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 .
This Office Action is responsive to the RESPONSE filed June 30, 2026.
This application has been examined. Claim 8 has been amended. Claims and 1-7, 9-20 have not been amended and stand as previously presented. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application, and Claims 1-20 stand rejected.
Specification
The objection to the title of the invention set forth in the prior Office Action is acknowledged as addressed by Applicant's amendment of the title in the Amendment filed on June 30, 2026. Subject to confirmation that the substitute title is descriptive of the claimed invention (see header table above), the objection to the specification is withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to for informal, inconsistent terminology. Claim 20 recites “An intermediate processing device,” whereas claims 1 and 19 and the remainder of the claim set recite an “intermediary processing device.” Consistent terminology is required. Appropriate correction (e.g., “intermediary”) is espectfully requested. This objection does not affect the rejection of claim 20 below.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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. Claims 3, 7, 8, and 11 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 regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites “displayed at one or both of the intermediary processing devices and the extended-reality headset.” The limitation “the intermediary processing devices” (plural) lacks antecedent basis; claim 1 introduces only “an intermediary processing device” (singular). It is unclear whether claim 3 requires more than one intermediary processing device. Correction to “the intermediary processing device” (singular), or clarification of the intended plurality, is required.
Claim 7 recites “wherein the performance characteristic comprises ….” The phrase “the performance characteristic” lacks proper antecedent basis; claim 1 recites “at least one performance characteristic.” It is unclear which of the “at least one” characteristic(s) is referenced. Correction to “the at least one performance characteristic” is suggested.
Claim 8 recites that “the thermal throttling criteria includes a predictive model that predicts environmental temperature changes based on pattern recognition and can partially throttle to maintain a performance characteristic ….” The claim is indefinite for at least the following reasons: (i) it is unclear how “thermal throttling criteria” (or the recited “predictive model” that forms part of the criteria) can itself “partially throttle” a device - the structure/actor that performs the throttling is not set forth; (ii) “a performance characteristic” lacks clear antecedent basis relative to the “at least one performance characteristic” of claim 1; and (iii) the metes and bounds of “for a greater period of time than if the extended-reality headset only throttles once … or the intermediary processing device only throttles once” are undefined because they are measured against an unspecified hypothetical baseline. Clarification is required.
Claim 11 recites “the updated thermal-throttling criteria of the extended-reality headset.” This limitation lacks antecedent basis; parent claim 10 recites “an updated thermal-throttling state” (not “criteria”). It is unclear whether the “state” of claim 10 and the “criteria” of claim 11 are the same feature. Consistent terminology is required.
Examiner's note (not a rejection): claim 4's recitation of “all user-experience indicators” is noted for breadth; the set of “indicators” encompassed by “all” is not defined in the claim. Applicant may wish to clarify. Applicant is further advised that written-description support for the amended claim 8 language (“predictive model … environmental temperature … pattern recognition”) should be confirmed against the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless -
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
6. Claims 1, 2, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hanumanthaiah et al. (US 2026/0004684 A1) (“Hanumanthaiah”).
