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 .
Claims 1-7, 9-15 and 17-20 are presented for examination.
The claims and only the claims form the metes and bounds of the invention. “Office personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim are not read into the claim. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-551 (CCPA 1969)” (MPEP p 2100-8, c 2, I 45-48; p 2100-9, c 1, l 1-4). The Examiner has full latitude to interpret each claim in the broadest reasonable sense. The Examiner will reference prior art using terminology familiar to one of ordinary skill in the art. Such an approach is broad in concept and can be either explicit or implicit in meaning.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 27 March 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks/amendment was filed on 27 March 2026.
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but they are not persuasive. However, the Examiner welcomes any suggestion(s) Applicants may have on moving prosecution forward. The Examiner’s contact information is in the Conclusion of this office action.
According to Applicant, “support for these limitations is found in Applicant's specification as filed in at least paragraphs [0096] and [0106] - [0108] in reference to FIG. 6, FIG. 8 and FIG 9. In contrast, Valdivia and Delaney fail to explicitly teach or suggest these limitations.
In response, the Examiner respectfully submits:
Valdiva does teach the new feature of 3D collaborative object with the associated 3D virtual content (Valdivia: at least ¶¶0013, 0015; “… enable users to alter and share content items (e.g., photos/videos) in a virtual space” and “user may then share the altered photo. In particular embodiments, the altering may be done live, with others in the virtual space watching or collaborating in the process”; ¶0115 also discloses “allowing for each image to be displayed for a period of time”; ¶0205 further discloses “which content is being viewed either privately, or collaboratively with others in the virtual space”; ¶0151 further discloses “content that is being shared (e.g., a slide show, a video), may be two-dimensional or three-dimensional”; note: photos videos in virtual space as 3D collaborative objects)
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-3, 9-11 and 17-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4-5, 7, 10-11, 13 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,019,773. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed features of the claims 1, 4-5, 7, 10-11, 13 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,019,773 can also be interpreted as claimed features as claimed in the claims 1-3, 9-11 and 17-19 of the present application.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because following the rationale in In re Goodman, cited above, where applicant has once been granted a patent containing a claim for the specific or narrower invention, applicant may not then obtain a second patent with a claim for the generic or broader invention without first submitting an appropriate terminal disclaimer.
Instant Application
US Patent 12,019,773
1. A server configured to perform an interactive augmented reality method, the server comprising: a processor configured to: provide users with access to a three-dimensional (3D) collaborative object; associate 3D virtual content received from the users with the 3D collaborative object during a collaboration period;
maintain a timer including a countdown indicative of when the collaboration period ends for associating the 3D virtual content with the 3D collaborative object; and
provide each of the users with access to the 3D collaborative object with the associated 3D virtual content of the other users such that each of the users only sees the other user's associated 3D virtual content when the entire collaboration period ends,
wherein each of the users cannot access the associated 3D virtual content received from the other users during the entire collaboration period.
1. A server having a processor configured to perform an interactive augmented reality method, the processor configured to: provide users with access to a collaborative object; associate virtual content received from the users with the collaborative object during a collaboration period;
associate a timestamp with each received virtual content;
provide the users with a timelapse of the collaborative object as a function of the timestamps; and
allow the users to see the timelapse of the collaborative object when the collaboration period ends,
wherein the users cannot access the associated virtual content received from other users until the collaborative period ends.
2. The server of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured allow users access to the 3D collaborative object using respective physically remote devices.
4. The server of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured allow users access to the collaborative object using respective physically remote devices.
3. The server of claim 2, wherein the processor is configured to serve the 3D collaborative object to the physically remote devices.
5. The server of claim 4, wherein the processor is configured to serve the collaborative object to the physically remote devices.
U.S. Patent No. 12,019,773 by Cho et al. does not explicitly disclose, but US PGPUB 2018/0095636 by Valdivia et al. discloses the feature of 3D collaborative object with the associated 3D virtual content (Valdivia: at least ¶¶0013, 0015; “… enable users to alter and share content items (e.g., photos/videos) in a virtual space” and “user may then share the altered photo. In particular embodiments, the altering may be done live, with others in the virtual space watching or collaborating in the process”; ¶0115 also discloses “allowing for each image to be displayed for a period of time”; ¶0205 further discloses “which content is being viewed either privately, or collaboratively with others in the virtual space”; ¶0151 further discloses “content that is being shared (e.g., a slide show, a video), may be two-dimensional or three-dimensional”; note: photos videos in virtual space as 3D collaborative objects).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Valdivia’s feature of 3D collaborative object with the associated 3D virtual content (Valdivia: at least ¶¶0013, 0015, 0115, 0151, 0205) with the collaborative object and associated virtual content taught by Cho because they are in the same field of endeavor.
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been motivated to do so because the teaching of Valdivia would allow for “different ways of rendering and interactive with a virtual (or augmented) reality environment” where “users may view and interact within this virtual space and the broader virtual environment through any suitable means” (Valdivia: at least ¶0005).
