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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/05/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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, 5, 6, 8, 9, 13, 14, 16 and 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 7-10, 14, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,321,510. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the U.S. Patent anticipate the claims of the instant application.
Present application
U.S. Pat # 12,321,510
1. A non-transitory computer readable storage medium including instructions that, when executed by a system comprising one or more processors that are in communication with a head-mounted device, cause the system to perform:
obtaining, via one or more sensors, input data including user activity data;
determining a recommendation for a user, wherein the recommendation is based on the input data and historical activity data of a plurality of users including the user;
generating a user interface (UI) including one or more selectable UI elements, wherein:
in accordance with a determination that the recommendation satisfies a first confidence threshold, a first set of selectable UI elements of the one or more selectable UI elements includes one or more of a first selectable UI element for generating a new recommendation, a second selectable UI element for modifying the recommendation, and a third selectable UI element for combination thereof,
and in accordance with a determination that the recommendation satisfies a second confidence threshold, a second set of selectable UI elements of the one or more selectable UI elements includes, at least, the first selectable UI element for generating a new recommendation;
and causing a display of the head-mounted device to present the UI and the recommendation,
wherein the UI includes at least one of the first set of selectable UI elements or the second set of selectable UI elements.
1. An extended reality system comprising: a head-mounted device comprising a display to display content to a user and one or more sensors to capture input data comprising images of a visual field of the user wearing the head-mounted device; one or more processors; and one or more memories accessible to the one or more processors, the one or more memories storing a plurality of instructions executable by the one or more processors, the plurality of instructions comprising instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform processing including:
collecting, using the one or more sensors, the input data from the user that includes characteristics of activities performed by the user;
predicting a recommendation for the user based on the features and model parameters learned from historical activities performed by one or more users including the user;
generating a user interface comprising one or more graphical user interface elements providing selectable options and configured to enable the user to perform an error recovery for the recommendation when the user perceives the recommendation to be inaccurate, the generating the user interface including:
in response to the determining that the probability of the recommendation being accurate is less than a threshold value, generating the user interface to include the one or more graphical user interface elements including an option to generate a new recommendation, generate a modified recommendation, or a combination thereof,
and in response to the determining that the probability of the recommendation being accurate is not less than the threshold value, generating the user interface to include the one or more graphical user interface elements including an option to generate the new recommendation;
rendering the recommendation and the user interface on the display;
generating a response based on the received request from the user, wherein the response includes the new recommendation, the modified recommendation, or the combination thereof; and rendering the response to the user on the display.
Claim 5 of Instant application
Claim 7 of U.S. Pat # 12,321,510
Claim 6 of Instant application
Claim 3 of U.S. Pat # 12,321,510
Claim 8 of Instant application
Claim 2 of U.S. Pat # 12,321,510
Claim 9 of Instant application
Claim 8 of U.S. Pat # 12,321,510
Claim 13 of Instant application
Claim 14 of U.S. Pat # 12,321,510
Claim 14 of Instant application
Claim 10 of U.S. Pat # 12,321,510
Claim 16 of Instant application
Claim 9 of U.S. Pat # 12,321,510
Claim 17 of Instant application
Claim 15 of U.S. Pat # 12,321,510
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 7, 10-12, 15, and 18-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if the double patenting rejection of the parent claims is overcome.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAYCE R BIBBEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7222. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8:00-6:00.
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, Matthew Eason can be reached at 571-270-7230. 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.
/CHAYCE R BIBBEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2624