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 .
Applicant amended claims 1, 4-10, 13, and 20 in the Request for Continued Examination filed on 01/07/2026. Claims 3 and 14 are cancelled. Claim 21 is newly added.
Claims 1, 2, 4-13, and 15-21 remain pending.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/07/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 2, 4-13, and 15-21 filed on 01/07/2026 have been considered but they are deemed to be moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 13 is 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.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the one or more client devices" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 13, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Leebow (US 2023/0326244 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Leebow discloses
A system for integrating an enterprise environment with a third-party environment, the system comprising:
a platform server (a server computing device 102, FIG. 1) comprising a memory (memory 112), a network interface, and a processor (processor 110), the processor operably coupled to the memory and the network interface, the processor configured to at least:
provide an application that operates in a three-dimensional graphical environment, which are both displayable by one or more client devices ([0006]: a server computing device that executes a social network server application; & [0034]: the hardware logic component 130 can be configured to cause a virtual environment or an augmentation to an actual environment to be displayed on the display 120 based upon the social network data received from the server computing device 102);
communicate an application state of the application to the one or more client devices ([0022]: the server computing device 102 is configured to manage and store data pertaining to a social network, and to interact with various client computing devices in connection with delivering social network-based content to the client computing devices);
receive updates to the application state from the one or more client devices ([0023]: the client computing device 104 can be configured to communicate with the server computing device 102 in connection with facilitating user interaction with a social network application; & [0026]: the social network client 148 is configured to interface with the social network server 134 to allow a user of the client computing device 104 to view, share, modify, and otherwise interact with data maintained by and accessible to the social network server 134; the social network client 148 can, responsive to receiving input from a user of the client computing device 104, transmit a request to the social network server 134 that causes the social network server 134 to update a user profile in the user profiles 142-146 that is associated with the user of the client computing device 104);
generate a new current state of the application based on the updates ([0026]: the social network client 148 can, responsive to receiving input from a user of the client computing device 104, transmit a request to the social network server 134 that causes the social network server 134 to update a user profile in the user profiles 142-146 that is associated with the user of the client computing device 104); and
an integration server (AR/VR device 106, FIG. 1) comprising an integration server memory, an integration server network interface configured to communicate with the platform server, and an integration server processor, the integration server processor operably coupled to the integration server memory and the integration server network interface, the integration server processor configured to at least:
retrieve account information of one or more users of the one or more client devices from the platform server ([0034]: the social network interface component 152 is configured to communicate with the social network server 134 (e.g., by way of the network 108) to request and receive data from the social network server 134; the social network interface component 152 can both receive social network data from the server computing device 102 and transmit data to the server computing device 102 for inclusion of such data in either or both of the user profile data 140 or the social network data 150);
process the account information to generate user data ([0029]: allow the AR/VR device 106 to supplement or generate an augmented or virtual reality experience based upon social network data (e.g., the user profile data 140) or the social network data 150));
obtain, from the platform server, context information about the three-dimensional graphical environment within which the application is operating, the context information comprising a virtual object displayed in the three-dimensional graphical environment ([0071]: the social network server application 134 outputs augmentation data to the AR/VR device 106 that comprises the identified data; & [0056]: the social network server application 134 can output, to the AR/VR device 106, the image and augmentation data that is based upon the search results associated with the image);
process the context information with the user data to generate contextual user data that is associated with the three-dimensional graphical environment ([0041]: the augmentation data output by the social network server application 134 can include the portion of the social network data identified by the social network server application 134 as being relevant to the person or object identified in the sensor data; the augmentation data can further include data that facilitates generation of the augmentation on the display 120 by the hardware logic component 130; & [0056]: based on the image and the augmentation data, the AR/VR device 106 can cause a recreation of the AR environment 200 to be displayed on the display 120, wherein the recreation comprises the various augmentations included in the environment 200, as well as virtual elements that are representative of the actual objects 202-210 in the environment 200); and
transmit the contextual user data to the application ([0057]: saving a snapshot of the AR environment 200 can be performed by the social network server application 134 in response to receipt of user input received at the AR/VR device 106 when the AR environment 200 is displayed on the display 120);
wherein the processor of the platform server is further configured to at least:
receive the contextual user data ([0035]: the AR/VR device 106 transmits sensor data generated by the sensor package 122 and/or the camera 132 to the server computing device 102); and
display, using the application, the contextual user data within the three-dimensional graphical environment ([0041]: the social network server application 134 outputs augmentation data to the AR/VR device 106 that is configured to cause the AR/VR device 106 to display an augmentation on the display 120 that is indicative of the identified portion of the social network data 150).
