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 Amendments
This office action responds to the amendments filed on May 29, 2026 for application 18/896,693. Claims 1-5 and 7-12 are amended, and claims 1-12 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
The Examiner has fully considered the Applicant’s arguments filed on May 29, 2026, and the Examiner responds as provided below.
Regarding the Applicant’s response at pages 10-13 of the Remarks that concerns the § 103 rejection, the Applicant’s arguments in conjunction with the claim amendments are persuasive, and consequently the Examiner conducted a new prior art search. The Applicant’s arguments are now moot with respect to the pending claims because the arguments do not apply to one of the references currently used in the rejection of the aforementioned claims as detailed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 following conventions apply to the mapping of the prior art to the claims:
Italicized text – claim language.
Parenthetical plain text – Examiner’s citation and explanation.
Citation without an explanation – an explanation has been previously provided for the respective limitation(s).
Quotation marks – language quoted from a prior art reference.
Underlining – language quoted from a claim.
Brackets – material altered from either a prior art reference or a claim, which includes the Examiner’s explanation that relates a claim limitation to the quoted material of a reference.
Braces – a limitation taught by another reference, but the limitation is presented with the mapping of the instant reference for context.
Numbered superscript – a first phrase to be moved upwards to the primary reference analysis.
Lettered superscript – a second phrase to be moved after the movement of the first phrase from which it was lifted, or more succinctly, move numbered material first, lettered material last.
A. Claims 1 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 2014/0139439, “Park”) in view of Qiao et al. (US 2021/0365589, “Qiao”), and further in view of Holland et al. (US 2022/0035439, “Holland”).
Regarding Claim 1
Park discloses
A wearable terminal (Figs. 3 & 5, ¶ [0090], “FIG. 5 illustrates an embodiment of displaying UIs on the HMD [wearable terminal] and the external device…”) comprising:
a display (Fig. 3, ¶ [0050], “Referring to FIG. 3, an HMD 300 according to an embodiment of the present invention may include a display unit 310,…”);
1 …;
a transceiver configured to receive display data of a non-wearable terminal (Fig. 3, ¶ [0053], “The HMD 300 may receive [display] data from the external device [non-wearable terminal] through the communication unit [transceiver] 320 and output an image based on the received data.”; and Fig. 5, ¶ [0091], “Referring to FIG. 5( a), upon receipt of a user input to a preset icon 511, an external device [non-wearable terminal] 510...”);
a memory configured to retain the image captured by the camera (¶¶ [0066]-[0067], “The storage unit refers to a variety of digital data storage spaces such as a flash memory, a Random Access Memory (RAM), a Solid State Drive (SSD), etc.”); and
a processor (¶ [0050], “Referring to FIG. 3, an HMD 300 according to an embodiment of the present invention may include..., and a processor 340.”), the processor being configured to:
transmit, to the non-wearable terminal via the transceiver, a control signal for causing the display data as received to be hidden…2 (Fig. 5, ¶¶ [0090]-[0096], “Referring to FIG. 5(a), upon receipt of a user input to a preset icon 511 [that produces a control signal that is transmitted to the external device], an external device 510 may switch to the protection mode [that hides the display data as illustrated in Fig. 5].”; and ¶ [0018], “In another aspect of the present invention, an HMD includes a processor configured to control an operation of the HMD, a display unit for outputting an image, a communication unit [transceiver] configured to transmit and receive data to and from an external device,…”);
execute alternative display control of receiving the display data of the non- wearable terminal to display the display data on the display (Fig. 5, ¶¶ [0090]-[0096], “When the external device 510 switches from the normal mode to the protection mode [via alternative display control], an HMD 520 may receive [display] data related to a first UI 513 from the external device [non-wearable terminal] 510, generate a second UI 523 identical to the first UI 513, and display the second UI [and thereby display the display data on the display of the wearable terminal] 523.”),
3 …, and
4 ….
Park doesn’t disclose
1 a camera;
2 … based on information about a place or information about an information leakage medium stored in the memory;
3 analyze the image captured by the camera to recognize a shielding object located around the non-wearable terminal,
4 determine, based on a relative size of the shielding object with respect to the non-wearable terminal, a display area on a display of the non-wearable terminal to be shown on the display of the wearable terminal.
