CTNF 19/333,996 CTNF 90238 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-01-aia AIA 07-03-01-r-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 are pending. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 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. 07-34-05 AIA Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which a joint inventor, regards as the invention. Claim 19 recites the limitation " the one or more sensors " in lines 8-9 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 07-34-05 AIA Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which a joint inventor, regards as the invention. Claim 20 recites the limitation " the one or more sensors " in lines 5-6 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In support of compact prosecution Claims 19 and 20 are construed with “ at a head-mounted device (HMD) comprising a processor and one or more sensors ”, added after the preamble and before the limitation “the one or more sensors”. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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, 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the Examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the Examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-2, 4-5, 9 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giraldi (US 2017/0061692) in view of Mckenzie (US 2022/0229524). All reference is to Giraldi unless otherwise indicated . Regarding Claim 19 (Original), Giraldi teaches a method, a system and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium; and one or more processors coupled to the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, wherein the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprises program instructions that, when executed on the one or more processors, cause the system to perform operations comprising: determining a three-dimensional position [¶0012, “The augmented reality display device 102 further may be configured to establish a coordinate frame for the real-world environment 104 via the acquired image data. For example, the coordinate frame may be established from a three-dimensional mesh of the real-world environment 104 constructed from depth data acquired via an on-board depth sensor (e.g. by using a simultaneous localization and mapping method)”] of a display [¶0013, “the augmented reality display device 102 may utilize image data analysis to localize the display screen 110 and/or other objects of interest in a coordinate frame of the augmented reality display device 102”] of a second device [fig. 1 @108], wherein content originating from the second device [fig. 1 @108] is visible [figs. 1-2 illustrate display screen is inside user HMD FOV] to a user [fig. 1 @100] of the HMD [fig. 1 @102]; determining a gaze direction of the user based on sensor data obtained via the one or more sensors [¶0033, “The display system 500 may further include a gaze detection subsystem 510 configured to detect a gaze of a user for detecting user input, for example, for interacting with devices … The gaze detection subsystem 510 may be configured to determine gaze directions of each of a user's eyes in any suitable manner”] Giraldi does not teach identifying a portion of the content based on the gaze direction and the 3D position of the display; tracking a hand of the user based on sensor data obtained via the one or more sensors; and providing information to the second device based on identifying the portion of the content and the hand tracking, wherein the second device detects input associated with the content based on the information Mckenzie teaches identifying a portion of a content [fig. 11A @1103a] based on the gaze direction [fig. 11A @1111a] and the 3D position of the display [the user’s detected gaze direction in the 3D environment 1101 and the position of each portion of the content determines which portion of the content intersects with the user’s gaze]; tracking a hand of a user [fig. 11A @1113a] based on sensor data [¶0275 teaches a hand tracking device] obtained via the one or more sensors [¶0268, “an indirect input provided by hand 1113a that is detected by device 101 is directed to user interface object 1103a as indicated by the check mark in the figure (e.g., and not user interface object 1103b), because gaze 1111a of the user is directed to user interface object 1103a when the indirect input provided by hand 1113a is detected”]; and providing information [fig. 12A indicate user interface region to be selected] to a second device based on identifying the portion of the content and the hand tracking [fig. 12A @1202a and 1202b], wherein the second device detects input associated with the content based on the information [fig. 12A @1202d] Before the application was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of using a gaze direction and a hand gesture, to select and control a portion of a graphic user interface, as taught by Mckenzie, into the method, system, and computer pro\gram product taught by Giraldi in order to control a user interface associated with a real display in an augmented reality environment. Regarding Claim 2 (Original), Giraldi in view of Mckenzie teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein t he information providing to the second device comprises a display position identified based on the gaze direction [Mckenzie: fig. 12A @1202b teaches providing gaze position and hand gesture to determine operation with respect to first user interface]. Regarding Claim 4 (Original), Giraldi in view of Mckenzie teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein the information provided to the second device comprises an interaction corresponding to a click or touch event on the display [Mckenzie: ¶0141, “input devices include a touch screen, mouse (e.g., external), trackpad (optionally integrated or external), touchpad (optionally integrated or external), remote control device (e.g., external), another mobile device (e.g., separate from the electronic device)”]. Regarding Claim 5 (Original), Giraldi in view of Mckenzie teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein the second device is mobile phone [Mckenzie: ¶0216 teaches the computer system is a smartphone] or display embedded in an automobile dashboard [alternate limitation not addressed]. Regarding Claim 9 (Original), Giraldi in view of Mckenzie teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein determining the 3D position comprises determining a location of a boundary [fig. 4 @420 teaches location of display screen based on location of physical manifestation (entire display screen area)] around a content area of the display [construed as the display screen 110] . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 3, 6-8, and 10-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Douglas Wilson whose telephone number is (571)272-5640. The Examiner can normally be reached 1000-1800 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, Patrick Edouard can be reached at 571-272-7603. 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. /Douglas Wilson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2622 Application/Control Number: 19/333,996 Page 2 Art Unit: 2622 Application/Control Number: 19/333,996 Page 3 Art Unit: 2622 Application/Control Number: 19/333,996 Page 5 Art Unit: 2622 Application/Control Number: 19/333,996 Page 6 Art Unit: 2622 Application/Control Number: 19/333,996 Page 7 Art Unit: 2622 Application/Control Number: 19/333,996 Page 8 Art Unit: 2622
Prosecution Insights