Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 19/197,388

Walking Virtual Reality System

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
May 02, 2025
Examiner
AZARI, SEPEHR
Art Unit
2621
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
67%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 0m
To Grant
74%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 67% — above average
67%
Career Allow Rate
270 granted / 404 resolved
+4.8% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+7.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 0m
Avg Prosecution
28 currently pending
Career history
432
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.6%
-38.4% vs TC avg
§103
55.9%
+15.9% vs TC avg
§102
25.6%
-14.4% vs TC avg
§112
10.1%
-29.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 404 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Priority The provisional application filed on 05/02/2024 does not include the claimed limitations. Accordingly, the effective filing date of the instant application is set based on the filing date of the non-provisional application on 05/02/2025. 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)(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. Claims 1-5, 7-8, 10-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bristol et al., US 2024/0214696 A1, hereinafter “Bristol”. Regarding claim 1, Bristol teaches a walking virtual reality system comprising: a frame (fig. 9A, frame 904, ¶ 139); a micro display lens (lenses 906, ¶ 140 and 149); a sensor (fig. 9C, sensors 923A, ¶ 62); a speaker (fig. 9C, speaker 936A); a battery (fig. 9C, battery 945); a USB-C charging port (¶ 31); a connectivity port (¶ 31, port 110 and/or 112); a Bluetooth transmitter (fig. 9C, WiFi/BT 933, ¶ 155); and a button (fig. 9C, buttons 934, ¶ 155). Regarding claim 2, Bristol teaches that the sensor is comprised of an accelerometer (¶ 62, “inertial measurement unit (e.g., IMUs) for detecting, for example, angular rate, force, magnetic field, and/or changes in acceleration”). Regarding claim 3, Bristol teaches that the sensor is comprised of a gyroscope (¶ 62, “inertial measurement unit (e.g., IMUs) for detecting, for example, angular rate, force, magnetic field, and/or changes in acceleration”). Regarding claim 4, Bristol teaches that the sensor is comprised of a proximity sensor (¶ 62, “capacitive sensors for detecting changes in potential at a portion of a user's body (e.g., a sensor-skin interface) and/or the proximity of other devices or objects”). Regarding claim 5, Bristol teaches that the sensor is comprised of a light sensor (¶ 62, “light sensors (e.g., ToF sensors, infrared light sensors, or visible light sensors)”). Regarding claim 7, Bristol teaches that the connectivity port is comprised of a USB port (¶ 31: “the port 112 is a power-supply port and/or a communications port”). Regarding claim 8, Bristol teaches that the connectivity port is comprised of a 3.5 mm audio jack port (¶ 31). Regarding claim 10, Bristol teaches a walking virtual reality system comprising: a frame (fig. 9A, frame 904, ¶ 139) comprising a hinge and a frame arm (¶ 139), the hinge configured to allow folding of the frame arm (fig. 9A, ¶ 139); a micro display lens (lenses 906, ¶ 140 and 149); a sensor (fig. 9C, sensors 923A, ¶ 62); a speaker (fig. 9C, speaker 936A); a battery (fig. 9C, battery 945); a charging port (¶ 31); a connectivity port (¶ 31, port 110 and/or 112); a Bluetooth transmitter (fig. 9C, WiFi/BT 933, ¶ 155); and a button (fig. 9C, buttons 934, ¶ 155). Regarding claim 11, Bristol teaches that the sensor is comprised of an accelerometer (¶ 62, “inertial measurement unit (e.g., IMUs) for detecting, for example, angular rate, force, magnetic field, and/or changes in acceleration”). Regarding claim 12, Bristol teaches that the sensor is comprised of a gyroscope (¶ 62, “inertial measurement unit (e.g., IMUs) for detecting, for example, angular rate, force, magnetic field, and/or changes in acceleration”). Regarding claim 13, Bristol teaches that the sensor is comprised of a proximity sensor (¶ 62, “capacitive sensors for detecting changes in potential at a portion of a user's body (e.g., a sensor-skin interface) and/or the proximity of other devices or objects”). Regarding claim 14, Bristol teaches that the sensor is comprised of a light