Qiao, however, discloses
2 … based on information about a place or information about an information leakage medium stored in the memory (¶ [0031], “In some embodiments, prior to displaying sensitive information, the computing device can determine whether it is operating in a secure environment based on analysis of an image [information] of the environment [place] of the computing device. For example, in an implementation, the computing device may include an image capture device, such as a webcam. The computing device may be configured to capture an image of the surrounding environment upon determining that sensitive information is about to be displayed. The computing device can then compare the captured image with one or more images from a whitelist. These whitelist images may include previously taken images of persons, objects [information leakage medium], and/or scenes that represent or indicate a secure environment. In an embodiment, the computing device can conclude that it is operating in a secure environment (i.e., the environment of the computing device is secure) if the captured image matches an image from the whitelist [stored in the memory]. Otherwise, if the captured image does not match any of the images from the whitelist (e.g., the captured image includes an object or objects that is not present in the whitelist images), the computing device can conclude that the security state of the environment of the computing device is uncertain. In this case, the computing device can display a warning message informing of the potential for data loss or leak of displayed sensitive information. In an implementation, the computing device may also prompt a user to specify the security state of the environment (i.e., indicate whether the environment is secure or unsecure). The computing device can then display sensitive information in normal form (i.e., unobfuscated form) or in obfuscated form based on the security state indicated by the user.”);
Regarding the combination of Park and Qiao, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display system of Park to arrive at the claimed invention. KSR establishes that a rationale for obviousness is proven by showing a “use of [a] known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.” See MPEP § 2143(I)(C).
To substantiate the conclusion of obviousness under this KSR rationale, the Examiner finds pursuant to MPEP § 2143(I)(C):
1) the prior art contained a base system, namely the display system of Park, upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement” through the use of a data loss prevention feature;
2) the prior art contained a “comparable” system, namely the display system of Qiao, that has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention through the data loss prevention feature; and
3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known improvement technique of applying the data loss prevention feature to the base display system of Park, and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Holland, however, discloses
1 a camera (Fig.2, ¶ [0078], “The extended reality system 220 has an image sensor 218 and a display 210 (e.g., a glass, a screen, a lens, or other display) that allows the user 200 to see the real-world environment and also allows AR content to be displayed thereon. The image sensor 218 can be similar or the same as the image sensor 102 shown in FIG. 1.”; and ¶ [0062], “The image sensor 102 can include any image and/or video sensors or capturing devices, such as a digital camera sensor, a video camera sensor,...”);
3 analyze the image captured by the camera to recognize a shielding object located around the non-wearable terminal (¶ [0053], “In some cases, the XR [extended reality] device [camera] can detect [via analysis of a captured image] human faces (e.g., the faces of the user associated with the XR device and/or other users) and use human face recognition data (e.g., data indicating a presence and/or location of one or more users) and/or occlusion data (e.g., data indicating that an area or location is occluded by one or more [shielding] objects or otherwise occluded from other users or devices) to detect any locations (e.g., private surfaces, regions, locations, planes, etc.) that are occluded from (or outside a view of) other users and devices in the physical environment [located around the non-wearable terminal], except for the user associated with the XR device.”),
4 determine, based on a relative size of the shielding object with respect to the non-wearable terminal, a display area on a display of the non-wearable terminal to be shown on the display of the wearable terminal (¶ [0073], “The occlusions [shielding objects] can include, for example and without limitations, areas, surfaces, planes, objects, and/or regions in a scene that are visible or within a field-of-view (FOV) of the user associated with the extended reality system 100 but are not visible or within the FOV of other users and/or surveillance devices in the scene and/or that are not visible through certain objects in the scene such as a window or a door. In some cases, the location/position, number, existence, and/or characteristics of detected objects, users, and/or occlusions in the physical environment can be used to determine when and/or how to render [within a display area on a display] a virtual control interface [or the non-wearable terminal as a substitute as taught by Park at Fig. 3, ¶ [0053]] as an obfuscated control interface to hide the configuration of the control interface [but is shown on the display of the wearable terminal] and/or the meaning of input elements on the control interface. For example, by detecting the location/position, number, existence, and/or characteristics of detected objects, users, and/or occlusions in the physical environment, the control interface management engine 122 can determine a configuration (e.g., positioning, ordering, sizing, location, layout, [or display area on a display] etc.) of a control interface that may be more difficult for other users and/or devices to ascertain or recognize from their respective FOVs.”).