Claim 9 (a method claim) corresponds in scope to Claim 1, and is similarly rejected.
Claim 17 (a computer-readable medium claim) corresponds in scope to Claim 1, and is similarly rejected.
Claim 10 (a method claim) corresponds in scope to Claim 2, and is similarly rejected.
Claim 18 (a computer-readable medium claim) corresponds in scope to Claim 2, and is similarly rejected.
Claim 11 (a method claim) corresponds in scope to Claim 3, and is similarly rejected.
Claim 19 (a computer-readable medium claim) corresponds in scope to Claim 3, and is similarly rejected.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 2 recites “wherein the processor is configured allow users access to the 3D collaborative object using respective physically remote devices”. The limitation should be amended to “wherein the processor is configured to allow users access to the 3D collaborative object using respective physically remote devices”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for allobviousness 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.
Claims 1-6, 9-14 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PGPUB 2018/0095636 by Valdivia et al. (“Valdivia”) in view of US PGPUB 2019/0325012 by Delaney et al. (“Delaney”).
As to Claim 1, Valdivia teaches a server configured to perform an interactive augmented reality method (Valdivia: at least ¶0005; “… a variety of different ways of rendering and interactive with a virtual (or augmented) reality environment”), the server comprising: a processor configured to: provide users with access to a three-dimensional (3D) collaborative object (Valdivia: at least ¶¶0010, 0013, 0015; “users viewing the content item may be able to see these reactions or comments and may also be able to submit their own reactions or comments”, “allow users to enter, at any time or place in a virtual space” and “… enable users to alter and share content items (e.g., photos/videos) in a virtual space” and “user may then share the altered photo. In particular embodiments, the altering may be done live, with others in the virtual space watching or collaborating in the process”; ¶0115 also discloses “allowing for each image to be displayed for a period of time”; ¶0205 further discloses “which content is being viewed either privately, or collaboratively with others in the virtual space”; ¶0151 further discloses “content that is being shared (e.g., a slide show, a video), may be two-dimensional or three-dimensional”; note: photos videos in virtual space as 3D collaborative objects);
associate 3D virtual content received from the users with the 3D collaborative object (Valdivia: at least ¶0009; “part of a virtual space may display items outside of the current virtual environment (e.g., slides, photos, video streams of other users)”; ¶¶0112 & 0115 further disclose “different feeds that include visual media items. As an example and not by way of limitation, referencing FIG. 4A, the menu may include the “Saved” feed 410 that includes visual media items (e.g., the visual media item 440) that the user previously saved (e.g., from a newsfeed of an online social network) or received (e.g., from a friend or contact, from a social connection on an online social network)” and “user may select one or more images from the feed or subfeed to view”; ¶0116; further discloses ““previous” button 520 may include a representation (e.g., a spherical representation) of its corresponding visual media item, and the “next” button 530 may similarly include a representation of its corresponding visual media item”) during a collaboration period (Valdivia: at least ¶0115; “allowing for each image to be displayed for a period of time”);
maintain a timer including a countdown indicative of when the collaboration period ends for associating the 3D virtual content with the 3D collaborative object (Valdivia: at least ¶0115; “allowing for each image to be displayed for a period of time” and “a time element may display an indication of a duration of time remaining before the slide show proceeds to the next image” and “the time element 510 may indicate a proceeding countdown as time passes”); and
provide the users with access to the 3D collaborative object with the associated 3D virtual content at the end of the collaboration period (Valdivia: at least ¶0115; “allowing for each image to be displayed for a period of time” and “a time element may display an indication of a duration of time remaining before the slide show proceeds to the next image”; ¶0116 further discloses “period of time for which the image is to be displayed” and “… user looks right and left, respectively, in the virtual space”; note: media or content available from beginning of period until end of period).
Valdivia does not explicitly disclose, but Delaney discloses provide each of the users with access to the collaborative object with associated virtual content of the other users such that each of the users only sees the other user’s associated virtual content when the entire collaborative ends wherein each of the users cannot access the associated virtual content received from the other users during the entire collaboration period (Delaney: at least ¶¶0084-0085; “collaborative document system may withhold user A and user C inputs until user B inputs data (e.g., a candidate rating) into the collaborative document for the potential employee candidate, as depicted in document display 602B (e.g., user B's view prior to rating)” and “document display 602C may be user B's view of the collaborative document after entering data content”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effectivefiling date of the claimed invention to incorporate Delaney’s feature of provide each of the users with access to the collaborative object with associated virtual content of the other users such that each of the users only sees the other user’s associated virtual content when the entire collaborative ends wherein each of the users cannot access the associated virtual content received from the other users during the entire collaboration period (Delaney: at least ¶¶0084-0085) with the 3D collaborative object with the associated 3D virtual content disclosed by Valdivia.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to perform phased collaborative editing of a collaborative content (Delaney: at least ¶0001).
Claim 9 (a method claim) corresponds in scope to Claim 1, and is similarly rejected.
