CTNF 19/229,462 CTNF 89707 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA Claims 1-20 filed on 06/05/2025 are pending. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 7 and 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The claim limitation “ according to the rotation of the wearable device” renders indefinite because “the wearable device is not worn by the user”. A person ordinarily skilled in the art understands that the rotation of the wearable device can’t be determined if the device is not worn by the user. In the Specification is not explicitly disclosed or described that the rotation of the wearable device is determined for the device not worn by the user. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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 of this title, 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-4, 7, 11-14, 17 and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (“Park”) [U.S Patent No. 10,261,671 B2] in view of Zhang et al. (“Zhang”) [U.S Patent No. 10,674,141 B1] Regarding claim 1, Park meets the claim limitations as follows: A wearable device comprising [Fig. 3; col. 6, 16, 19-20: ‘another mobile terminal … may be a wearable device’; ‘The HMD 200 connected with the mobile terminal 100] : at least one sensor (i.e. ‘the sensing unit 240’) [Fig. 3; col. 17: ‘a proximity sensor, an illumination sensor, a touch sensor, an acceleration sensor, a magnetic sensor, …’] ; a display (i.e. ‘the display unit 251’) [Fig. 3] ; memory storing instructions [Fig. 1A, 3; col. 4, 16, 17, 28: ‘the memory 170 …application programs …, data or instructions for operations … ’; ‘the HMD 200 may include … a memory, a controller 280’] ; and at least one processor (i.e. ‘the controller’) [Fig. 1A, 3; col. 4, 17, 28:; ‘the HMD is controlled by the controller 180 of the mobile terminal 100, but the HMD 200 may alternatively be controlled by the controller 280 thereof] communicatively coupled to the at least one sensor, the display, and the memory, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively [Fig. 1A, col. 4: ‘application programs executed’] , cause the wearable device to: determine, using the at least one sensor (i.e. ‘the sensing unit 240’) [Fig. 3; col. 6, col. 22: ‘determine whether or not the eye motion detected through the sensing unit 240’; col. 24, ll. 23-30: ‘ sense the eyes of the user wearing the HMD 200’] , whether the wearable device is worn by a user , based on a result of the determination, display , using the display, at least one virtual object (e.g. ‘one graphic object’ 800c) [Figs. 5-10; col. 18, 24: ‘The HMD 200 may provide augmented reality (AR) superimposing a virtual image on a real image or a background and displaying it as one image by using characteristics of such a display’] , identify at least one of movement or rotation of the wearable device (i.e. the HMD main body 200 ‘moved (or rotated)’) [Fig. 5, 8; col. 21, 24: ‘a part 810, which includes the at least one graphic object (e.g., 800c), of the virtual space 800 is output on the display unit 251 of the HMD 200, in response to the movement of the HMD 200’] while the at least one virtual object is being displayed, and based on an attribute (e.g. ‘brightness’, ‘a weather information output function’, or ‘a broadcast output function’) [col. 24: ‘Examples of the preset function’] of the at least one virtual object being displayed, control the display [Fig. 5, 8; col. 22, 23, 24: ‘a part 810, which includes the at least one graphic object (e.g., 800c), of the virtual space 800 is output on the display unit 251 of the HMD 200, in response to the movement of the HMD 200’] so that a display state of the at least one virtual object is corrected according to the at least one of movement or rotation of the wearable device. Park does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added): determine, using the at least one sensor, whether the wearable device is worn by a user . However in the same field of endeavor Zhang discloses the deficient claim as follows: determine, using the at least one sensor, whether the wearable device is worn by a user [col. 7, ll. 30-40; col. 19, ll. 30-40: ‘include at least one proximity sensor 119 for detecting whether head-mounted display device 102 is mounted on a user’s head’] . Park and Zhang are combinable because they are from the same field of virtual reality and augmented reality headsets. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Park and Zhang as motivation to include Zhang’s teaching of head-mounted-display system for virtual reality and augmented reality [Zhang: col. 1] . Regarding claim 2, Park meets the claim limitations as follows: The wearable device of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, further cause the wearable device to: determine the attribute of the at least one virtual object being displayed (e.g. ‘brightness’, ‘a weather information output function’, or ‘a broadcast output function’) [col. 24: ‘Examples of the preset function’] , based on whether the at least one virtual object (e.g., 800c) is related to a real object (i.e. 800a) included in a real world shown to the user wearing the wearable device [col. 24: ‘brightness adjustment’; ‘the controller180 of the mobile terminal 100, …, may reduce output brightness of the display unit 251 of the HMD 200’] , whether the at least one virtual object is a virtual object displayed based on a designated application, or whether the at least one virtual object is a virtual object having a history of having the display state corrected by the user. Regarding claim 3, Park meets the claim limitations as follows: The wearable device of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, further cause the wearable device to: determine, in a case where the at least one virtual object (e.g. ‘one graphic object’ 800c) comprises a plurality of virtual objects (e.g. ‘800a’; ‘800b’; and ‘800c’) [Fig. 5, 8; col. 21, 24: ‘a part 810, which includes the at least one graphic object (e.g., 800c), of the virtual space 800 is output on the display unit 251 of the HMD 200, in response to the movement of the HMD 200’] , the attribute for each of the plurality of virtual objects (e.g. ‘brightness’, ‘a weather information output function’, or ‘a broadcast output function’) [col. 24: ‘Examples of the preset function’] . Regarding claim 4, Park meets the claim limitations as follows: The wearable device of claim 3, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, further cause the wearable device to: perform correction of the display state for a first virtual object among the plurality of virtual objects based on the determined attribute (e.g. ‘brightness’, ‘a weather information output function’, or ‘a broadcast output function’) [col. 24: ‘Examples of the preset function’] , and display [Fig. 8b; col. 24: ‘when a part 810a, … not included …. the controller180 of the mobile terminal 100, …, may reduce output brightness of the display unit 251 of the HMD 200’] , regardless of the at least one of movement or rotation of the wearable device, a second virtual object [Fig. 9B, 9C; col. 25, 26: ‘the second screen’] among the plurality of virtual objects. Regarding claim 7, Park meets the claim limitations as follows: The wearable device of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, further cause the wearable device to: control the display [Fig. 5, 8; col. 25: ‘the controller 180 may control the display unit 251 of the HMD 200’] so that the display state of the at least one virtual object is corrected [Fig. 5, 8; col. 24: ‘when a part 810, which includes the at least one graphic object (e.g., 800c), of the virtual space 800 is output on the display unit 251 of the HMD 200, in response to the movement of the HMD 200, the controller 180 may reset the reduced output brightness of the display unit 251 of the HMD 200 back to the original output brightness’. Fig. 5, 9 shows different screens in accordance with ‘the sensed movement of the HMD 200’] and displayed according to the rotation of the wearable device (i.e. the HMD main body 200 ‘moved (or rotated)’) [Fig. 5, 8, 9; col. 21, 24: ‘a part 810, which includes the at least one graphic object (e.g., 800c), of the virtual space 800 is output on the display unit 251 of the HMD 200, in response to the movement of the HMD 200’] , based on determining that the wearable device is not worn by the user . Park does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added): based on determining that the wearable device is not worn by the user . However in the same field of endeavor Zhang discloses the deficient claim as follows: based on determining that the wearable device is not worn by the user [col. 7, ll. 30-40; col. 19, ll. 30-40: ‘include at least one proximity sensor 119 for detecting whether head-mounted display device 102 is mounted on a user’s head’] . Park and Zhang are combinable because they are from the same field of virtual reality and augmented reality headsets. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Park and Zhang as motivation to include Zhang’s teaching of head-mounted-display system for virtual reality and augmented reality [Zhang: col. 1] . Regarding claim 11, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 1 in the method form and rejected as per discussion for claim 1. Regarding claim 12, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 2 in the method form and rejected as per discussion for claim 2. Regarding claim 13, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 3 in the method form and rejected as per discussion for claim 3. Regarding claim 14, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 4 in the method form and rejected as per discussion for claim 4. Regarding claim 17, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 7 in the method form and rejected as per discussion for claim 