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 .
Drawings
The drawings filed 2/14/25 are acceptable to the examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed 6/8/26, 10/10/25 and 5/12/25 have been considered.
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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3-11 and 13-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 and 6-17 of U.S. Patent No.11,689,877. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
The patent claims include all the limitations of the instant application claims with only difference being obvious wording variations describing the same feature. For example;
Claim 1 of patent 11,689,877 sets forth a device similar to the wording of claim 11 of the application, that includes a processor; a memory; at least one speaker (at least four); programming in the memory to perform functions of identify/determine a target location; monitor/determine orientation of the device; selectively emit audio to guide a user and adjust the volume of audio signals. Additionally claim 1 of the patent includes additional features such as a frame, a first temple, and a second temple. Hence the instant application claims are generic to the species of invention covered by the respective patent claims. As such, the instant application claims are anticipated by the patent claims and are therefore not patentably distinct therefrom. (See Eli Lilly and Co. v. Barr Laboratories Inc., 58 USPQ2D 1869, “a later genus claim limitation is anticipated by, and therefore not patentably distinct from, an earlier species claim”, In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010. “Thus, the generic invention is ‘anticipated’ by the species of the patented invention” and the instant “application claims are generic to the species of invention covered by the patent claim, and since without terminal disclaimer, extant species claims preclude issuance of generic application claims”). The limitations of claims 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 are found in claims 2/1, 4, 3, 7, 8, 9 and 6 respectively of the patent. Claim 17 of patent 11,689,877 sets forth a medium similar to the wording of claim 20 of the application, that is used with a device with a processor; a memory; at least one speaker (at least four); programming in the memory to perform functions of identify/determine a target location; monitor/determine orientation of the device; selectively emit audio to guide a user and adjust the volume of audio signals. Additionally claim 17 of the patent includes additional features such as capturing images in an environment and identify at least one object or feature within the captured images. Hence the instant application claims are generic to the species of invention covered by the respective patent claims. As such, the instant application claims are anticipated by the patent claims and are therefore not patentably distinct therefrom. (See Eli Lilly and Co. v. Barr Laboratories Inc., 58 USPQ2D 1869, “a later genus claim limitation is anticipated by, and therefore not patentably distinct from, an earlier species claim”, In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010. “Thus, the generic invention is ‘anticipated’ by the species of the patented invention” and the instant “application claims are generic to the species of invention covered by the patent claim, and since without terminal disclaimer, extant species claims preclude issuance of generic application claims”). Claim 10 of patent 11,689,877 sets forth a method similar to the wording of claim 1 of the application, that is used with a device that includes a processor; a memory; an image sensor and at least one speaker; the method identify/determine a target location; monitor/determine orientation of the device; selectively emit audio to guide a user and adjust the volume of audio signals. Additionally claim 10 of the patent includes additional features such as determining a match between an object of feature captured and a stored object of feature. Hence the instant application claims are generic to the species of invention covered by the respective patent claims. As such, the instant application claims are anticipated by the patent claims and are therefore not patentably distinct therefrom. (See Eli Lilly and Co. v. Barr Laboratories Inc., 58 USPQ2D 1869, “a later genus claim limitation is anticipated by, and therefore not patentably distinct from, an earlier species claim”, In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010. “Thus, the generic invention is ‘anticipated’ by the species of the patented invention” and the instant “application claims are generic to the species of invention covered by the patent claim, and since without terminal disclaimer, extant species claims preclude issuance of generic application claims”). The limitations of claims 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 are found in claims 10, 10, 11,12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 respectively of the patent.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-8, 11-13, 15-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sommer et al. (US 2020/0264006 A1), cited by applicant.
Re claims 1, 11 and 20: Sommet al. teaches a device to be mounted on a head of a user (such as HMD 200) comprising;
a processor (controller 204);
a memory (230);
at least one image sensor (220);
at least one speaker (210A, 210B) that produces at least three directional audio zones (at least in areas in front, to the left and to the right); and
programming in the memory, wherein execution of the programming by the processor configures the device to perform functions (paragraph [0057] software executable by the controller), including functions to:
identify a target location (paragraph [0036] determine a target place);
monitor orientation of the device with respect to the target location (paragraphs [0061, 0067-0068]);
selectively emit audio signals from the at least one speaker in respective directional audio zones responsive to a current orientation to guide the user to the target location (paragraphs [0068-0069]); and
adjust a volume of the audio signals to indicate a distance of the device from the target location (paragraph [0069]). The method limitations set forth in claims 1 and 20 set forth operations of elements in Sommer et al. as discussed above with respect to claim 11. Also note that the non-transitory medium as set forth in claim 20 is taught by at least by the mediums discussed in paragraph [0059].
Re claims 12 and 2: the selection of an audio zone responsive to the current orientation for emitting audio signals is satisfied by the discussion in paragraph [0068] in which head orientation is determined and inputted into navigation component (306) to provide the user with audio guiding the user by playing the audio for a zone (front, left and right in a manner as discussed in paragraph [0035])
Re claims 13 and 3: the claimed match between a captured image and a stored object for determining a position as set forth is taught by at least the discussion in paragraph [0082, 0089] in which an inputted target location can be input and used in conjunction with map information of obstacles allowing for a user to determine his position and when he reaches a target location place or location.
Re claims 15 and 5: See paragraph [0061] in which a position and orientation within the real world is determined.
Re claims 16 and 6: note use of a display (202) for displaying virtual content as set forth
Re claims 17 and 7: the claimed random location as set forth is taught by an object for which the location is discoverable as discussed in paragraph [0036] and in which used as a target location in which a user desires to go.
Re claims 18 and 8: having a target location identified from a retrieved location in a memory is taught by a target location that is known by the spatial audio navigation system as discussed in paragraph [0036]. i.e. the navigation system must include a memory of stored location(s) since it is a component that is electrical in nature (such as memory (130, 230))
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 9-10, 14 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable over the prior art if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The claimed combination of features as set forth in claim 3/1 and 13/11 that determines the position of the device by identifying at least two location points associated with the first matched object or feature, determining a relative position between the at least two location points associated with the first matched object or feature in the captured images and corresponding location points for the first matched object or feature in the previously obtained information, and calculating the position of the device from the determined relative position and the position information for the corresponding location points as set forth in claims 4 and 14 respectively is neither taught by nor an obvious variation of the art of record. The claimed combination of features as set forth in claim 13/11 that additionally includes a Global positioning sensor (GPS), retrieves GPS location information, request the previously obtained information from a server using the GPS location information and corresponding to the GPS location information and to receive the requested previously obtained information as set forth in claim 19 is neither taught by nor an obvious variation of the art of record.
neither taught by nor an obvious variation of the art of record. The claimed device including in combination the features of claim 3/1, wherein the device further comprises a wireless communication component that is operatively connected to a server system through a network, the server system storing the previously obtained information, and wherein the method further comprises: retrieving the previously obtained information from the server system; and storing the previously obtained information in the memory of the device as set forth in claim 9 is neither taught by nor an obvious variation of the art of record. The limitations of claim 10 depend from those features of claim 9/3/1.
Conclusion
The art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wannerberb and Shrivastava et al. are arrangements that guide a user to a target location.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW SNIEZEK whose telephone number is (571)272-7563. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00 AM-3:30 PM 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, Ahmad Matar can be reached at 571-272-7488. 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.
/ANDREW SNIEZEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
/A.S./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693 9/23/26
Prosecution Insights