DETAILED ACTION
It would be of great assistance to the Office if all incoming papers pertaining to a filed application carried the following items:
1. Application number (checked for accuracy, including series code and serial no.).
2. Group art unit number (copied from most recent Office communication).
3. Filing date.
4. Name of the examiner who prepared the most recent Office action.
5. Title of invention.
6. Confirmation number (See MPEP § 503).
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 2 – 4, 7, 9 – 12, 15 and 17 – 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rodriguez (US 2019/0146219).
As to claim 2, Rodriguez discloses a method, comprising:
receiving sensor data from a sensor (receiving from a time-of-flight sensing component of the augmented reality eyewear device and a visible-light sensing camera sense visible light radiation 103 reflected off of the wristwatch [0042]) of a head-wearable device (augmented reality eyewear device 101 of fig. 1 [0042]) worn by a user (user of fig. 1);
determining, based at least in part on the sensor data, whether an augmented-display criterion is satisfied for an electronic device (determining from sensor data a position and orientation of the watch at 304 of fig. 3a [0057] and specifically determining whether the wristwatch 102 is in the center of the user's field of view and APPS 902 of fig.9 are selected [0076]);
and in response to a determination that the electronic device satisfies the augmented-display criterion (in response to determining that the watch is in the center of the user's field of view [0076]):
causing the head-wearable device (augmented reality eyewear device 101 of fig. 1) to present to the user (user of fig. 1) a control (a series of application icons 301 of fig. 3) for activating a function of the electronic device (music icon 301 activates graphic user interface for music player of fig. 4 [0058]).
As to claim 3 (dependent on 2), Rodriguez discloses the method, wherein
the augmented-display criterion relates to a position of the electronic device relative to the head-wearable device (determining whether the wristwatch 102 is in the center of the user's field of view [0076] as the augmented reality eyewear device101 is worn by the user as in fig. 1, wherein the augmented reality eyewear device determines the position and orientation of the wristwatch [0057]).
As to claim 4 (dependent on 3), Rodriguez discloses the method, wherein
the augmented-display criterion is satisfied when at least a portion of the electronic device (wristwatch 102 of fig. 1) is within a field of view of the head-wearable device (center of the user's field of view [0076] as the augmented reality eyewear device101 is worn by the user as in fig. 1).
As to claim 7 (dependent on 2), Rodriguez discloses the method, further comprising: before causing presentation of the control (a series of application icons 301 of fig. 3) for activating the function of the electronic device (music icon 301 activates graphic user interface for music player of fig. 4 [0058]), providing an indication to the user that an augmented representation of a user interface associated with the electronic device is available (displaying a graphical user interface 901 of a menu interface to the user [0076] comprising icon APPS 902 of fig. 9 indicating to the user that an augmented representation of additional apps and corresponding interfaces is available).
As to claim 9 (dependent on 2), Rodriguez discloses the method, wherein
the control (a series of application icons 301 of fig. 3) for activating the function of the electronic device (music icon 301 activates graphic user interface for music player of fig. 4 [0058]) is associated with presentation of an augmented representation of a user interface associated with the electronic device (music player interface of fig. 4) and
selection of the control (selectin music 301 of fig. 3 [0055 – 0056]) causes the head-wearable device (augmented reality eyewear device 101 of fig. 1) to present the augmented representation of the user interface associated with the electronic device (presenting music player interface of fig. 4 [0058]).
As to claim 10, Rodriguez discloses a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (memory storage [0033]) associated with a head- wearable device (augmented reality eyewear device 101 of fig. 1 [0042]) to present an augmented representation of a user interface associated with an electronic device (music player user interface associated with wristwatch shown in fig. 4), the non-transitory computer readable storage medium including instructions that, when executed by one or more processors (central processing unit [0033]) of a head-wearable device, cause the head-wearable device to:
receive sensor data from a sensor (receiving from a time-of-flight sensing component of the augmented reality eyewear device and a visible-light sensing camera sense visible light radiation 103 reflected off of the wristwatch [0042]) of a head-wearable device (augmented reality eyewear device 101 of fig. 1 [0042]) configured to be worn by a user (user of fig. 1);
determine, based at least in part on the sensor data, whether an augmented-display criterion is satisfied for an electronic device (determining from sensor data a position and orientation of the watch at 304 of fig. 3a [0057] and specifically determining whether the wristwatch 102 is in the center of the user's field of view and APPS 902 of fig.9 are selected [0076]);
and in response to a determination that the electronic device satisfies the augmented-display criterion (in response to determining that the watch is in the center of the user's field of view [0076]):
cause the head-wearable device (augmented reality eyewear device 101 of fig. 1) to present to the user (user of fig. 1) a control (a series of application icons 301 of fig. 3) for activating a function of the electronic device (music icon 301 activates graphic user interface for music player of fig. 4 [0058]).
