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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haiut et al. (US 2014/0337036) in view of Park et al. (US 2017/0357329) and further in view of Johansson et al. (US 2015/0220131)
Regarding claim 1:
Haiut discloses:
Claim 1
Haiut
1. A wake control system for a head-mounted display unit operable in a low-power state and a high-power state, the wake control system configured to:
Abstract: "sleeping state," "wake"
assess, with a first sensor of the head-mounted display unit, a first wake criterion during operation in the low-power state at a first wake sensing frequency associated with a probabilistic condition that includes a time of day;
Fig. 15: 120 -- most clearly explained in paragraph 23 – but Haiut does not disclose this is associated with a probabilistic condition that includes a time of day
upon satisfaction of the first wake criterion, assess, with a second sensor of the head-mounted display unit, a second wake criterion during operation in the low-power state at a second wake sensing frequency, and
Fig. 15: 130-130; paragraphs 23, 135; whereas per paragraph 125 the frequencies might be different between the two processes
upon satisfaction of the second wake criterion, operate the head-mounted display unit in the high-power state.
Fig. 15: 160
Therefore Haiut does not disclose:
the first wake sensing frequency is “associated with a probabilistic condition that includes a time of day”
Park discloses:
a sensing frequency is associated with a probabilistic condition that includes a time (paragraph 145: “sampling frequency of the sensor”…where “frequency of application activations during a preset time period”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include in Haiut the elements taught by Park.
The rationale is as follows:
Haiut and Park are directed to the same field of art.
Park discloses a known technique that can select a sampling rate based on the user state, improving usability. This is a known improvement one of ordinary skill in the art could have included with predictable results.
Haiut in view of Park does not explicitly disclose this is
a “time of day”
(Although Park clearly discusses time periods it is not explicitly clear that this related to the time of day).
Johansson discloses:
a user state might be associated with a time of day (e.g., paragraph 51).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include in Haiut in view of Park the first wake sensing frequency is associated with a probabilistic condition that includes a time of day, as suggested by Johansson.
The rationale is as follows:
Haiut, Park, and Johansson are directed to the same field of art.
Park selects the sampling frequency based on the user state; Johansson teaches that the time of day is useful in determining the user state (paragraph 51: “usage pattern”). This is a known improvement that one of ordinary skill in the art could have included with predictable results.
Regarding claim 2:
Haiut, etc., discloses:
Wherein different times of day are associated with different wake sensing frequencies (follows from the combination – Park teaches different frequencies based on the user state, and Johannson that the user state should include the time of day).
Regarding claim 3:
Haiut, etc., discloses:
wherein the probabilistic condition further includes a location of a user of the head-mounted display unit (Park paragraph 125: if it tracking speed or if they are driving it is using their location).
Regarding claim 4:
Haiut, etc., discloses:
wherein the probabilistic condition further includes one of a sound or a movement of a user of the head-mounted display unit (Haiut paragraph 125).
Regarding claim 5:
Haiut, etc., discloses:
wherein the second wake sensing frequency differs from the first wake sensing frequency (Haiut paragraph 135).
Regarding claim 6:
Haiut, etc., discloses:
wherein the first wake criterion is a sound criterion or a movement criterion (Haiut paragraph 17).
Regarding claim 7:
Haiut, etc., discloses:
wherein the second wake criterion is a sound criterion or a movement criterion (it is speech recognition as per, e.g., Haiut Fig. 15: 130).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haiut in view of Park, and further in view of Johansson, and further in view of Bansai et al. (US 2016/0077574)
Regarding claim 8:
Haiut, etc., discloses a wake control system as discussed above.
Haiut, etc., does not disclose:
“wherein the first wake criterion and the second wake criterion are selectable by a user of the head-mounted display unit.”
Bansai discloses:
wherein a wake criterion is selectable by a user of the head-mounted display unit (paragraph 71).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include in Haiut, etc., wherein the first wake criterion and the second wake criterion are selectable by a user of the head-mounted display unit, as suggested by Bansai.
The rationale is as follows:
Haiut, etc., and Bansai are directed to the same field of art.