Regarding the combination of Park-Qiao and Holland, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display system of Park-Qiao to arrive at the claimed invention. KSR establishes that a rationale for obviousness is proven by showing a “use of [a] known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.” See MPEP § 2143(I)(C).
To substantiate the conclusion of obviousness under this KSR rationale, the Examiner finds pursuant to MPEP § 2143(I)(C):
1) the prior art contained a base system, namely the display system of Park-Qiao, upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement” through the use of a shielding/display feature;
2) the prior art contained a “comparable” system, namely the display system of Holland, that has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention through the shielding/display feature; and
3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known improvement technique of applying the shielding/display feature to the base display system of Park-Qiao, and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Independent Claim 10 and Dependent Claim 11
With respect to independent claim 10 and dependent claim 11, a corresponding reasoning as given earlier for independent claim 1 applies, mutatis mutandis, to the subject matter of claims 10 and 11. Therefore, claims 10 and 11 are rejected, for similar reasons, under the grounds set forth for claim 1. The Examiner notes that independent claim 10 additionally recites above claim 1 a second processor, second display, and second transceiver. However, these are generic computer elements and taught or suggested by the combination of Park in view of Qiao. Claim 11 recites limitations associated with a place and information leakage medium, which are recited in claim 1 but not in claim 10. Regardless, claim 11 stands rejected for similar reasons as set forth for claim 1.
Regarding Independent Claim 12
With respect to independent claim 12, a corresponding reasoning as given earlier for independent claim 1 applies, mutatis mutandis, to the subject matter of claim 12. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected, for similar reasons, under the grounds set forth for claim 1.
B. Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Qiao and Holland, and further in view of Fram (US 2015/0101066, “Fram”).
Regarding Claim 2
Park in view of Qiao, and further in view of Holland (“Park-Qiao-Holland”) discloses the wearable terminal according to claim 1, and Qiao further discloses
further comprising:
1 …; and
wherein the memory retains, as the information about the place, the position information detected by the positioning sensor (¶ [0031], “In an embodiment, the computing device can conclude that it is operating in a secure environment (i.e., the environment of the computing device is secure) if the captured image matches an image [retained in the memory] from the whitelist [stored in memory].”).
Regarding the combination of Park and Qiao, the rationale to combine is the same as provided for claim 1 due to the overlapping subject matter of claims 1 and 2.
Park-Qiao-Holland doesn’t disclose
1 a positioning sensor configured to detect position information;
Fram, however, discloses
1 a positioning sensor configured to detect position information (¶ [0059], “In one arrangement the hardware and location data are obtained by a processor configured with sub-modules to query the device operating system or hardware modules to obtain the necessary information. For instance, geolocation data, such as coordinates obtained from a GPS [positioning sensor] or equivalent receiver or transponder are used to evaluate the location [position information] of the output device [wearable terminal].”);
Regarding the combination of Park-Qiao-Holland and Fram, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display system of Park-Qiao-Holland to arrive at the claimed invention. KSR establishes that a rationale for obviousness is proven by showing a “use of [a] known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.” See MPEP § 2143(I)(C).
To substantiate the conclusion of obviousness under this KSR rationale, the Examiner finds pursuant to MPEP § 2143(I)(C):
1) the prior art contained a base system, namely the display system of Park-Qiao-Holland, upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement” through the use of a geolocation feature;
2) the prior art contained a “comparable” system, namely the display system of Fram, that has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention through the geolocation feature; and
3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known improvement technique of applying the geolocation feature to the base display system of Park-Qiao-Holland, and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 3
Park in view of Qiao, and further in view of Fram (“Park-Qiao-Holland-Fram”) discloses the wearable terminal according to claim 2, and Fram further discloses
wherein the memory retains, as pre-registration information for executing the alternative display control, the position information detected by the positioning sensor or the image captured by the camera (Fig. 9, ¶¶ [0088]-[0093], “FIG. 9 also provides examples of the relative privacy levels [as pre-registration information] and information privacy rules attached to each device according to a database or look-up table. Table 920 is an example of the Device Privacy Levels assigned to various devices based on the hardware configuration and/or location.”, i.e., the alternative display control would be executed based upon a low privacy level where confidential information is viewed via the wearable device), and
wherein the processor is configured to execute the alternative display control upon determining that a place where a user is present is not recorded in the pre-registration information (Fig. 9, ¶¶ [0088]-[0093], “ In the alternative, the system described assigns devices having an unknown location [and thereby a user is present is not recorded in the pre-registration information] to a pre-set privacy level [i.e., executes the alternative display control on the wearable device to prevent data leakage].”).
