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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 9-12, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Benkreira et al. (US 10,331,874) hereafter Benkreira.
1. Benkreira discloses a method of authorizing a user of a head mountable device (HMD), comprising:
displaying a first plurality of images on a private display of the HMD and a public display of an external computing device coupled to the HMD (figs. 1A-1C and corresponding text; see also col 8, lines 33-51);
detecting an enablement of an authentication mode for the user (col 8, 24-31, signal that indicates the ATM device has been validated);
in response, displaying a second plurality of images on the private display of the HMD, wherein the first plurality of images are displayed in different locations than the second plurality of images (fig 1D and corresponding text);
detecting user gestures indicating a selection of a sequence of images of the second plurality of images (col 8, line 32-col 10, 19); and
authorizing the user based on the selection of the sequence of images of the second plurality of images (col 9, 4-33, PIN matches).
9. The method of claim 1, wherein the second plurality of images comprises a series of numbers or symbols which are randomly placed each time the user is authenticated (figs. 1A-1D and corresponding text).
Claims 10 and 15 are similar in scope to claim 1 and are rejected under similar rationale.
11. The XR system of claim 10, wherein the first series of images includes numbers or symbols located in different locations than the second series of images (col 8, line 52-col 9, line 3; see further col 8, line 32-col 10, 19).
12. The XR system of claim 10, wherein the first series of images are randomized each time the user of the HMD is authenticated (col 8, line 52-col 9, line 3).
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benkreira as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dow et al. (US 9,697,384) hereafter Dow.
2. Benkreira discloses the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the HMD is tethered to the external computing device, and further comprising: the external computing device generating the first plurality of images to be displayed on the public display of the external computing device and the second plurality of images to be displayed on the private display of the HMD; and the external computing device transferring the second plurality of images to the HMD to be displayed on the private display of the HMD. However, in an analogous art, Dow discloses numeric keypad encryption for augmented reality devices including wherein the HMD is tethered to the external computing device, and further comprising: the external computing device generating the first plurality of images to be displayed on the public display of the external computing device and the second plurality of images to be displayed on the private display of the HMD; and the external computing device transferring the second plurality of images to the HMD to be displayed on the private display of the HMD (fig. 2, 208->212 and corresponding text). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the implementation of Benkreira with the implementation of Dow in order to prevent attackers or cameras from determining the values of numeric keypad keys that were pressed (col 5, lines 26-34).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benkreira as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Iyer et al. (US 2020/0380784) hereafter Iyer.
3. Benkreira discloses the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the HMD comprises an All-In-One (AIO) headset and further comprising:the HMD generating the first plurality of images to be displayed on the public display of the external computing device and the second plurality of images to be displayed on the private display of the HMD; and the HMD transferring the first plurality of images to the external computing device to be displayed on the public display of the external computing device. However, in an analogous art, Iyer discloses a head mounted device may be an all-in-one device with enough compute power to operate untethered from any information handling system (para 33-34; fig 1C, shows local/edge/cloud compute in connection with HMD or discloses HMD as all-in-one). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify and/or substitute the implementation of Benkreira with the known finite number of implementations as disclosed by Iyer with predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143.I.E).
Claim(s) 4-8, 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benkreira as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Scavezze et al. (US 9,092,600) hereafter Scavezze.
4. Benkreira discloses the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the HMD includes an inertial measurement unit (IMU) to detect the user gestures indicating the selection of the sequence of images of the second plurality of images. However, in an analogous art, Scavezze discloses user authentication on augmented reality display device including wherein the HMD includes an inertial measurement unit (IMU) to detect the user gestures indicating the selection of the sequence of images of the second plurality of images (fig. 2 and corresponding text; col 2, line 59-col 3, line 4). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the implementation of Benkreira with the implementation of Scavezze in order to allow for greater options in selecting (col 2, line 59-col 3, line 4).
5. Benkreira and Scavezze disclose the method of claim 4, wherein the IMU includes a three degrees of freedom (3DoF) IMU to measure rotational movements performed by the user(Scavezze, col 10, line 61-col 11, line 7, gyroscope provides 3DoF).
6. Benkreira and Scavezze disclose the method of claim 4, wherein the IMU includes a six degrees of freedom (6DoF) IMU to measure rotational movements and translational movements performed by the user (Scavezze, col 10, line 61-col 11, line 7, gyroscope and accelerometer provide 6DoF).
7. Benkreira discloses the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein detecting the user gesture comprising detecting a head gesture by the user of the HMD. However, in an analogous art, Scavezze discloses user authentication on augmented reality display device including wherein detecting the user gesture comprising detecting a head gesture by the user of the HMD (fig. 2 and corresponding text; col 2, line 59-col 3, line 4). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the implementation of Benkreira with the implementation of Scavezze in order to allow for greater options in selecting (col 2, line 59-col 3, line 4).
8. Benkreira discloses the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein detecting the user gesture comprising detecting a hand gesture by the user of the HMD. However, in an analogous art, Scavezze discloses user authentication on augmented reality display device including wherein detecting the user gesture comprising detecting a hand gesture by the user of the HMD (fig. 2 and corresponding text; col 2, line 59-col 3, line 4). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the implementation of Benkreira with the implementation of Scavezze in order to allow for greater options in selecting (col 6, line 3-25). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the implementation of Benkreira with the implementation of Scavezze in order to allow for greater options in selecting (col 2, line 59-col 3, line 4).
Claims 13 and 14 are similar in scope to claims 4-8 and are rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES R TURCHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1378. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 7-3.
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, Luu Pham can be reached at 571-270-5002. 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.
/JAMES R TURCHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2439