Haiut already uses a spoken word or phrase as wake criterion. Bansai discloses this can be customized so the user can pick this, which obviously is convenient for the user. One of ordinary skill in the art could have included this with predictable results.
Claim(s) 9-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raffle et al. (US 9,285,872) in view of Johansson.
Regarding claim 9:
Raffle discloses:
Claim 9
Raffle
9. A display system comprising:
a head-mounted display unit operable in a low-power state and a high-power state;
Abstract; column 21, line 65 to clumn 22, line 25: “wake” vs. “standby mode”
a wake sensor device configured to assess a wake criterion when the head-mounted display unit operates in the low-power state; and
Fig. 3: 302
a controller configured to:
determine a wake accuracy of the wake criterion, wherein a low wake accuracy indicates a lack of user intent to operate the head-mounted display unit in the high-power state and a high wake accuracy indicates user intent to operate the head-mounted display unit in the high-power state; and
Fig. 3: 304; column 24, lines 15-30: “determine that a pupil is directed toward the display in the image” is determining a user intent
operate the head-mounted display unit in the high-power state upon satisfaction of the wake criterion at the high wake accuracy,
Fig. 3: 310
wherein the wake accuracy is determined based on repeated behavior of a user across prior instances of wake criterion satisfaction and subsequent operation of the head-mounted display in the high-power state.
Not disclosed by Raffle
Johansson discloses:
wherein the wake accuracy is determined based on repeated behavior of a user across prior instances of wake criterion satisfaction and subsequent operation of the head-mounted display in the high-power state (paragraph 52: “usage patterns”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application is filed to include in Raffle the elements taught by Johansson.
The rationale is as follows:
Raffle and Johansson are directed to the same field of art.
Johansson discloses these can improve power management (e.g., paragraph 48). This is a known improvement that one of ordinary skill in the art could have included with predictable results.
Regarding claim 10:
Raffle, etc., discloses:
wherein the low wake accuracy is associated with unintentional mannerisms or natural behaviors of the user of the head-mounted display unit (Raffle column 24, lines 25-30: “a pupil is directed away from the image” is looking at something else, which is a natural behavior).
Regarding claim 11:
Raffle, etc., discloses:
wherein the wake sensor device is a first wake sensor device and the wake criterion is a first wake criterion, the display system further comprising:
a second wake sensor device configured to assess a second wake criterion when the head-mounted display unit operates in the low-power state (Raffle Fig. 3: 306).
Regarding claim 12:
Raffle, etc., discloses:
wherein the controller is configured to operate the head-mounted display unit in the high-power state upon satisfaction of the first wake criterion and the second wake criterion (Raffle Fig. 3: “both…detected”).
Regarding claim 13:
Raffle in view of Johansson discloses a display system as discussed above.
Raffle in view of Johannson, as discussed so far, does not disclose:
“wherein the first wake criterion is an environmental stimulus.”
But this is also taught by Johansson.
Johansson discloses:
wherein the first wake criterion is an environmental stimulus (paragraph 47).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include in Raffle the elements taught by Johansson.
The rationale is as follows:
Raffle and Johansson are directed to the same field of art.
Raffle already discloses there might be more wake criteria (e.g., column 23, lines 20-35). Johansson discloses that some might be environmental stimuli. This enables the device to more accurately predict when it should wake up. This is a known improvement that one of ordinary skill in the art could have included with predictable results.
Regarding claim 14:
Raffle in view of Johansson discloses:
wherein the second wake criterion is a user behavior that is reactionary to the environmental stimulus (this follows from, e.g., Johansson paragraph 53 – if the user uses the device a certain length of time after an environmental stimulus it is “reactionary” to it).
Regarding claim 15:
Raffle in view of Johansson discloses:
wherein the first wake criterion is satisfied by non-occurrence of the environmental stimulus (e.g., Johansson paragraph 59 – if it transits to a sleep state when it detects it being put in the case, the opposite, or non-occurance of this, wouild be a wake criterion).
Claim(s) 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johansson et al. (US 2015/0220131) in view of Chang et al. (US 2016/0162012).
