DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-2 and 4-21 are pending.
Response to Amendment
Applicants’ response to the last Office Action, dated Jun. 16, 2026 has been entered and made of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Argument has been fully considered, and Examiner respectfully submits that the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
As to claim 1, it has been amended to further clarify the feature shown in FIGS. 6AB-6C with respect to “identifying an approach of another user distinguished from the user to the electronic device”, and Applicant argues (Remarks, p. 16)
Third, … Any alleged approach is to the HMD such that HMD communicates to the smartwatch in Kim 2, which is inconsistent with how Kim 1 communicates from the digital device (e.g., television) to the HMD, and thus makes the invention in Kim 1 unsuitable for its intended purpose.
Examiner agrees, and claim 1 is allowed.
As to claims 2, 4-13 and new claim 21, they directly or indirectly depend from claim 1, and are allowed at least for the same reason above.
As to claim 14, it has been amended in the similar manner as in claim 1, and is allowed for the same reason above. Please see claim 1 for detailed analysis.
As to claim 15, it depends from claim 14, and is allowed at least for the same reason above.
As to claim 16, it has been amended to further recite “while transmitting of the data associated with the mirror screen corresponding to the first screen”, and Applicant argues (Remarks, p. 13)
First, … Kim 2 merely discloses an operation in which a wearable device transmits information related to a collision warning message to another user’s electronic device based on identifying the approach of another user. It is submitted that the combination of Kim 1 and Kim 2 fails to teach or suggest the operation of transmitting mirroring screen information to the wearable device prior to identifying the approach of another user, and maintaining the transmission of the mirroring screen information even after identifying the approach of another user.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner reasonably interprets that the “collision warning message” shown in FIGS. 12-14 of Kim 2 is directed to the “another user” approaching to the “user” of the “wearable device”, i.e., HMD, thus it is reasonably inferred that the “operation of transmitting mirroring screen information to the wearable device” taught by Kim 1 in view of Kim 2 is still maintained because the very purpose of such warning is not to interrupt such mirroring screen for the user of the HMD. Thus, Applicant’s first argument above is not persuasive.
Applicant further argues (Remarks, pp. 14-15)
Second, … However, the Office Action reads the head mounted display (HMD) as the alleged electronic device and wearable device 200 (e.g., smartwatch) as the alleged wearable device. … it appears that the alleged user (element 1410) approaches the HMD and a warning is communicated to the smartwatch.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. It appears that Applicant misunderstood Examiner’s interpretation. Paraphrasing Examiner’s interpretation with plain language, for the purpose of better understanding, (1) Kim 1 teaches the concept of “mirroring” between the HMD and the television; and (2) Kim 2 teaches the concept of displaying “collision warning message” to another device, i.e., the smartwatch as well as the HMD’s outward display, for the “another user” who approaches within predetermined range. (3) At the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the “HMD” taught by Kim 1 to further display the “collision warning message” to another device, i.e., the television when the “another user” approaches within the predetermined range, as taught by Kim 2, in order to i) warn the “another user” not to collide the “HMD user” and ii) to maintain the “mirroring” for the “HMD user” .
In this regard, claim 16 fails to clearly recite which device the “another user” approaches to and which device the “collision warning message” is displayed, and the combined teaching of Kim 1 in view of Kim 2 still reasonably reads on. That is, contrary to the amended and allowed claims 1 and 14, claim 16 fails to recite the limitation “to the electronic device”, i.e., the television.
Accordingly, claim 16 is not allowable.
As to claims 17-20, they directly or indirectly depend from claim 16, and are not allowable at least for the same reason above.
Examiner maintains his decision, and provides succinct explanation as described above.
Claim Objections
Claims 16-17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 16 recites “transmitting of the data”; and claim 17 recites “in response to displaying of the first screen being ceased”. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2014/0015736 A1, hereinafter Kim 1) in view of Kim et al. (US 2024/0094971 A1, hereinafter Kim 2).