7. Regarding claim 20, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 1 in the form of “One or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media storing instructions” and rejected as per discussion for claim 1 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 5 and 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Zhang in further view of Michail et al. (“Michail”) [US 2015/0310665 A1] Regarding claim 5, Park in view of Zhang meets the claim limitations as follows: The wearable device of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor (i.e. ‘the controller’) individually or collectively, further cause the wearable device to: control the display so that [Fig. 5, 8; col. 24: ‘the controller 180 may control the display unit 251’; ‘the controller 180 may output … to correspond to the user’s eyes on the display unit 251 …, on the basis of the user’s eyes’; ‘when a part 810, which includes the at least one graphic object (e.g., 800c), of the virtual space 800 is output on the display unit 251 of the HMD 200, in response to the movement of the HMD 200, the controller 180 may reset the reduced output brightness of the display unit 251 of the HMD 200 back to the original output brightness’. Fig. 5, 9 shows different screens in accordance with ‘the sensed movement of the HMD 200’] , after performing the correction, at least one of a frame rate or resolution for the at least one virtual object on which the correction has been performed is increased . Park does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added): at least one of a frame rate or resolution for the at least one virtual object on which the correction has been performed is increased . However in the same field of endeavor Michail discloses the deficient claim as follows: at least one of a frame rate or resolution for the at least one virtual object on which the correction has been performed is increased [para. 0003, 0004: ‘increasing a frame rate’] . Park, Zhang and Michail are combinable because they are from the same field of virtual reality and augmented reality headsets. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Park, Zhang and Michail as motivation to increase frame rate to achieve low latency for a realistic AR environment [Michail: para. 0004: ‘in order to generate a realistic AR environment’] . Regarding claim 15, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 5 in the method form and rejected as per discussion for claim 5 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 6 and 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Zhang in further view of Liechtenstein (“Liechtenstein”) [US 12,105,867 B2] Regarding claim 6, Park in view of Zhang meets the claim limitations as follows: The wearable device of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, further cause the wearable device to: control the display (i.e. ‘the controller’) so that [Fig. 5, 8; col. 24: ‘the controller 180 may control the display unit 251’; ‘the controller 180 may output … to correspond to the user’s eyes on the display unit 251 …, on the basis of the user’s eyes’; ‘when a part 810, which includes the at least one graphic object (e.g., 800c), of the virtual space 800 is output on the display unit 251 of the HMD 200, in response to the movement of the HMD 200, the controller 180 may reset the reduced output brightness of the display unit 251 of the HMD 200 back to the original output brightness’. Fig. 5, 9 shows different screens in accordance with ‘the sensed movement of the HMD 200’] , in a case where a rotation angle of the wearable device (i.e. the HMD main body 200 ‘moved (or rotated)’) [Fig. 5, 8, 9; col. 21, 24: ‘a part 810, which includes the at least one graphic object (e.g., 800c), of the virtual space 800 is output on the display unit 251 of the HMD 200, in response to the movement of the HMD 200’] is greater than or equal to a threshold angle , the at least one virtual object is corrected and displayed according to the rotation of the wearable device [Fig. 5, 8; col. 24: ‘when a part 810, which includes the at least one graphic object (e.g., 800c), of the virtual space 800 is output on the display unit 251 of the HMD 200, in response to the movement of the HMD 200, the controller 180 may reset the reduced output brightness of the display unit 251 of the HMD 200 back to the original output brightness’. Fig. 5, 9 shows different screens in accordance with ‘the sensed movement of the HMD 200’] . Park does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added): where a rotation angle of the wearable device is greater than or equal to a threshold angle . However in the same field of endeavor Liechtenstein discloses the deficient claim as follows: where a rotation angle of the wearable device is greater than or equal to a threshold angle [Fig. 4, 5; col. 8, 9: ‘as a threshold parameter is exceeded, the display may be cleared of all augmented reality artifacts’; ‘Only once the tilt angle 523 exceeds the threshold parameter the augmented reality artifacts may be deactivated’] . Park, Zhang and Liechtenstein are combinable because they are from the same field of virtual reality and augmented reality headsets. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Park, Zhang and Liechtenstein as motivation to clear all augmented reality artifacts when a threshold parameter is exceeded [col. 8] . Regarding claim 16, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 6 in the method form and rejected as per discussion for claim 6 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 8, 10 and 18-19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Zhang in further view of Perry (“Perry”) [US 2017/0221264 A1] Regarding claim 8, Park in view of Zhang meets the claim limitations as follows: The wearable device of claim 2, further comprising: at least one camera configured to track a gaze of the user [col. 22, ll. 15-30: ‘a camera, which captures the eyes of the user wearing the HMD 200’; ‘sense (detect) the eye motion of the user using the received image’] , wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, further cause the wearable device to: control the display (i.e. ‘the controller’) so that [Fig. 5, 8; col. 24: ‘the controller 180 may control the display unit 251’; ‘the controller 180 may output … to correspond to the user’s eyes on the display unit 251 …, on the basis of the user’s eyes’; ‘when a part 810, which includes the at least one graphic object (e.g., 800c), of the virtual space 800 is output on the display unit 251 of the HMD 200, in response to the movement of the HMD 200, the controller 180 may reset the reduced output brightness of the display unit 251 of the HMD 200 back to the original output brightness’. Fig. 5, 9 shows different screens in accordance with ‘the sensed movement of the HMD 200’] , in a case where a direction of the gaze of the user and a direction of movement of the wearable device are different from each other, the at least one virtual object is displayed around the real object, based on the gaze of the user identified by the at least one camera. Park does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added): in a case where a direction of the gaze of the user and a direction of movement of the wearable device are different from each other , the at least one virtual object is displayed around the real object, based on the gaze of the user identified by the at least one camera . However in the same field of endeavor Perry discloses the deficient claim as follows: in a case where a direction of the gaze of the user (i.e. direction of the gaze of the user ‘403’) [Fig. 4F; para. 0005, 0082, 0089, 0093: ‘determining an eye gaze direction of the user’] and a direction of movement of the wearable device (i.e. direction of movement of the wearable device ‘401’) [Fig. 4F; para. 0082, 0089: ‘the determined orientation of the head mounted display 102’] are different from each other, the at least one virtual object is displayed around the real object (i.e. ‘D5’) [Fig. 4F; para. 0082, 0089: the ‘D5’ is displayed based on the gaze of the user] , based on the gaze of the user identified by the at least one camera [para. 0058: ‘a camera 108’] . Park, Zhang and Perry are combinable because they are from the same field of virtual reality and augmented reality headsets. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Park, Zhang and Perry as motivation to control display based on the eye-gazing direction of the user for object-of-focus [Perry: para. 0004-0006] . Regarding claim 10, Park in view of Zhang meets the claim limitations as follows: The wearable device of claim 2, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, further cause the wearable device to: identify a location of the real object [Fig. 9: ‘900a’] , and control (i.e. ‘the controller’) the display to display [Fig. 5, 8; col. 24: ‘the controller 180 may control the display unit 251’; ‘the controller 180 may output … to correspond to the user’s eyes on the display unit 251 …, on the basis of the user’s eyes’; ‘when a part 810, which includes the at least one graphic object (e.g., 800c), of the virtual space 800 is output on the display unit 251 of the HMD 200, in response to the movement of the HMD 200, the controller 180 may reset the reduced output brightness of the display unit 251 of the HMD 200 back to the original output brightness’. Fig. 5, 9 shows different screens in accordance with ‘the sensed movement of the HMD 200’] , regardless of the at least one of movement or rotation of the wearable device, the at least one virtual object around the real object. Park does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added): identify a location of the real object, and control the display to display, regardless of the at least one of movement or rotation of the wearable device, the at least one virtual object