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
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant arguments/Remarks made in amendment, in which the following is noted: claims 1, 3, 9, 11, 17, 19, and 25 are amended; the rejection of the claims traversed; and claim 24 is cancelled. Claims 1 – 23 and 25 are currently pending and an Office action on the merits follows.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 26 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Clavin does not disclose at least “sending an additional instruction to an additional external electronic device to cause the additional external electronic device to present the notification regardless of whether the additional electronic device is being actively viewed.” However, the Office notes Clavin Figure 14B illustrates said “sending” as claimed when transmitting the image to the remote device 1422.
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 5, 8 – 13, 16 – 21 and 26 - 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clavin et al; (Publication number: US 2013/0147686 A1), hereafter Clavin, in view of AGRAWAL et al; (Publication number: US 2024/0329732 A1), hereafter AGRAWAL, in view of George-Svahn (Publication number: US 2016/0109946 A1), hereafter George-Svahn.
Regarding claim 1:
Clavin discloses a head-mounted device (Clavin Figure 1 HMD device 2) comprising:
one or more sensors (Clavin [0046] Inside, or mounted to temple 102, are ear phones 130 and inertial sensors 132. In one embodiment, inertial sensors 132 include a three-axis magnetometer 132A, three axis gyro 132B and three axis accelerometer 132C (See FIG. 3). The inertial sensors are for sensing position, orientation and sudden accelerations of HMD device 2 (such as a bump of the computing device with target computing device or object). For example, the inertial sensors can be one or more sensors which are used to determine an orientation and/or location of user's head.);
one or more output devices (Clavin [0045] Mounted to or inside temple 102 is an image projection source, which (in one embodiment) includes microdisplay 120 for projecting an image and lens 122 for directing images from microdisplay 120 into light guide optical element 112.).;
one or more processors; and memory storing instructions configured to be executed by the one or more processors (Clavin [0037] The processing unit 4 includes much of the computing power used to operate HMD device 2, and may execute instructions stored on a processor readable storage device for performing the processes described herein. In one embodiment, the processing unit 4 communicates wirelessly (e.g., using Wi-Fi.RTM. (IEEE 802.11), BLUETOOTH.RTM. (IEEE 802.15.1), infrared (e.g., IrDA.RTM. or INFRARED DATA ASSOCIATION.RTM. standard), or other wireless communication means) to one or more hub computing systems 12 and/or one or more other computing devices such as a cell phone, tablet, PC, television, computer monitor, projector or pico projector. The processing unit 4 could also include a wired connection to an assisting processor.), the instructions for:
obtaining, using the one or more sensors sensors data, sensor data (Clavin [0021] FIG. 12 depicts a process for tracking a user's gaze direction and depth of focus such as for use in step 904 or 914 of FIG. 9A. [0004] In one embodiment, … The condition can be based on, e.g., a location of the HMD device, a gesture performed by the user, a voice command made by the user, a gaze direction of the user, a proximity signal, an infrared signal, a bump of the HMD device, and a pairing of the HMD device with the target computing device. The at least one control circuit can determine one or more capabilities of the target computing device, and process the content accordingly to provide processed content to the target computing device. If the condition is met, the at least one control circuit communicates data to the target computing device to allow the target computing device to provide the continuation of at least part of the experience.),; and
using the sensor data, determining whether an external electronic device is being actively viewed (Clavin [0096] FIG. 9A is a flow chart describing one embodiment of a process for continuing a experience on target computing device… If the source computing device is an HMD device, decision step 904 determines if a condition is met to continue the experience on a target computing device (e.g., one or more target computing devices) or on a display surface.
[0097] If decision step 904 indicates the experience should be continued on a target computing device, step 906 communicates data to the target computing device (see also FIG. 11), and step 908 continues the experience at the target computing device. … [0098] If decision step 904 indicates the experience should be continued on a display surface, step 909 displays the visual content at the source HMD device at a virtual location which is registered to the display surface. See FIG. 18 for further details.
[0099]. In this case, decision step 914 determines if a condition is met to continue the experience at a target HMD device. If decision step 914 is false, the process ends at step 910. If decision step 914 is true, step 916 communicates data to the target HMD device (see also FIG. 11), and step 918 continues the experience on the target HMD device. Optionally, the experience is discontinued at the source computing device.
