed above. Hill further teaches in response to detecting the input corresponding to the first subject and in accordance with a determination that the first object is not with the first subject, outputting, via the one or more output devices, a fifth attribute of the computer system (Figs.3A-3B, para. [0061-0063], the user 101 looks at the first lamp 104D. The user device 102 displays information 303B associated with the first lamp 104D. Later, Figs.4A-4B, the user may turn to look at a garage door opener 104A. Then, the user device 102 displays information 402 associated with the garage door opener 104A. It is understood that, if the user turns to look at a fifth object (i.e., the user is not looking at the first lamp 104D), the user device would be configured to display status information related to the fifth object).
Regarding claim 18; Hill in view of Laurens teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (Laurens, Fig.2, para. [0045-0046], a user device 102 comprises a local memory 180) storing one or more programs configured to be executed by one or more processors of a computer system (Laurens, Fig.9, para. [0087 and 0132-0134]) that is in communication with one or more input devices and one or more output devices, the one or more programs including instructions for: detecting, via the one or more input devices, an input (1) corresponding to a first subject and (2) including an identification of a first attribute; and in response to detecting the input (1) corresponding to the first subject and (2) including the identification of the first attribute: in accordance with a determination that a first object, different from the computer system, is with the first subject, outputting, via the one or more output devices, a first attribute of the first object; and in accordance with a determination that the first object is not with the first subject, forgoing outputting, via the one or more output devices, the first attribute of the first object (similar to the analysis of claim 1).
Regarding claim 19; Hill teaches a computer system (a user device 102, Figs. 1 and 2) that is in communication with one or more input devices and one or more output devices, comprising: one or more processors (a processor 902, Fig.9, para. [0087]); and memory (memory components 904, Fig.9) storing one or more programs configured to be executed by the one or more processors (para. [0133 and 0138]), the one or more programs including instructions for: detecting, via the one or more input devices, an input (1) corresponding to a first subject and (2) including an identification of a first attribute; and in response to detecting the input (1) corresponding to the first subject and (2) including the identification of the first attribute: in accordance with a determination that a first object, different from the computer system, is with the first subject, outputting, via the one or more output devices, a first attribute of the first object; and in accordance with a determination that the first object is not with the first subject, forgoing outputting, via the one or more output devices, the first attribute of the first object (similar to the analysis of claim 1).
Regarding claim 20; Hill in view of Laurens teaches the non-transitory storage medium of claim 18 as discussed above. The limitation of claim 20 is substantially similar to claim 2. Accordingly, claim 20 is rejected based on the similar analysis as claim 2.
Regarding claim 21; Hill in view of Laurens teaches the non-transitory storage medium of claim 18 as discussed above. The limitation of claim 21 is substantially similar to claim 3. Accordingly, claim 21 is rejected based on the similar analysis as claim 3.
Regarding claim 22; Hill in view of Laurens teaches the non-transitory storage medium of claim 18 as discussed above. The limitation of claim 22 is substantially similar to claim 4. Accordingly, claim 22 is rejected based on the similar analysis as claim 4.
Regarding claim 24; Hill in view of Laurens teaches the non-transitory storage medium of claim 18 as discussed above. The limitation of claim 24 is substantially similar to claim 6. Accordingly, claim 24 is rejected based on the similar analysis as claim 6.
Regarding claim 25; Hill in view of Laurens teaches the non-transitory storage medium of claim 18 as discussed above. The limitation of claim 25 is substantially similar to claim 7. Accordingly, claim 25 is rejected based on the similar analysis as claim 7.
Regarding claim 26; Hill in view of Laurens teaches the non-transitory storage medium of claim 18 as discussed above. The limitation of claim 26 is substantially similar to claim 8. Accordingly, claim 26 is rejected based on the similar analysis as claim 8.
Regarding claim 27; Hill in view of Laurens teaches the non-transitory storage medium of claim 18 as discussed above. The limitation of claim 27 is substantially similar to claim 9. Accordingly, claim 27 is rejected based on the similar analysis as claim 9.
Regarding claim 28; Hill in view of Laurens teaches the non-transitory storage medium of claim 18 as discussed above. The limitation of claim 28 is substantially similar to claim 10. Accordingly, claim 28 is rejected based on the similar analysis as claim 10.
Regarding claim 29; Hill in view of Laurens teaches the non-transitory storage medium of claim 18 as discussed above. The limitation of claim 29 is substantially similar to claim 11. Accordingly, claim 29 is rejected based on the similar analysis as claim 11.
Regarding claim 30; Hill in view of Laurens teaches the non-transitory storage medium of claim 18 as discussed above. The limitation of claim 30 is substantially similar to claim 12. Accordingly, claim 30 is rejected based on the similar analysis as claim 12.