As to claim 11 (dependent on 10), Rodriguez discloses the non-transitory computer readable storage medium, wherein
the augmented-display criterion relates to a position of the electronic device relative to the head- wearable device (determining whether the wristwatch 102 is in the center of the user's field of view [0076] as the augmented reality eyewear device101 is worn by the user as in fig. 1, wherein the augmented reality eyewear device determines the position and orientation of the wristwatch [0057]).
As to claim 12 (dependent on 11), Rodriguez discloses the non-transitory computer readable storage medium, wherein
the augmented-display criterion is satisfied when at least a portion of the electronic device (wristwatch 102 of fig. 1) is within a field of view of the head-wearable device (center of the user's field of view [0076] as the augmented reality eyewear device101 is worn by the user as in fig. 1).
As to claim 15 (dependent on 10), Rodriguez discloses the non-transitory computer readable storage medium, further comprising: before causing presentation of the control (a series of application icons 301 of fig. 3) for activating the function of the electronic device (music icon 301 activates graphic user interface for music player of fig. 4 [0058]), providing an indication to the user that an augmented representation of a user interface associated with the electronic device is available (displaying a graphical user interface 901 of a menu interface to the user [0076] comprising icon APPS 902 of fig. 9 indicating to the user that an augmented representation of additional apps and corresponding interfaces is available).
As to claim 17 (dependent on 10), Rodriguez discloses the non-transitory computer readable storage medium, wherein the control (a series of application icons 301 of fig. 3) for activating the function of the electronic device (music icon 301 activates graphic user interface for music player of fig. 4 [0058]) is associated with presentation of an augmented representation of a user interface associated with the electronic device (music player interface of fig. 4) and selection of the control (selectin music 301 of fig. 3 [0055 – 0056]) causes the head-wearable device (augmented reality eyewear device 101 of fig. 1) to present the augmented representation of the user interface associated with the electronic device (presenting music player interface of fig. 4 [0058]).
As to claim 18, Rodriguez discloses a head-wearable device (augmented reality eyewear device 101 of fig. 1 [0042]) configured to coordinate presentation of and interaction with a user interface presented by wrist-wearable device (music player user interface associated with wristwatch shown in fig. 4), the head-wearable device comprising:
a heads-up display (display in front of the user [0034]);
one or more sensors (multiple sensors [0032] including visual sensors [0042]);
and one or more processors (a central processing unit [0033]) configured to:
receive sensor data from a sensor (receiving from a time-of-flight sensing component of the augmented reality eyewear device and a visible-light sensing camera sense visible light radiation 103 reflected off of the wristwatch [0042]) of a head-wearable device (augmented reality eyewear device 101 of fig. 1 [0042]) configured to be worn by a user (user of fig. 1);
determine, based at least in part on the sensor data, whether an augmented-display criterion is satisfied for an electronic device (determining from sensor data a position and orientation of the watch at 304 of fig. 3a [0057] and specifically determining whether the wristwatch 102 is in the center of the user's field of view and APPS 902 of fig.9 are selected [0076]);
and in response to a determination that the electronic device satisfies the augmented-display criterion (in response to determining that the watch is in the center of the user's field of view [0076]):
cause the head-wearable device (augmented reality eyewear device 101 of fig. 1) to present to the user (user of fig. 1) a control (a series of application icons 301 of fig. 3) for activating a function of the electronic device (music icon 301 activates graphic user interface for music player of fig. 4 [0058]).
As to claim 19 (dependent on 18), Rodriguez discloses the head-wearable device, wherein the augmented-display criterion relates to a position of the electronic device relative to the head-wearable device (determining whether the wristwatch 102 is in the center of the user's field of view [0076] as the augmented reality eyewear device101 is worn by the user as in fig. 1, wherein the augmented reality eyewear device determines the position and orientation of the wristwatch [0057]).
As to claim 20 (dependent on 19), Rodriguez discloses the head-wearable device, wherein the augmented-display criterion is satisfied when at least a portion of the electronic device (wristwatch 102 of fig. 1) is within a field of view of the head-wearable device (center of the user's field of view [0076] as the augmented reality eyewear device101 is worn by the user as in fig. 1).
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.
Claim(s) 5, 6, 13, 14 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodriguez in view of Atlas et al. (US 2021/0011556).
