CTFR 17/932,570 CTFR 81870 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments filed 3/5/2026, with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully considered but are moot in view new ground(s) of rejection. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1, 4, 6, 8, 11, 13, 15, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yee et al. (PGPUB Document No. US 2009/0215536) in view of Gagner et al. (PGPUB Document No. US 2011/0065496) . Regarding claim 8 , Yee teaches a system, comprising: A processor; a display; and memory or storage comprising an algorithm or computer instructions, which when executed by the processor, performs an operation comprising (application 710 loaded from storage device 708 into memory 706 and executed by processor 704 (Yee: 0064, FIG.7)): Generating identifying information of a first virtual object based on a RFID tag scan of RFID tags disposed on a corresponding physical object (scanning an RFID tag retrieves (identifies) an associated virtual object (Yee: 0037). The required information in identifying the virtual object to be retrieved corresponds to “identifying information” as presently claimed); Retrieving a first virtual object model or a first object model data based on the identifying information of the first virtual object (the retrieval the virtual object in response to scanning the RFID tag (Yee: 0037)); Generating display data of the first virtual object model or the first object model data relative to a position of the display (scanning RFID to identify object locations (Yee: 0033), which then the virtual content is attached to the physical location of the objects (Yee: 0035, 0039, 0025)); And rendering the first virtual object model or the first object model data on the display based on the display data (the resulting displayed virtual content (Yee: 0022, FIG.1)). However, Yee does not expressly teach but Gagner teaches, the RFID tags store data representative of at least one physical property of the corresponding physical object (Gagner teaches the concept of AR markers comprising metadata that determine movement, orientation, composition, etc. of the augmented reality 3D object (Gagner: 0027)). Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Yee such that the RFID tag comprise of metadata in the manner suggested by Gagner, because this enables an added level of user customization for creating AR tags. Regarding claim 11 , Yee teaches the system of claim 8, wherein the first object model data comprises at least one of: (i) a name or location coordinates of a UUID of an RFID tag, (ii) a distance between two RFID tags, or (iii) an area of structural importance, a material composition, a physical dimension, or a physical feature of the physical object (For example, the system can designate the kitchen as a forensics laboratory corresponds to defining an area of structural importance or (Yee: 0036, 0037)). Regarding claim 13 , Yee teaches the system of claim 8, wherein the first object model data is rendered on the display as an overlay over the physical object (“the user's home may be overlaid with an 18th century mansion” (Yee: 0023)). Claim(s) 1, 4 and 6 are corresponding method claim(s) of claim(s) 8, 11 and 13. The limitations of claim(s) 1, 4 and 6 are substantially similar to the limitations of claim(s) 8, 11 and 13. Therefore, it has been analyzed and rejected substantially similar to claim(s) 1, 4 and 6. Claim(s) 15, 18 and 20 are corresponding method claim(s) of claim(s) 8, 11 and 13. The limitations of claim(s) 15, 18 and 20 are substantially similar to the limitations of claim(s) 8, 11 and 13. Therefore, it has been analyzed and rejected substantially similar to claim(s) 15, 18 and 20 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 2, 9 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yee in view of Gagner as applied to the claim(s) above, and further in view of Beutel et al. (PGPUB Document No. US 2025/0124541) . Regarding claim 9 , Yee does not expressly teach but Beutel The system of claim 8, wherein the identifying information of the first virtual object comprises data generated from fixed feature points in a feature points cloud (determine appropriate virtual objects based on 3D point cloud data of physical objects (Yee: 0044)), And wherein the data generated from the fixed feature points comprises at least one of: A size, physical dimension, or physical feature of the physical object (physical dimension of the object (Yee: 0044)). Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Yee such as to utilize the point cloud teaching of Beutel, because this enables efficient and improved visualization of objects. Claims 2 and 16 is similar in scope to claim 9 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 3, 10 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yee in view of Gagner in view of Beutel as applied to the claim(s) above, and further in view of Ahern et al. (PGPUB Document No. US 2013/0228620) . Regarding claim 10 , the combined teachings above do not expressly teach but Ahern teaches the system of claim 9, wherein the fixed feature points are generated based on at least one of: UUIDs, placements, location coordinates, or relative positional data received from RFID tag responses of the RFID tag scan (Ahern teaches the concept of constructing 3D point cloud data utilizing RFID tags, wherein locations of objects are identified using RFID data). Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of the combined teachings above teach such as to utilize the RFID and 3D point cloud teaching of Ahern, because this enables efficient and improved visualization of objects. Claims 3 and 17 are similar in scope to claim 10 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 5, 12 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yee in view of Gagner as applied to the claim(s) above, and further in view of Taylor et al. (PGPUB Document No. US 2021/0142575) . Regarding claim 12 , Yee does not expressly teach but Taylor teaches the system of claim 8, the operation further comprising: updating the display data of the first virtual object model or the first object model data based on a display position of a second virtual object model (Taylor teaches the concept of moving virtual objects when they overlap with each other (Taylor: 0093)). Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Yee such as to move virtual objects in the manner taught by Taylor, because this prevents virtual objects from overlapping. Claims 5 and 19 are similar in scope to claim 12 . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 7 and 14 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 07-40 AIA 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 David H Chu whose telephone number is (571)272-8079. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30 - 1:30pm, 3:30-8:30pm. 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, Daniel F Hajnik can be reached at (571) 272-7642. 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. /DAVID H CHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2616 Application/Control Number: 17/932,570 Page 2 Art Unit: 2616 Application/Control Number: 17/932,570 Page 3 Art Unit: 2616 Application/Control Number: 17/932,570 Page 4 Art Unit: 2616 Application/Control Number: 17/932,570 Page 5 Art Unit: 2616 Application/Control Number: 17/932,570 Page 6 Art Unit: 2616 Application/Control Number: 17/932,570 Page 7 Art Unit: 2616
Prosecution Insights