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 .
Reissue Applications
This application seeks to reissue US Patent No. 11,790,871 (“the ‘871 patent”). In a January 30, 2026 response to the September 30, 2025 non-final Office action, the applicant has amended claims 1, 8, 15, and 21, and added new claims 22-26. Claims 1-26 are pending. This is a broadening reissue application.
For reissue applications filed before September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the law and rules in effect on September 15, 2012. Where specifically designated, these are “pre-AIA ” provisions.
For reissue applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the current provisions.
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceeding in which Patent No. 11,790,871 is or was involved. These proceedings would include any trial before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, interferences, reissues, reexaminations, supplemental examinations, and litigation.
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue application.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
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 1-6, 15-21, and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roth, US 20120020428 in view of Harviainen, WO 2018148076.
Claim 1: Roth discloses a method comprising:
at a first device comprising a processor (Fig. 1: first electronics device 100 is a device comprising a processor. See ¶65):
obtaining two-dimensional (2D) content referenced by a content item for display via an application on a display of the first device (A digital broadcast signal (a “content item”) contains 2D multimedia content (i.e., video, images, etc.: ¶225), and supplemental content. ¶¶224-230. The video and supplemental information that are contained within the broadcast signal are “referenced” by the broadcast signal based on overhead signaling. See e.g. ¶¶116-123.);
detecting that the content item references content associated with the 2D content (Supplementary information contained within (that is, referenced by: see above) the broadcast signal is detected. ¶¶228-230. This supplemental information is associated with the 2D multimedia content.);
determining to display the associated content on a second device based on detecting a circumstance associated with automatically displaying the associated content on the second device (The first device 100 transmits the associated supplementary information to the second device. ¶¶ 257 and 266. The transmission and display of this supplementary content is automatic. ¶13 and Fig. 13. The supplementary information is only delivered to the second device when it is within the same house or room as the first device 100. ¶¶ 72 and 524-525. This shows that the determination to automatically transmit and display the supplementary information on the second device is based on detecting a location-based circumstance); and
based on determining to display the associated content on a second device, initiating display of the associated content on the second device (The first device causes the associated content to be transmitted to the second device, thereby initiating its display on the second device. ¶¶ 257 and 266.).
Roth fails to disclose that the content associated with the 2D content is 3D content, wherein the 3D content is positioned relative to the physical environment based on a position of the first device.
Harviainen discloses that 2D content displayed on a first device, and 3D content associated with 2D content is delivered to and displayed on a second device, wherein the 3D content is positioned relative to the physical environment based on a position of the first device (2D television content is displayed on a TV (a first device), and augmented reality content that is related to the television content is displayed on a user’s head-mounted device (a second device). Harviainen ¶¶ 3-6 and 97; Fig. 1B. The AR content is 3D content, and is displayed adjacent to the TV. ¶¶ 31-34 and 38. This 3D content is therefore positioned in the environment based on the position of the TV.).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Roth with the teachings of Harviainen, the rationale being to provide viewers with more immersive and interesting supplementary content.a
Claim 2: Roth-Harviainen discloses that determining to display the 3D content on the second device is further based on input (Content selection is based on user preferences, thus is based on input. Harviainen ¶72).
Claim 3: Roth-Harviainen discloses that the second device obtains the 3D content from the first device (The supplemental (3D: see Harviainen) content is delivered by the first device. Roth Fig. 13: S120.).
Claim 4: Roth-Harviainen discloses that the second device obtains the 3D content from a source different than the first device (Harviainen Fig. 6 – content is retrieved from server 602, which is a content source different than the first device.). It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Roth with the teachings of Lee, the rationale being to enable access to a greater variety of 3D content.
Claim 5: Roth-Harviainen discloses that the second device displays the 3D content using one or more features not available on the first device (The 3D content is displayed as AR content on a headset, which is known in the art to use features not available on the television. See e.g. Harviainen ¶4.).