As to claim 16, Kim 1 teaches a method of an electronic device (Kim 1, FIGS. 1-3, [0036], e.g., “digital device 200 such as a PC, a PDA (personal digital assistant), a notebook computer, a tablet PC, a television and the like”), the method comprising:
displaying a first screen (Kim 1, FIGS. 1-3, [0036], “display unit 220”);
establishing a communication connection with a wearable device worn by a user (Kim 1, FIGS. 1-5, [0038], “the HMD 100 may be able to display various kinds of contents by interoperating with the digital device 200 connected by a network 300”), the wearable device (Kim 1, FIG. 2, [0042], “HMD 100”) comprising displays (Kim 1, FIG. 2, [0043], “display unit 120”) viewable by the user (Kim 1, see FIGS. 1-2);
during the communication connection, transmitting, to the wearable device, data associated with a mirror screen corresponding to the first screen (Kim 1, FIG. 2, [0043], “HMD 100 receives data from the digital device via the communication unit 140 and may be then able to output a corresponding image based on the received data”; FIG. 3, [0059], e.g., “output content of digital device (on HMD) S342”), such that the mirror screen corresponding to the first screen is to be displayed via the displays of the wearable device (Kim 1, e.g., FIG. 5, [0075], “HMD 100 may be able to output the content 1”).
Kim 1 does not teach “identifying an approach of another user distinguished from the user while the mirror screen corresponding to the first screen is to be displayed on the wearable device; and based on identifying the approach of the another user, while transmitting of the data associated with the mirror screen corresponding to the first screen, displaying a second screen indicating that the user is using the electronic device”.
However, Kim 2 teaches the concepts of identifying an approach of another user distinguished from the user (Kim 2, FIGS. 14-15, [0091], “wearable device 200 may identify that an external object (e.g., an external user) approaches the wearable device 200”) while the mirror screen corresponding to the first screen is to be displayed on the wearable device (Kim 2, FIGS. 14-15, [0091], “while displaying the first execution screen”); and
based on identifying the approach of the another user, while transmitting of the data associated with the mirror screen corresponding to the first screen, displaying a second screen indicating that the user is using the electronic device (Kim 2, FIGS. 14-15, [0096], “wearable device 200 may transmit information related to the warning message 1430 to the external electronic device 1610 so that the external electronic device 1610 displays the warning message 1430”; “external electronic device 1610 (e.g., a smart watch) may output the warning message 1430 based on the information obtained from the wearable device 200”).
At the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the “HMD 100” taught by Kim 1 to further display the “warning message 1430” on an external display device, i.e., television, as taught by Kim 2, in order to address the problem that “when the user uses specific content through the wearable device in a state where the user's view is blocked, not only the user of the wearable device but also other people or devices around the user may be placed in a dangerous situation such as collisions due to the user's movement of the wearable device” (Kim 2, [0004]).
As to claim 17, Kim 1 in view of Km 2 teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
while transmitting the data associated with the mirror screen corresponding to the first screen to the wearable device (Kim 1, FIG. 5, [0075], “HMD 100 receives the content 1 from the digital device 200 via a network 300 by real time and may be then able to output the received content 1”), ceasing displaying the first screen (Kim 1, FIG. 5, [0075], “Meanwhile, the digital device 200 may stop displaying the content 1”); and
in response to displaying of the first screen being ceased, displaying the second screen based on identifying the approach of the another user (Kim 2, FIGS. 14-15, [0096], “wearable device 200 may transmit information related to the warning message 1430 to the external electronic device 1610 so that the external electronic device 1610 displays the warning message 1430”; “external electronic device 1610 (e.g., a smart watch) may output the warning message 1430 based on the information obtained from the wearable device 200”). Examiner renders the same motivation as in claim 16.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2014/0015736 A1, Kim 1) in view of Kim et al. (US 2024/0094971 A1, Kim 2) and Nakagawa (US 2020/0042281 A1).
As to claim 18, Kim 1 in view of Kim 2 does not explicitly teach the method of claim 16, further comprising: while the mirror screen corresponding to the first screen is to be displayed on the wearable device: identifying a user input to the input module from the another user; and ceasing performing a function according to the user input.
However, Nakagawa teaches the concepts that, while the mirror screen corresponding to the first screen is to be displayed on the wearable device (Nakagawa, FIG. 3, [0142], “start and maintain mirroring, content redirection, or direct streaming S309” until the decision is made at “S313”):
identifying a user input to the input module from the another user (Nakagawa, e.g., FIG. 3, [0160], “has interrupt playback been permitted? S313” → “Yes”); and
ceasing performing a function according to the user input (Nakagawa, e.g., FIG. 3, [0172], “finish mirroring, content redirection, or direct streaming S315”).