Claim 17 (a computer-readable medium claim) corresponds in scope to Claim 1, and is similarly rejected.
As to Claim 2, Valdivia and Delaney teach the server of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured allow users access to the 3D collaborative object using respective physically remote devices (Valdivia: at least ¶¶0074, 0077; “a particular number of client systems 130, social-networking systems 160, third-party systems 170, and networks 110” and “augmented/virtual reality device, other suitable electronic device, or any suitable combination thereof” and “any suitable client systems 130. A client system 130 may enable a network user at client system 130 to access network 110. A client system 130 may enable its user to communicate with other users at other client systems 130”; ¶0106 further discloses “devices present locally with respect to a user of the virtual reality system” and “the virtual reality system may be defined to include a server of the social-networking system 160”).
Claim 10 (a method claim) corresponds in scope to Claim 2, and is similarly rejected.
Claim 18 (a computer-readable medium claim) corresponds in scope to Claim 2, and is similarly rejected.
As to Claim 3, Valdivia and Delaney teach the server of claim 2, wherein the processor is configured to serve the 3D collaborative object to the physically remote devices (Valdivia: at least ¶¶0013, 0106; “virtual reality system may allow users to enter, at any time or place in a virtual space”, “virtual reality system may render a virtual space for display to a user on a display device” and “the virtual reality system may be defined to include a server of the social-networking system 160”; ¶¶0074, 0077 further disclose “although FIG. 1 illustrates a particular number of client systems 130, social-networking systems 160, third-party systems 170, and networks 110, this disclosure contemplates any suitable number of client systems 130” and “client system 130 may include a computer system such as … augmented/virtual reality device, other suitable electronic device”).
Claim 11 (a method claim) corresponds in scope to Claim 3, and is similarly rejected.
Claim 19 (a computer-readable medium claim) corresponds in scope to Claim 3, and is similarly rejected.
As to Claim 4, Valdivia and Delaney teach the server of claim 2, wherein the processor is configured to serve a time indicator for display on the physically remote devices, the time indicator representing the countdown indicative of when the collaboration period ends (Valdivia: at least ¶¶0115-0116; “time element may display an indication of a duration of time remaining before the slide show proceeds to the next image”, “time element 510 may indicate a proceeding countdown as time passes” and “… a display of a timeline indicating the period of time for which the image is to be displayed and a movable scrubber component that may indicate the current point in time on the timeline”; note: a period comprises a beginning and an end).
Claim 12 (a method claim) corresponds in scope to Claim 4, and is similarly rejected.
Claim 20 (a computer-readable medium claim) corresponds in scope to Claim 4, and is similarly rejected.
As to Claim 5, Valdivia and Delaney teach the server of claim 4, wherein the time indicator is a countdown time (Valdivia: at least ¶0115; “allowing for each image to be displayed for a period of time” and “a time element may display an indication of a duration of time remaining before the slide show proceeds to the next image” and “the time element 510 may indicate a proceeding countdown as time passes”).
Claim 13 (a method claim) corresponds in scope to Claim 5, and is similarly rejected.
As to Claim 6, Valdivia and Delaney teach the server of claim 4, wherein the time indicator is a timeline (Valdivia: at least ¶0116; “time element 510 may include a timeline-scrubber element such that the countdown may be affected by user inputs (e.g., increasing or decreasing the time remaining)” and “timeline-scrubber element may include a display of a timeline”).
Claim 14 (a method claim) corresponds in scope to Claim 6, and is similarly rejected.
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PGPUB 2018/0095636 by Valdivia et al. (“Valdivia”) in view of US PGPUB 2019/0325012 by Delaney et al. (“Delaney”), and further in view of US PGPUB 2015/0113571 by Cholas et al. (“Cholas”).
As to Claim 7, Valdivia and Delaney teach the server of claim 4.
Valdivia and Delaney do not explicitly disclose, but Cholas discloses wherein the time indicator comprises a change in color (Cholas: at least ¶0127; “notification may comprise a countdown timer showing the remaining time left before the secondary content ends” and “the countdown timer may be displayed … it may include features such as flashing, changing colors, etc. upon reaching or nearing the end of the secondary content”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effectivefiling date of the claimed invention to incorporate Cholas’ feature of wherein the time indicator comprises a change in color (Cholas: at least ¶0127) with the server disclosed by Valdivia and Delaney.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide a notification that is “a visual indication that” a content “has ended (or is about to end)” (Cholas: at least ¶0127; ¶0070 explains that a content can be “… e.g., audio, video, data, files, etc.“).
Claim 15 (a method claim) corresponds in scope to Claim 7, and is similarly rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Huen Wong whose telephone number is (571) 270-3426. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday (10:30AM EST - 6:30PM EST). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Charles Rones can be reached on (571) 272-4085. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300 for regular communications and after final communications.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from thePatent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information forpublished 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. Shouldyou have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the ElectronicBusiness Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from aUSPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated informationsystem, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/H .W./
Examiner, AU 2168
01 April 2026
/DEBBIE M LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2168 April 3, 2026