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 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3 March 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgment is made arguments/remarks made in amendment filed 21 January 2026 in which the following is noted: claims 1 3 – 6, 8 – 10, and 16 is amended and the rejection of the claims traversed. Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending and an Office action on the merits follows.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 – 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 – 3 and 9 - 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong et al; (Publication number: US 2020/0326774 A1), hereafter Hong, in view of Gregory A. Maltz (Publication number: US 2014/0049452 A1), hereafter Maltz.
Regarding claim 1:
A head-mounted display (Hong Figure 3 301), comprising:
a display (Hong Figure 3 301; HMD will include a display);
an eye tracking assembly configured to detect a gaze direction of a user donning the display (Hong [0049] eye tracking supported by electronic device); and
a controller electrically coupled to the display and the eye tracking assembly (Hong [0049] Figure 1 processor 120 coupled to tracking means and display 160), the controller configured to activate gaze direction calibration (Hong Figure 7 714; [0072] … “At step 712, the electronic device 101 determines whether the detected gaze point is inside of the area of the XR environment that includes the 3D location of the eye tracking calibration point. If the detected gaze point is inside of the area, the electronic device 101 determines that the user is looking at the eye tracking calibration point based on the detected gaze point being within the area. In response, the electronic device 101 calibrates itself to correct for a difference between the eye tracking calibration point and the detected gaze point at step 714. If the detected gaze point is outside of the area, the electronic device 101 determines that the user is not looking at the eye tracking calibration point based on the detected gaze point being outside of the area. In response, the electronic device 101 maintains an existing calibration at step 716.” gaze calibration is activated when detected gaze point is inside area), including detecting, the gaze direction via the camera responsive to the controller predicting that the user looks at a predicted visual icon representing a user-selectable software function (Hong [0052] … “Once gaze estimation has been performed to find the estimated gaze point 308, the HMD 301 can compare the estimated gaze point 308 with the known 3D location of the icon 304. If there is a difference determined between the location of the estimated gaze point 308 and the location of the icon 304, the HMD 301 can calibrate the eye tracking algorithm to correct for this difference.” );
wherein the user-selectable software function includes a function separate from the gaze direction calibration (Hong [0051] … “the user of the HMD 301 is viewing a set of virtual icons 302 in a 3D XR environment. The set of icons 302 represents virtual interface elements in this embodiment, although the set of icons 302 could represent any sort of virtual object(s) with which a user can interact in a 3D XR environment, including any sort of interface object(s).” [0052] … “In this way, the icon 304 can be considered a calibration point for the purposes of eye tracking calibration”. The Calibration point has function corresponding to virtual icon and also separately a calibration point).
Hong does not disclose the eye tracking assembly includes a camera configured to perform the claimed detecting.
However, Maltz discloses an eye gaze user interface and calibration method. More particularly, Maltz discloses an eye tracking sensor including a camera (118) (Maltz [0039] … a frame mounted camera (118) can track the motion and gaze direction of the user's eye (120). For example, the user's eye (120) may be illuminated by near infrared light from one or more frame mounted infrared lights (122). The frame mounted video camera (118) which is focused on the user's eye (120) captures images of the eye (120) as the eye gazes in different directions,).
It would have been obvious to modify Hong such that the eye tracking assembly includes a camera, as claimed. Those skilled in the art would appreciate the ability to look at a number of different visual elements of the eye (Maltz [0040]).
Regarding claim 2
Hong (in view of Maltz) discloses the head-mountable display of claim 1, further comprising: a housing coupled to the display (Hong Figure 3 HMD illustrated with housing); and
a securement band coupled to the housing and configured to secure the head-mountable display to head of the user (Hong Figure 3 HMD 301 illustrated with securement band as claimed);
wherein the eye tracking assembly further include a light emitting diode configured to reflect light off an eye of the user to the camera (Maltz [0039] ..., a frame mounted camera (118) can track the motion and gaze direction of the user's eye (120). For example, the user's eye (120) may be illuminated by near infrared light from one or more frame mounted infrared lights (122). The frame mounted video camera (118) which is focused on the user's eye (120) captures images of the eye (120) as the eye gazes in different directions).
Regarding claim 3:
Hong (in view of Maltz) discloses the head-mountable display of claim 1, wherein: the user-selectable software function includes typing; and the predicted visual icon includes a keyboard (Hong Figure 4A illustrated keyboard for typing).
Regarding claim 9:
Claim 9 differs from claim 9 in that claim 9 includes the additional features of the gaze direction calibration including: altering the characteristic when a user looks at the visual icon; and detecting, via the camera, the second gaze direction when the user looks at the visual icon. Therefore claim 9 is similarly rejected for those reasons discussed above by Hong and Maltz (and for those additional reasons disclosed in Maltz [0065]).
Regarding claim 10:
Hong (in view of Maltz) discloses the electronic display device of clai m9, wherein the user-selectable software function include a function separate from the gaze direction calibration (Hong [0052] … “In this way, the icon 304 can be considered a calibration point for the purposes of eye tracking calibration”. The Calibration point has function corresponding to virtual icon and also separately a calibration point).