[0100] The conditions mentioned in decision steps 904 and 914 can involve one or more factors such as locations of one or more of the source and/or target computing devices, one or more gestures performed by a user, manipulation by the user of a hardware-based input device such as a game controller, one or more voice commands made by a user, a gaze direction of a user, a proximity signal, an infrared signal, a bump, a pairing of the computing devices and preconfigured user and/or default settings and preferences.); and sensing an additional external electronic device to cause the additional external electronic device to present the notification regardless of whether the additional external electronic device is being actively viewed (Clavin 0024] FIG. 14B depicts a scenario in which an experience at an HMD device is continued at a television which is local to the HMD device and at a television which is remote from the HMD device, based on a location of the HMD device; [0153] FIG. 14B depicts a scenario in which an experience at an HMD device is continued at a television which is local to the HMD device and at a television which is remote from the HMD device, based on a location of the HMD device. In this example, the experience has been continued at the television 1300 which is local to the user and continues also at the HMD device. The HMD device provides a display 1426 with the background image 1402 and a message as a foreground image 1430 which asks the user if the user desires to continue the experience at a computing device (e.g., a television 1422) which has been identified as being at "Joe's house.")
Clavin does not disclose in accordance with determining that the external electronic device is not being actively viewed, presenting a notification using the one or more output devices, and sending an instruction to the external electronic device to cause the external electronic device to suppress the notification.
However, AGRAWAL discloses managing notifications among connected devices. More particularly, AGRAWAL determining user attention (AGRWAWAL Figure 5B and [0041] Method 500 includes presenting the notification via the first user interface at the internal display in response to determining that the user attention is directed to the internal display (block 524) is directed to the internal display).
It would have been obvious to modify Clavin wherein in accordance with determining that the external electronic device is not being actively viewed, presenting a notification using the one or more output devices, as claimed. Those skilled in the art would appreciate the ability to reduce duplicate notifications, thereby avoiding unnecessarily distracting the user.
Further, George-Svahn discloses systems and methods for gaze input-based dismissal of information on a display. More particularly, George-Svahn discloses a method of dismissing information from a display device based upon the user gazing at the information for a first time period (George-Svahn [0041] Figure 2 200). More particularly, George-Svahn discloses dismissing the information of the user’s gaze remains in an area for a first time period (George-Svahn Figure 1 150; [0043] dismissing the object corresponds to claimed suppressing based on instruction by processor).
It would have been obvious to further modify Clavin (in view of AGRAWAL) to include and sending an instruction to the external electronic device to cause the external electronic device to suppress the notification, as claimed, because such a modification would be based on the use of known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way. More specifically, the device the display device 310 of George-Svahn and the external display device 1300 of Clavin (in view of AGRAWAL) are comparable as both devices are configured to display notification information to the user. Therefore, it is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the head-mounted device of Clavin (in view of AGRAWAL) to include sending an instruction to the external electronic device to cause the external electronic device to suppress the notification, as claimed, with the predictable result of efficiently dismissing information so that the display surface may be used for other tasks (George-Svahn [0026]).
Regarding claim 2:
Clavin (in view of AGRAWAL and George-Svahn) discloses the head-mounted device defined in claim 1, wherein the instructions further comprises instructions for: in accordance with determining that the external electronic device is being actively viewed, foregoing presenting the notification using the one or more output devices (AGRAWAL Figure 5B; selectively route notification to external display [0035]).
Regarding claim 3:
Clavin (in view of AGRAWAL and George-Svahn) disclose the head-mounted device defined in claim 1, further comprising:
communication circuity that is configured to wirelessly communicate with external electronic device (Clavin [0037]), wherein sending the instruction to the external electronic device comprises sensing the instruction to the external electronic device using the communication circuitry (disclosed bin combination by Clavin [0037]) the instructions further comprise instructions for:
in accordance with determining that the external electronic device is being actively viewed, sending, using communication circuity, an instruction to the external electronic device to cause the external electronic device to present the notification (AGRAWAL Figure 1 connection 149; [0035]).
Regarding claim 4:
Clavin (in view of AGRAWAL) discloses the head-mounted device defined in claim 1, wherein the one or more sensors comprise one or more gaze detection sensors configured to determine a point of gaze, an accelerometer, configured to determined a head position, or a camera (AGRAWAL sensors 164 and cameras 167, 183; see also Clavin [0043] [0046] [0140 – 0143]).
Regarding claim 5:
Clavin (in view of AGRAWAL) discloses the head-mounted device defined in claim 1, wherein the one or more output devices comprises one or more displays (Clavin [0045]) and wherein presenting the notification using the one or more output devices comprises displaying the notification using the one or more displays (AGRAWAL [0034 – 0035]).
