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 .
This action is in response to the amendment filed by Applicant on 03/02/2026. This action is made FINAL.
Examiner’s Notes
Applicant’s attention is respectfully directed to the difference between the claimed subject matter and the argued features. For example, the Applicant states that “In contrast with the claimed multi-mode mirroring and control functionality, Pahud recites (e.g., in paragraph 0035 as cited in the office action with respect to the rejection of claims 17 and 18) interface menus presented based on an interaction context (e.g., use of real inputs, virtual inputs, sensor inputs, etc.) for interacting with a virtual object and this differs from the mirroring and control functionality that corresponds to multiple modes, such as e.g., a normal consumer mode that includes a set of mirroring/control features for normal consumer use (e.g., presenting Wi-Fi signal strength, battery charge percentage, etc.) and a demo mode that includes a different set of mirroring/control features corresponding to sales or tech support representative use (e.g., demo controls associated with an orientation and experience of a demo, an IPD adjustment, etc.) as recited in the claims. However, the underlined language is not claimed.
An allowability agreement seems to be possible in light of paragraphs 24 and 25 of the instant application. Specifically, it is recommended that the Applicant specifies the definition of the function of each mode in the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-16, and 18-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 12, 16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pahud et al (Publication number: US 2019/0004684) in view of Tsukahara et al (Publication number: US 2015/0002434) in view of Kim et al (Publication number: US 2018/0321493).
Consider Claim 1, Pahud et al shows a method (see figure 6), comprising:
(a) At a processor of an electronic device: pairing the electronic device with a head mounted device (HMD) such that communications are established between the electronic device and the HMD (see figures 1, and 2A; and paragraphs 21, 47, and 48); (The electronic device is read as auxiliary mixed-input device 110, and the HMD is read as HMD 120).
(b) Providing mirroring functionality such that content rendered on a display of the HMD is additionally rendered on a display of the electronic device (see figure 2C; paragraphs 57-59); (The display 210A and the display 220A are operable to display the virtual object 230. The mobile device 210 configured to determine real input based on real device space tracker data associated with mobile device 210. The HMD 220 is configured to determine virtual input based on virtual device space tracker data associated with the HMD 220).
(c) In response to said providing the mirroring functionality, enabling the electronic device to interact with the HMD (see figure 6).
However, Pahud et al does not specifically show that the electronic device controls a specified functionality of the HMD.
In the same field of endeavor, Tsukahara et al shows that the electronic device controls a specified functionality of the HMD (see paragraphs 91-94; and figure 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the controlling function of input device 2 of Tsukahara et al into the electronic device of Pahud et al in order for the electronic device of Pahud to change the settings of the HMD (see Tsukahara et al; paragraphs 91-94).
However, Pahud in view of Tsukahara do not specifically show controlling the specified functionality of the HMD is performed in accordance with a selected mode of a plurality of available modes, and wherein each mode of the plurality of available modes includes a different set of mirroring and control features to control different aspects of the specified functionality of the HMD.
In the same field of endeavor, Kim et al shows controlling the specified functionality of the HMD is performed in accordance with a selected mode of a plurality of available modes, and wherein each mode of the plurality of available modes includes a different set of mirroring and control features to control different aspects of the specified functionality of the HMD (see figures 4 and 5; and paragraphs 33-35); (Kim et al shows displaying image information related to selected content on a display unit provided in the HMD, sensing a user's head movement through a sensor provided in the HMD, controlling image information displayed on the display unit according to the sensed movement, sensing an occurrence of a preset situation, sensing a movement of the mobile terminal based on the occurred specific situation, controlling image information displayed on the display unit according to the sensed movement of the mobile terminal, and controlling image information displayed on the display unit based on a movement sensed through the HMD when an end of the preset situation is sensed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the teaching of Kim et al into the teaching of Pahud and Tsukahara in order to allow a specific device to be determined as a device for inputting a control signal of the HMD (see Kim et al; paragraphs 33-35).
Consider Claim 19, Pahud et al shows a system (see figure 1), comprising:
(a) A processor; a computer readable medium storing instruction that when executed by the processor cause the processor to perform operations comprising: pairing the electronic device with a head mounted device (HMD) such that communications are established between the electronic device and the HMD (see figures 1, and 2A; and paragraphs 21, 47, and 48); (The electronic device is read as auxiliary mixed-input device 110, and the HMD is read as HMD 120).