Regarding claims 13 and 20, the limitations of claims 13 and 20 are rejected in the analysis of claim 1 above and these claims are rejected on that basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leebow in view of Koshet (US 10,664,910 B1).
Regarding claim 2, Leebow discloses the system as described in claim 1. Leebow does not explicitly disclose
the integration server further comprises an enterprise database, and wherein the integration server processor is further configured to retrieve enterprise account information from the enterprise database, and wherein the user data is generated based additionally on the enterprise account information.
However, Koshet discloses
the integration server further comprises an enterprise database, and wherein the integration server processor is further configured to retrieve enterprise account information from the enterprise database, and wherein the user data is generated based additionally on the enterprise account information (Col. 1, lines 58-67: retrieve bill data from the user’s account with the third-party biller; processing, by the server, the bill data to create at least one record in a server-maintained database).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of Koshet in Leebow because Leebow discloses devices are in communication by way of a network ([0021]) and Koshet further suggests server has database (Col. 1, lines 58-67).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teaching of Koshet in the Leebow system in order to provide centralized data management.
Regarding claim 18 the limitations of claim 18 are rejected in the analysis of claim 2 above, and this claim is rejected on that basis.
Claim(s) 4-7, 10, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leebow in view of Diez et al. (US 2006/0080702 A1), hereinafter Diez.
Regarding claim 4, Leebow discloses the system as described in claim 1. Leebow does not explicitly disclose
the application provides a two-dimensional graphical user interface within the three-dimensional graphical environment.
However, Diez discloses
the application provides a two-dimensional graphical user interface within the three-dimensional graphical environment ([0171]: a two-dimensional GUI dialog box appears in the foreground of the main three-dimensional GUI environment).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of Diez in Leebow because Leebow discloses display an augmentation that includes portion of social network data (abstract) and Diez further discloses displays a two-dimensional GUI dialog box in the three-dimensional GUI environment ([0171]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teaching of Diez in the Leebow system in order to be more effective for reading text and improve user experience.
Regarding claim 5, Leebow and Diez disclose the system as described in claim 4. Leebow and Diez further disclose
the contextual user data is displayed within the two-dimensional graphical user interface (Diez: [0171]: the two-dimensional GUI dialog box displays various information about the game). Therefore, the limitations of claim 5 are rejected in the analysis of claim 4 above, and the claim is rejected on that basis.
Regarding claim 6, Leebow discloses the system as described in claim 1. Leebow further discloses
the contextual user data is displayed as a separate two-dimensional object within the three-dimensional graphical environment.
However, Diez further discloses
the contextual user data is displayed as a separate two-dimensional object within the three-dimensional graphical environment ([0171]: a two-dimensional GUI dialog box appears in the foreground of the main three-dimensional GUI environment; the two-dimensional GUI dialog box 1020, hereinafter referred to as an “InfoCard,” displays various information about the game).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of Diez in Leebow because Leebow discloses display an augmentation that includes portion of social network data (abstract) and Diez further discloses displays a two-dimensional GUI dialog box in the three-dimensional GUI environment ([0171]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teaching of Diez in the Leebow system in order to be more effective for reading text and improve user experience.
Regarding claim 7, Leebow discloses the system as described in claim 1. Leebow does not explicitly disclose
the contextual user data is displayed in a notification window in the three-dimensional graphical environment, automatically in response to detecting the virtual object in the three-dimensional graphical environment.