Regarding claim 8:
Clavin (in view of AGRAWAL) discloses the head-mounted device defined in claim 1, wherein the external electronic device comprises a cellular telephone, a watch, or a laptop computer (Clavin Figure 13 1302; see also AGRAWAL Figure 3A and 3B 104).
Regarding claims 9 and 17:
Claims 9 and 17 are similarly rejected for those reasons discussed above in claim 1.
Regarding claims 10 and 18:
Claim 10 and 18 are similarly rejected for those reasons discussed above in claim 2.
Regarding claims 11 and 19:
Claim 11 and 19 are similarly rejected for those reasons discussed above in claim 3.
Regarding claims 12 and 20:
Claim 12 and 20 are similarly rejected for those reasons discussed above in claim 4.
Regarding claims 13 and 21:
Claims 13 and 21 are similarly rejected for those reasons discussed above in claim 5.
Regarding claim 16:
Claim 16 is similarly rejected for those reasons discussed above in claim 8.
Regarding claim 26:
Clavin (in view of AGRAWAL) does not disclose the head-mounted device defined in claim 1, wherein the external electronic device has a larger display than the additional external electronic device.
However, it would have obvious to modify Clavin (in view of AGRAWAL) wherein the external electronic device has a larger display than the additional external electronic device, as claimed, as it has been found that a mere change in size (the size of the additional external device) is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art (In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955)).
Regarding claim 27:
Clavin (in view of AGRAWAL) discloses the head-mounted device defined in claim 1, wherein the additional external electronic device is lower on a hierarchy of target devices for presenting notifications than the external electronic device (Clavin [0115]; the additional external device is lower priority based on performing another task of higher priority).
Claim(s) 7, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clavin et al; (Publication number: US 2013/0147686 A1), hereafter Clavin, in view of AGRAWAL et al; (Publication number: US 2024/0329732 A1), hereafter AGRAWAL, in view of George-Svahn, in view of Duarte et al; (Patent number: US 10, 375, 223), hereafter Duarte.
Regarding claim 7:
Clavin (in view of AGRAWAL and George-Svahn) does not disclose the head-mounted device defined in claim 1, wherein the notification of an incoming text message, a notification of an incoming phone call, or a notification of an incoming email.
However, Duarte discloses notifying a user of events in a computing device. More particularly, Duarte discloses a notification of an incoming text message (Duarte Figure 1B event notification 103 includes notification of incoming text message).
It would have been obvious to further modify Clavin (in view of AGRAWAL and George-Svahn) wherein the notification comprises a notification of an incoming text message, a notification of an incoming phone call, or a notification of an incoming email, as claimed. Those skilled in the art would appreciate allowing a user to continue performing a task while viewing the message later.
Regarding claims 15
Claims 15 is similarly rejected for those reasons discussed above in claim 7.
Claim(s) 6, 14, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clavin et al; (Publication number: US 2013/0147686 A1), hereafter Clavin, in view of AGRAWAL, in view of George-Svahn, in view of CHO et al; (Publication number: US 2009/0322695 A1), hereafter CHO.
Regarding claim 6:
Clavin (in view of AGRAWAL and George-Svahn) discloses wherein the one or more speakers (Clavin [0034]), but does not disclose the head-mounted device defined in claim 1, wherein presenting the notification using the one or more output devices comprises playing audio using the one or more speakers.
CHO discloses a mobile terminal and method of controlling the mobile terminal. More particularly, CHO discloses an audio output module 153 which outputs sounds associated with the functions of the mobile terminal such as receiving a call or message (CHO [0040]).
It would have been obvious to further modify Clavin (in view of AGRAWAL and George-Svahn) wherein presenting the notification using the one or more output devices comprises playing audio using the one or more speakers, as claimed, because such a modification would be based on combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predicable results. More specifically, the device of Clavin (in view of AGRAWAL and George-Svahn) as modified by CHO’s audio output is known to yield predictable result of providing notification to the user. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate the ability to provide audio nonfiction to the user since the claimed invention is a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would perform the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claims 14 and 22:
Claim 14 and 22 are similarly rejected for those reasons discussed above in claim 6.
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 MIHIR K RAYAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 - 5pm (EST).
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, Patrick Edouard can be reached at 5712727063. 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.
/MIHIR K RAYAN/ 24 February 2026Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2622