(b) Providing mirroring functionality such that content rendered on a display of the HMD is additionally rendered on a display of the electronic device (see figure 2C; paragraphs 57-59); (The display 210A and the display 220A are operable to display the virtual object 230. The mobile device 210 configured to determine real input based on real device space tracker data associated with mobile device 210. The HMD 220 is configured to determine virtual input based on virtual device space tracker data associated with the HMD 220).
(c) In response to said providing the mirroring functionality, enabling the electronic device to interact with the HMD (see figure 6).
However, Pahud et al does not specifically show that the electronic device controls a specified functionality of the HMD.
In the same field of endeavor, Tsukahara et al shows that the electronic device controls a specified functionality of the HMD (see paragraphs 91-94; and figure 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the controlling function of input device 2 of Tsukahara et al into the electronic device of Pahud et al in order for the electronic device of Pahud to change the settings of the HMD (see Tsukahara et al; paragraphs 91-94).
However, Pahud in view of Tsukahara do not specifically show controlling the specified functionality of the HMD is performed in accordance with a selected mode of a plurality of available modes, and wherein each mode of the plurality of available modes includes a different set of mirroring and control features to control different aspects of the specified functionality of the HMD.
In the same field of endeavor, Kim et al shows controlling the specified functionality of the HMD is performed in accordance with a selected mode of a plurality of available modes, and wherein each mode of the plurality of available modes includes a different set of mirroring and control features to control different aspects of the specified functionality of the HMD (see figures 4 and 5; and paragraphs 33-35); (Kim et al shows displaying image information related to selected content on a display unit provided in the HMD, sensing a user's head movement through a sensor provided in the HMD, controlling image information displayed on the display unit according to the sensed movement, sensing an occurrence of a preset situation, sensing a movement of the mobile terminal based on the occurred specific situation, controlling image information displayed on the display unit according to the sensed movement of the mobile terminal, and controlling image information displayed on the display unit based on a movement sensed through the HMD when an end of the preset situation is sensed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the teaching of Kim et al into the teaching of Pahud and Tsukahara in order to allow a specific device to be determined as a device for inputting a control signal of the HMD (see Kim et al; paragraphs 33-35).
Consider Claim 20, Pahud et al shows a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that when executed by a processor cause the processor to perform operations (see figures 1 and 6), comprising:
(a) Pairing the electronic device with a head mounted device (HMD) such that communications are established between the electronic device and the HMD (see figures 1, and 2A; and paragraphs 21, 47, and 48); (The electronic device is read as auxiliary mixed-input device 110, and the HMD is read as HMD 120).
(b) Providing mirroring functionality such that content rendered on a display of the HMD is additionally rendered on a display of the electronic device (see figure 2C; paragraphs 57-59); (The display 210A and the display 220A are operable to display the virtual object 230. The mobile device 210 configured to determine real input based on real device space tracker data associated with mobile device 210. The HMD 220 is configured to determine virtual input based on virtual device space tracker data associated with the HMD 220).
(c) In response to said providing the mirroring functionality, enabling the electronic device to interact with the HMD (see figure 6).
However, Pahud et al does not specifically show that the electronic device controls a specified functionality of the HMD.
In the same field of endeavor, Tsukahara et al shows that the electronic device controls a specified functionality of the HMD (see paragraphs 91-94; and figure 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the controlling function of input device 2 of Tsukahara et al into the electronic device of Pahud et al in order for the electronic device of Pahud to change the settings of the HMD (see Tsukahara et al; paragraphs 91-94).
However, Pahud in view of Tsukahara do not specifically show controlling the specified functionality of the HMD is performed in accordance with a selected mode of a plurality of available modes, and wherein each mode of the plurality of available modes includes a different set of mirroring and control features to control different aspects of the specified functionality of the HMD.
In the same field of endeavor, Kim et al shows controlling the specified functionality of the HMD is performed in accordance with a selected mode of a plurality of available modes, and wherein each mode of the plurality of available modes includes a different set of mirroring and control features to control different aspects of the specified functionality of the HMD (see figures 4 and 5; and paragraphs 33-35); (Kim et al shows displaying image information related to selected content on a display unit provided in the HMD, sensing a user's head movement through a sensor provided in the HMD, controlling image information displayed on the display unit according to the sensed movement, sensing an occurrence of a preset situation, sensing a movement of the mobile terminal based on the occurred specific situation, controlling image information displayed on the display unit according to the sensed movement of the mobile terminal, and controlling image information displayed on the display unit based on a movement sensed through the HMD when an end of the preset situation is sensed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the teaching of Kim et al into the teaching of Pahud and Tsukahara in order to allow a specific device to be determined as a device for inputting a control signal of the HMD (see Kim et al; paragraphs 33-35).