Regarding the combination of Park-Qiao-Holland and Fram, the rationale to combine is the same as provided for claim 2 due to the overlapping subject matter of claims 2 and 3.
Regarding Claim 4
Park-Qiao-Holland-Fram discloses the wearable terminal according to claim 2, and Fram further discloses
wherein the processor is configured to:
determine, within the display of the non-wearable terminal, a display area to be hidden in accordance with at least one of a height of the shielding object, a transparency of the shielding object, or a position of the shielding object relative to the non-wearable terminal (¶¶ [0127]-[0128], “At 1506, the client application can check to determine whether the captured image of the environment matches at least one image from the whitelist images [with non-transparent shielding objects]. In some embodiments, a pixel-by-pixel comparison of the captured image of the environment and a whitelist image may be performed to determine whether the captured image matches the whitelist image.”; and ¶ [0130], “If a match is found, then, at 1508, the client application can conclude, at least based on the comparison of the captured image of the environment with the whitelist images, that the environment is secure [and a screen area to be hidden amounts to nothing hidden on the screen since the environment is secure].”).
Regarding the combination of Park-Qiao-Holland and Fram, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display system of Park-Qiao-Holland to arrive at the claimed invention. KSR establishes that a rationale for obviousness is proven by showing a “use of [a] known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.” See MPEP § 2143(I)(C).
To substantiate the conclusion of obviousness under this KSR rationale, the Examiner finds pursuant to MPEP § 2143(I)(C):
1) the prior art contained a base system, namely the display system of Park-Qiao-Holland, upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement” through the use of a secure environment assessment feature;
2) the prior art contained a “comparable” system, namely the display system of Fram, that has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention through the secure environment assessment feature; and
3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known improvement technique of applying the secure environment assessment feature to the base display system of Park-Qiao-Holland, and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
C. Claims 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Qiao and Holland, and further in view of Tormasov et al. (US 2022/0083680, “Tormasov”).
Regarding Claim 5
Park-Qiao-Holland discloses the wearable terminal according to claim 1, and Park further discloses
wherein the processor (¶ [0018], “In another aspect of the present invention, an HMD includes a processor configured to control an operation of the HMD, a display unit for outputting an image, a communication unit configured to transmit and receive data to and from an external device, and a sensor unit configured to capture an image and provide the captured image to the processor.”, and Fig. 3, ¶ [0050], “Referring to FIG. 3, an HMD 300 according to an embodiment of the present invention may include a display unit 310, a communication unit 320, a sensor unit [camera] 330, and a processor 340.”) is configured to:
1 …, and
execute the alternative display control in accordance with at least one of a position or a direction of the information leakage medium relative to the non-wearable terminal (Fig. 5, ¶¶ [0090]-[0096], “When the external device 510 switches from the normal mode to the protection mode [via executing the alternative display control to account for the position of the information leakage medium/surveillance camera as taught by Tormasov, thereby protecting the data], an HMD 520 may receive data related to a first UI 513 from the external device [non-wearable terminal] 510, generate a second UI 523 identical to the first UI 513, and display the second UI 523.”).
Qiao further discloses
1 analyze at least one or more of an image captured by the camera and …a (see Tormasov below) based on the information about the information leakage medium (¶ [0031], “In an embodiment, the computing device can conclude [via analysis] that it is operating in a secure environment (i.e., the environment of the computing device is secure) if the captured image matches an image from the whitelist.”, i.e., the analysis would “conclude” based on the presence of the surveillance camera/information leakage medium as taught by Tormasov below that the “environment” is not secure), and
Regarding the combination of Park and Qiao, the rationale to combine is the same as provided for claim 1 due to the overlapping subject matter of claims 1 and 5.
