DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
1. This action is responsive to communications: RCE & Amendment, filed on 07/06/2026. This action is made FINAL.
2. Claims 1-25 are pending in the case. Claims 1, 9, 17 and 25 are independent claims. Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 9, 11, 13-14, 17, 19, 21, 22 and 25 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 6, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (claims 1, 9, 17 and 25, p, 10) Hughes fails to disclose an XR device receiving a message comprising a prompt to join an XR room hosted by a local host device with the XR device is located within communication range.
In response, Hughes discloses coworker XR devices (Fig. 7C “712”) are prompted to join an XR room (virtual room) hosted by a local host device (e.g. a user’s XR device, Fig. 7C “726”) that is within the same environment as Hughes invites other users within the XR coworking space to join the virtual conference room, which the users can accept or decline (Fig. 5; Para 72). Applicant’s Specification (Para 6) similarly discloses a user from a host device providing a prompt to join an XR room. Thus, Hughes discloses an XR device receiving a message comprising a prompt to join an XR room hosted by a local host device with the XR device is located within communication range.
Applicant argues (claims 1, 9, 17 and 25, p. 11) Hughes fails to describe a host XR device, distinct from the host device, that generates or inserts synthetic content into the physical 3D scene.
In response, Hughes discloses (Para 61, 66, 90) a local host device (e.g. a user’s XR device) communicating with a remote server to obtain virtual content. Thus, the remote server having corresponding function is equivalent to Applicant’s host XR device. Therefore, Hughes discloses a host XR device, distinct from the host device, that generates or inserts synthetic content into the physical 3D scene.
Applicant argues (claims 1, 9, 17 and 25, p. 11-12) the first virtual representation of the first user is periodically localized within the XR room based on matching image features in the transmitted images with features of a 3D map of the 3D scene of the physical environment stored by the host device to prevent drift of a location of the first virtual representation of the first user in the XR room.
In response, Hughes discloses using IMU, sensors and cameras to track movement and location of the HMD in the real and artificial reality environments. The IMU, sensor/camera data and HMD motion data are used to localize the HMD within a real world environment (Para 44). Hughes discloses, in a dynamic XR coworking space, a user can make motions and corresponding virtual motions can be made in the proper locations (Para 63) based on the mapping of the physical space to the virtual space (Fig. 5 “504”) (e.g. matching image features in the transmitted images with features of a 3D map of the 3D scene of the physical environment). Accordingly, tracking user motions, which would occur periodically, results in camera, IMU data and HMD data being applied for localization, periodically, to maintain alignment of environments, and hence prevent drift, which Applicant’s Specification (Para 38, 86) similarly discloses. Thus, Hughes discloses the first virtual representation of the first user is periodically localized within the XR room based on matching image features in the transmitted images with features of a 3D map of the 3D scene of the physical environment stored by the host device to prevent drift of a location of the first virtual representation of the first user in the XR room.
Applicant argues claims 2-4, 6-8, 10-12, 14-16, 18-20 and 22-24 are in condition for allowance based on dependence from independence claims and their own patentable features.
In response, claims 2-4, 6-8, 10-12, 14-16, 18-20 and 22-24 are not patentable at least based on dependence from a rejected base claim and the prior art teaching of their respective features.
Applicant argues claims 5, 13 and 21 are allowable over the combination of Huges and Bieth for at least the same reasons as presented for claim 1.
In response, claims 5, 13 and 21 are not patentable at least based on dependence from a rejected base 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) 1-4, 6-12, 14-20, and 22-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by James Hughes et al., US 2024/0212290 A1.