Consider Claim 2, Pahud et al shows that the specified functionality of the HMD being controlled by the electronic device comprises opening applications of the HMD (see figure 3A and paragraph 63). While Pahud et al does not specifically state “closing applications of the HMD,” the USPO takes official notice that it is well known and expected in the art that the interactivity interface would include a closing function in order for the user to easily work on the task at hand.
Consider Claim 3, Tsukahara et al shows that the specified functionality of the HMD being controlled by the electronic device comprises controlling volume functions of the HMD (see paragraph 92).
Consider Claim 4, Pahud et al shows that the specified functionality of the HMD being controlled by the electronic device comprises controlling environments of the HMD (see paragraphs 52 and 53; and figures 2A-2B); (The virtual experience can be an augmented reality experience that generates or display virtual object in a real-world environment. The virtual mixed-input device 120 can include additional sensors for tracking motion to make selections and annotations with reference to the virtual experience. The auxiliary mixed-input device 110 supports generating real-input for the interactivity system 100. The auxiliary mixed-input device 110 operates with the real device sensor 112, real device space tracker 114 and the haptic feedback component 118).
Consider Claim 6, Tsukahara et al shows that specified functionality of the HMD being controlled by the electronic device comprises controlling accessibility functions of the HMD (see paragraph 92); (settings are read as accessibility functions).
Consider Claim 12, Pahud et al shows that the mirroring functionality is enabled based on receiving, from the HMD, a request for assistance associated with operation of the HMD (see figure 6; paragraphs 70 and 71); (At block 620, a selection input associated with a virtual object is accessed. The selection input is based on real input associated with a selection device and virtual input associated with a mixed-reality device, the selection device having a first display that displays the virtual object and the mixed-reality device having a second display that displays the virtual object).
Consider Claim 16, Pahud et al shows that the content rendered on the display of the HMD and the display of the electronic device comprises a view of a three-dimensional environment comprising applications, images or 3D objects (see figure 2C; paragraphs 57-59); (The display 210A and the display 220A are operable to display the virtual object 230. The mobile device 210 configured to determine real input based on real device space tracker data associated with mobile device 210. The HMD 220 is configured to determine virtual input based on virtual device space tracker data associated with the HMD 220).
Consider Claim 18, Pahud et al shows that controlling the specified functionality of the HMD may be performed according to a selected mode of a plurality of available modes, wherein the selected mode is enabled with respect to a specified context (see paragraph 35); (The interactivity system is operable support several interactivity features to enhance the selection operation, including: selecting and presenting context-based interfaces where specific interface menus are presented based on the interaction context, interface elements that provide visual feedback of the selection operation, haptic feedback for the selection operation, collaborative selection between two mobile devices, additional input modes (e.g., gesture, voice) and mapping of the virtual object display between the mobile device and the HMD).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pahud et al (Publication number: US 2019/0004684) in view of Tsukahara et al (Publication number: US 2015/0002434) in view of Kim et al in view of Rachakonda et al (Publication number: US 2025/0156063).
Consider Claim 5, Pahud et al in view of Tsukahara et al, and Kim et al do not specifically show that the specified functionality of the HMD being controlled by the electronic device comprises controlling brightness or contrast functions of the HMD.
In the same field of endeavor, Rachakonda et al shows that the specified functionality of the HMD being controlled by the electronic device comprises controlling brightness or contrast functions of the HMD (see paragraph 126).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the teaching of Rachakonda et al into the teaching of Pahud et al and Tsukahara et al, and Kim et al in order to provide the user with various control options (see Rachakonda et al; paragraphs 40-42).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pahud et al (Publication number: US 2019/0004684) in view of Tsukahara et al (Publication number: US 2015/0002434) in view of Kim et al in view of Liu et al (Publication number: US 2015/0049112)
Consider Claim 7 and 8, Pahud et al in view of Tsukahara et al, and Kim et al do not specifically show that the specified functionality of the HMD being controlled by the electronic device comprises recalibrating hand tracking of the HMD, wherein the specified functionality of the HMD being controlled by the electronic device comprises recalibrating gaze tracking of the HMD.
