DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is sent in response to Applicant's Response filed 03/30/2026 for 17742674. Claims 1, 3-7, 9-13, and 15-19 are pending.
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 .
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.
Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 was filed in this application after a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but before the filing of a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or the commencement of a civil action. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 and prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 03/30/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendments
While Applicant's submission of claim 13 has been acknowledged, Examiner respectfully reminds Applicant that all claim amendments must be submitted either with markings or in clean version to indicate the changes that have been made relative to the immediate prior version. Specifically, claim 13 includes the limitation "extends from the display" deleted with strike-through when the immediate prior version of the claim listing filed 03/01/2024 recites the limitation "pops out from the" and does not include the limitation "extends from the display" as indicated in the current claim listing [MPEP 714(II)(C)].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 102 rejection of claim 1 have been fully considered but are not persuasive in view of the new and/or updated citations used in the current 103 rejection of record under Memmott in view of Watanabe in response to the newly amended limitations.
Claim 7 recites similar limitations to those recited in claim 1 and remains rejected upon a similar basis as claim 1 as stated above
Dependent claims 3-6, 9-12, and 15-19 remain rejected at least based on their dependence from independent claims 1, 7, and 13.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1, 3-7, 9-13, and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Memmott et al. (US 20170052373 A1) in view of Watanabe et al. (US 20180164589 A1).
As to claim 1, Memmott discloses a method comprising:
obtaining images of a physical environment [Figs. 1-2, para 0016, 0019, 0021, device includes optical sensor system capturing optical information (read: images) of physical environment];
identifying an electronic device in the physical environment, the electronic device comprising a display that displays a displayed object on a two dimensional (2D) plane of the display [Figs. 1-2, para 0022-0023, 0026, determine computing device arranged in environment displaying data set representation (read: object) on two-dimensional flat display]; and
presenting a computer-generated reality (CGR) environment based on at least a portion of the images [Figs. 2, 6, para 0023, 0026, 0031, head mounted display device displays augmented appearance of physical environment (read: CGR environment) using optical sensor information],
wherein the CGR environment comprises a virtual object corresponding to the displayed object with added three-dimensional (3D) depth relative to the 2D plane of the display, wherein the virtual object is positioned based on a location of the displayed object … [Figs. 2, 6, para 0022-0023, 0026, augmented environment includes virtual object at three dimensional location including depth (read: 3D depth) representing data set displayed on two-dimensional flat display, where virtual object includes additional third dimension with respect to data set representation displayed in two dimensions on flat display];
wherein the virtual object is displayed with the added 3D depth using stereo differences in views of the CGR environment provided by eye-specific displays of a head-mounted device (HMD) [para 0016-0018, display virtual object at depth using binocular disparity (read: stereo differences) of object images rendered (read: views) in environment by plurality of stereoscopic HMD display regions, where HMD takes form of glasses (read: eye-specific displays)].
However, Memmott does not specifically disclose wherein the virtual object is positioned based on a location of the displayed object such that the virtual object partially overlaps the displayed object.
Watanabe discloses wherein the virtual object is positioned based on a location of the displayed object such that the virtual object partially overlaps the displayed object [Fig. 19, para 0187, device displays screen (read: virtual object) overlapping image (read: displayed object) displayed on smartphone such that physical smartphone displaying image is not viewed].
Memmott and Watanabe are analogous art to the claimed invention being from a similar field of endeavor of augmented reality systems. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the virtual object as disclosed by Memmott with a virtual object positioned based on a location of the displayed object such that the virtual object partially overlaps the displayed object as disclosed by Watanabe with a reasonable expectation of success.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Memmott as described above to improve visibility [Watanabe, para 0191-0192].
As to claim 3, Memmott discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the virtual object is a button and displaying the virtual object with 3D depth comprises displaying the button to appear to extend out of the display by extending outward from the 2D plane of the display, wherein the virtual object extends out of the 2D plane in the CGR environment [Fig. 6, para 0048-0049, 0063-0064, holographic interface includes displaying selectable tool (read: button) corresponding to tool button to appear at position in three dimensional environment outside of two-dimensional flat display, note a position in the three dimensional environment falls under the broadest reasonable interpretation of extending including reaching or stretching out in scope or distance].
As to claim 4, Memmott discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the virtual object is not limited to the 2D plane [Figs. 2, 6, para 0017-0018, 0022-0023, 0026, HMD displays virtual object at depth and location within virtual three dimensional space separate from (read: not limited to) flat display screen].
As to claim 5, Memmott discloses the method of claim 5, wherein a user interface on the 2D plane of the display of the electronic device is configured for designing models of 3D objects and the virtual object comprises a 3D object being designed via a user interface [para 0013-0014, 0026, 0039-0044, flat display screen (read: user interface) displays data set, where virtual object represents data set of three dimensional model and user input transforming (read: design) data set affects virtual model; note the limitation "for designing models of 3D objects" is not being given patentable weight as the term "for" suggests or makes optional and does not require the step to be performed as the limitation is an intended result of the "user interface" as recited in the claim (see MPEP 2111.04), nevertheless, note flat display screen displays model data set of computer aided design program].
As to claim 6, Memmott discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the 3D object is provided [with] the user interface displayed on the 2D plane [Fig. 6, para 0026, 0063-0064, display virtual object in holographic environment with data set on two-dimensional display].
However, Memmott does not specifically disclose wherein the 3D object is provided in place of the user interface displayed on the 2D plane.
Watanabe discloses wherein the 3D object is provided in place of the user interface displayed on the 2D plane [Fig. 19, para 0187, device displays screen (read: 3D object) overlapping image (read: user interface) displayed on smartphone (read: 2D plane) as an opaque screen reflecting smartphone display such that physical smartphone display is not viewable (read: in place of)].
Memmott and Watanabe are analogous art to the claimed invention being from a similar field of endeavor of augmented reality systems. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the 3D object as disclosed by Memmott with a 3D object provided in place of a 2D user interface as disclosed by Watanabe with a reasonable expectation of success.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Memmott as described above to improve visibility [Watanabe, para 0191-0192].
As to claim 7, Memmott and Watanabe, combined at least for the reasons above, Memmott discloses a system [Fig. 9, para 0071, system] comprising: a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium [para 0075-0078, storage device]; 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 [para 0073-0075, processor executes instructions stored in storage device] comprising: limitations substantially similar to those recited in claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale.
As to claims 9-12, Memmott and Watanabe, combined at least for the reasons above, disclose the system of claim 7 comprising limitations substantially similar to those recited in claims 3-6, respectively, and are rejected under similar rationale.
As to claim 13, Memmott and Watanabe, combined at least for the reasons above, Memmott discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, storing program instructions computer-executable on a computer to perform operations [Fig. 9, para 0073-0075, storage device stores instructions executed by processor], comprising: limitations substantially similar to those recited in claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale.
As to claims 15-18, Memmott and Watanabe, combined at least for the reasons above, disclose the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 13 comprising limitations substantially similar to those recited in claims 3-6, respectively, and are rejected under similar rationale.
As to claim 19, Memmott discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the virtual object provides a visual indication that the virtual object corresponds to the electronic device [Figs. 2, 6, para 0026, 0031, augmented environment displays virtual object with holographic representation (read: visual indication) of data set with computing device rendering two-dimensional visual representation of data set].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDA HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)272-5240. The examiner can normally be reached M-F between 9am-5pm.
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, Adam Queler can be reached at (571) 272-4140. 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.
/LINDA HUYNH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Prosecution Insights