DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is sent in response to Applicant's Response filed 05/28/2026 for 18829019. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 .
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 status.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/28/2026 was filed before the mailing date of a first action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
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 allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). 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, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/28/2026 has been entered.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities.
Paragraph 0095 recites "one or more system function components system function component 568" which appears to include a typographical error.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 3 are objected to because of the following informalities.
Claims 2 and 3 recite the limitation "the operations" which lacks antecedent basis and have been interpreted as "[[the]] operations".
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: "controller configured to: generate [], display []; display []; determine []; … enter []; determine []; … enter []", "controller is further configured to display []", "controller is further configured to… cause []", "controller is further configured to display []" in claims 8, 11, 13, and 14.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure ("one or more optical assemblies 502 generate an XR user interface graphics display 532 of the XR user interface 518" [para 0107]; "one or more tracking sensors 520 to detect and record a position, orientation, and gestures of the hands 524 of the user 508" [para 0108]) described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which 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 at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As described in the 112(b) discussion of claim 8 below, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed functions of generating a user interface, entering a head viewfinder mode, and entering a hand viewfinder mode. The specification does not demonstrate that Applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Dependent claims 9-14 are rejected as failing to comply with the written description requirement by failing to remedy the deficiencies of parent claim 8.
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.
Claims 5-14, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 5, 10, and 17 recite the limitations "the displaying the indication" and "the processing of the first image" which lack antecedent basis.
Claims 6, 13, and 18 recite the limitations "the indication of the first image" and "the processing the first image" which lack antecedent basis.
As to claim 8, the limitation(s) “controller configure to: generate []; … enter []; and … enter []" invoke(s) 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.
The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification states the claimed function of generating a user interface for an eXtended Reality (XR) system is performed by "a system control component 574, one or more system function components system function component 568, and one or more applications 570" [para 0107]. There is no disclose of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the noise removal. The use of the terms "component" or "applications" are not adequate structure for performing the generating because it does not describe a particular structure for performing the function. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, the term "generating" refers to processing display data and can be performed in any number of ways in hardware, software, or a combination of the two. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure(s) perform(s) the claimed function.
The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification states the claimed function of entering a head viewfinder mode is performed by "XR user interface control logic 528 also comprises one or more actions that are to be taken by the XR system 510 based on detecting various dialog events such as user inputs input by the user 508 using the XR user interface 518 and by making hand gestures" [para 0106]. There is no disclose of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the noise removal. The use of the term "control logic" is not adequate structure for performing the entering a viewfinder mode because it does not describe a particular structure for performing the function. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, the term "control logic" refers to software processing and can be performed in any number of ways in hardware, software, or a combination of the two. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure(s) perform(s) the claimed function.
The structure for the limitation(s) are indefinite because the structure (“Component” can include, for example, a device, physical entity, or logic having boundaries defined by function or subroutine calls… Components can constitute either software components (e.g., code embodied on a machine-readable medium) or hardware components" [para 0211]) is insufficient structure for the claimed computer-implemented means-plus function limitation. The specification must explicitly disclose the algorithm for performing the claimed function, and simply reciting the claimed function in the specification will not be a sufficient disclosure for an algorithm which, by definition, must contain a sequence of steps. Blackboard, 574 F.3d at 1384, 91 USPQ2d at 1492 (stating that language that simply describes the function to be performed describes an outcome, not a means for achieving that outcome); Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Microsoft Press, 5th edition, 2002; see also Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. v. Alpine Elecs., Inc., 355 Fed. Appx. 389, 394-95, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis. 26358, 10-16 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (holding that implicit or inherent disclosure of a class of algorithms for performing the claimed functions is not sufficient, and the purported “one-step” algorithm is not an algorithm at all) [see MPEP 2181(II)(B)].
As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, the term “control logic” refers to any processing and can be performed in any number of ways in hardware, software or a combination of the two. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(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.
Dependent claims 7, 9-12, 14, and 20 are rejected as being indefinite for failing to remedy the deficiencies of parent claims 6, 8, 13, and 17.
Claims 11 and 18 recite the limitation "the first query" which lacks antecedent basis.
Reasons for Allowance
Claims 1, 4, 15-16, and 19 are allowed.
Claims 2 and 3 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the objections set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 5-7, 17-18, and 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance. The closest prior art references of record are noted below.
Chawda et al. (US 20250284373 A1), Kocienda et al. (US 20230280822 A1), and McKenzie et al. (US 20250355485 A1) generally disclose detecting visible palms of a user hand within a user interface of an extended reality system but do not disclose entering head viewfinder modes or hand viewfinder modes to snap images based on voice data or hand gestures.
Gary et al. (US 20260010236 A1) generally discloses different viewfinder modes based on a combination of image input capturing via a camera and voice input captured via a microphone but does not disclose determining whether a palm of a dominant hand of a user is visible in the user interface.
Liu et al. (US 20260023426 A1) generally discloses snapping images based on voice data or hand movement but does not disclose determining whether a palm of a dominant hand of a user is visible in the user interface.
Presant et al. (US 20220050696 A1) generally discloses a multi-modal user interface for an extended reality system, entering a viewfinder mode where a first image is snapped based on voice data, and entering a viewfinder mode where a second image is snapped based on hand gestures but does not disclose determining whether a palm of a dominant hand of a user is visible in the user interface.
Applicant's claims have been considered in view of the cited art and written opinion of the Office of earlier examination. After reviewing the art and performing a search, no combination of prior art reads on the claim as a whole. Specifically, the independent claims as a whole are novel and non-obvious over the prior art. In addition, no reference uncovered would have provided a basis of evidence for asserting a motivation, nor one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was made, knowing the teaching of the prior arts of record would have combined them to arrive at the present invention as recited in the context of the independent claims as a whole.
Regarding the independent claims, the prior art of record broadly disclose an extended reality system user interfaces and snapping images. Moreover, the prior art of record allows displaying real-world objects in front of a camera within the user interface, displaying a viewfinder, determining visibility of a user hand within the user interface, and snapping images based on user input.
However, the prior art of record does not explicitly teach the more intertwined nature of the current claims after the most recent amendment. The transition into different viewfinder modes is specifically being claimed and how images are snapped based on voice data from the user or movement of fingers of a dominant hand of the user is not taught by the prior art, specifically, determining that a palm of a dominant hand of the user is not visible in the user interface; in response to the determining that the palm of the dominant hand of the user is not visible in the user interface, entering a head viewfinder mode where a first image is snapped based on voice data from the user via a microphone on the XR system; determining that palm of a dominant hand of the user is visible in the user interface; and in response to the determining that the palm of the dominant hand of the user is visible in the user interface, entering a hand viewfinder mode where a second image is snapped based on movement of one or more fingers of the dominant hand.
Allowing such determinations of whether a specific body part of the palm of a dominant user hand is visible within the user interface with entering such specific viewfinder modes for snapping images based on the specific input types is not taught by the previously cited art. Moreover, the entering into different viewfinder modes as well as the images snapped based on voice data or movement of dominant hand fingers associated therewith fully integrate any type of high level observations, evaluations, or data collection or output into a practical application. Therefore, it is for at least these reasons that the claim language, in the specific order recited, defines patentability over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDA HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)272-5240 and email is linda.huynh@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached M-F between 9am-5pm.
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, Adam Queler can be reached at (571) 272-4140. 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.
/LINDA HUYNH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Prosecution Insights