Claim 6: Roth-Harviainen discloses that the content item comprises markup language (Roth ¶106). It is not explicitly disclosed that the content item comprises a markup language statement corresponding to the 3D content. However, official notice is taken that this was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Therefore its inclusion into the Roth-Harviainen combination would have been obvious, the rationale being to utilize a widely known and understood way to identify and describe the supplementary information, thereby simplifying implementation.
Claim 15: Roth-Harviainen discloses a system comprising: a first device; a second device; a processor; and a computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions (Roth 64) that upon execution by the processor cause the system to perform operations, the operations comprising the method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1).
Claims 16-20: see rejection of claims 2-6, respectively.
Claim 21: Roth discloses a method comprising:
at a first device comprising a processor (Fig. 1: first electronics device 100 is a device comprising a processor. See ¶65):
obtaining two-dimensional (2D) content referenced by a content item for display via an application on a display of the first device (A digital broadcast signal (a “content item”) contains 2D multimedia content (i.e., video, images, etc.: ¶225), and supplemental content. ¶¶224-230. The video and supplemental information that are contained within the broadcast signal are “referenced” by the broadcast signal based on overhead signaling. See e.g. ¶¶116-123.);
detecting that the content item references content associated with the 2D content (Supplementary information contained within (that is, referenced by: see above) the broadcast signal is detected. ¶¶228-230. This supplemental information is associated with the 2D multimedia content.);
determining to display the associated content on a second device based on detecting that the first device and the second device satisfy a positional relationship criterion with respect to one another (The first device 100 transmits the associated supplementary information to the second device. ¶¶ 257 and 266. The transmission and display of this supplementary content is automatic. ¶13 and Fig. 13. The supplementary information is only delivered to the second device when it is within the same house or room as the first device 100. ¶¶ 72 and 524-525. This shows that the determination to automatically transmit and display the supplementary information on the second device is based on the first and second devices satisfying a positional relationship criterion); and
based on determining to display the associated content on a second device, initiating display of the associated content on the second device (The first device causes the associated content to be transmitted to the second device, thereby initiating its display on the second device. ¶¶ 257 and 266.).
Roth fails to disclose that the content associated with the 2D content is 3D content, and wherein the 3D content is positioned relative to the physical environment based on a position of the first device.
However, Harviainen discloses that 2D content displayed on a first device, and 3D content associated with 2D content is delivered to and displayed on a second device, wherein the 3D content is positioned relative to the physical environment based on a position of the first device (2D television content is displayed on a TV (a first device), and augmented reality content that is related to the television content is displayed on a user’s head-mounted device (a second device). Harviainen ¶¶ 3-6 and 97; Fig. 1B. The AR content is 3D content, and is displayed adjacent to the TV. ¶¶ 31-34 and 38. This 3D content is therefore positioned in the environment based on the position of the TV.).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Roth with the teachings of Harviainen, the rationale being to provide viewers with more immersive and interesting supplementary content.a
Claim 24: Roth-Harviainen discloses that the second device is an HMD configured to display the 3D content, wherein the second device displays the 3D content in an augmented reality (AR) view in which the 3D content is superimposed within the physical environment of the first device (Harviainen Abstract, ¶34, and Figs. 11-16.).
Claim 25: Roth-Harviainen discloses that the AR view is provided by compositing images of the physical environment with images of the 3D content (Harviainen ¶¶ 34, 38, and Figures 12-13.).
Claim 26: Roth-Harviainen fails to explicitly disclose that the AR view is provided by compositing pass-through video of the physical environment with images of the 3D content. However, official notice is taken that this was widely known as of the effective filing date of this invention. For example, many known AR headsets provide a view of the user’s environment by capturing the surroundings with a camera, and by overlaying virtual objects onto that scene. Therefore it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to modify Roth-Harviainen to include this, the rationale being to use a well-known and widely used headset technology, thereby simplifying implementation.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roth-Harviainen in view of Lee, KR 20160087915.