Independent claim 1, Hughes discloses a method for providing an extended reality (XR) experience, the method comprising:
receiving, by a first XR device associated with a first user and located within a communication range of a local host device (i.e. users are within a threshold distance of one another – Para 81; Fig. 6; the virtual space corresponds to the real space – Para 79), from the local host device located within a physical environment of the first XR device, a message comprising a prompt to join an XR room hosted by the local host device (i.e. receiving an invite to join a conference room – Para 68, 72);
connecting the first XR device to the local host device based on the message (i.e. user’s join a combined virtual meeting room – Para 91; Fig. 7D);
obtaining, by the first XR device, images of a three-dimensional (3D) scene of the physical environment of the first XR device (Fig. 5 “502”);
transmitting, by the first XR device to the local host device, the images of the 3D scene of the physical environment of the first XR device (i.e. HMDs share input data – Para 36; Fig. 3; Fig. 7C);
receiving, by the first XR device from the local host device, synthetic content generated by a host XR device located within the physical environment of the first XR device, the host XR device being different from the local host device, wherein the synthetic content is associated with the XR room including a first virtual representation of the first user of the first XR device and a second virtual representation of a second user of the host XR device, wherein the first virtual representation of the first user is periodically localized within the XR room based on matching image features in the transmitted images with features of a 3D map of the 3D scene of the physical environment stored by the local host device to prevent drift of a location of the first virtual representation of the first user in the XR room (i.e. receiving synthetic content – Fig. 7A “704A, 704B”; combined virtual workspace 718 from a user's XR device (e.g., XR HMD) where the virtual workspace of the user is combined with the virtual workspace of another user – Para 90; Fig. 7C; localize HMD’s – Para 40, 44); and
rendering, by the first XR device, the synthetic content for the XR room based on a pose of the first XR device (i.e. provide differing perspective views based on an avatar – Para 87, 88; Fig. 7A-7F).
Claim 2, Hughes discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first XR device is one of an augmented reality/virtual reality (AR/VR) head-mounted device (HMD) or an augmented reality (AR) lens (i.e. Artificial reality or extra reality (XR) is a form of reality that has been adjusted in some manner before presentation to a user, which may include, e.g., virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), mixed reality (MR), hybrid reality, or some combination; The artificial reality system that provides the artificial reality content may be implemented on various platforms, including a head-mounted display – Para 34).
Claim 3, Hughes discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the host device is a wireless router (i.e. communicating via a network including WiFi – Para 68).
Claim 4, Hughes discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the message is a broadcast message (i.e. join the virtual conference room by one of two methods: 1) being invited by the current attendees, or 2) simply clicking to join, without permission needed. – Para 32).
Claim 6, Hughes discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first XR device is located within a communication range of the host device (Fig. 3).
Claim 7, Hughes discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the pose of the first user corresponds to at least one of a pose of a head of the first user or a direction of eyes of the first user (i.e. different perspective view displayed based on avatar/user device orientation - Fig. 7A-7F; Para 87, 88).
Claim 8, Hughes discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the synthetic content comprises at least one of one or more synthetic objects (i.e. a combined virtual workspace 718 from a user's XR device (e.g., XR HMD) where the virtual workspace of the user is combined with the virtual workspace of another user corresponding to avatar 712 – Para 90; Fig. 7C) or one or more lighting effects.
Independent claim 9, the claim is similar in scope to claim 1. Therefore, similar rationale as applied in the rejection of claim 1 applies herein.
Claims 10-12 and 14-16, 18-20 and 22-24, the corresponding rationale as applied in the rejection of claims 2-4 and 6-8 apply herein.
Independent claim 17, the claim is similar in scope to claim 1. Therefore, similar rationale as applied in the rejection of claim 1 applies herein.
Independent claim 25, the claim is similar in scope to claim 1. Therefore, similar rationale as applied in the rejection of claim 1 applies herein.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 5, 13 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over James Hughes et al., US 2024/0212290 A1 as applied to claims 1, 9 and 17 above, and further in view of Scott Beith et al., WO 2022/010732 A1.
Claim 5, Hughes discloses the method of claim 1.
Beith discloses transmitting, by the first XR device to the host device, a password for authentication of the first user (i.e. authorized participant enters login credential – Para 82), which Hughes fails to disclose.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention at the time the invention was made to combine Beith’s known method of transmitting, by the first XR device to the host device, a password for authentication of the first user with the known method of Hughes because adding authorization to participate in a private virtual space is a suitable technique that would yield predictable results when applied to the base technique of Hughes.
Claims 13 and 21, the corresponding rationale as applied in the rejection of claim 5 applies herein.
Conclusion
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 CHANTE HARRISON whose telephone number is (571)272-7659. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am to 5:00 pm EST.
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, Alicia Harrington can be reached at 571-272-2330. 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.
/CHANTE E HARRISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2615