sensor (¶ 62, “light sensors (e.g., ToF sensors, infrared light sensors, or visible light sensors)”). Regarding claim 16, Bristol teaches that the connectivity port is comprised of a USB port (¶ 31: “the port 112 is a power-supply port and/or a communications port”). Regarding claim 17, Bristol teaches that the connectivity port is comprised of a 3.5 mm audio jack port (¶ 31). Regarding claim 18, Bristol teaches a walking virtual reality system comprising: a frame (fig. 9A, frame 904, ¶ 139) comprising a hinge and a frame arm (¶ 139), the hinge configured to allow folding of the frame arm (fig. 9A, ¶ 139); an OLED micro display lens (lenses 906, ¶ 140 and 149); a sensor (fig. 9C, sensors 923A, ¶ 62); a speaker (fig. 9C, speaker 936A); a rechargeable battery (fig. 9C, battery 945, ¶ 153; also see charger input 943 for charging the rechargeable battery); a USB-C charging port (¶ 31); a connectivity port (¶ 31, port 110 and/or 112); a Bluetooth transmitter (fig. 9C, WiFi/BT 933, ¶ 155); and a button (fig. 9C, buttons 934, ¶ 155). Regarding claim 19, Bristol teaches that the sensor is comprised of an accelerometer, a gyroscope, a proximity sensor, or a light sensor (¶ 62). Regarding claim 20, Bristol teaches that the connectivity port is comprised of a USB port or a 3.5 mm audio jack port (¶ 31). 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. 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. Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bristol, in view of Pejsa et al., US 2021/0350604 A1, hereinafter “Pejsa”. Regarding claims 6 and 15, Bristol does not specifically teach that the speaker is comprised of a spatial audio speaker. Pejsa, however, clearly teaches a similar HMD unit including spatial audio speakers (¶ 106). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Bristol in view of Pejsa. The references teach HMD units for users and Pejsa further teaches details regarding including spatial audio. One would have been motivated to make such a combination because Pejsa clearly teaches that spatial audio enhances “the believability and realism of the virtual sound, by incorporating the relative position and orientation of the user relative to the virtual sound in the mixed reality environment that is, by presenting a virtual sound that matches the expectations of the user of what that virtual sound would sound like if it were a real sound in a real environment” (¶ 106). Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bristol, in view of Lin, US 2022/0121292 A1, hereinafter “Lin”. Regarding claim 9, Bristol does not teach that the light sensor adjusts a brightness of the micro display lens based on an ambient lighting condition. Lin, however, clearly teaches that the light sensor adjusts a brightness of the micro display lens based on an ambient lighting condition (¶ 49). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Bristol in view of Lin. The references teach HMD units and Lin further teaches details regarding controlling the brightness of the display according to the ambient brightness. One would have been motivated to make such a combination because Lin clearly teaches that such a process improves “the user experience” (¶ 49). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEPEHR AZARI whose telephone number is (571)270-7903. The examiner can normally be reached weekdays from 11AM-7PM. 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. /SEPEHR AZARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 02, 2025
Application Filed
Dec 23, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12572244
ELECTRONIC DEVICE INCLUDING DISPLAY LAYER AND SENSOR LAYER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12554361
TOUCH-SENSITIVE APPARATUS AND METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12555511
GATE DRIVING UNIT, DRIVING METHOD, GATE DRIVING CIRCUIT, AND DISPLAY APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12555536
PIXEL CIRCUIT FOR THRESHOLD COMPENSATION, DRIVING METHOD THEREOF AND DISPLAY DEVICE FOR PROVIDING SIGNALS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12548526
Display Device
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
67%
Grant Probability
74%
With Interview (+7.7%)
2y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 404 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month