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 .
Election/Restrictions
This application is in-part in condition for allowance except for the presence of the non-elected claims without traverse and the rejected claims below. Accordingly, the office respectfully requests applicant to cancel withdrawn claims, in order to promote compact prosecution.
Response to Amendment
Amendment changes scope of previous claims thereby necessitating a new grounds for examination thereof.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 28 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant respectfully argues: new amended matter is not taught because the same subject matter is included in claim 11 that has been indicated as allowable subject matter.
The office respectfully disagrees. Claim 11 is with respect to a different scope and boundaries defined with respect to the claimed metes and bounds. As a result, the updated citation is provided below with clarifying explanations to further assist applicant for compact prosecution purposes. On a good note, claim 10’s amendment respectfully includes allowable subject matter that’s now in objectable allowable format.
(Osterhout, figs. 1-2, 15AA, 21-22, 32, 72, & 74-75 illustrate a wearable/client shared video conference mirroring electronic system for still and motion imaging conference networking applications; disclosed in ¶ [0223]- ¶ [0224], ¶ [0283]- ¶ [0285], ¶ [0342], ¶ [0430]- ¶ [0432], ¶ [0435], ¶ [0481]- ¶ [0483], ¶ [0612], ¶ [0616], ¶ [0769] {“please note, combination of the same”} & ¶ [0907]; please note, still image buffering includes memory correcting and storing conference image before including in video conference, where portions can be deleted to provide a focused image that can also include higher resolution {i.e., better graphics}; in addition, motion imaging (i.e., video camera imaging) is disclosed to having similar technology for zooming and focusing as described in at least ¶ [0431]; please note, Osterhout discloses that the glasses may run like a laptop, and includes functionality with combining videoconferencing with military applications {as described with having a shared library of threats that could be processed for video conferencing purposes})
Therefore, the office respectfully disagrees.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 6 & 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Osterhout et al, hereinafter Osterhout (U.S. 2017/0344114 A1).
In regards to claim 6, Osterhout discloses: a system (Osterhout, figs. 1-2, 15AA, 21-22, 72, & 75 illustrate a wearable/client video conference mirroring electronic system for still and motion imaging conference networking applications; disclosed in ¶ [0223]- ¶ [0224], ¶ [0283]- ¶ [0285], ¶ [0342], ¶ [0430]- ¶ [0432], ¶ [0435], ¶ [0616], & ¶ [0907]) comprising:
one or more processors; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors (Osterhout, figs. 1-2, 15AA, 21-22, 72, & 75 illustrate a wearable/client video conference mirroring electronic system for still and motion imaging conference networking applications; disclosed in ¶ [0223]- ¶ [0224], ¶ [0283]- ¶ [0285], ¶ [0342], ¶ [0430]- ¶ [0432], ¶ [0435], ¶ [0616], & ¶ [0907]; please note, disclosed processor(s) and memory(s)), cause the system to perform operations comprising:
receiving media content from a client device for display in a mirroring lens of a wearable device; executing a shared mirroring lens runtime library to render the media content in the mirroring lens; generating a hardware graphics buffer for processing frames of mirrored content; rendering the frames from a mirroring connection into the hardware graphics buffer; and processing the rendered frames for display in the mirroring lens using the shared mirroring lens runtime library (Osterhout, figs. 1-2, 15AA, 21-22, 32, 72, & 74-75 illustrate a wearable/client shared video conference mirroring electronic system for still and motion imaging conference networking applications; disclosed in ¶ [0223]- ¶ [0224], ¶ [0283]- ¶ [0285], ¶ [0342], ¶ [0430]- ¶ [0432], ¶ [0435], ¶ [0481]- ¶ [0483], ¶ [0612], ¶ [0616], ¶ [0769] {“please note, combination of the same”} & ¶ [0907]; please note, still image buffering includes memory correcting and storing conference image before including in video conference, where portions can be deleted to provide a focused image that can also include higher resolution {i.e., better graphics}; in addition, motion imaging (i.e., video camera imaging) is disclosed to having similar technology for zooming and focusing as described in at least ¶ [0431]; please note, Osterhout discloses that the glasses may run like a laptop, and includes functionality with combining videoconferencing with military applications {as described with having a shared library of threats that could be processed for video conferencing purposes}).