Regarding claim 11:
Hong (in view of Maltz) discloses the electronic display device of claim 9, wherein the characteristic includes an amount of light emitted by the visual icon on the display (Maltz [0065] highlighting includes a change in light characteristic).
Claim(s) 4 - 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong et al; (Publication number: US 2020/0326774 A1), hereafter Hong, in view of Gregory A. Maltz (Publication number: US 2014/0049452 A1), hereafter Maltz, in view of Lopez et al; (publication number; US 2016/0226131 A1), hereafter Lopez ‘131.
Regarding claim 4:
Hong (in view of Maltz) does not disclose the head-mounted display of claim 1, wherein the user-selectable software function includes a user-interface unlock function.
However, Lopez ‘131 discloses dynamic eye tracking calibration. More particularly, Lopez discloses wherein the user-selectable software function includes a user-interface unlock function (Lopez ‘131 Figure 6C; [0051]).
It would have been obvious to modify Hong (in view of Maltz) wherein the user-selectable software function includes a user-interface unlock function, as claimed. Those skilled in the art would appreciate the ability to initially calibrate the device while before unlocking the device.
Regarding claim 5:
Hong (in view of Maltz and Lopez ‘131) disclose the head-mountable display device of claim 4, wherein the predicted visual icon includes a number pad (Hong Figure 4B).
Claim(s) 6 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong et al; (Publication number: US 2020/0326774 A1), hereafter Hong, in view of Gregory A. Maltz (Publication number: US 2014/0049452 A1), hereafter Maltz, in view of Lopez et al (Publication number: US 2014/0139665 A1), hereafter Lopez ‘665.
Regarding claim 6:
Hong (in view of Maltz) does not disclose the head-mountable display of claim 1, wherein the predicted visual icon includes a video streaming window.
However, Lopez ‘665 discloses a visual icon includes a video streaming icon (Lopez ‘665 Figure 11A).
As Hong discloses virtual icons may be any type of virtual element in which the user may interact (Hong [0050]), it would have been obvious to further modify Hong (in view of Maltz) wherein the predicted visual icon includes a video streaming window, as claimed. Those skilled in the art would appreciate the ability to perform calibration while affording the user the ability to stream content.
Regarding claim 14:
Claim 14 is similarly rejected for those reasons discussed above in claim 6.
Claim(s) 7 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong et al; (Publication number: US 2020/0326774 A1), hereafter Hong, in view of Gregory A. Maltz (Publication number: US 2014/0049452 A1), hereafter Maltz, in view of Lopez et al (Publication number: US 2014/0139665 A1), hereafter Lopez ‘665, in view of Ahn et al; (Publication number: US 2011/0119611 A1), hereafter Ahn.
Regarding claim 7:
Hong (in view of Maltz and Lopez ‘665) does not disclose the head-mountable display of claim 6, wherein the controller is configured to cause the video streaming window to move relative to an edge of the display.
More particularly, Ahn discloses a method for playing contents. Ahn discloses a contents device that has a sensor capable of sensing the motion of a user’s eyes to receive a drag and drop operation according to the motion of the user’s eye (Ahn [0033]).
It would have been obvious to modify Hong (in view of Maltz and Lopez ‘665) wherein the controller is configured to cause the video streaming window to move relative to an edge of the display, as claimed. Those skilled in the art would appreciate the ability to reposition a viewing window to a preferred position for the viewer.
Regarding claim 15:
Claim 15 is similarly rejected for those reasons discussed above in claim 7.
Claim(s) 8 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong et al; (Publication number: US 2020/0326774 A1), hereafter Hong, in view of Gregory A. Maltz (Publication number: US 2014/0049452 A1), hereafter Maltz, in view of LIU (Publication number: US 2015/0049112 A1), hereafter LIU.
Regarding claim 8:
Hong (in view of Maltz) does not disclose the head-mountable display device of claim 1, wherein at least one dimension of the predicted visual icon representing the user-selected software function is increased or decreased during the gaze direction calibration.
However, LIU discloses automatic customization of graphical user interface for optical see-through head mounted display with user interaction tracking. LIU discloses wherein at least one dimension of the visual icon representing the user-selectable software function is increases or decreased during the gaze direction calibration (LIU [0053 – 0054] Figure 7A to 7B; rendering of GUI object is increased based on gaze falling outside boundary), as claimed.
It would have been obvious to modify Hong (in view of Maltz) wherein at least one dimension of the predicted visual icon representing the user-selected software function is increased or decreased during the gaze direction calibration, as claimed. Those skilled in the art would appreciate facilitating user eye inputs.
Regarding claim 13:
Hong (in view of Maltz) does not disclose the electronic display device of claim 9, wherein the characteristic includes a size of the visual icon.
However, LIU discloses automatic customization of graphical user interface for optical see-through head mounted display with user interaction tracking. LIU discloses wherein at least one dimension of the visual icon representing the user-selectable software function is increases or decreased during the gaze direction calibration (LIU [0053 – 0054] Figure 7A to 7B; rendering of GUI object is increased based on gaze falling outside boundary), as claimed.
