Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/222,612

EYE MOVEMENT DETECTING DEVICE, ELECTRONIC DEVICE AND SYSTEM

Non-Final OA §103§DP
Filed
May 29, 2025
Examiner
ABDIN, SHAHEDA A
Art Unit
2627
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
79%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 79% — above average
79%
Career Allow Rate
561 granted / 712 resolved
+16.8% vs TC avg
Strong +19% interview lift
Without
With
+19.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
21 currently pending
Career history
733
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.0%
-38.0% vs TC avg
§103
72.2%
+32.2% vs TC avg
§102
11.1%
-28.9% vs TC avg
§112
6.0%
-34.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 712 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §DP
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 . DETAILED ACTION Obviousness Type Double Patenting Rejection 1. 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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b). 2. Claims 1-6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Patent No. (US 12554321) in view of Watanabi (US 20150192774). See the comparison bellow: Patent No: 12,554,321 1. A wearable device comprising: a detector device configured to detect a movement of a line of sight of a right eye of a user wearing the wearable device and a movement of a line of sight of a left eye of the user, and detect a convergence angle at which the line of sight of the right eye and the line of sight of the left eye intersect, a display device configured to start displaying an augmented reality image in responding to detection of a first convergence angle, the augmented reality image including pages arranged in an order, one of the pages being a front page partially overlapping other pages, switch the front page to a following page or a preceding page in responding to detection of the movement of the line of sight of the right eye of the user or the movement of the line of sight of the left eye of the user, and stop displaying the augmented reality image in responding to detection of a second convergence angle, the first convergence angle being wider than the second convergence angle. Claim 1 corresponding to claims 4-5 Current Application 19222612 1. A wearable device comprising: a frame worn by a user and comprising a display configured to display a real world and an augmented reality image; a detector configured to detect a direction of a line of sight of the user; and a processor configured to cause the display to display a first augmented reality image based on the direction of the line of sight of the user, the first augmented reality image comprising a name of an object in the real world seen by the user. 2. The wearable device of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to display and not to display the first augmented reality image based on a change of the direction of the line of sight of the user. Claims 4-5 Although the claims at issue patent are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because except for minor wording and insignificant changes in terminology. Each claim limitation of the Patent reads on the corresponding limitation of the current Application except the limitations “disclose the first augmented reality image comprising a name of an object in the real world seen by the user”. Watanabe discloses the augmented reality image comprising a name of an object (see Fig. 1; [0001, 0154, 0163]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Aonuma with the teaching of Watanabi, thereby, user can adjust a HMD display position suitable for a distance to a work object. 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. 3. Claims 1-2 and 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aonuma (US 20160133051, IDS) in view of Watanabi (US 20150192774). Regarding claims 1 and 4: Aonuma (US 20160133051 A1) discloses a wearable device (see Fig. 3) comprising: a frame worn (100) by a user and comprising a display configured to display a real world and an augmented reality image ([0142]); a detector configured to detect a direction of a line of sight of the user (see Figs. 3A, 20, [0133, 0138, 0148]); a processor (100) configured to cause the display to display a first augmented reality image based on the direction of the line of sight of the user(see Fig. 4, 20; [0015, 0148]). However, Aonuma does not specifically disclose the first augmented reality image comprising a name of an object in the real world seen by the user. Watanabe discloses the augmented reality image comprising a name of an object (see Fig. 1; [0001, 0154, 0163]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Aonuma with the teaching of Watanabi, thereby, user can adjust a HMD display position suitable for a distance to a work object. Regarding claims 2 and 5: Aonuma discloses wherein processor is configured to display and not to display the first augmented reality image based on a change of the direction of the line of sight of the user ( [0293] Thereafter, the operation processing unit 164 determines whether conditions for terminating a display have been satisfied (step S49). When the conditions for terminating a display have not been satisfied (step S49; NO), the operation processing unit returns to step S45. In addition, when the conditions for terminating a display have been satisfied (step S49; YES), the operation processing unit stops displaying an AR content. Examples of the conditions for terminating the display include the presence of an instruction for the termination which is given by an operation unit 135, the completion of the display of the AR content, and the like. 4. Claims 3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aonuma in view of Watanabi (US 20150192774) in view of Jin (US 20150358614 A1). Regarding claims 3 and 6: Aonuma in view of Watanabi does not specifically disclose wherein the processor is configured to transmit a request signal to an electronic device and receive the first augmented reality image transmitted from the electronic device in response to the request. Jin discloses wherein the processor (120) is configured to transmit a request signal to an electronic device and receive the first augmented reality image transmitted from the electronic device in response to the request (Jin [0088-0089]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Aonuma with the teaching of Watanabi and Jin, thereby the processor would provide a high efficient data transmission in the augmented reality image. Pertinent art 5. Pertinent art of record Machida (US 20120320100 A1) discloses display device. Inquiry 6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to Shaheda Abdin whose telephone number is (571) 270-1673. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, LunYi Lao could be reached at (571) 272-7671. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about PAIR system, see http://pari-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /SHAHEDA A ABDIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 29, 2025
Application Filed
Feb 07, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603056
DATA DRIVING INTEGRATED CIRCUIT, DISPLAY APPARATUS, AND PIXEL COMPENSATION METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12598879
ORGANIC LIGHT EMITTING DIODE DISPLAY DEVICE AND METHOD OF DRIVING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12581801
DISPLAY SUBSTRATE AND DISPLAY APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12579959
DISPLAY DEVICE AND CONTROL METHOD THEREFOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12573345
GATE DRIVING PANEL CIRCUIT, DISPLAY PANEL AND DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 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
79%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+19.0%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 712 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

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

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month