Regarding claim 31; Hill in view of Laurens teaches the non-transitory storage medium of claim 18 as discussed above. The limitation of claim 31 is substantially similar to claim 13. Accordingly, claim 31 is rejected based on the similar analysis as claim 13.
Regarding claim 33; Hill in view of Laurens teaches the non-transitory storage medium of claim 18 as discussed above. The limitation of claim 33 is substantially similar to claim 15. Accordingly, claim 33 is rejected based on the similar analysis as claim 15.
Regarding claim 34; Hill in view of Laurens teaches the non-transitory storage medium of claim 18 as discussed above. The limitation of claim 34 is substantially similar to claim 16. Accordingly, claim 34 is rejected based on the similar analysis as claim 16.
Regarding claim 35; Hill in view of Laurens teaches the non-transitory storage medium of claim 18 as discussed above. The limitation of claim 35 is substantially similar to claim 17. Accordingly, claim 35 is rejected based on the similar analysis as claim 17.
Regarding claim 36; Hill in view of Laurens teaches the computer system of claim 19 as discussed above. The limitation of claim 36 is substantially similar to claim 2. Accordingly, claim 36 is rejected based on the similar analysis as claim 2.
Regarding claim 37; Hill in view of Laurens teaches the computer system of claim 19 as discussed above. The limitation of claim 37 is substantially similar to claim 3. Accordingly, claim 37 is rejected based on the similar analysis as claim 3.
Regarding claim 38; Hill in view of Laurens teaches the computer system of claim 19 as discussed above. The limitation of claim 38 is substantially similar to claim 4. Accordingly, claim 38 is rejected based on the similar analysis as claim 4.
Regarding claim 40; Hill in view of Laurens teaches the computer system of claim 19 as discussed above. The limitation of claim 40 is substantially similar to claim 6. Accordingly, claim 40 is rejected based on the similar analysis as claim 6.
Regarding claim 41; Hill in view of Laurens teaches the computer system of claim 19 as discussed above. The limitation of claim 41 is substantially similar to claim 7. Accordingly, claim 41 is rejected based on the similar analysis as claim 7.
Regarding claim 42; Hill in view of Laurens teaches the computer system of claim 19 as discussed above. The limitation of claim 42 is substantially similar to claim 8. Accordingly, claim 42 is rejected based on the similar analysis as claim 8.
Regarding claim 43; Hill in view of Laurens teaches the computer system of claim 19 as discussed above. The limitation of claim 43 is substantially similar to claim 9. Accordingly, claim 43 is rejected based on the similar analysis as claim 9.
Regarding claim 44; Hill in view of Laurens teaches the computer system of claim 19 as discussed above. The limitation of claim 44 is substantially similar to claim 10. Accordingly, claim 44 is rejected based on the similar analysis as claim 10.
Regarding claim 45; Hill in view of Laurens teaches the computer system of claim 19 as discussed above. The limitation of claim 45 is substantially similar to claim 11. Accordingly, claim 45 is rejected based on the similar analysis as claim 11.
Regarding claim 46; Hill in view of Laurens teaches the computer system of claim 19 as discussed above. The limitation of claim 46 is substantially similar to claim 12. Accordingly, claim 46 is rejected based on the similar analysis as claim 12.
Regarding claim 47; Hill in view of Laurens teaches the computer system of claim 19 as discussed above. The limitation of claim 47 is substantially similar to claim 13. Accordingly, claim 47 is rejected based on the similar analysis as claim 13.
Regarding claim 49; Hill in view of Laurens teaches the computer system of claim 19 as discussed above. The limitation of claim 49 is substantially similar to claim 15. Accordingly, claim 49 is rejected based on the similar analysis as claim 15.
Regarding claim 50; Hill in view of Laurens teaches the computer system of claim 19 as discussed above. The limitation of claim 50 is substantially similar to claim 16. Accordingly, claim 50 is rejected based on the similar analysis as claim 16.
Regarding claim 51; Hill in view of Laurens teaches the computer system of claim 19 as discussed above. The limitation of claim 51 is substantially similar to claim 17. Accordingly, claim 51 is rejected based on the similar analysis as claim 17.
Claims 5, 23 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hill et al. (US Pub. 2016/0313902 A1) in view of Laurens et al. (US Pub. 2017/0358300 A1) as applied to claims 1, 18 and 19 above; further in view of Swaminathan et al. (US Pub. 2018/0253145 A1).
Regarding claim 5; Hill in view of Laurens teaches the method of claim 1 as discussed above. Hill does not teach the first object is a virtual object.
Swaminathan teaches the first object is a virtual object (Fig.6A, para. [0063], Swaminathan discloses an augmented reality system comprising an electronic device 402 displaying a plurality of virtual objects. The electronic device 402 comprises a front-facing camera configured to detect a gaze of a user to identify an area of interest. For example, when it detects the user gazing at the Empire State Building 505, the electronic device displays an object tag 504-1 representing additional data associated with the object of interest).