Park-Qiao-Holland doesn’t disclose
a (see Qiao above) …an image captured by a camera mounted on the non-wearable terminal to recognize an information leakage medium located around the display of the non-wearable terminal…,
Tormasov, however, discloses
a (see Qiao above) …an image captured by a camera mounted on the non-wearable terminal to recognize an information leakage medium located around the display of the non-wearable terminal… (Fig. 3, ¶ [0040], “In response to determining that access is allowed in the location, method 300 proceeds to 310, where premises evaluator 208 detects, via sensors [a camera] of [mounted on] the computing device [non-wearable terminal], (1) at least one other person different from the user or (2) a surveillance device [information leakage medium] in the location [around the display of the non-wearable terminal]. At 312, authenticator 204 determines whether the at least one other person or the surveillance device can view the data without direct access to the computing device.”),
Regarding the combination of Park-Qiao-Holland and Tormasov, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display system of Park-Qiao-Holland to arrive at the claimed invention. KSR establishes that a rationale for obviousness is proven by showing a “use of [a] known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.” See MPEP § 2143(I)(C).
To substantiate the conclusion of obviousness under this KSR rationale, the Examiner finds pursuant to MPEP § 2143(I)(C):
1) the prior art contained a base system, namely the display system of Park-Qiao-Holland, upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement” through the use of a data loss (surveillance camera) feature;
2) the prior art contained a “comparable” system, namely the display system of Tormasov, that has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention through the data loss (surveillance camera) feature; and
3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known improvement technique of applying the data loss (surveillance camera) feature to the base display system of Park-Qiao-Holland, and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 6
Park in view of Qiao and Holland, and further in view of Tormasov (“Park-Qiao-Holland-Tormasov”) discloses the wearable terminal according to claim 5, and Tormasov further discloses
wherein the information leakage medium is a security camera or a non-user who is different from the user of the wearable terminal (Fig. 3, ¶ [0040], “In response to determining that access is allowed in the location, method 300 proceeds to 310, where premises evaluator 208 detects, via sensors of the computing device, (1) at least one other person different from the user or (2) a surveillance device [security camera] in the location.”).
Regarding the combination of Park-Qiao-Holland and Tormasov, the rationale to combine is the same as provided for claim 5 due to the overlapping subject matter of claims 5 and 6.
Regarding Claim 7
Park-Qiao-Holland-Tormasov discloses the wearable terminal according to claim 5, and Qiao further discloses
wherein the memory retains user information in which an organization to which a user of the wearable terminal belongs is associated with identification information about a non-user who belongs to the organization (¶ [0031], “The computing device can then compare the captured image with one or more images from a whitelist [retained user information stored in memory]. These whitelist images may include previously taken images [identification information] of persons [a non-user who belongs to the organization], objects, and/or scenes that represent or indicate a secure environment.”, and ¶ [0052], “The users or clients 102 a-102 n can correspond to a single organization/tenant or multiple organizations/tenants. More particularly, in one illustrative implementation, cloud computing environment 300 may provide a private cloud serving a single organization (e.g., enterprise cloud).”), and
wherein the processor is configured to:
analyze the image captured by the camera (¶ [0031], “The computing device can then compare the captured image [by the camera]…”) to make a determination as to whether a person captured by the camera (¶ [0031], “These whitelist images may include previously taken [captured] images of persons, objects, and/or scenes that represent or indicate a secure environment [associated with an organization].”) is the same as the non-user who belongs to the organization to which the user belongs included in the user information (¶ [0026], “For example, an employee [of an organization] can access and display data, including sensitive information, using a computing device from any location. However, when sensitive information is displayed, there is a risk that such displayed sensitive information may be leaked or otherwise compromised. For example, unauthorized persons [who are not the same as the non-user who belongs to the organization to which the user belongs included in the user information] nearby the display may be able to view the sensitive information being displayed on the display device.”), and
{execute the alternative display control based on a result of the determination (Park Fig. 5, ¶¶ [0090]-[0096], “When the external device 510 switches from the normal mode to the protection mode [via alternative display control], an HMD 520 may receive [display] data related to a first UI 513 from the external device [non-wearable terminal] 510, generate a second UI 523 identical to the first UI 513, and display the second UI [and thereby display the display data on the display of the wearable terminal] 523.”, i.e., based on the determination that a security risk exists because a non-user not belonging to the organization is present, the alternative displaying of data on the wearable is executed)}.