In regard to claim 1, Hanumanthaiah et al. disclose a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing one or more programs, the one or more programs comprising instructions that, when executed by a system that includes an intermediary processing device that is in communication with an extended-reality headset, cause the system to: while the intermediary processing device is operating in a default state to process data for the extended-reality headset and in accordance with a determination that an operational condition at the extended-reality headset satisfies thermal-throttling criteria (as shown in Fig. 2, which is reproduced below for ease of reference and convenience, Hanumanthaiah discloses the one or more programs comprise instructions that, when executed by a system, cause the system to perform the recited steps. The subsystems, thermal controllers, and communication interfaces are implemented using a processor coupled to memory (a computer-readable medium - magnetic/optical disk, flash, RAM, ROM, EEPROM, etc.) storing computer-executable code (software/instructions). See ¶[0106]-[0108]. The recited “system” is system 100 (FIG. 1), comprising companion device 150 and wearable device 110 (¶[0027]). Hanumanthaiah further discloses that the system includes an intermediary processing device that is in communication with an extended-reality headset. Companion device 150 (also “secondary device”; e.g., a smart phone, puck, personal computer, or server carried by the user) is the intermediary processing device, and wearable device 110 (smart glasses / AR-VR viewer) is the extended-reality headset. Companion 150 is wirelessly tethered to and communicates with wearable 110 via communication interfaces 155 and 130. See FIG. 1; ¶[0027]-[0028], [0035]-[0036]. Hanumanthaiah further discloses that, while the intermediary processing device is operating in a default state, it processes data for the extended-reality headset. In the unmitigated level ML(0)/MST(0), companion device 150 (DSP subsystem 165-1/625-1, AR content generator 165-2/625-2, display rendering subsystem 165-3/625-3) processes object-pose (6DOF) data received from the wearable, generates AR content, and renders/encodes the image signal sent back to the wearable - i.e., processes data for the headset in a default (unmitigated) state. See ¶[0028], [0035], [0078]-[0079]; MST(0) unmitigated scheme at ¶[0082] (FIG. 6B). Hanumanthaiah further discloses that, in accordance with a determination that an operational condition at the extended-reality headset satisfies thermal-throttling criteria, the system responds accordingly. The wearable’s thermal controller 125/550 (thermal violation detector 552) receives skin-temperature signals TS from skin-temperature sensors 120/555, compares them to temperature thresholds, and determines a thermal violation, setting the thermal-mitigation level to ML(x>0) when a temperature exceeds a threshold; ML(x) is sent to the companion. See ¶[0031]-[0032], [0066]-[0067]; FIG. 5A (550, 552, 555); FIG. 7, blocks 720-740 (¶[0088]-[0089]). The companion receives ML(x) at its thermal controller 160/620 (¶[0036], [0077]) - i.e., a determination that a thermal condition at the headset satisfies the criteria.):
PNG
media_image1.png
1006
635
media_image1.png
Greyscale
operate the intermediary processing device in a throttled state (i.e. low power state) that is distinct from the default state (i.e. active state), the throttled state causing the intermediary processing device to reduce at least one performance characteristic associated with the default state (in Hanumanthaiah, in response to ML(x>0), the companion’s thermal controller 160/620 applies a secondary thermal-mitigation scheme MST(x) that is distinct from the unmitigated MST(0) and throttles the companion subsystems 165/625: DSP 625-1 offloads/takes over 6DOF processing, AR content generator 625-2 reduces AR content, and display rendering 625-3 reduces the resolution and/or frame rate of the image signal to the wearable - thereby reducing the companion’s processing and power (performance characteristics) relative to the default state. See ¶[0036], [0054]-[0055], [0079], [0083]-[0085] (MST(1), MST(3), MST(5)); FIG. 3 (method 300, blocks 325-350); FIG. 6B.).
In regard to claim 2, Hanumanthaiah et al. disclose wherein the one or more programs comprise instructions that, when executed by the system, further cause the system to: in accordance with a determination that the operational condition at the extended-reality headset no longer satisfies the thermal-throttling criteria: revert the intermediary processing device to the default state (in Hanumanthaiah, when the temperature signals subsequently indicate temperatures below the thresholds, the thermal mitigation level returns to ML(0) (no thermal mitigation) and the devices operate under the unmitigated scheme; the thermal controller continues monitoring. See ¶[0032]-[0033] (subsystems throttle only until temperatures fall below the thresholds), [0082] (unmitigated MST(0)); FIG. 7, block 730 (x = 0 [Wingdings font/0xE0] continue monitoring per ¶[0088]-[0089]). Claim 2 is therefore anticipated).
Claim 19 (method) and Claim 20 (device) recite the same operative limitations as non-transitory machine-readable medium (CRM) claim 1. The change in claim format from CRM to method or system does not confer patentability where the underlying operations are identical to those taught by the applied references. See MPEP § 2114; In re Bernhart, 417 F.2d 1395 (CCPA 1969). The element-by-element mapping set forth for claim 1 applies with equal force to claims 19 and 20.
7. Claims 3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hanumanthaiah in view of Official Notice. (Claims 3 and 7 are additionally rejected under § 112(b) above; the following addresses the prior art.)
