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 – 9, 11 – 19 are amended; the rejection of the claims traversed; claims 10 and 20 are cancelled; and claims 21 – 22 are newly added. Claims 1- 9, 11 – 19 and 21 – 22 are currently pending and an Office action on the merits follows.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues DeLuca and Bao fail to disclose at least “detecting, via an extended reality device associated with the extended reality display, that the potentially hazardous situation exists in a field of view of the user while the media asset is being presented in the first portion of the extended reality display”.
The office respectfully disagrees and submits Bao discloses the claimed “detecting” when the camera on device 104 detects an object 1106 in the field of view prior to adjusting the opacity of the media asset.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1 - 3, 7 – 9, 11 – 13, 17 – 19, 21, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bao et al; (Publication number: US 2018/0088323 A1), hereafter Bao.
Regarding claim 1:
Bao discloses a method for controlling an extended reality display (Bao ABSTRACT), comprising:
causing presentation of a media asset in a first portion of the extended reality display (Bao Figure 1B visual output 106 displayed on a portion of display);
determining that a potentially hazardous situation is forthcoming based at least in part on a relative movement of a user (Bao Figure 11 1106; [0119]);
based at least in part on determining, detecting, via an extended reality device associated with the extended reality display, that the potentially hazardous situation exists in a field of view of the user while the media asset is being presented in the first portion of the extended reality display (Bao [0119] camera on device 104 detects object 1106 in field of view); and
based at least in part on detecting that the potentially hazardous situation exists in the field of view of the user while the media asset is being presented in the first portion of the extended reality display, wherein the modifying is performed based at least in part on the relative movement of the user (Bao Figure 5 506; [0065] [0119]).
Regarding claim 2:
Bao discloses the method of claim 1, wherein modifying the presentation of the media asset on the extended reality display comprises generating for display overlay information relating to the potentially hazardous situation, on the extended reality display, based at least in part on the relative movement of the user, and wherein the overlay information is an indication of the potentially hazardous situation (Bao [0119] text warning of tripping hazard).
Regarding claim 3:
Bao discloses the method of claim 1, wherein modifying the presentation of the media asset on the extended reality display comprises generating for display overlay information relating to the potentially hazardous situation, on the extended reality display, based at least in part on the relative movement of the user, and wherein the overlay information is a warning that the potentially hazardous situation is forthcoming (Bao [0119] text warning of tripping hazard).
Regarding claim 7:
Bao discloses the method of claim 4, wherein the potentially hazardous situation comprises one or more of: an intersection, a stop sign, a traffic indication on a map, an emergency warning, a high-traffic road or a ground hazard in a path of travel in which the user is moving (Bao [0119]).
Regarding claim 8:
Bao discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising determining the potentially hazardous situation based at least in part on a geographic location of the user and a relative motion of the user (Bao Figure 11 1102).
Regarding claim 9:
Bao discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the user is associated with a user profile specifying relationships between the extended reality display and corresponding actions performable on the extended reality display in course of traveling (Bao [0109]).
Regarding claim 11:
Claim 11 is similarly rejected for those reasons discussed above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 12:
Claim 12 is similarly rejected for those reasons discussed above in claim 2.
Regarding claim 13:
Claim 13 is similarly rejected for those reasons discussed above in claim 3.
Regarding claim 17:
Claim 17 is similarly rejected for those reasons discussed above in claim 7.
Regarding claim 18:
Claim 18 is similarly rejected for those reasons discussed above in claim 8.
Regarding claim 19:
Claim 19 is similarly rejected for those reasons discussed above in claim 9.
Regarding claim 21:
Bao discloses the method of claim 1, wherein modifying the presentation of the media asset on the extended reality display comprises performing at least one of: causing the presentation of the media asset to be shifted to a second portion of the extended reality display based at least in part on relative movement of the user, and generating for display overlay information relating the potentially hazardous situation, on the extended reality display, based at least in part on the relative movement of the user (Bao [0119]).
Regarding claim 22:
Claim 22 is similarly rejected for those reasons discussed above in claim 21.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 4, 5, 14, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bao in view of Klosinski JR. et al; (Publication number: US 2020/0397371), hereafter Klosinski, JR.
Regarding claim 4:
Bao does not disclose the method of claim 1, wherein modifying the presentation of the media asset on the extended reality display comprises generating for display overlay information relating to the potentially hazardous situation, on the extended reality display, based at least in part on the relative movement of the user, and wherein the overlay information is environmental information based at least in part on a location of the user.
However, Klosinski JR. discloses wearable environmental pollution monitor and computer apparatus, systems, and related methods. More particularly, Klosinski, JR. discloses wherein modifying the presentation of the media asset on the extended reality display comprises generating for display overlay information relating to the potentially hazardous situation, on the extended reality display, based at least in part on the relative movement of the user, and wherein the overlay information is environmental information based at least in part on a location of the user (Klosinski, JR. [0065] travel information used to predict pollution; Figure 3 320 – message is generated and presented to user of wearable device).
It would have been obvious to modify Bao wherein modifying the presentation of the media asset on the extended reality display comprises generating for display overlay information relating to the potentially hazardous situation, on the extended reality display, based at least in part on the relative movement of the user, and wherein the overlay information is environmental information based at least in part on a location of the user, as claimed. Those skilled in the art would appreciate mitigating the effect of pollution for the wearer of the device when traveling.
Regarding claim 5:
Bao (in view of Klosinki, JR) discloses the method of claim 4, wherein the environmental information comprises one or more of a geographical location of the extended reality display, weather conditions, and sunlight conditions (Klosinski, JR [0064]).
Regarding claim 14:
Claim 14 is similarly rejected for those reasons discussed above in claim 4.
Regarding claim 15:
Claim 15 is similarly rejected for those reasons discussed above in claim 5.
Claim(s) 6 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bao in view of DeLuca et al; (Publication number: US 2019/0156535 A1), hereafter DeLuca.
Regarding claim 6:
Bao does not disclose the method of claim 1, wherein modifying the presentation of the media asset on the extended reality display comprises causing the presentation of the media asset to be shifted to a second portion of the extended reality display based at least in part on the relative movement of the user, and wherein the second portion of the extended reality display does not obstruct the visibility of the potentially hazardous situation via the extended reality device associated with the extended reality display.
However, DeLuca discloses changing view order of augmented reality objects based on user gaze. More particularly, DeLuca discloses wherein modifying the presentation of the media asset on the extended reality display comprises causing the presentation of the media asset to be shifted to a second portion of the extended reality display based at least in part on the relative movement of the user, and wherein the second portion of the extended reality display does not obstruct the visibility of the potentially hazardous situation via the extended reality device associated with the extended reality display (DeLuca Figure 4D; [0036] AR object 204 shifted away from door 209).
It would have been obvious to modify Bao wherein modifying the presentation of the media asset on the extended reality display comprises causing the presentation of the media asset to be shifted to a second portion of the extended reality display based at least in part on the relative movement of the user, and wherein the second portion of the extended reality display does not obstruct the visibility of the potentially hazardous situation via the extended reality device associated with the extended reality display, as claimed. Those skilled in the art would appreciate enhancing the experience of the augmented reality system (DeLuca [0020]).
Regarding claim 16:
Claim 16 is similarly rejected for those reasons discussed above in claim 6.
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, LunYi Lao can be reached at 571-272-7671. 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/ 6 February 2026Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621