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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
Applicant argues on pg. 11:
“The combination of Pistoia and Ballagas does not disclose all the features of the amended independent claims. For example, the combination fails to disclose "refraining from rendering at least part of the XR content that was determined to have a classification that would be unsuitable for the user in view of the current cognitive load…
… Ballagas' approach of "adjusting the amount of noise in the content [to] help the individual to focus better on the content" is notably different from the claimed techniques, which "refrain from rendering at least part of the XR content that was determined to have a classification that would be unsuitable for the user in view of the current cognitive load." Ballagas's technique does not "refrain from rendering at least part of' the content due to the non-rendered content being "unsuitable for the user in view of the current cognitive load." In fact, Ballagas' technique does not determine whether any particular part of the content is "unsuitable for the user in view of the current cognitive load." Rather, Ballagas's technique adds various random effects - "noise" - to all of the content being rendered. “
Examiner responds that Ballagas shows that the content is adjusted based on the current cognitive load of the user (Fig. 4. and paras. 42 – 49). Ballagas selectively refrains from rendering some content by introducing noise (i.e. intentionally obscuring what otherwise would have been more clear content). The term “unsuitable” in the claim language is met because the noise introduced in Ballagas is intended to bring the user’s cognitive load from an unsuitable state to a suitable one. Although Ballagas introduces noise in order to increase the users cognitive load, the limitation is still met because the term “unsuitable” does portray whether the cognitive load is being intentionally increased or decreased. Therefore, the arguments are rendered unpersuasive.
Applicant continues on pg. 12:
“Pistoia does not make up for Ballagas' deficiencies with respect to the amended independent claims. The Examiner appears to recognize this in the rejections of dependent claims 29/38, stating that "Pistoia does not show that rendering the XR content comprises determining whether to render the XR content based on current cognitive load of the user." OA at 5. Applicant agrees. Pistoia is silent about using "current cognitive load" of a user as a basis for "selective rendering" of XR content as specified in the amended independent claims.
For at least these reasons, the amended independent claims are patentable over the combination of Pistoia and Ballagas. The pending dependent claims are patentable over the combination of Pistoia and Ballagas for the same reasons, as well as for other novel and inventive features in those claims…”.
Examiner responds that Pistoia is not relied upon to show this limitation; therefore this argument is rendered moot.
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.
Claims 25 – 28, 30 – 37 and 39 – 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pistoia et al. (US Pub. No. 2023/0113125 A1) in view of Ballagas et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0160274 A1).
As to claims 25 and 34, Pistoia shows a device (system 100, Fig. 1 and para. 33) and associated methodology (Fig. 2 and para. 44) configured to provide extended Reality (XR) content to a user (i.e. augmented/mixed reality, Figs. 1 and 2 and paras. 30 and 33), the device comprising: processing circuitry (Fig. 1 and paras. 34 and 65); and a memory operably coupled to the processing circuitry and storing executable instructions (Figs. 1 and 2 and para. 35) that, when executed by the processing circuitry, configure the device to: receive XR content (Fig. 2 and para. 45); classify the XR content (i.e. determine whether the virtual content obscures the visibility of physical objects, for example, Fig. 2 and paras. 52 and 53); by a policy entity of the device, determine which of the XR content to render based on one or more policies and the classification of the XR content (Fig. 2 and paras. 50 – 61) and selectively render at the XR content in an XR environment based on the determination (Fig. 2 and paras. 50 – 61).
Pistoia does not show that the selective rendering comprises refraining from rendering at least part of the XR content that was determined, based on the one or more policies, to have a classification that would be unsuitable for the user in view of the current cognitive load of the user.
Ballagas shows a methodology of selective rendering comprises refraining from rendering at least part of the XR content (i.e. introducing noise) that was determined, based on one or more policies, to have a classification that would be unsuitable for the user in view of the current cognitive load of the user (note that noise introduced is intended to bring the user’s cognitive load from an unsuitable state to a suitable one, Fig. 4 and paras. 42 – 49).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Pistoia with those of Ballagas because designing the system in this way allows the device to allow the user to remember the content (para. 49).
As to claims 26 and 35, Pistoia shows that determining which of the XR content to render is performed dynamically during an XR event in the XR environment (Fig. 2 and paras. 50 – 61).
As to claims 27 and 36, Pistoia shows by a monitoring service of the device, monitoring data relating to the user (i.e. object of importance/interest to the user, for example, para. 24) processing the data, and providing the processed data to the policy entity (Fig. 2 and paras. 50 – 61); and updating the policy entity based on the processed data (paras. 35 – 37).
As to claims 28 and 39, Pistoia shows that determining which of the XR content to render is at least partly based on the processed data provided by the monitoring service (Fig. 2 and paras. 24, 35 – 37 and 50 – 61).
As to claims 31 and 40, Pistoia shows that determining which of the XR content is based on user preferences (para. 35).
As to claims 32 and 41, Pistoia shows that classifying the XR content comprises determining at least one category to which the XR content belongs (i.e. determining whether the virtual content obscures the visibility of physical objects, for example, Fig. 2 and paras. 52 and 53).
As to claims 33 and 42, Pistoia shows that the classification service that classifies the XR content comprises an image detection algorithm (Fig. 2 and paras. 52 and 53).
As to claim 43, Pistoia shows that the device is a tablet (Fig. 1 and para. 33).
As to claim 44, Pistoia shows that the device is part of a cloud computing environment (Fig. 1 and para. 41), and the at least part of the XR content is rendered on a tablet (Fig. 1 and para. 33).
As to claims 30 and 38, Pistoia does not show that the current cognitive load of the user is determined continuously or intermittently based on one or more of the following: user location, user activity level, user activity type, user biometrics data, and user movement pattern.
Ballagas shows the methodology of determining the current cognitive load of the user continuously or intermittently based on user biometrics data (Fig. 4 and para. 43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Pistoia with those of Ballagas because designing the system in this way allows the device to allow the user to remember the content (para. 49).
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 CARL ADAMS whose telephone number is (571)270-7448. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9AM - 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, Ke Xiao can be reached at 571-272-7776. 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.
/CARL ADAMS/Examiner, Art Unit 2627
Prosecution Insights