However, Diez discloses
the contextual user data is displayed in a notification window in the three-dimensional graphical environment, automatically in response to detecting the virtual object in the three-dimensional graphical environment ([0171]: upon selecting a game to requestion, a two-dimensional GUI dialog box appears in the foreground of the main three-dimensional GUI environment 1002).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of Diez in Leebow because Leebow discloses display an augmentation that includes portion of social network data (abstract) and Diez further discloses displays a two-dimensional GUI dialog box in the three-dimensional GUI environment ([0171]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teaching of Diez in the Leebow system in order to be more effective for reading text and improve user experience.
Regarding claim 10, Leebow and Diez disclose the system as described in claim 7. Leebow and Diez further disclose
the notification window is a pop-up notification window (Diez: [0171]: a two-dimensional GUI dialog box appears in the foreground of the main three-dimensional GUI environment 1002). Therefore, the limitations of claim 10 are rejected in the analysis of claim 7 above, and the claim is rejected on that basis.
Regarding claim 21, the limitations of claim 21 are rejected in the analysis of claim 7 above, and this claim is rejected on that basis.
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leebow in view of Diez, and further in view of Gordon et al. (US 11,250,642 B1), hereinafter Gordon.
Regarding claim 8, Leebow and Diez disclose the system as described in claim 7. Leebow and Diez do not explicitly disclose
the contextual user data comprises activity data associated with the user data and the virtual object.
However, Gordon discloses
the contextual user data comprises activity data associated with the user data and the virtual object (Col. 9, lines 59-61: the user history module may include a stored information on objects stored by the user, as well as the user’s transaction or purchase history)
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of Gordon in Leebow and Diez because Leebow and Diez disclose display an augmentation that includes portion of social network data (abstract) and Gordon further suggests storing user’s transaction or purchase history (Col. 9, lines 59-61).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teaching of Gordon in the Leebow and Diez system in order to enhance visualization and allow data to be retrieved in the future.
Regarding claim 9, Leebow and Diez disclose the system as described in claim 7. Leebow and Diez do not explicitly disclose
the contextual user data comprises a wish list associated with the user data and the virtual object.
However, Gordon discloses
the contextual user data comprises a wish list associated with the user data and the virtual object (Col. 6, lines 43-48: content retrieval platform may provide payment interfaces or features for purchasing the virtual objects or items related to the virtual objects; & Col. 7, lines 9-18: the content retrieval platform may maintain a stored collection of objects; for each object, content retrieval platform may have saved, at least one object identifier, and any specifications related to the object; & Col. 7, lines 25-31: each user library may be associated with a respective user and comprise one or more virtual objects that have been displayed to the user).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of Gordon in Leebow and Diez because Leebow and Diez disclose display an augmentation that includes portion of social network data (Leebow: abstract) and Gordon further suggests display virtual objects and items related to the virtual objects for purchase (Col. 6, lines 43-48).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teaching of Gordon in the Leebow and Diez system in order to enhance visualization and increase engagement.
Claim(s) 11, 16, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leebow in view of Gordon.
Regarding claim 11, Leebow discloses the system as described in claim 1. Leebow does not explicitly disclose
the contextual user data comprises a wish list item provided by a user associated with the account information.
However, Gordon discloses
the contextual user data comprises a wish list item provided by a user associated with the account information (Col. 6, lines 43-48: content retrieval platform may provide payment interfaces or features for purchasing the virtual objects or items related to the virtual objects; & Col. 7, lines 9-18: the content retrieval platform may maintain a stored collection of objects; for each object, content retrieval platform may have saved, at least one object identifier, and any specifications related to the object; & Col. 7, lines 25-31: each user library may be associated with a respective user and comprise one or more virtual objects that have been displayed to the user).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of Gordon in Leebow because Leebow discloses display an augmentation that includes portion of social network data (abstract) and Gordon further suggests display virtual objects and items related to the virtual objects for purchase (Col. 6, lines 43-48).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teaching of Gordon in the Leebow system in order to enhance visualization and increase engagement.