At the time of effective fling date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the “digital device 200” and the “wearable device 200” taught by Kim 1 in view of Kim 2 to further perform the steps of identifying “interrupt” as shown in FIG. 3, as taught by Nakagawa, in order to provide that, e.g., “when playback of content is newly requested to a communication device that is playing back content, playback of the content is appropriately controlled on the basis of whether or not the source devices or users that have transmitted individual playback requests are identical to each other” (Nakagawa, [0007]).
As to claim 19, Kim 2 in view of Nakagawa teaches the method of claim 16, further comprising:
based on identifying the approach of the another user (Kim 2, FIG. 20, [0104], “identify that external object approaches wearable device, while first execution screen is displayed 2020”), transmitting, to the wearable device, a message for notifying the approach of the another user (Kim 2, FIG. 20, [0105], “output warning message through first display (208) 2030”); and
receiving, from the wearable device, a response to the message; and the method further comprising:
maintaining a display of the second screen while the another user approaches the electronic device (Nakagawa, FIG. 3, [0142], “start and maintain mirroring, content redirection, or direct streaming S309” until the decision is made at “S313”), based on the response to the message indicating that the another user is not allowed to use the electronic device (Nakagawa, FIG. 3, [0109], “transmit response indicating non-permission S316” → S309); or
displaying a third screen (Nakagawa, FIG. 3, [0110], a message corresponding the “response indicating permission S314”) indicating that the another user is able to use the electronic device, while the another user approaches the electronic device (Nakagawa, FIG. 3, [0102], “has interrupt occurrence notification been received? S311” → “Yes”), based on the response to the message indicating that the another user is allowed to use the electronic device (Nakagawa, FIG. 3, [0110], “transmit response indicating permission S314”). Examiner renders the same motivation as in claim 18.
As to claim 20, Nakagawa teaches the method of claim 19, further comprising:
ceasing performing a function according to a user input to the input module from the another user, while displaying of the second screen is maintained; or
performing the function according to the user input to the input module from the another user (Nakagawa, e.g., FIG. 3, [0172], “finish mirroring, content redirection, or direct streaming S315”), while displaying the third screen (Nakagawa, FIG. 3, [0110], the message corresponding the “response indicating permission S314”). Examiner renders the same motivation as in claim 18.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 4-15 and 21 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
As to claim 1, the closest known prior art, i.e., Kim (US 2014/0015736 A1), Kim et al. (US 2024/0094971 A1), Nakagawa (US 2020/0042281 A1), Urbanus et al. (US 2025/0028570 A1), Ikeda (US 2024/0137482 A1), Choi et al. (US 2016/0133052 A1), Nam et al. (US 2025/0037367 A1), Choi et al. (US 2019/0362560 A1) and Boesel et al. (US 2025/0029319 A1), alone or in reasonable combination, fails to teach limitations in consideration of the claims as a whole, specifically with respect to the limitations “based on identifying the approach of the another user to the electronic device while the mirror screen corresponding to the first screen, display, via the display, a second screen indicating that the user is using the electronic device”.
As to claims 2, 4-13 and 21, they directly or indirectly depend from claim 1, and are allowed at least for the same reason above.
As to claim 14, the closest known prior art indicated above, alone or in reasonable combination, fails to teach limitations in consideration of the claims as a whole, specifically with respect to the limitations “identify an approach to the electronic device by another user different from the user based on identifying a first visual object indicating that the another user within the image”.
As to claim 15, it depends from claim 14, and is allowed at least for the same reason above.
Conclusion
The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Nam et al. (US 2025/0037367 A1) teaches the concept of “providing feedback … based on the distance between the object and a user’s body being less than the first distance” (Abs.);
Choi et al. (US 2019/0362560 A1) teaches the concept of “providing contents corresponding to the information in relation to a region, on which the object is displayed” (Abs.);
Boesel et al. (US 2025/0029319 A1) teaches the concept of “occluding a representation of the one or more participants of the video communication session when the representation of the one or more participants is a non-spatial representation” (Abs.).
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.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD J HONG whose telephone number is (571) 270-7765. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM 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, Chanh Nguyen can be reached on (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.
Jul. 23, 2026
/RICHARD J HONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2623
***
Prosecution Insights