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 .
For reissue applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the current provisions.
DETAILED ACTION
This is a Non-Final Action responsive to communications: The instant application (i.e., 19/445,885), filed on 01/12/2026, which is a broadening reissue of application 17/744,320 (U.S. Patent No. 11,887,228 B2 (hereafter the “Bridon ‘228 patent”), published 01/30/2024). The Bridon ‘228 patent claims the benefit of provisional application 63/190,918, filed on 05/20/2021.
The Examiner notes that the Patent Owner (PO) of the Bridon ‘228 patent is Apple Inc.
The Examiner also acknowledges the Request for Corrected Filing Receipt filed by Applicant on 02/02/2026.
Claims 1-20 were initially pending in the application. A preliminary amendment to the claims was filed concurrently with the application on 01/12/2026. By way of the preliminary amendment to the claims, claims 1, 11, and 20 were amended. Said preliminary amendment to the claims has been entered and made of record. Therefore, claims 1-20 are currently pending in the application. Claims 1, 11, and 20 are independent claims.
A preliminary Amendment to the Specification was also filed concurrently with the
application on 01/12/2026. Said preliminary Amendment to the Specification has been entered
and made of record.
The Reissue Declaration filed on 01/12/2026 has been approved and made of record. As shown below, the Examiner notes that certain portions of the properly filed PTO/AIA /05 form (“Reissue Application Declaration By The Inventor”) appear to be missing. While at least some of the missing portions relate to specific requirements of 37 CFR 1.63(g), the Examiner notes that the Reissue Declaration is still considered acceptable.
PNG
media_image1.png
835
716
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Reissue
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceed-ing in which Patent No. 11,887,228 B2 is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, and litigation.
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is mate-rial to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue appli-cation.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Applicant is notified that any subsequent amendment to the specification and/or claims must comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b).
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 01/12/2026 has been considered by the Examiner.
Consideration by an examiner of the information submitted in an IDS means nothing more than considering the documents in the same manner as other documents in Office search files are considered by the examiner while conducting a search of the prior art in a proper field of search. The initials of the examiner placed adjacent to the citations on the PTO/SB/08 or its equivalent mean that the information has been considered by the examiner to the extent noted above (see: MPEP 609).
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 11, 12, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Independent claims 1, 11, and 20 do not comply with 37 CFR 1.173, which sets forth the manner of making amendments in reissue applications. Specifically, independent claims 1, 11, and 20 do not comply with 37 CFR 1.173(d)(1) which at least requires “matter to be omitted by reissue must be enclosed in brackets.” Using independent claim 1 as a representative example, the Examiner notes that Applicant improperly deletes “.
Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is reminded that all amendments subsequent to the first amendment must also be made relative to the patent specification in effect as of the date of the filing of the reissue application, and not relative to the prior amendment (e.g., see: MPEP 1453(IV)).
Dependent claims 2 and 12 each do not specifically comply with 37 CFR 1.75(a) which at least requires “a claim particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.” More specifically, each of dependent claims 2 and 12 recite the initialism “XR” without clearly stating what XR unambiguously stands for in the claim. Because the phrase “XR content” is not explicitly detailed in the disclosure of the Bridon ‘228 patent (e.g., see: MPEP 608.01(o)), the Examiner suggests amending each of dependent claims 2 and 12 to state “extended reality (XR) content”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In regard to independent claims 1, 11, and 20, the claims newly recite the substantially similar limitation “rendering the content for display.” The disclosure of the Bridon ‘228 patent fails to provide sufficient written description support for the new limitation.
Applicant cites support for this limitation in at least column 4, line 32-41 of the Bridon ‘228 patent. However, at best, these sections of the Bridon ‘228 patent disclose “generating and displaying an XR environment” and do not specifically disclose “rendering the content for display” as now claimed. The disclose of the Bridon ‘228 patent only appears to describe embodiments wherein, after determining rendering modes for rendering the content, the content is actually rendered on a display (e.g., see: Fig. 5: 550).
PNG
media_image2.png
144
501
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not view the applicant to have been in possession of the broader subject matter newly claimed (see: MPEP 2163(II)(A)(3)(a)(ii): “a specification cannot always support expansive claim language and satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112 ‘merely by clearly describing one embodiment of the thing claimed.’ LizardTech v. Earth Resource Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1346, 76 USPQ2d 1731, 1733 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The issue is whether a person skilled in the art would understand applicant to have invented, and been in possession of, the invention as broadly claimed”). To comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a), each claim limitation must be expressly, implicitly, or inherently supported in the originally filed disclosure. The inquiry is whether one of skill in the art would understand the specification itself to disclose the claimed invention, not simply whether that person would be capable (obviousness) of implementing the claimed invention.
Thus, the specification of the Bridon ‘228 patent fails to adequately describe the full scope of independent claims 1, 11, and 20.
The Examiner suggests amending each of independent claims 1, 11, and 20 to state “rendering the content on a display” instead of “rendering the content for display”.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 are rejected under similar rationale at least via their dependency from independent claims 1 and 11, respectively.
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.
Claims 1-20 are 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.
Independent claim 1 recites the limitation “the first drawing commands” in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Independent claims 11 (in line 9) and 20 (in lines 6-7) each recite an identical limitation that lacks proper antecedent basis.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 are rejected under similar rationale at least via their dependency from independent claims 1 and 11, respectively.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the gaze direction region.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 twice recites the limitation “the display.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the gaze direction region.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 251
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being based upon new matter added to the patent for which reissue is sought. Please note the substantially similar rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for more details. The added material which is not supported by the prior patent is as follows:
For substantially similar reasons as noted above under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), independent claims 1, 11, and 20 each recite new matter in the form of the limitations related to “rendering the content for display.” The specification of the Bridon ‘228 patent does not describe said limitation in sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 are similarly rejected at least via dependency.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), 35 U.S.C. 112(b), and 35 U.S.C. 251 set forth in this Non-Final Action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. Please note the relevant cited prior art listed on the accompanying Notice of References Cited (Form PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adam L Basehoar whose telephone number is (571)272-4121. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00AM - 4:30PM.
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, Alexander Kosowski can be reached on 571-272-3744. 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.
/ADAM L BASEHOAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Conferees:
/JOSHUA D CAMPBELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
/ALEXANDER J KOSOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Prosecution Insights