At the time of invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the user device of Hill to include the (passthrough) augmented reality system of Swaminathan of detecting a gaze at a virtual object; and displaying additional data related to the virtual object. The motivation would have been in order to improve display quality.
Regarding claim 23; Hill in view of Laurens teaches the non-transitory storage medium of claim 18 as discussed above. The limitation of claim 23 is substantially similar to claim 5. Accordingly, claim 23 is rejected based on the similar analysis as claim 5.
Regarding claim 39; Hill in view of Laurens teaches the computer system of claim 19 as discussed above. The limitation of claim 39 is substantially similar to claim 5. Accordingly, claim 39 is rejected based on the similar analysis as claim 5.
Claims 14, 32, and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hill et al. (US Pub. 2016/0313902 A1) in view of Laurens et al. (US Pub. 2017/0358300 A1) as applied to claims 1, 18, and 19 above; further in view of Kies et al. (US Pub. 2022/0100265 A1).
Regarding claim 14; Hill in view of Laurens teaches the method of claim 1 as discussed above. Hill does not teach the determination that the first object is with the first subject includes a determination that the first subject is holding the first object.
Kies teaches the determination that the first object is with the first subject includes a determination that the first subject is holding the first object (Figs. 4 and 5, para. [0102-0103], Kies discloses an extended reality system 100 configured to determine whether a user is holding a physical object 402 with a left hand. In response to the determination, an interface layout and input management engine 122 can determine attributes of the physical object 402, such as the size of the object 402, the shape of the object 402, the position and/or orientation of the object 402 relative to the left hand 410 of the user, and/or other attributes).
At the time of invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Hill to include the teaching of Kies of determining when a user is holding a physical object with a hand (e.g., left hand); and displaying attributes of the physical object according to the determination. The motivation would have been in order to enhance the user experience (Kies, para. [0004]).
Regarding claim 32; Hill in view of Laurens teaches the non-transitory storage medium of claim 18 as discussed above. The limitation of claim 32 is substantially similar to claim 14. Accordingly, claim 32 is rejected based on the similar analysis as claim 14.
Regarding claim 48; Hill in view of Laurens teaches the computer system of claim 19 as discussed above. The limitation of claim 48 is substantially similar to claim 14. Accordingly, claim 48 is rejected based on the similar analysis as claim 14.
Claims 52-54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hill et al. (US Pub. 2016/0313902 A1) in view of Laurens et al. (US Pub. 2017/0358300 A1) as applied to claims 1, 18, and 19 above; further in view of Pejsa et al. (US Pub. 2025/0173888 A1).
Regarding claim 52; Hill in view of Laurens teaches the method of claim 1 as discussed above. Hill in view of Laurent does not teach that the determination that the first object is with the first subject includes a determination that the first object is within a threshold distance of the first subject and wherein the determination that the first object is not with the first subject includes a determination that the first object is not within the threshold distance of the first subject.
Pejsa teaches the determination that the first object is with the first subject includes a determination that the first object is within a threshold distance of the first subject and wherein the determination that the first object is not with the first subject includes a determination that the first object is not within the threshold distance of the first subject (Fig.1, para. [0044-0050], Pejsa discloses a headset 100 (e.g., an augmented reality system) comprising an object selector 305 configured to identify a candidate object among a plurality of objects in a local area. In figure 4, para. [0064], the headset identifies an object corresponding to a bounding box in the three-dimensional model of the local area intersected by the ray corresponding to the gaze direction of the user and within a threshold distance of the fixation depth of the user's gaze. In other words, a candidate object is identified to be within a threshold distance from the headset and intersect with the gaze direction. Therefore, if an object is not within the threshold distance from the headset, the object would not be a candidate object).
At the time of invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Hill in view of Laurent to include the teaching of Pejsa of identifying a candidate object by determining whether the object is within a threshold distance from the headset and intersects with the gaze direction of the user. The motivation would have been in order to correctly identify an object of interest.
Regarding claim 53; Hill in view of Laurens teaches the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 18 as discussed above. The limitation of claim 53 is substantially similar to claim 52. Therefore, claim 53 is rejected based on the same analysis as claim 52.
Regarding claim 54; Hill in view of Laurens teaches the computer system of claim 19 as discussed above. The limitation of claim 54 is substantially similar to claim 52. Therefore, claim 54 is rejected based on the same analysis as claim 52.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NGUYEN H TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1630. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10-6.
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, Chanh Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-7772. 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.
/NGUYEN H TRUONG/Examiner, Art Unit 2623
/CHANH D NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2623
Prosecution Insights