In regard to claim 3, Hanumanthaiah et al. disclose wherein the one or more programs comprise instructions that, when executed by the system, further cause the system to: in accordance with the determination that the operational condition at the extended-reality headset satisfies the thermal-throttling criteria: provide an instruction to cause a visual notification or a haptic notification (i.e. tap) that the extended-reality headset satisfies the thermal-throttling criteria to be displayed at one or both of the intermediary processing devices and the extended-reality headset (in Hanumanthaiah, discloses that, upon a thermal-throttling condition (ML(x>0)), the wearable sends metadata related to the applied throttling to the companion, and the companion sends metadata related to its throttling to the wearable, via the communication interfaces. See ¶[0090]-[0091]). Hanumanthaiah does not expressly disclose providing an instruction to cause a visual or haptic notification - that the headset satisfies the thermal-throttling criteria - to be displayed/output to the user at the intermediary and/or the headset (its metadata exchange is device-to-device coordination, not a user-perceptible notification). The Examiner takes Official Notice (MPEP 2144.03) that alerting a user to a detected thermal condition of a portable/wearable device by a user-perceptible visual and/or haptic notification (e.g., an on-screen temperature warning and/or a haptic alert) was well known and conventional before the effective filing date. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to configure Hanumanthaiah’s system, when the headset’s thermal-throttling criteria are satisfied, to provide such a visual and/or haptic notification at the headset and/or the companion, in order to inform the user that thermal mitigation is occurring and why performance is being reduced. Providing user notification of a thermal-throttling state is a predictable and well-understood means of managing user expectations when device performance is throttled, improving the user experience. Should Applicant traverse, documentary evidence will be supplied. Claim 3 is therefore rejected as obvious over Hanumanthaiah in view of Official Notice.
In regard to claim 7, Hanumanthaiah et al. disclose wherein the performance characteristic comprises: a voltage of an intermediary processing device CPU associated with the intermediary processing device and another voltage of a headset CPU associated with the extended-reality headset; a frequency of the intermediary processing device CPU associated with the intermediary processing device and another frequency of the headset CPU associated with the extended-reality headset; a cellular throughput associated with the intermediary processing device and another cellular throughput associated with the extended-reality headset; or video call quality between the intermediary processing device and the extended-reality headset (in Hanumanthaiah, discloses reducing subsystem power consumption via throttling operations (reducing FPS/resolution, offloading, disabling) and discloses per-device power (supply-voltage) rails including a CPU rail Vcpu for a CPU 835 running user applications. See ¶[0030], [0033]-[0034], [0063]-[0064], [0093].
Hanumanthaiah does not expressly disclose that the reduced performance characteristic comprises a voltage and/or frequency of the intermediary-device CPU together with a voltage and/or frequency of the headset CPU (nor a cellular throughput of both devices, nor video-call quality). Because claim 7 recites its performance characteristics in the alternative, the CPU-voltage/CPU-frequency alternative is dispositive. The Examiner takes Official Notice (MPEP 2144.03) that dynamic voltage-and-frequency scaling (DVFS) - reducing a CPU’s operating voltage and/or clock frequency to reduce power dissipation and heat - was notoriously well known in processor thermal management. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to carry out Hanumanthaiah’s throttling of the intermediary and the headset by reducing the operating voltage and/or clock frequency of each device’s CPU, as a conventional and predictable mechanism for reducing the very heat Hanumanthaiah seeks to mitigate, with the predictable result of lower power and heat at each device. DVFS is a standard, low-risk means of thermal throttling directly responsive to Hanumanthaiah’s stated goal of reducing heat. Claim 7 is therefore rejected as obvious over Hanumanthaiah in view of Official Notice.
Examiner's note:
Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the Applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passages as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 4-6 and 10, 12-18 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.
