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 .
Acknowledgements
Applicant’s response filed March 2, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-10 are pending in the application.
Claims 1-10 are 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 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112, 1st Paragraph
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter that was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the following function: “determining, based on the acceleration data, a first acceleration (a1) and a second acceleration (a2), and performing a vector subtraction calculation on the first acceleration (a1) and the second acceleration (a2) to obtain a target acceleration (a3) of the augmented reality device, wherein a3 = a2 – a1.” This limitation is generic in that it encompasses every algorithm that accomplishes the function of determining a1 and a2, such that their difference is the “target acceleration,” which is “the acceleration brought about by the wearer's speech or other facial movements” ([0052]). However, the disclosure in the specification includes only the following related to this function:
[0052] It is understood that when the wearer is turning head and speaking, the acceleration thereof is composed of accelerations in a plurality of directions. Therefore, in the present embodiment, when the wearer is in the head-turning state, acquiring the target acceleration of the augmented reality device by acquiring a first acceleration in a first direction and a second acceleration in a second direction, specifically comprises: acquiring a first acceleration in a first direction and a second acceleration in a second direction, wherein the first acceleration is the acceleration produced by turning of the wearer's head, and the second acceleration is the acceleration in the actual motion direction of the augmented reality glasses; then carrying out vector calculation on the first and second accelerations to obtain the target acceleration, which is the acceleration brought about by the wearer's speech or other facial movements.
[0053] Refer to FIG. 6, it illustrates the vector calculation of the target acceleration. Considering that acceleration is a vector that includes direction and magnitude, the second acceleration a2 is vector-subtracted from the first acceleration a1, deriving the target acceleration a3=a2−a1. It is understood that the target acceleration is the acceleration brought about by the wearer's speech or other facial movements, and the displacement caused by this target acceleration is the offset of the augmented reality device relative to the wearer. Compensation may thus be made to the to-be-displayed image of the augmented reality device based on the target acceleration.
.…
[0077] By obtaining different relative motion states of the augmented display device and the wearer according to the duration of the acceleration data of the augmented reality device at a stabilized value in order to obtain the corresponding target acceleration, and compensating the to-be-displayed image according to the target acceleration, the present embodiment can well address the image shaking issues due to shaking of the wearer during speaking, thereby improving the user's experience.
…
3. The method according to claim 1, wherein said acquiring a target acceleration of the augmented reality device when the wearer is in the head-turning state comprises:
acquiring a first acceleration in a first direction and a second acceleration in a second direction, the first acceleration being an acceleration generated when the head of the wearer turns, and the second acceleration being an acceleration in an actual movement direction of the augmented reality device; and
performing vector calculation on the first acceleration and the second acceleration to obtain the target acceleration.
Applicant discloses that time and the output of an accelerometer are inputs. Applicant also discloses that the output of the accelerometer is decomposed into first (a1) and second (a2) accelerations and that their difference is the target acceleration. But applicant fails to disclose how a1 and a2 are calculated. There is only a hint that the duration of the acceleration is used to differentiate the two. However, this amounts to a black box, not a disclosure of an algorithm. Therefore, no species of the genus of algorithms encompassed by this limitation is disclosed. Further, the specification fails to disclose structural features common to the members of the genus of algorithms so that one of skill in the art could visualize or recognize the members of the genus. Therefore, the specification does not describe the genus of algorithms in full, clear, concise, and exact terms such that a skilled artisan would recognize that applicant was in possession of the claimed genus. See MPEP 2161.01.
Claims 7-10 contain language similar to claim 1 as discussed in the immediately preceding paragraph, and for reasons similar to those discussed above, claims 7-10 are also rejected as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
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 3 and 7-10 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 3, applicant’s recitation “the first acceleration is an acceleration generated when the head of the wearer turns, and the second acceleration is an acceleration in an actual movement direction of the augmented reality device” would have been unclear to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. It is unclear how the “acceleration generated when the head of the wearer turns” is not “an actual movement direction of the augmented reality device.” Nor is it clear what would constitute such an “actual” movement.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation “an acceleration calculating module configured for when the wearer is in the head-turning state, determining, based on the acceleration data, a first acceleration (a1) and a second acceleration (a2), and performing a vector subtraction calculation on the first acceleration (a1) and the second acceleration (a2) to obtain a target acceleration (a3) of the augmented reality device, wherein a3 = a2 – a1” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. See the above 112(a) rejection regarding the lack of sufficiency of the disclosure for performing the entirety of the claimed function of acquiring a target acceleration. Because there is insufficient written description to show possession of the claimed function, the claim is indefinite and is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f);
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 8 contains language (“the processor is configured for executing the computer program, so as to implement the method according to claim 1”), which invokes 35 USC 112(f) similar to the recitation in claim 7 discussed in the immediately preceding paragraph, and claim 8 is rejected for reasons similar to those discussed above.
Claim 9 contains language (“a controller … configured for executing the method according to claim 1”), which invokes 35 USC 112(f) similar to the recitation in claim 7 discussed above, and claim 9 is rejected for reasons similar to those discussed above.
Claim 10 contains language (“said computer program … is configured for implementing the method according to claim 1”), which invokes 35 USC 112(f) similar to the recitation in claim 7 discussed above, and claim 10 is rejected for reasons similar to those discussed above.
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.
Regarding the 112(a) rejection of claim 1, applicant has narrowed the limitation in question, but the rejection still applies. As noted in the previous rejection, applicant fails to disclose how accelerations a1 and a2 are calculated. Applicant discloses use of a single 3-axis accelerometer but does not disclose how the output of this accelerometer is then decomposed into a1 and a2. Applicant argues that “a person having ordinary skill in the art, when reading the specification, would readily be able to implement the ’determining’ step using known signal processing technologies (such as filtering based on differences in time-domain characteristics).” This may well be true but applicant’s argument is not a substitute for evidence. Upon presentation of evidence that one of ordinary skill would have known to apply signal processing steps to separate a1 from a2, examiner will reconsider this rejection. For the above reasons, the rejection is maintained as modified in response to applicant’s amendment. For similar reasons, the 112(a) rejections of claims 7-10 are maintained.
Regarding the 112(b) rejection of claim 3 due to the recitation of “actual movement,” applicant argues that this is a well-known term of art. Applicant is invited to introduce evidence to support this assertion. Until such time, the rejection is maintained. Additionally, the distinction between these two movements does not make sense, as it appears based on claim 4 that they can be the same movement.
The 112(b) rejection of claim 7 has been modified in response to applicant’s amendment but is otherwise maintained for reasons similar to those for maintaining the 112(a) rejection of claim 1 (and claim 7). The 112(b) rejections of claims 8-10 are similarly maintained.
The prior art rejections are withdrawn in response to applicant’s amendment.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 extension fee 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 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 by telephone 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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
/JAMIE R KUCAB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699