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 (“RCE”) 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 26, 2026 has been entered.
Acknowledgements
Claims 1 and 11-19 are pending in the application.
Claims 1 and 11-19 examined below.
Examiner Request
Applicant is requested to indicate where in the specification there is support for amendments to claims should applicant amend. The purpose of this is to reduce potential 35 USC 112(a) or 35 USC 112, 1st paragraph issues that can arise when claims are amended without support in the specification. Examiner thanks applicant in advance. See also relevant portions of MPEP 2163.II.A:
With respect to newly added or amended claims, applicant should show support in the original disclosure for the new or amended claims. See, e.g., Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1370, n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing MPEP § 2163.04 which provides that a "simple statement such as ‘applicant has not pointed out where the new (or amended) claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation ‘___’ in the application as filed’ may be sufficient where the claim is a new or amended claim, the support for the limitation is not apparent, and applicant has not pointed out where the limitation is supported."); see also MPEP § 714.02 and § 2163.06 ("Applicant should ... specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure."); and MPEP § 2163.04 ("If applicant amends the claims and points out where and/or how the originally filed disclosure supports the amendment(s), and the examiner finds that the disclosure does not reasonably convey that the inventor had possession of the subject matter of the amendment at the time of the filing of the application, the examiner has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasoning to explain why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims.").
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 and 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claims 1 and 11-19, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Representative claim 1 recites acquiring acceleration data, obtaining a displacement relative to an initial state by performing an integral operation on the acceleration data, determining that a user is in a head-stationary state when the displacement is less than a preset value, and compensating a to-be-displayed image according to the acceleration data, which constitutes a mental process or mathematical concept. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements beyond the abstract idea simply link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (wearable computing devices). Because the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, claim 1 is “directed to” an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements identified above represent only well-understood, routine, and conventional technology (or placeholders for such) when compared with the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d). Viewing the additional elements as a combination does not add anything further than the individual elements. Therefore, the additional elements in the claim are not sufficient to amount to an inventive concept. Because claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea and fails to recite an inventive concept, it is patent ineligible.
The dependent claims when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The additional limitations added by these claims fail to either integrate the claims into a practical application or add an inventive concept, because they serve to further narrow the abstract idea without integrating it into a practical application (claims 11, 12, 14, and 15) or add additional elements that simply further link to a particular technological environment (claims 13 and 16-19). Viewing the additional elements of the dependent claims as a combination does not add anything further than the individual elements. Therefore, the dependent claims neither practically integrate the abstract idea nor constitute an inventive concept, and these claims are also rejected as patent ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd Paragraph
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, applicant’s recitation “when the wearer is in the head-stationary state, determining the acceleration data as a target acceleration” would have been unclear to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. It is unclear whether this step requires that something different occur when the wearer is not in the head-stationary state. That is, would a method that “determin[es] the acceleration data as a target acceleration” at all times (not just when the wearer’s head is stationary) read on the claimed method? Or not? In light of the specification, the latter interpretation appears to be applicant’s intent, however, the former is still a reasonable interpretation. For purposes of comparison with the prior art and determination of statutory eligibility, the examiner adopts the former interpretation, consistent with the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims.
Regarding claim 13, applicant’s recitation “wherein the acceleration data is acquired by a three-axis acceleration sensor fixed at a middle position between two lenses of the augmented reality device” would have been unclear to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Claim 13 is a method claim. It is unclear what further limitation on the method is required by the location of the accelerometer. Is placing the accelerometer required? Or does the location have an effect on the claimed algorithm? For purposes of comparison with the prior art and determination of statutory eligibility, the examiner adopts the interpretation that the location of the accelerometer does not further limit the claim, as there is no discussion of the effect of accelerometer location in the specification.
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 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 statute.
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 of this title, 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 following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) (pre-AIA ) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 and 11-19, as understood by the examiner, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 2020/0404178 A1) in view of Liu (US 2020/0081523 A1).