It would have been obvious to modify Hong (in view of Maltz) wherein the characteristic includes a size of the visual icon, as claimed. Those skilled in the art would appreciate facilitating user eye inputs.
14. Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lopez ‘665 in view of Lopez ‘131.
Regarding claim 16:
Lopez ‘665 discloses a wearable display device (Lopez ‘665 head-mounted display [0030]), comprising: a display defining a viewing area having a peripheral edge (Lopez ‘665 Figure 1 display of head-mounted display includes an edge); and a controller electrically coupled to the display and configured to perform gaze direction calibration (Lopez ‘665 [0030 – 0031] docking device 104 coupled to computer device 102and performs eye tracking) and cause the display to project a video streaming window within the viewing area (Lopez ‘665 Figure 11A see streaming window).
Lopez ‘665 does not disclose that during the gaze calibration: change a location of the video streaming window relative to the peripheral edge over time; and compare changes in the location of the video streaming window over time to changes in gaze direction of a user.
However, Lopez ‘131 discloses 33 moving interface objects in various directions (see Lopez ‘131 Figure 6B and [0050] and measuring a similarity (or difference) between the moving paths of the objects and the user’s eye feature when computing one or more calibration parameters.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Lopez ’665 to include during the gaze calibration: change a location of the video streaming window relative to the peripheral edge over time; and compare changes in the location of the video streaming window over time to changes in gaze direction of a user, as claimed. Those skilled in the art would appreciate the ability to perform calibration without the need to stop a current activity.
15. Claim(s) 18 - 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lopez ‘665 in view of Lopez ‘131, in view of Maltz.
Regarding claim 18:
Lopez ‘665 (in view of Lopez ‘131) discloses the wearable display device of claim 16, wherein: the controller is configured to cause the display to project a visual icon in a fixed position relative to the video streaming window (Lopez ‘665 Figure 11A see button next to streaming window portion), the controller is configured to execute a gaze direction calibration including detecting the gaze direction when a user looks at the visual icon when the video streaming window location is changing (disclosed in combination of Lopez ‘665 Figure 11A and Lopez ‘131 Figure 6C).
Lopez ‘665 (in view of Lopez ‘131) does not disclose the wearable display device further comprises a camera; and the controller is electrically coupled to the camera and configured to execute a gaze direction calibration.
However, Maltz discloses a camera; and the controller is electrically coupled to the camera and configured to execute a gaze direction calibration (Maltz [0039] ..., a frame mounted camera (118) can track the motion and gaze direction of the user's eye (120). For example, the user's eye (120) may be illuminated by near infrared light from one or more frame mounted infrared lights (122). The frame mounted video camera (118) which is focused on the user's eye (120) captures images of the eye (120) as the eye gazes in different directions).
It would have been obvious to modify Lopez ‘665 (in view of Lopez ‘131) wherein wearable display device further comprises a camera; and the controller is electrically coupled to the camera and configured to execute a gaze direction calibration, as claimed. Those skilled in the art would appreciate the ability to look at a number of different visual elements of the eye (Maltz [0040]).
Regarding claim 19:
Lopez ‘665 (in view of Lopez ‘131 in view of Maltz) discloses the wearable display device of claim 18, wherein the visual icon represents a user-selectable software function independent from the gaze direction calibration (Hong [0052] … “In this way, the icon 304 can be considered a calibration point for the purposes of eye tracking calibration”. The Calibration point has function corresponding to virtual icon and also separately a calibration point).
Regarding claim 20:
Lopez ‘665 (in view of Lopez ‘131) discloses the wearable display device of claim 19, wherein the camera is adjacent the display (Lopez ‘665 Figure 1 – camera 108 is adjacent to display).
16. Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lopez ‘665 in view of Lopez ‘131, in view of Parker et al; (Publication number: US 2016/0364904 A1), hereafter Parker.
Regarding claim 17:
Lopez ‘665 (in view of Lopez ‘131) does not disclose the wearable display device of claim 16, further comprising: a housing coupled to the display; and a position sensor electrically coupled to the controller and configured to detect a position of the housing; wherein the controller is configured to change the location based on the position.
However, Parker discloses electronic display stabilization for head mounted display. More particularly, Parker discloses a housing coupled to the display (Parker Figure 1 HMD 100 includes housing coupled to display as illustrated); and a position sensor electrically coupled to the controller and configured to detect a position of the housing; wherein the controller is configured to change the location based on the position (Parker Figure 2 IMU 210; Parker Figure 4 425).
It would have been obvious to modify Lopez ‘665 (in view of Parker ‘135) to include a housing coupled to the display; and a position sensor electrically coupled to the controller and configured to detect a position of the housing; wherein the controller is configured to change the location based on the position, as claimed. Those skilled in the art would appreciate reduced latency motion and improved stabilization for the HMD system.
Conclusion
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 571-272-7063. 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/ 16 May 2026Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2622
Prosecution Insights