Regarding claim 16, the limitations of claim 16 are rejected in the analysis of claim 11 above, and this claim is rejected on that basis.
Regarding claim 17, Leebow discloses the integration server as described in claim 13. Leebow does not explicitly disclose
the contextual user data comprises historical activity information of one or more activities conducted within the three-dimensional graphical environment.
However, Gordon discloses
the contextual user data comprises historical activity information of one or more activities conducted within the three-dimensional graphical environment (Col. 9, lines 59-61: the user history module may include a stored information on objects stored by the user, as well as the user’s transaction or purchase history).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of Gordon in Leebow because Leebow discloses display an augmentation that includes portion of social network data (abstract) and Gordon further suggests display virtual objects and items related to the virtual objects for purchase (Col. 6, lines 43-48).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teaching of Gordon in the Leebow system in order to enhance visualization and increase engagement.
Claim(s) 12 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leebow in view of Jones-McFadden et al. (US 2017/0123778 A1), hereinafter Jones-McFadden.
Regarding claim 12, Leebow discloses the system as described in claim 1. Leebow does not explicitly disclose
process the context information to obtain an information category; and
search the account information that is specific to the information category, wherein one or more results of the search is the contextual user data.
However, Jones-McFadden discloses
process the context information to obtain an information category ([0103]: determine one or more target categories based on analyzing the application information and the user information and determine one or more targets for each category); and
search the account information that is specific to the information category, wherein one or more results of the search is the contextual user data ([0094]: analyze the one or more categories to determine information about the user of the user computer system).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of Jones-McFadden in Leebow because Leebow discloses display an augmentation that includes portion of social network data (abstract) and Jones-McFadden further suggests determine categories based on analyzing user information/data ([0103]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teaching of Jones-McFadden in the Leebow system in order to better organize information.
Regarding claim 15, the limitations of claim 15 are rejected in the analysis of claim 12 above and this claim is rejected on that basis.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leebow in view of Koshet, and further in view of Gordon.
Regarding claim 19, Leebow and Gordon disclose the integration server as described in claim 18. Leebow and Koshet do not disclose
the enterprise database comprises historical activity information specific to the interactive environment, and the user data comprises the historical activity information.
However, Gordon discloses
the enterprise database comprises historical activity information specific to the interactive environment, and the user data comprises the historical activity information (Col. 9, lines 59-61: the user history module may include a stored information on objects stored by the user, as well as the user’s transaction or purchase history).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of Gordon in Leebow and Koshet because Leebow and Koshet disclose display an augmentation that includes portion of social network data (Leebow: abstract) and Gordon further suggests store user’s transaction or purchase history (Col. 9, lines 59-61).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teaching of Gordon in the Leebow and Koshet system in order to better manage data and allow data to be retrieve in the future.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhang et al. (US 2019/0073109 A1). A user to ‘drag-and-drop’ applications from the two-dimensional desktop window 40 to elsewhere in the three-dimensional environment ([0047]).
Thompson et al. (US 11,126,320 B1). Present various two-dimensional grid view user interface and/or three-dimensional side-by-side view user interfaces via which a user may search, browse, view, select, place, move, remove, save, evaluate, compare, purchase, and/or modify one or more objects within the virtual reality environment (Col. 10, lines 5-18).
Agassi et al. (US 2007/0179841 A1). Categorize received data elements.
Hardee et al. (US 2018/0074580 A1). Display the interactive three-dimensional holographic notification on one or more interactive display screens, which may be a two-dimensional display.
Yeap et al. (US 2019/0312985 A1). Generate notification and display notification on a mobile device, or an augmented reality visualization.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAYLEE J HUANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0080. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 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, Joon H Hwang can be reached on 571-272-4036. 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.
Kaylee Huang
03/26/2026
/KAYLEE J HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2447