In related art, Liu et al shows that the specified functionality of the HMD being controlled by the electronic device comprises recalibrating hand tracking of the HMD, wherein the specified functionality of the HMD being controlled by the electronic device comprises recalibrating gaze tracking of the HMD (see paragraphs 31-33).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the teaching of Liu et al into the teaching of Pahud et al and Tsukahara et al, and Kim et al in order to provide a tracking module that is accurate (see Liu et al; paragraph 31).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pahud et al (Publication number: US 2019/0004684) in view of Tsukahara et al (Publication number: US 2015/0002434) in view of Kim et al in view of Edwin et al (Patent number: US 11,880,033).
Consider Claim 9, Pahud et al in view of Tsukahara et al, and Kim et al do not specifically show that the specified functionality of the HMD being controlled by the electronic device comprises recalibrating an interpupillary distance (IPD) of the HMD.
In related art, Edwin et al shows that the specified functionality of the HMD being controlled by the electronic device comprises recalibrating an interpupillary distance (IPD) of the HMD (see column 33, lines 15-25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the teaching of Edwin et al into the teaching of Pahud et al and Tsukahara et al, and Kim et al in order to indicate estimated 3D positions of the centers of rotation of the user's eyes (see Edwin et al; column 33, lines 15-25).
Claims 10-11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pahud et al (Publication number: US 2019/0004684) in view of Tsukahara et al (Publication number: US 2015/0002434) in view of Kim et al in view of Suzuki (Publication number: US 2023/0095811).
Consider Claims 10-11, Pahud et al in view of Tsukahara et al, and Kim et al do not specifically show that the mirroring functionality is permitted based on determining that the electronic device and the HMD are registered with a same system, wherein the pairing is permitted based on determining that the electronic device and the HMD are registered with a same system.
In the same field of endeavor, Suzuki shows that the mirroring functionality is permitted based on determining that the electronic device and the HMD are registered with a same system, wherein the pairing is permitted based on determining that the electronic device and the HMD are registered with a same system (see paragraphs 42-44).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the teaching of Suzuki into the teaching of Pahud et al and Tsukahara et al, and Kim et al in order to determine whether the HMD is waiting for cooperation (see Suzuki; paragraphs 42-44).
Consider Claim 14, Pahud et al in view of Tsukahara et al, and Kim et al do not specifically show that said pairing the electronic device with the HMD is automatically initiated in response to wireless communications initiated between the electronic device and the HMD.
In the same field of endeavor, Suzuki shows that that said pairing the electronic device with the HMD is automatically initiated in response to wireless communications initiated between the electronic device and the HMD (see paragraphs 42-44).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the teaching of Suzuki into the teaching of Pahud et al and Tsukahara et al, and Kim et al in order to determine whether the HMD is waiting for cooperation (see Suzuki; paragraphs 42-44).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pahud et al (Publication number: US 2019/0004684) in view of Tsukahara et al (Publication number: US 2015/0002434) in view of Kim et al in view of Ahmed et al (Publication number: US 2022/0361266).
Consider Claim 13, Pahud et al in view of Tsukahara et al, and Kim et al shows that said pairing the electronic device with the HMD is automatically initiated in response to a physical contact made between the electronic device and the HMD.
In related art, Ahmed et al shows that said pairing the electronic device with the HMD is automatically initiated in response to a physical contact made between the electronic device and the HMD (see paragraphs 8 and 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the teaching of Ahmed et al into the teaching of Pahud et al and Tsukahara et al, and Kim et al in order to simplify end user interactions (See Ahmed et al; paragraphs 8 and 9).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pahud et al (Publication number: US 2019/0004684) in view of Tsukahara et al (Publication number: US 2015/0002434) in view of Kim et al in view of Han et al (Publication number: US 2021/0176617).
Consider Claim 15, Pahud et al in view of Tsukahara et al, and Kim et al do not specifically show that said pairing the electronic device with the HMD is automatically initiated in response to a selection of the HMD from a list of HMDs located within a proximity of the electronic device.
In related art, Han et al shows that said pairing the electronic device with the HMD is automatically initiated in response to a selection of the HMD from a list of HMDs located within a proximity of the electronic device (see paragraphs 92-94).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the teaching of Han et al into the teaching of Pahud et al and Tsukahara et al, and Kim et al in order to connect to more than one device (see Han et al; paragraph 93).
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 MICHAEL A FARAGALLA whose telephone number is (571)270-1107. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00.
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, Matthew Eason can be reached at 571-270-7230. 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 A FARAGALLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2624 05/31/2026
Prosecution Insights