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 Arguments
Arguments and amendments filed 12 February 2026 have been fully considered, but are moot in view of a new rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 7 (and similarly claim 16), the recitation of “wherein the second visual object is displayed instead of the background” renders the claim ambiguous. In claim 1 (or 10) from which claim 7 (or 16) depend, the visual object is the entire background. Is the second object is in place of the first object or the background or both? Clarification is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10-17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over McHugh (US 2019.0279407) in view of Cutler (US 2017.0301067).
Regarding claim 1, McHugh disclose:
A head-wearable display device, the head-wearable display device comprising: at least one camera; displays that are configured to be viewed as a screen by a user wearing the head- wearable display device; at least one processor comprising processing circuitry; and memory storing instructions, wherein the instructions (see Fig. 1-6, 8-9; [0035, 0043-0045, 0050-0061, 0071-0072, 0139]; camera 265 to capture real world image for display on displays 255 (can be multiple for the HMD); processor 240; memory 260),
when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the head-wearable display device, to: display, through the displays, the screen comprising a first object and a background, the background corresponding to at least a portion of a field of view (FOV) of the at least one camera, (see Fig. 1-6, 8-9; [0035, 0043-0045, 0050-0061, 0071-0072, 0139]; first object 930 with background at 910 corresponding to field of view (FOV) within 915 of at least one camera).
McHugh is not explicit as to, but Cutler disclose:
display, through the displays, the screen comprising a first object and a background, the background corresponding to at least a portion of a field of view (FOV) of the at least one camera, receive an input from the user, based on the input and while maintaining the display of the first object on the screen, display a visual object corresponding to an imaginary image, wherein the visual object is displayed instead of the background (see Fig. 3a,b; [0025-0031]; display 330/340; first object (video participant); background (outside of first object) user (manual) input and based on input, maintaining display of first object on screen and visual display object 335/345 instead of background; area 335/345 is entire area of display 330/340)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of applicant’s invention, to combine the known techniques of Cutler to that of McHugh to predictably provide privacy image generation in the background of a virtual setting while maintaining a clear view of the object or area of interest ([0004]).
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Cutler further disclose:
the screen further comprises a second object positioned in at least the portion of the FOV (see Fig.. 3a,b; second object (e.g., team alpha)).
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated herein. Cutler further disclose:
in response to the input, cease displaying the second object included in the screen (see Fig. 3a,b; [0025-0031])
Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. McHugh further disclose:
the first object comprises an enlarged version of a user interface of an external electronic device positioned in at least the portion of the FOV (see Fig. 8b; [0045, 0056]; user interface 806a enlarged in FOV interface from external object (e.g., mobile device 108 interface) to transmit information to HMD 115 for display, which would be further obvious to try since there are a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions (e.g., providing a user interface larger in the HMD view than an external mobile device screen ) to be pursued by one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success.)
Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Cutler further disclose:
a button to receive the input from the user, wherein the input causes the displaying of the visual object instead of the background (see [0017, 0025-0031, 0073]; buttons to effectuate user inputs)
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. McHugh further disclose:
identify a movement of the user, based on the movement of the user, cease displaying the visual object for a predetermined time (see Fig. 9c; second object ceases to display in screen as input is continuous shift of the FOV, where predetermine time is based on shift of user’s FOV)
Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. McHugh further disclose:
display a second visual object, wherein the second visual object is displayed instead the background (see Fig. 8b; second visual object 804a)
Regarding claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. McHugh further disclose:
based on determining that one object in the background is gazed at by the user, reduce an opacity of a portion of the background corresponding to the one object (see [0091] opacity of visual object dependent on gaze of user which predictably allows user to control the opacity of hidden objects in the background).
Regarding claims 10-17, claims 10-17 are rejected under the same rationale as claims 1-8.
Regarding claim 19, McHugh disclose:
A head-wearable display device, the head-wearable display device comprising: at least one camera; displays that are configured to be viewed as a screen by a user wearing the head- wearable display device; at least one processor comprising processing circuitry; and memory storing instructions, wherein the instructions (see Fig. 1-6, 8-9; [0035, 0043-0045, 0050-0061, 0071-0072, 0125-0127, 0139]; camera 265 to capture real world image for display on displays 255 (can be multiple for the HMD 115); processor 240; memory 260),
when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the head-wearable display device, to: display, through the displays, the screen comprising at least one first visual object and a background, the background corresponding to at least a portion of a field of view (FOV) of the at least one camera, receive an input from the user (see Fig. 1-6, 8-9; [0035, 0043-0045, 0050-0061, 0071-0072, 0125-0127, 0139]; first object 801a with background at 801b corresponding to field of view (FOV) within 800a of at least one camera; receiving input from user ([0091] describes an input can produce a visual object to appear), and
McHugh is not explicit as to, but Cutler disclose:
receive an input from the user, and based on receiving the input from the user and while maintaining the display of the at least one first visual object, display a second visual object instead of the background, wherein the second visual object is different than the at least one first visual object, and wherein the second visual object is an imaginary image different than the background, and wherein the second visual object is displayed on an entire area of the screen excluding the first object (see Fig. 3a,b; [0025-0031]; display 330/340; first visual object (video participant); background (outside of first object) user (manual) input and based on input, where the second visual object is 335/345 is imaginary object different than background area (Fig. 3a) is then displayed around first visual object (video participant))
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of applicant’s invention, to combine the known techniques of Cutler to that of McHugh to predictably provide privacy image generation in the background of a virtual setting while maintaining a clear view of the object or area of interest ([0004]).
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 4.
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.
Claim(s) 9 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McHugh and Cutler in view of Berliner (US 2022.0253264).
Regarding claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. While McHugh describes various sensors 265 for providing control to the HMD, it is not explicit as to, but Berliner disclose:
based on an outdoor ambient light obtained using the at least one camera, adjust an opacity of at least a portion of the visual object to display one object in the background area (see [0101, 0113, 0186, 0305]; ambient light sensor (camera) to detect ambient light and change opacity of display (visual object) in order to allow display of an object (person) in the background).
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date of applicant’s invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the known techniques of Berliner to that of McHugh as modified by Cutler to predictably allow a determined object to become at least partially visible based on ambient light ([0305]).
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 9.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KENNETH BUKOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-7913. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday // 0730-1530.
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, Amr Awad can be reached at 571.272.7764. 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.
/kenneth bukowski/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621