Li discloses as follows:
Claim
Limitation
Li
18
augmented reality glasses configured to display a to-be-displayed image
"a virtual reality apparatus" or "an augmented reality apparatus" [0041]
18
an acceleration sensor fixed to the augmented reality glasses and configured to collect acceleration data of the augmented reality glasses
sensor 250
16,19
a memory storing instructions
memory 220
16,17,18
a controller connected to the augmented reality glasses and the acceleration sensor, wherein the controller is configured to execute the method of claim 1
processor 280
1,16,17,18,19
acquiring acceleration data for the augmented reality device
"detecting, by the terminal, translational shake on the X-axis, the Y-axis, and the Z-axis includes: detecting, by the terminal, the translational shake on the X-axis, the Y-axis, and the Z-axis by using a displacement sensor, where the displacement sensor includes an accelerometer" [0012]
1,16,17,18,19
obtaining an actual displacement of the augmented reality device relative to an initial state by performing an integral operation on the acceleration data
"for image shake caused by the translational shake of the terminal on the X-axis or the Y-axis, performing, based on a formula d=(v+u)*Δ/v, compensation on the video image with a same translation distance d in an opposite direction of translation of the video image" [0015]
1,16,17,18,19
compensating a to-be-displayed image of the augmented reality device according to the target acceleration
"for image shake caused by the translational shake of the terminal on the X-axis or the Y-axis, performing, based on a formula d=(v+u)*Δ/v, compensation on the video image with a same translation distance d in an opposite direction of translation of the video image" [0015]
11
wherein the integral operation on the acceleration data comprises a second-order integral operation
"A linear velocity of the movement of the terminal may be obtained by performing integration on the output signal of the acceleration sensor once, a distance of the movement of the terminal may be obtained by performing the integration again on the linear velocity, and the distance includes translation distances of the terminal on the X-axis, the Y-axis, and the Z-axis" [0067]
13
wherein the acceleration data is acquired by a three-axis acceleration sensor fixed at a middle position between two lenses of the augmented reality device
See [0012] re 3-axis accelerometer. Regarding the location of the sensor, see the above 112(b) rejection regarding why this is not further limiting.
14
wherein the target acceleration is an acceleration caused by facial movement or speaking of the wearer when the wearer is in the head-stationary state
This recitation amounts to an intended result of the method, and, therefore, fails to distinguish from the prior art.
15
performing an integral operation on the target acceleration to obtain a displacement value and a displacement direction of the augmented reality device
"A linear velocity of the movement of the terminal may be obtained by performing integration on the output signal of the acceleration sensor once, a distance of the movement of the terminal may be obtained by performing the integration again on the linear velocity, and the distance includes translation distances of the terminal on the X-axis, the Y-axis, and the Z-axis" [0067]
15
performing displacement compensation on the to-be-displayed image in a direction opposite to the displacement direction by the displacement value
"for image shake caused by the translational shake of the terminal on the X-axis or the Y-axis, performing, based on a formula d=(v+u)*Δ/v, compensation on the video image with a same translation distance d in an opposite direction of translation of the video image" [0015]
Li fails to explicitly disclose but Liu teaches determining that the wearer is in a head-stationary state when the actual displacement is less than a preset value ("When the head of a user is considered as stationary, it may indicate that the head of the user is stationary or the movement amount of the head is less than a threshold during a predetermined time period" [0140]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Li to include the head state detection of Liu in order to achieve the predictable result of provide a more ergonomic user interface display.
Regarding claim 12, Liu fails to explicitly disclose wherein the preset value is defined by a system of the augmented reality device or customized by the wearer, however, there are only a limited number of known ways to set a preset. Therefore, wherein the preset value is defined by a system of the augmented reality device or customized by the wearer would have been obvious because “a person of ordinary skill has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
All references listed on form PTO-892 are cited in their entirety. The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Lee (US 2019/0058821 A1) discloses an image capture device, including jitter compensation based on accelerometer output. See the office action dated December 4, 2025 for a mapping of Lee to a previous iteration of applicant's claims.
Dine (US 2022/0092859 A1) discloses an extended reality display capable of separating out the motion of a moving platform from other motions of the device, including by comparing motion inferred from image frame differences to motion detected by inertial sensors.
Jung (US 20240200947 A1) discloses a user state estimator for determining a user's pose while wearing a device.
Agagnos (US 2021/0067896 A1) discloses a head tracking system for use in headsets that corrects spatial audio based on head movement.
Edwin (US 20190222830 A1) discloses an eye tracking system, including a "[c]oordinate system normalization module [which] may normalize the eye camera coordinate system, which may help to compensate for slippages of the wearable device (e.g., slippages of the head-mounted component from its normal resting position on the user's head ...)" [0231].
Burns (US 11,366,514 B2) discloses a system for determining a user's head position in order to adjust a displayed user interface to improve ergonomics.
Response to Amendments and Arguments
The examiner expresses his appreciation for applicant’s specific citations to the specification indicating where applicant believes support for the claim amendments can be found. The examiner's search for support for the claim amendments was not limited to these citations.
The rejections of the previous office action are withdrawn in response to applicant’s amendment. Applicant’s arguments are moot as they do not apply to any of the current rejections.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMIE KUCAB whose telephone number is (571)270-3025. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. ET. The examiner’s email address is Jamie.Kucab@USPTO.gov. See MPEP 502.03 regarding email communications. Following is the sample authorization for electronic communication provided in MPEP 502.03.II: “Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.” Without such an authorization in place, an examiner is unable to respond via email.
If attempts to reach the examiner are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Neha Patel, can be reached at telephone number (571) 270-1492. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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.
/JAMIE R KUCAB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699
Prosecution Insights