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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the present application, with claims 1, 10, and 19 being independent. Claims 19-20 have been withdrawn from consideration.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 15 June 2026 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 28 January 2026 has been considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,130,959. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the US Patent are substantially similar to the claims in the current application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-18 are 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.
When afforded their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the corresponding disclosure, the scope of claims 1 and 10 is unclear. For instance, it is not immediately clear as to how the position of the wearable apparatus is calculated using the one or more signals output from the IMU and one or more signals from an infrared sensor in response to the determination of DOP is greater than a threshold. The disclosure in paragraph 72 sets forth “sensor system 120 may include a camera 128, which may be an infrared (IR) or visible spectrum camera in accordance with various embodiments.” Paragraph 73 sets forth ‘sensor system 120 may include altimeter 126, which may output data 140 about the elevation of wearable augmented reality apparatus 110....sensor system 120 may include infrared (IR) sensor 130, which may output data 140 about IR radiation in the immediate area. IR sensor 130 may provide information about a distance of wearable augmented reality apparatus 110 from the ground (and therefore information on height of the user of wearable augmented reality apparatus 110). IR sensor 130 may also be operationally coupled to smart device 103 in accordance with some embodiments and may provide information about relative position and orientation of smart device 103 to wearable augmented reality apparatus 110 or vice versa”. Paragraph 136 sets forth “Visual data 536 from camera 512 and IR sensor 514 may be synthesized with orientation 530 from IMU 508, which may provide a more holistic sense of what visual data should indicate based on predictions and how predictions about apparatus position 608 might need to be modified based at least partially on raw visual data 536”. However, taking the specification into consideration, the scope of the claimed limitation remains unclear. For instance, it remains unclear as to if the IR sensor is a camera or measures radiation and used for determining the height of the user of the wearable apparatus? Can the same IR sensor be used for both? If not, then there would appear to be a written description issue with how the IR sensor is used to calculate the position of wearable apparatus using signals from the IMU and the infrared sensor. The examiner respectfully requests the applicant clarify the scope of the claimed limitation.
Claims depending thereon do not cure the noted deficiency and are also rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that set forth with respect to the claims from which they depend.
Allowable Subject Matter
Since no prior art is being applied to the claims and based on the current scope, claims 1-18 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US PG Publication 2021/0333411 to Gum et al. teaches determining correct location in the presence of GNSS Spoofing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J COBB whose telephone number is (571)270-3875. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 11am - 7pm ET.
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, Alicia Harrington can be reached at 571-272-2330. 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.
/MICHAEL J COBB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2615
Prosecution Insights