Regarding the combination of Park and Qiao, the rationale to combine is the same as provided for claim 1 due to the overlapping subject matter of claims 1 and 7.
Regarding Claim 8
Park-Qiao-Holland-Tormasov discloses the wearable terminal according to claim 5, and Qiao further discloses
wherein the memory retains user information in which an organization to which a user of the wearable terminal belongs is associated with identification information about a non-user who belongs to the organization (¶¶ [0031], [0052]), and
wherein the processor is configured to:
analyze the image captured by the camera (¶ [0031]),
check a person captured by the camera with the user information (¶ [0031], “These whitelist [user information] images may include previously taken [captured] images of persons, objects, and/or scenes that represent or indicate a secure environment [associated with an organization].”),
make a determination as to whether the organization to which the person captured by the camera belongs is the same as the organization to which the user belongs (¶ [0026], “For example, an employee [of an organization] can access and display data, including sensitive information, using a computing device from any location. However, when sensitive information is displayed, there is a risk that such displayed sensitive information may be leaked or otherwise compromised. For example, unauthorized persons [who are not within the same organization to which the user belongs] nearby the display may be able to view the sensitive information being displayed on the display device.”), and
{execute the alternative display control based on a result of the determination (Park Fig. 5, ¶¶ [0090]-[0096], “When the external device 510 switches from the normal mode to the protection mode [via alternative display control], an HMD 520 may receive [display] data related to a first UI 513 from the external device [non-wearable terminal] 510, generate a second UI 523 identical to the first UI 513, and display the second UI [and thereby display the display data on the display of the wearable terminal] 523.”, i.e., based on the determination that a security risk exists because a non-user not belonging to the organization is present, the alternative displaying of data on the wearable is executed)}.
Regarding the combination of Park and Qiao, the rationale to combine is the same as provided for claim 1 due to the overlapping subject matter of claims 1 and 8.
Regarding Claim 9
Park-Qiao-Holland-Tormasov discloses the wearable terminal according to claim 5, and Qiao further discloses
wherein the memory retains group information about a using device in which an organization managing the wearable terminal is associated with identification information about a non-user who belongs to the organization (¶ [0031], “These whitelist [entailing group and identification information] images may include previously taken images of persons [non-user who belongs to the organization], objects [using devices and wearable terminals], and/or scenes that represent or indicate a secure environment [i.e., devices owned and associated with an organization].”, and ¶ [0026], “For example, an employee [of an organization] can access and display data, including sensitive information, using a computing device from any location.”), and
wherein the processor is configured to:
analyze the image captured by the camera (¶ [0031]),
check a person captured by the camera with the group information about the using device (¶ [0031], “These whitelist [group information] images may include previously taken [captured] images of persons, [using] objects [using devices], and/or scenes that represent or indicate a secure environment.”),
make a determination as to whether the organization to which the person captured by the camera belongs is the same as the organization managing the wearable terminal (¶ [0026], “For example, an employee [of an organization] can access and display data, including sensitive information, using a computing device from any location. However, when sensitive information is displayed, there is a risk that such displayed sensitive information may be leaked or otherwise compromised. For example, unauthorized persons [whose image is captured and is not within the same organization managing the wearable terminal] nearby the display may be able to view the sensitive information being displayed on the display device.”), and
{execute the alternative display control based on a result of the determination (Park Fig. 5, ¶¶ [0090]-[0096], “When the external device 510 switches from the normal mode to the protection mode [via alternative display control], an HMD 520 may receive [display] data related to a first UI 513 from the external device [non-wearable terminal] 510, generate a second UI 523 identical to the first UI 513, and display the second UI [and thereby display the display data on the display of the wearable terminal] 523.”, i.e., based on the determination that a security risk exists because a person captured within the image does not belong to the organization managing the wearable terminal, the alternative displaying of data on the wearable is executed)}.
Regarding the combination of Park and Qiao, the rationale to combine is the same as provided for claim 1 due to the overlapping subject matter of claims 1 and 8.
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 D'ARCY WINSTON STRAUB whose telephone number is (303)297-4405. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00 Mountain Time.
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, WILLIAM KORZUCH can be reached at (571)272-7589. 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.
/D'Arcy Winston Straub/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2491
Prosecution Insights