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 .
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant arguments/Remarks made in amendment in which the following is noted: claims 1 – 4, 6 – 9, 14 – 16, and 19 are amended; the rejection of the claims traversed; and claim 5 is cancelled. Claims 1 – 4, and 6 – 20 are currently pending and an Office action on the merits follows.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 23 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
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.
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.
Claim 1 – 4 and 6 - 20 is/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 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, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Particularly, claim 1 recites the limitation “a sensor configured to detect at least one of a position or a motion of a physical feature in the physical environment with respect to a user and an eye gaze of the user, as claimed. However, a review of applicants published specification (see paragraph [0047] “In operation 406, a head-mountable device can detect a physical feature in an environment of the user and/or the user's position and/or movement respect to the physical feature and/or the environment. Such detections can be performed by one or more sensors of the head-mountable device and/or an external device”. However, it is detection of the position or motion of the physical feature in the environment with respect to an eye gaze of the user does not appear in the specification as filed. Further, it is unclear how a sensor utilized eye gaze information to make said detection in view of the applicant’s disclosure and level of knowledge of one skilled in the art.
Claims 2 – 4, and 6 – 8 depend on claim 1 and are therefore similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 recites the limitations: in accordance with a determination that the portion of the head with respect to the position of the body portion does not/does satisfies a given condition … the physical feature (lines 10 – 17). However, while a review of applicant’s specification appears to disclose determining a head position and determining a body position. The specification does not appear to disclose determining a head position with respect to a body position, such that the output, via the display, is performed as claimed.
Claims 10 – 14 depend on at least claim 9 and are therefore similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 recites in accordance with a determination that the user profile does not/does corresponds to a current user of the head-mountable device … representation of the physical feature (lines 9 – 16). However, a review of applicant’s specification (see published paragraph [0054 – 0055]; In some embodiments, a user profile can be applied. In operation 410, a user profile can be applied to determine whether a given operation is to be performed. For example, a user profile associated with a given user can be applied to determine whether an operation is appropriate given the user's level of experience, knowledge, preferences, and/or historical activity.) does not appear to disclose a determination of whether the user profile corresponds or does not correspond to the current user. It is unclear how such determination may be made given the level of skill of one of ordinary skill in the art and without direction provided in the disclosure.
Claims 16 – 20 depend on claim 15 and are therefore similarly rejected
Claim 1 is 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 which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites an eye sensor configured to detect an eye gaze direction of an eye in line 7 and a sensor configured to detect … with respect to a user an eye gaze of the user. However, it is unclear how user eye gaze is different than eye gaze direction as both terms in the art appear to convey the same information.
Claims 2 – 4 and 6 – 8 depend on claim 1 and are therefore similarly rejected.
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 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/ 23 February 2026Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2622