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 .
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 – 11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12, 333, 066 B2 in view of Parker et al; (Publication number: US 2016/0364904 A1), hereafter Parker.
Regarding claim 1:
Each limitation in claim 1 of the application is found in the patent except for: predicting a second position of the wearable head device based on the angular acceleration and based further on the first position of the wearable head device; in response to predicting the second position, rendering content associated with the second position; and in accordance with a determination that the wearable head device is in the second position, presenting the content.
However, Parker discloses an electronic display stabilization for head mounted display. More particularly, Parker discloses:
predicting a second position of the wearable head device based on the angular acceleration and based further on the first position of the wearable head device (Parker [0037] In at least one embodiment, the application processor 204 uses the head rotation determined at 410 and predicts a change in head rotation from the time associated with the head rotation to some specified point in time in the future.);
in response to predicting the second position, rendering content associated with the second position (Parker [0049] Figure 3 310; texture warp renders in response to rotation); and in accordance with a determination that the wearable head device is in the second position, presenting the content (Parker [0049] In either approach, at block 426 each of the resulting rotation-warped, distorted slices is scanned out to the corresponding one of the displays 112, 114 and displayed to the corresponding eye of the user.).
It would have been obvious to modify patent claim 1 to include predicting a second position of the wearable head device based on the angular acceleration and based further on the first position of the wearable head device; in response to predicting the second position, rendering content associated with the second position; and in accordance with a determination that the wearable head device is in the second position, presenting the content, as claimed. Those skilled in the art would appreciate the ability to reduce latency motion compensation and stabilization in head mounted display systems (Parker [0002]).
Regarding claim 2:
Claim 2 of the application is similarly rejected over patent claim 2 (in view of Parker).
Regarding claim 3:
Claim 3 of the application is similarly rejected over patent claim 3 (in view of Parker).
Regarding claim 4:
Claim 4 of the application is similarly rejected over patent claim 4 (in view of Parker).
Regarding claim 5:
Claim 5 of the application is similarly rejected over patent claim 6 (in view of Parker).
Regarding claim 6:
Claim 6 of the application is similarly rejected over patent claim 7 (in view of Parker).
Regarding claim 7:
Claim 7 of the application is similarly rejected over patent claim 8 (in view of Parker).
Regarding claim 8:
Claim 8 of the application is similarly rejected over patent claim 9 (in view of Parker).
Regarding claim 9:
Claim 9 of the application is similarly rejected over patent claim 12 (in view of Parker).
Regarding claim 10:
Claim 10 of the application is similarly rejected over patent claim 11 (in view of Parker).
Regarding claim 11:
Claim 11 of the application is similarly rejected over patent claim 1 (in view of Parker; and inherent nature of IMU pre-integration which relies on accumulated IMU measurements).
Claims 12 – 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12, 333, 066 B2 in view of Parker et al; (Publication number: US 2016/0364904 A1), hereafter Parker.
Regarding claim 12:
Each limitation in claim 12 of the application is found in the patent except for: predicting a second position of the wearable head device based on the angular acceleration and based further on the first position of the wearable head device; in response to predicting the second position, rendering content associated with the second position; and in accordance with a determination that the wearable head device is in the second position, presenting the content.
However, Parker discloses an electronic display stabilization for head mounted display. More particularly, Parker discloses:
predicting a second position of the wearable head device based on the angular acceleration and based further on the first position of the wearable head device (Parker [0037] In at least one embodiment, the application processor 204 uses the head rotation determined at 410 and predicts a change in head rotation from the time associated with the head rotation to some specified point in time in the future.);
in response to predicting the second position, rendering content associated with the second position (Parker [0049] Figure 3 310; texture warp renders in response to rotation); and in accordance with a determination that the wearable head device is in the second position, presenting the content (Parker [0049] In either approach, at block 426 each of the resulting rotation-warped, distorted slices is scanned out to the corresponding one of the displays 112, 114 and displayed to the corresponding eye of the user.).
It would have been obvious to modify patent claim 13 to include predicting a second position of the wearable head device based on the angular acceleration and based further on the first position of the wearable head device; in response to predicting the second position, rendering content associated with the second position; and in accordance with a determination that the wearable head device is in the second position, presenting the content, as claimed. Those skilled in the art would appreciate the ability to reduce latency motion compensation and stabilization in head mounted display systems (Parker [0002]).
Regarding claim 13:
Claim 13 of the application is similarly rejected over patent claim 14 (in view of Parker).
Regarding claim 14:
Claim 14 of the application is similarly rejected over patent claim 16 (in view of Parker).
Regarding claim 15:
Claim 15 of the application is similarly rejected over patent claim 17 (in view of Parker).
Regarding claim 16:
Claim 16 of the application is similarly rejected over patent claim 18 (in view of Parker).
Regarding claim 17:
Claim 17 of the application is similarly rejected over patent claim 13 (in view of Parker).
Regarding claim 18:
Claim 18 of the application is similarly rejected over patent claim 19 (in view of Parker)
Regarding claim 19:
Claim 19 of the application is similarly rejected over patent claim 13 (in view of Parker; and inherent nature of IMU pre-integration which relies on accumulated IMU measurements).
Claim 20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12, 333, 066 B2 in view of Parker et al; (Publication number: US 2016/0364904 A1), hereafter Parker.
Regarding claim 20:
Each limitation in claim 20 of the application is found in the patent except for: predicting a second position of the wearable head device based on the angular acceleration and based further on the first position of the wearable head device; in response to predicting the second position, rendering content associated with the second position; and in accordance with a determination that the wearable head device is in the second position, presenting the content.
However, Parker discloses an electronic display stabilization for head mounted display. More particularly, Parker discloses:
predicting a second position of the wearable head device based on the angular acceleration and based further on the first position of the wearable head device (Parker [0037] In at least one embodiment, the application processor 204 uses the head rotation determined at 410 and predicts a change in head rotation from the time associated with the head rotation to some specified point in time in the future.);
in response to predicting the second position, rendering content associated with the second position (Parker [0049] Figure 3 310; texture warp renders in response to rotation); and in accordance with a determination that the wearable head device is in the second position, presenting the content (Parker [0049] In either approach, at block 426 each of the resulting rotation-warped, distorted slices is scanned out to the corresponding one of the displays 112, 114 and displayed to the corresponding eye of the user.).
It would have been obvious to modify patent claim 20 to include predicting a second position of the wearable head device based on the angular acceleration and based further on the first position of the wearable head device; in response to predicting the second position, rendering content associated with the second position; and in accordance with a determination that the wearable head device is in the second position, presenting the content, as claimed. Those skilled in the art would appreciate the ability to reduce latency motion compensation and stabilization in head mounted display systems (Parker [0002]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIHIR K RAYAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 - 5pm (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, Patrick Edouard can be reached at 5712707537. 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.
/MIHIR K RAYAN/ 13 April 2026Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2622
Prosecution Insights