DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
1. Applicant’s RCE and IDS filed February 17, 2026 are received and the contents therein have been considered. As a result, prosecution is reopened as indicated in the action mailed February 24, 2026.
2. Claims 7 – 20 are pending and are under examination in this action.
3. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
4. 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.
5. Claim 12 is 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.
Regarding claim 12, the recitation “wherein the functions selectable on the screen include: a function of causing the display to display the image of the front direction of the user captured by: a mute function . . . , and a function of controlling screen transition” is indefinite for at least the following reasons.
The recitation “the image of the front direction of the user captured by:” seems to indicate that the this image is captured by “a mute function” or “a function of controlling screen transition”. It is unclear, based on logic and Applicant’s specification, how muting sound can result in an image capture.
Perhaps this above recitation has a typographical error and was intended to recite “the image of the front direction of the user,
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. Claims 7, 11, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su et al. (U.S. Pub. 2023/0194899) in view of Kato (JP 2008-085854 A). All references to Kato will be made with regard to the attached machine translation.
Regarding claim 7, Su teaches: a content display system (FIG. 1; paragraph [0036]; binocular augmented reality smart glass 1) comprising:
a head-mounted display (FIG. 1; paragraph [0036]; binocular augmented reality smart glass 1), wherein the head-mounted display includes
a function button, the function button being able to be selectively assigned one of a plurality of functions regarding an operation of the head-mounted display (FIG. 2; paragraph [0038]; multifunctional button 9 is a user-defined button whose function can be defined by the user on a user-setting interface according to personal preference); and
processing circuitry (paragraph [0036]; processor module and control system which are integrated into the binocular augmented reality smart glass 1. It is well-known and conventional for control circuitry of an electronic device, such as the processor module and control system referenced above, to implement disclosed functions and operations of the corresponding electronic device. Accordingly, it is implied that this “processing circuitry” performs the following disclosed functions) configured to
display, at the head-mounted display, a screen for prompting a user to select the function to be assigned to the function button (FIG. 2; paragraph [0038]; a user setting interface is displayed to a user to define the particular function of the multifunctional button 9), and
set the function according to the function assigned to the function button on the screen (FIG. 2; paragraph [0038]; the particular function of the multifunctional button 9 according to user input in the user setting interface).
Su fails to explicitly disclose: a power button different from the function button; wherein the plurality of functions include a function of controlling screen transition of content displayed on the head-mounted display.
However, in a related field of endeavor, Kato discloses: an HMD 100 that includes an operation unit 113 having a cross button 113b to which different user instructions may be assigned (FIGS. 1, 2; paragraphs [0001], [0011], [0031]).
With regard to claim 7, Kato teaches: a power button different from the function button (FIG. 2; paragraph [0014]; power button 113a and cross [function] button 113b are different buttons);
wherein the plurality of functions include a function of controlling screen transition of content displayed on the head-mounted display (FIG. 4A; paragraph [0019]; cross button 113b may have assigned functions for viewing video. In such a configuration, pressing the left arrow of cross button 113b skips to previous content and pressing the right arrow of cross button 113b skips to next content. These skip functions control screen transition of content displayed on the HMD 100).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to combine the known teachings of Su and Kato to yield predictable results. More specifically, the teachings of an HMD with a user-defined button whose function can be selected and set by a user, as taught by Su, are known. Additionally, the teachings of an HMD with a button whose function can be assigned by a user where the exemplary function include skipping a video forwards or backwards to control screen transition of content, as taught by Kato, are known as well. The combination of the known teachings of Su and Kato would yield the predictable result of an HMD with a user-defined button whose function can be selected and set by a user, where the functions can include skipping a video forwards or backwards to control screen transition of content. In other words, it would have been obvious to replace the particular cross button of Kato and its corresponding functions for the user-defined button of Su as a simple substitution of one user-defined functional button of an HMD for another. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to combine the known teachings of Su and Kato to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 11, Su fails to explicitly disclose: wherein the head-mounted display has the power button and the function button positioned adjacent to each other.
However, Kato teaches: wherein the head-mounted display has the power button and the function button positioned adjacent to each other (FIG. 2; paragraph [0014]; power button 113a and cross [function] button 113b are positioned adjacent to each other).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to combine the known teachings of Su and Kato to yield predictable results for at least the reasons set forth above with regard to claim 7.
Regarding claim 20, Su teaches: wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to maintain the function assigned to the function button until a new function is selected on the screen for prompting the user to select the function (FIG. 2; paragraph [0038]; as set forth above, a user setting interface is displayed to a user to define the particular function of the multifunctional button 9. Such interfaces operate to maintain the personalized settings until changed by the user).
8. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su in view of Kato, as applied to claim 7 above, in further view of Huang et al. (U.S. Pub. 2023/0328168).
Regarding claim 9, neither Su nor Kato explicitly disclose: wherein the head-mounted display further includes a microphone, and wherein the plurality of functions include a mute function that mutes sound input to the microphone.
However, in a related field of endeavor, Huang discloses an augmented reality or virtual reality head-mounted display (paragraph [0040]).
With regard to claim 9, Huang teaches: wherein the head-mounted display further includes a microphone (paragraph [0041]; the head-worn wearable device includes a microphone), and
wherein the plurality of functions include a mute function that mutes sound input to the microphone (paragraph [0181]; a user can mute the microphone via user input).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to combine the known teachings of Su, Kato, and Huang to yield predictable results. More specifically, the teachings of an HMD with a user-defined button whose function can be selected and set by a user, as taught by Su, are known. Additionally, the teachings of an HMD with a microphone that can be muted via user input, as taught by Huang, are known as well. The combination of the known teachings of Su and Huang would yield the predictable result of HMD with a microphone and a user-defined button where the user can select and set a function thereof to mute the microphone upon user input to the user-defined button. In other words, it would have been obvious to implement the known function of muting a microphone in response to user input, as taught by Huang, as one of the functions that can be assigned to the selection of the user-defined button, as taught by Su. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to combine the known teachings of Su, Kato, and Huang to yield predictable results.
9. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su in view of Kato, as applied to claim above, in further view of Dong (U.S. Pub. 2016/0188154).
Regarding claim 18, neither Su nor Kato explicitly disclose: wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to dynamically set the function of the function button according to a type of content being displayed on the head-mounted display.
However, However, Dong teaches: wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to dynamically set the function of the function button according to a type of content being displayed on the head-mounted display (paragraph [0025]; functions of buttons may be dynamically selected and mapped based on contextual information displayed by a user interface 118).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to combine the known teachings of Su, Kato, and Dong to yield predictable results. More specifically, the teachings of an HMD with a user-defined button whose function can be selected and set by a user, as taught by Su, are known. Additionally, the teachings of the functions of buttons being dynamically selected and mapped based on context of displayed information, as taught by Dong, are known as well. The combination of the known teachings of Su and Dong would yield the predictable result of an HMD with a user-defined button whose function can be dynamically selected and mapped based on context of displayed information. In other words, it would have been obvious for the user selected function of the user-defined button, as taught by Su, to be a contextual function whose operation changes in response to the context of displayed information, as taught by Dong. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention to combine the known teachings of Su, Kato, and Dong to yield predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
10. Claim 8, 13, and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
11. Claims 14 – 17 are allowed over the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN A LUBIT whose telephone number is (571)270-3389. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, ~6am - 3pm.
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, Temesghen Ghebretinsae can be reached at 571-272-3017. 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.
/RYAN A LUBIT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2626