Claims 8 and 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112, 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
9. The following is an Examiner's statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claims 4-6, 8 and 10-18 are allowable over the prior art of record because the prior arts, cited in its entirety, or in combination, do not teach:
Claims 4-6 and 16-18 (user-experience-criteria control). These claims recite a closed-loop scheme in which the throttled state is maintained, or reverted, or in which one performance characteristic is reverted while a distinct second performance characteristic is reduced, depending on whether user-experience indicators satisfy user-experience criteria. Hanumanthaiah references “impact on user experience” only for ordering mitigation schemes (¶[0099], [0101]) and does not disclose evaluating whether user-experience indicators satisfy user-experience criteria to decide whether to maintain or revert throttling. These features are therefore not anticipated by, or obvious over, the applied reference.
Claims 10-12 (network coordinator / network leader). These claims recite an intermediary “network coordinator” that receives an updated thermal-throttling state of the headset from a “network leader,” the network leader being based on an operational condition of a device within the network. Hanumanthaiah discloses a personal-area network (¶[0027]) but does not disclose a network-coordinator/network-leader role or the exchange of an updated thermal-throttling state via a network leader. On the current record these limitations appear to contain allowable subject matter (claim 11 subject to the § 112(b) rejection above). The Examiner's search is continuing; PAN/mesh “network leader” / “PAN coordinator” art (e.g., IEEE 802.15.4 / Thread) will be evaluated.
Claims 13-18 (converse throttling direction). These claims recite the converse direction - the extended-reality headset operating in a throttled state in response to a thermal-throttling condition at the intermediary processing device. Hanumanthaiah's architecture is asymmetric: the wearable, in contact with the user's skin, is the thermally protected device, and the carried companion throttles on the wearable's behalf; Hanumanthaiah neither teaches nor suggests throttling the headset in response to a thermal condition at the companion. These claims are therefore not anticipated by or obvious over the applied reference and, on the current record, appear to contain allowable subject matter (claim 15 additionally reciting a user notification as discussed for claim 3).
Claim 8 (predictive environmental-temperature model). Apart from the § 112(b) rejection above, the specific feature of a predictive model that predicts environmental temperature changes based on pattern recognition is not disclosed by Hanumanthaiah. Hanumanthaiah's machine-learning embodiment (¶[0097]-[0101]) predicts/weights based on the running application and user interaction and adjusts thresholds, but does not predict environmental temperature. Upon resolution of the § 112(b) issues, claim 8 may require additional search directed to predictive/ML thermal-forecasting art; Applicant should not regard claim 8 as confirmed allowable.
Response to Amendment and Arguments
Withdrawal of the prior rejections. In view of the Examiner's further consideration (as discussed in the June 17, 2026 interview), the rejection of claims 1-8 and 10-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Tham et al. (US 2021/0240246), and the rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Tham in view of Huang (US 2022/0337780), are hereby WITHDRAWN. Applicant's arguments directed to Tham and to the Tham/Huang combination are therefore moot.
New grounds of rejection. New grounds of rejection are set forth below over Hanumanthaiah (US 2026/0004684 A1), the additional reference identified during the interview. Because these new grounds were not necessitated by Applicant's amendment - claim 8 was amended only to correct a typographical error - THIS ACTION IS MADE NON-FINAL. See MPEP 706.07(a).
Conclusion
10. Claims 1-3, 7-9, 11, 19-20 are rejected. Claims 4-6, 10, 12-18 are objected.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to examiner Raymond Phan, whose telephone number is (571) 272-3630. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 6:30AM- 3:00PM. The Group Fax No. (571) 273-8300.
Communications via Internet e-mail regarding this application, other than those under 35 U.S.C. 132 or which otherwise require a signature, may be used by the applicant and should be addressed to [raymond.phan@uspto.gov].
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, Andrew Jung can be reached at (571) 270-3779. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
All Internet e-mail communications will be made of record in the application file. PTO employees do not engage in Internet communications where there exists a possibility that sensitive information could be identified or exchanged unless the record includes a properly signed express waiver of the confidentiality requirements of 35 U.S.C. 122. This is more clearly set forth in the Interim Internet Usage Policy published in the Official Gazette of the Patent and Trademark on February 25, 1997 at 1195 OG 89.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see hop://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application should be directed to the TC 2100 central telephone number is (571) 272-2100.
/RAYMOND N PHAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2175
Prosecution Insights