Claim 7: Roth-Harviainen fails to disclose that the 3D content comprises stereoscopic display information.
Lee discloses displaying 3D content on a user’s headset as stereoscopic display information (see Lee pg. 4 ¶2).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Roth-Harviainen with Lee, the rationale being to provide users with an improved experience.
Claims 8-14 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roth-Harviainen in view of Tomita, US 9,414,118.
Claim 8: the Roth-Harviainen combination that is described above discloses a method comprising:
at a second device comprising a processor (The second device 200 is a computing device such as a tablet, therefore comprises a processor. Roth ¶64):
determining that the second device and a first device are within the same room or house as one another; based on detecting that the second device and the first device are within a same room or house as one another (supplementary content is only delivered to and displayed on the second device when the device is within the same room or house as the first device. Roth ¶¶ 72 and 524-525),
determining to display three-dimensional (3D) content on the second device (Harviainen ¶115.), wherein the first device displays two-dimensional (2D) content referenced by a content item, the content item associating the 3D content with the 2D content (A digital broadcast signal (a “content item”) contains 2D multimedia content (i.e., video, images, etc.: ¶225), and supplemental content. Roth ¶¶224-230. This supplementary information is 3D content. Harviainen ¶34. The video and supplemental 3D content that are contained within the broadcast signal are “referenced” by the broadcast signal based on overhead signaling. See e.g. Roth ¶¶116-123.); and
based on determining to display the 3D content on a second device, obtaining and displaying the 3D content on the second device (Harviainen ¶¶ 113-115.).
Roth-Harviainen discloses that the supplementary 3D content is only displayed on the second device when it is determined to be within the same house or room as the TV. See e.g. Roth ¶72. The system does not provide detail about how this determination is made, thus fails to disclose determining that the second and first devices are within a threshold distance of one another, and determining to display the supplementary 3D content based on this determination.
However, Tomita discloses determining whether to deliver supplementary content from a first display device to a second display device, the determining based on determining that the second and first devices are within a threshold distance of one another (Determining whether the user of the mobile terminal is “in front of” the TV includes determining the distance between the TV and the mobile terminal. 10:47-61 and Fig. 14: S501. See also claim 1. The POSITA would understand that this binary determination (Fig. 14: S501) based on the distance calculation involves determining whether the devices are within a threshold distance of one another).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Roth-Harviainen with the teachings of Tomita, the rationale being to provide a more accurate measure of whether the user of the second device is within viewing distance of the first device, thereby ensuring that supplementary 3D content is only delivered to the second device when it is of use to the viewer.
Claims 9-14: see rejection of claims 2-7, respectively.
Claims 22 and 23: Roth-Harviainen discloses that the supplementary 3D content is only displayed on the second device when it is determined to be within the same house or room as the TV. See e.g. Roth ¶72. The system does not provide detail about how this determination is made, thus fails to disclose determining that the second and first devices are within a threshold distance of one another.
However, Tomita discloses determining whether to deliver supplementary content from a first display device to a second display device, the determining based on determining that the second and first devices are within a threshold distance of one another (Determining whether the user of the mobile terminal is “in front of” the TV includes determining the distance between the TV and the mobile terminal. 10:47-61 and Fig. 14: S501. See also claim 1. The POSITA would understand that this binary determination (Fig. 14: S501) based on the distance calculation involves determining whether the devices are within a threshold distance of one another).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Roth-Harviainen with the teachings of Tomita, the rationale being to provide a more accurate measure of whether the user of the second device is within viewing distance of the first device, thereby ensuring that supplementary 3D content is only delivered to the second device when it is of use to the viewer.
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 ROBERT J HANCE whose telephone number is (571)270-5319. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11:00am-7:00pm 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, Michael Fuelling can be reached at (571) 270-1367. 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.
/ROBERT J HANCE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Conferees: /JOSEPH R POKRZYWA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992 /M.F/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992