In regards to claim 8, Osterhout discloses: the system of claim 6, wherein the hardware graphics buffer enables frames from the mirroring connection to be rendered and processed for display (Osterhout, figs. 1-2, 15AA, 21-22, 72, & 75 illustrate a wearable/client video conference mirroring electronic system for still and motion imaging conference networking applications; disclosed in ¶ [0223]- ¶ [0224], ¶ [0283]- ¶ [0285], ¶ [0342], ¶ [0430]- ¶ [0432], ¶ [0435], ¶ [0616], & ¶ [0907]; please note, still image buffering includes memory correcting and storing conference image before including in video conference, where portions can be deleted to provide a focused image that can also include higher resolution {i.e., better graphics}; in addition, please note, motion imaging (i.e., video camera imaging) is disclosed to having similar technology for zooming and focusing as described in at least ¶ [0431]).
In regards to claim 9, Osterhout discloses: the system of claim 6, wherein the mirroring lens runtime library is used for display rendering and user interface logic on the wearable device (Osterhout, figs. 1-2, 15AA, 21-22, 72, & 75 illustrate a wearable/client video conference mirroring electronic system for still and motion imaging conference networking applications; disclosed in ¶ [0223]- ¶ [0224], ¶ [0283]- ¶ [0285], ¶ [0342], ¶ [0430]- ¶ [0432], ¶ [0435], ¶ [0616], & ¶ [0907]; please note, still image buffering includes memory correcting and storing conference image before including in video conference, where portions can be deleted to provide a focused image that can also include higher resolution {i.e., better graphics}; in addition, please note, motion imaging (i.e., video camera imaging) is disclosed to having similar technology for zooming and focusing, as well as other interface managing functionalities including recording, tracking, timed functions, control features, and the sort - as described in at least ¶ [0430]- ¶ [0431]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 7 & 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osterhout in view of Gooden et al, hereinafter Gooden (U.S. 2022/0182252 A1).
In regards to claim 7, Osterhout discloses: the system of claim 6, but fails to disclose: wherein the shared mirroring lens runtime library comprises JavaScript executing in a lens core component runtime.
However, Gooden discloses: wherein the shared mirroring lens runtime library comprises JavaScript executing in a lens core component runtime (Gooden, figs. 1-2, 4, 8-9, & 16-17, disclosed in abstract, ¶ [0013]- ¶ [0014], ¶ [0018]- ¶ [0019], & ¶ [0028]- ¶ [0034]; please note, JavaScript driven data user interfaces for video conferencing purposes).
Gooden and Osterhout are considered to be analogous art because both are in the same field of endeavor related to video conference wearable systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the system of Osterhout to include: wherein the shared mirroring lens runtime library comprises JavaScript executing in a lens core component runtime, as taught by Gooden, in order to improve efficiency (Gooden, ¶ [0003] & ¶ [0013]).
In regards to claim 10, Osterhout discloses: the system of claim 6, but fails to disclose: wherein the operations further comprise managing user interface elements presented on the wearable device using the shared mirroring lens runtime library.
However, Gooden discloses: wherein the operations further comprise managing user interface elements presented on the wearable device using the shared mirroring lens runtime library (Gooden, figs. 1-2, 4, 8-9, & 16-17, disclosed in abstract, ¶ [0013]- ¶ [0015], ¶ [0018]- ¶ [0019], & ¶ [0028]- ¶ [0034]; please note, JavaScript driven data user interfaces for video conferencing purposes).
Gooden and Osterhout are considered to be analogous art because both are in the same field of endeavor related to video conference wearable systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the system of Osterhout to include: wherein the operations further comprise managing user interface elements presented on the wearable device using the shared mirroring lens runtime library, as taught by Gooden, in order to improve efficiency (Gooden, ¶ [0003] & ¶ [0013]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-15 are in condition for allowance.
The closest prior art(s) found during the search is provided above rejection. However, such either individually and in combination/ further combination fails to teach and/or render obvious the claimed novelty.
With respect to independent claim 11, the above reference either individually or in combination, absent of impermissible hindsight or any other impermissible rationale described in the MPEP, due to the following in combination with the rest of the affiliated claim, fail to disclose:
Claim 11 allowable subject matter:
PNG
media_image1.png
158
841
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
214
810
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As a result, dependent claims 12-15 are in condition for allowance.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Duane N. Taylor Jr. whose telephone number is (571)272-4703. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Saturday [5:30am- 10pm].
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, Temesghen Ghebretinsae can be reached at (571) 272-3017. 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.
Duane N. Taylor Jr.
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2626
/DUANE N TAYLOR JR/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2626
Prosecution Insights