Regarding claim 16:
Johansson discloses:
Claim 16
Johansson
16. A display system comprising:
a head-mounted display unit configured to provide content to a user, the head-mounted display unit operable in a low-power state and a high-power state that consumes more power than the low-power state; and
Paragraphs 36, 39, but Johansson does not disclose it is a head-mounted display unit
a wake control system configured to determine when to operate the head-mounted display unit in the high-power state, wherein the wake control system:
Paragraph 39
assesses a probabilistic condition associated with a likelihood that a wake criterion is satisfied when the head-mounted display unit is operated in the low-power state;
Paragraph 52: "likely a user may want to use the computing device"
assesses satisfaction of a wake criterion when the head-mounted display unit is operated in the low-power state at a wake sensing frequency with a time interval that varies based on the probabilistic condition; and
Paragraphs 53-54: there might be a time interval – “a specific period of time” – and it assesses whether the wake criterion is satisfied because it checks whether the user interacts or not within this time interval – more on this below
operates the head-mounted display unit in the high-power state upon determining satisfaction of the wake criterion.
Paragraph 52: "initiate a transition…to an active power state."
Johansson does not disclose:
"a head-mounted display unit"
Chang discloses:
A head-mounted display unit (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include in Johansson the elements taught by Chang.
The rationale is as follows:
Chang and Johansson are directed to the same field of art.
Johansson discloses its method can be used with a variety of computing devices (e.g., paragraph 36). Chang discloses one such device. One of ordinary skill could have recognized that this is the kind of device Johansson's method is applicable to with predictable results.
Regarding claim 17:
Johansson in view of Chang discloses:
wherein the probabilistic condition is assessed at a first time interval that deferens from a second time interval at which the satisfaction of the wake criterion is assessed (Johansson paragraph 53).
Regarding claim 18:
Johansson in view of Chang discloses:
wherein the probabilistic condition is a location of a user of the head-mounted display unit (Johansson paragraph 48).
Regarding claim 19:
Johansson in view of Chang discloses:
wherein the probabilistic condition is a movement of a user of the head-mounted display unit (Johansson paragraph 47: "traveling").
Regarding claim 20:
Johansson in view of Chang discloses:
wherein the probabilistic condition is a time of day or an activity of a user of the head-mounted display unit (Johansson paragraph 52: "time of day").
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 30 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s first arguments (starting page 6) is that Haiut does not disclose the new features of claim 1, etc. Park, in combination with Johansson, is now relied upon to teach the new elements.
Applicant’s second argument (starting page 7) is that Raffle doesn’t teach the new elements of claims 9, etc. Johansson is now relied upon to teach these new elements.
Applicant next (starting page 7) argues with the combination of Haiut and Park, which was used previously for some dependent claims. There are a number of arguments here.
The first argument here essentially is that Park uses a user-selected state, not a state which has been automatically selected by the device. This isn’t actually in the claims, but regardless Park can determine the user state automatically through a sensor (e.g., paragraph 148).
The second is that Haiut doesn’t have a first sensor assessing a first wake criterion at a frequency tied to the condition, and that Park only has one sensor, not two. Well, yes, neither alone discloses the entirety of the invention. But the combination follows from their teachings. If Park teaches something that is applicable to one sensor there’s no reason to think it wouldn’t be applicable to Haiut’s two sensors.
As for the rest of applicant’s arguments (e.g., regarding the time of day), this part is taught by Johansson as discussed above.
Next (really page 9) applicant argues that Johansson doesn’t teach a wake control system that assesses satisfaction of a wake criterion when the head-mounted display unit is operated in the low-power state at a wake sensing frequency with a time interval that varies based on the probabilistic condition.
Johansson doesn’t disclose the same thing that applicant does. But this language is not all that clear. What Johansson does do is detect a wake condition, and then within the time interval determine whether or not the user actually starts interacting with the device. This certainly could be considering that it “assesses satisfaction of a wake criterion” and it does it with a time interval based on the probabilistic condition as discussed there. So while not necessarily the same thing as applicant’s invention, this does meet the claim language as written.
Therefore applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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 CHRISTOPHER RAY LAMB whose telephone number is (571)272-5264. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 PM.
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, Patrick Edouard can be reached at 571-272-7603. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER R LAMB/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2622
Prosecution Insights