around the real object . However in the same field of endeavor Perry discloses the deficient claim as follows: identify a location of the real object (i.e. ‘D5’) [Fig. 4F; para. 0082, 0089: the scene D5 is identified by the gaze of the user] , and control the display to display, regardless of the at least one of movement or rotation of the wearable device (i.e. direction of the gaze of the user ‘403’) [Fig. 4F; para. 0005, 0082, 0089, 0093: ‘determining an eye gaze direction of the user’] , the at least one virtual object around the real object (i.e. ‘D5’) [Fig. 4F; para. 0082, 0089: the scene D5 is identified and displayed based the gaze of the user 403] . Park, Zhang and Perry are combinable because they are from the same field of virtual reality and augmented reality headsets. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Park, Zhang and Perry as motivation to control display based on the eye-gazing direction of the user for object-of-focus [Perry: para. 0004-0006] . Regarding claim 18, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 8 in the method form and rejected as per discussion for claim 8. Regarding claim 19, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 10 in the method form and rejected as per discussion for claim 10 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Zhang in further view of Aoyama et al. (“Aoyama”) [US 2015/0170422 A1] Regarding claim 9, Park in view of Zhang meets the claim limitations as follows: The wearable device of claim 1, further comprising: a driving module (i.e. ‘the controller’) configured to adjust a position of the display [Fig. 5, 8; col. 24: ‘the controller 180 may control the display unit 251’; ‘the controller 180 may output … to correspond to the user’s eyes on the display unit 251 …, on the basis of the user’s eyes’] so that the display state of the at least one virtual object is corrected and displayed [Fig. 5, 8; col. 24: ‘when a part 810, which includes the at least one graphic object (e.g., 800c), of the virtual space 800 is output on the display unit 251 of the HMD 200, in response to the movement of the HMD 200, the controller 180 may reset the reduced output brightness of the display unit 251 of the HMD 200 back to the original output brightness’. Fig. 5, 9 shows different screens in accordance with ‘the sensed movement of the HMD 200’] . Park does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added): a driving module configured to adjust a position of the display so that the display state of the at least one virtual object is corrected and displayed . However in the same field of endeavor Aoyama discloses the deficient claim as follows: a driving module configured to adjust a position of the display so that the display state of the at least one virtual object is corrected and displayed [Fig. 3, 4; para. 0053-0058: ‘the drawing position of a drawing object on the virtual screen can be corrected on the basis of the viewpoint position and the line of sight orientation’] . Park, Zhang and Aoyama are combinable because they are from the same field of virtual reality and augmented reality headsets. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Park, Zhang and Aoyama as motivation to correct the display of virtual objects for effectively reducing loss of information [para. 0010] . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form 892 . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER D LE whose telephone number is (571)270-5382. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Alternate Friday: 10AM-6:30PM. 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, SATH PERUNGAVOOR can be reached on 571-272-7455. 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 the PAIR system, see http://pair-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. /PETER D LE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488 Application/Control Number: 19/229,462 Page 2 Art Unit: 2488 Application/Control Number: 19/229,462 Page 3 Art Unit: 2488 Application/Control Number: 19/229,462 Page 4 Art Unit: 2488 Application/Control Number: 19/229,462 Page 5 Art Unit: 2488 Application/Control Number: 19/229,462 Page 6 Art Unit: 2488 Application/Control Number: 19/229,462 Page 7 Art Unit: 2488 Application/Control Number: 19/229,462 Page 8 Art Unit: 2488 Application/Control Number: 19/229,462 Page 9 Art Unit: 2488 Application/Control Number: 19/229,462 Page 10 Art Unit: 2488 Application/Control Number: 19/229,462 Page 11 Art Unit: 2488 Application/Control Number: 19/229,462 Page 12 Art Unit: 2488 Application/Control Number: 19/229,462 Page 13 Art Unit: 2488 Application/Control Number: 19/229,462 Page 14 Art Unit: 2488 Application/Control Number: 19/229,462 Page 15 Art Unit: 2488 Application/Control Number: 19/229,462 Page 16 Art Unit: 2488 Application/Control Number: 19/229,462 Page 17 Art Unit: 2488 Application/Control Number: 19/229,462 Page 18 Art Unit: 2488
Prosecution Insights