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 .
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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 2-3, 5-6, 9-10, 12-13, 16-17 and 19-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4-7, 9, 12-15 and 17-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,192,554 in view of Oh. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because, with minor differences in wording, the scope of the claims of the instant application is entirely encompassed by the claims of the ‘554 patent.
Claims 2, 5-6, 9, 12-13, 16 and 19-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 9-10 and 16-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,695,977 in view of Oh. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because, with minor differences in wording, the scope of the claims of the instant application is entirely encompassed by the claims of the ‘977 patent.
The examiner notes that the instant application specifies a head mounted display (HMD) whereas the claims of the ‘977 recite the more generic term ‘mobile device’. However, Oh discloses that a mobile device may be a head mounted display (HMD) which communicates over a wireless channel to receive content.
It is therefore considered obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have recognized that the mobile device of the ‘977 patent could be a head mounted display as suggested by Oh in order to gain the advantage of providing virtual reality content as suggested by Oh (Oh par 11).
Allowable Subject Matter
Subject to the rejections for Double Patenting above Claims 2-3, 5-6, 9-10, 12-13, 16-17 and 19-20 are otherwise allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Independent claims 2, 9 and 16 relate to a system including an HMD with a camera to capture images, an electronic device that receives images from the HMD over a wireless communication channel, where the electronic device performs image processing algorithms on the images received from the HMD, detecting whether a bandwidth of a wireless communication channel between the electronic device and the HMD is less than a threshold and adjusting the HMD to perform first image processing and adjusting the image processing of the electronic device to reduce an amount of image processing operations performed.
The closest arts are Oh, Saleem and Schmidt. Oh discloses a head mounted display including motion sensors that determines an amount of image content to provide to the head mounted display based on motion information received from the head mounted display. Saleem teaches using data reduction techniques to reduce an amount of transmitted image data over a wireless channel if bandwidth falls below a threshold. Schmidt discloses a head mounted display that obtains camera images, extracts an image area surrounding a determined viewing area and transmits the extracted image areas to a receiving station for processing, the size of the extracted area varying based on various factors. Schmidt also discloses displaying augmented reality images on the head mounted display. However, the combination of prior arts does not disclose an electronic device receiving captured images from an HMD, wherein the amount of image processing performed by the HMD and electronic device are responsive to the bandwidth of a wireless communication channel being less than a threshold.
Claims 3, 5-6, 10, 12-13, 17 and 19-20 depend from claims 1, 9 and 16 respectively and are allowed except for Double Patenting rejections for the same reasons.
Claims 4, 7-8, 11, 14-15, 18 and 21 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 for the same reasons as indicated for the claims rejected double patenting above.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20200035025 A1 CROCKER; John Holbrook et al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMIAH CHARLES HALLENBECK-HUBER whose telephone number is (571)272-5248. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 9 A.M. to 5 P.M.
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 Vaughn can be reached on (571)272-3922. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JEREMIAH C HALLENBECK-HUBER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2423