As to claim 5 (dependent on 2) and claim 6 (dependent on 5), claim 13 (dependent on 10) and claim 14 (dependent on 13) and claim 21 (dependent on 18), Rodriguez discloses the method, the non-transitory computer readable storage medium and the head-wearable device, further comprising: in response to a determination that the electronic device no longer satisfies the augmented-display criterion: ceasing to cause the head-wearable device to present the control for activating the function of the electronic device (if the user removes the wristwatch from the field of view of the augmented reality eyewear before making any selections within the menu interface, the augmented reality display may be deactivated [0076]);
but does not explicitly disclose that in response to a determination that an additional electronic device, distinct from the electronic device, satisfies the augmented-display criterion: causing the head-wearable device to present an augmented representation of a user interface associated with the additional electronic device; and while causing presentation of the control for activating the function of the electronic device: indicating that the augmented representation of the user interface associated with the additional electronic device is available to be presented at the head-wearable device
In the same filed of endeavor, Atlas discloses a method for presenting a virtual interface (TITLE), wherein
response to a determination that an additional electronic device, distinct from the electronic device, satisfies the augmented-display criterion (when a portion of the location of virtual content items is in the field of view 130 of user 110 [0027]):
causing the head-wearable device to present an augmented representation of a user interface associated with the additional electronic device (artificial reality system 10 may render virtual user interface 137 only if peripheral device 136 is within field of view 130 of user 110 [0027]); and further discloses
while causing presentation of a control for activating the function of the electronic device (while causing presentation of top level selectable menu 144 of fig. 1 [0039]):
indicating that the augmented representation of the user interface associated with the additional electronic device is available to be presented at the head-wearable device (top level selectable menu 144 of fig. 1 serves as an indication that a sub-menu is available [0039])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Rodriguez and the teachings of Atlas such that additional electronic device was recognized and a corresponding control for activating a function was presented as disclosed by Atlas, with motivation to simplify and improve the precision of input detection and provide a more pleasing user experience (Atlas [0006]).
Claim(s) 8 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodriguez in view of Carpenter et al. (US 2021/0154530).
As to claim 8 (dependent on 2) and claim 16 (dependent on 10), Rodriguez discloses the method and the non-transitory computer readable storage medium, but does not disclose that
the control for activating the function of the electronic device is associated with a fitness application and selection of the control causes the head-wearable device to present an augmented representation of a fitness user interface including captured biometric information.
In the same filed of endeavor, Carpenter discloses an electronic device (wristwatch of fig. 2) running a fitness application (fitness application interface show in figs. 2A – 2C [0052 – 0054]) comprising a control for activating a function of the watch associated with a fitness application and selection of the control causes the device to present a representation of a fitness user interface including captured biometric information (selecting to show heart rate and heart rate zones as shown in the bottom left image of fig. 2B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Rodriguez and the teachings of Carpenter, and to modify the AR method and system of Rodriguez such that the control for activating a function would have corresponded to the control for activating function associated with a fitness application and to present captured biometric information as disclosed by Carpenter, with motivation to improve coordinating activity tracking across different wearable devices (Carpenter [0004 – 0005]).
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.
Claim 2 – 4, 7 – 12 and 15 – 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,299,252 in view of Rodriguez (US 2019/0146219).
Claim 2 of Instant Application
Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,299,252
A method, comprising:
receiving sensor data from a sensor of a head-wearable device worn by a user;
determining, based at least in part on the sensor data, whether an augmented-display criterion is satisfied for an electronic device; and
in response to a determination that the electronic device satisfies the augmented-display criterion:
causing the head-wearable device to present to the user a control for activating a function of the electronic device.
A non-transitory computer readable storage medium associated with a head-wearable device to present an augmented representation of a user interface associated with an electronic device, the non-transitory computer readable storage medium including instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a head-wearable device, cause the head-wearable device to:
while a user interface is displayed on a display of an electronic device associated with a user,
receive sensor data from one or more sensors of the electronic device or from a head-wearable device worn by the user that is in communication with the electronic device;
determine, based at least in part on the sensor data from the one or more sensors, whether an augmented-display criterion is satisfied for the electronic device, wherein the augmented-display criterion is satisfied when it is determined that the electronic device is within a field of view of the head-wearable device;
in accordance with a determination that the augmented-display criterion is satisfied,
cause presentation, via a display of the head-wearable device, of an augmented representation of the user interface, the augmented representation of the user interface including at least one visual characteristic that was not present in the user interface displayed on the electronic device; and
before causing presentation of the augmented representation of the user interface, provide an indication to the user that an augmented representation is available.
Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,299,252 differs from that of claim 2 of instant application in that it fails to disclose causing the head-wearable device to present to the user a control for activating a function of the electronic device.
In the same filed of endeavor, Rodriguez discloses a method, comprising: in response to a determination that the electronic device satisfies an augmented-display criterion (in response to determining that the watch is in the center of the user's field of view [0076]): causing the head-wearable device (augmented reality eyewear device 101 of fig. 1) to present to the user (user of fig. 1) a control (a series of application icons 301 of fig. 3) for activating a function of the electronic device (music icon 301 activates graphic user interface for music player of fig. 4 [0058]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,299,252 and the teachings of Rodriguez, such that the head-wearable device was caused to present to the user a control for activating a function of the electronic device as disclosed by Rodriguez, with motivation to provide an intuitive method of gestural input for augmented reality eyewear (Rodriguez [0002]).
Claim 3 of Instant Application is similarly rejected over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,299,252 in view of Rodriguez.
Claim 4 of Instant Application is similarly rejected over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,299,252 in view of Rodriguez.
Claim 7 of Instant Application is similarly rejected over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,299,252 in view of Rodriguez.
Claim 8 of Instant Application is similarly rejected over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,299,252 in view of Rodriguez.
Claim 9 of Instant Application is similarly rejected over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,299,252 in view of Rodriguez.
Claim 10 of Instant Application is similarly rejected over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,299,252 in view of Rodriguez.
Claim 11 of Instant Application is similarly rejected over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,299,252 in view of Rodriguez.
Claim 12 of Instant Application is similarly rejected over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,299,252 in view of Rodriguez.
Claim 15 of Instant Application is similarly rejected over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,299,252 in view of Rodriguez.
Claim 16 of Instant Application is similarly rejected over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,299,252 in view of Rodriguez.
Claim 17 of Instant Application is similarly rejected over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,299,252 in view of Rodriguez.
Claim 18 of Instant Application is similarly rejected over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,299,252 in view of Rodriguez.
Claim 19 of Instant Application is similarly rejected over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,299,252 in view of Rodriguez.
Claim 20 of Instant Application is similarly rejected over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,299,252 in view of Rodriguez.
Claim 5, 6, 13, 14 and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,299,252 in view of Rodriguez (US 2019/0146219) and Atlas et al. (US 2021/0011556).
As to claim 5 (dependent on 2) and claim 6 (dependent on 5), claim 13 (dependent on 10) and claim 14 (dependent on 13) and claim 21 (dependent on 18), claims 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,299,252 in view of Rodriguez discloses the method, the non-transitory computer readable storage medium and the head-wearable device, further comprising: in response to a determination that the electronic device no longer satisfies the augmented-display criterion: ceasing to cause the head-wearable device to present the control for activating the function of the electronic device (claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,299,252);
but does not explicitly disclose that in response to a determination that an additional electronic device, distinct from the electronic device, satisfies the augmented-display criterion: causing the head-wearable device to present an augmented representation of a user interface associated with the additional electronic device; and while causing presentation of the control for activating the function of the electronic device: indicating that the augmented representation of the user interface associated with the additional electronic device is available to be presented at the head-wearable device
In the same filed of endeavor, Atlas discloses a method for presenting a virtual interface (TITLE), wherein
response to a determination that an additional electronic device, distinct from the electronic device, satisfies the augmented-display criterion (when a portion of the location of virtual content items is in the field of view 130 of user 110 [0027]):
causing the head-wearable device to present an augmented representation of a user interface associated with the additional electronic device (artificial reality system 10 may render virtual user interface 137 only if peripheral device 136 is within field of view 130 of user 110 [0027]); and further discloses
while causing presentation of a control for activating the function of the electronic device (while causing presentation of top level selectable menu 144 of fig. 1 [0039]):
indicating that the augmented representation of the user interface associated with the additional electronic device is available to be presented at the head-wearable device (top level selectable menu 144 of fig. 1 serves as an indication that a sub-menu is available [0039])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of claims 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,299,252 in view of Rodriguez and the teachings of Atlas such that additional electronic device was recognized and a corresponding control for activating a function was presented as disclosed by Atlas, with motivation to simplify and improve the precision of input detection and provide a more pleasing user experience (Atlas [0006]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DMITRIY BOLOTIN whose telephone number is (571)270-5873. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM - 5PM.
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, Chanh Nguyen can be reached at (571)272-7772. 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.
/DMITRIY BOLOTIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2623