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 .
Application Status
This action is responsive to the remarks and claim amendments filed on 03/12/2026.
The previous 35 USC 112 rejections are withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendments.
This action has been made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/09/2026; 01/23/2026 is being considered by the examiner. A signed IDS is hereby attached.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant alleges the following: “Ford, Davidson and Mohan, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or suggest a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium to perform a process comprising, inter alia, "mapping the plurality of portions onto non-overlapping areas of interior portions of a virtual enclosed three-dimensional (3D) shape," "interpolating, by a machine learning model, other images, based on the 2D image portions in the mapped non-overlapping areas, onto unmapped areas of the interior portions," and "applying the interior portions of the 3D shape as a skybox in the XR world," as recited by independent claim 32.” The examiner is not persuaded. Because "applicants may amend claims to narrow their scope, a broad construction during prosecution creates no unfairness to the applicant or patentee." In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). The combination of Ford, Davidson, and Mohan explicitly discloses the Applicant’s claim language. For instant, Ford discloses “mapping the plurality of portions” in Figure 5; Paragraphs 0029; 0036; 0041; 0051; 0067; 0071. Davidson discloses “non-overlapping areas” in Column 5, Lines 5-15. “interior portions of a virtual enclosed three-dimensional (3D) shape” in Figure 5; Paragraphs 0029; 0036; 0041; 0051; 0067; 0071. Moreover, MOHAN discloses “interpolating a machine learning model” in Paragraph 0243. Ford discloses “other images based on the 2D image portions” in Figure 5; Paragraphs 0029; 0036; 0041; 0051; 0067; 0071. In addition, Davidson discloses “mapped non-overlapping areas, onto unmapped areas of the interior portions” in Column 5, Lines 5-15. Ford discloses “and applying the interior portions of the 3D shape as a skybox in the XR world” in Figure 5, Item 508; Figure 6, Item 604; Paragraphs 0023; 0043; 0047; 0067. MPEP § 2106 states 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). Accordingly, the examiner maintains the rejection.
The Applicant alleges the following: “However, visual data for a window being modified based on position data and/or orientation data associated with a rendering of a 3D model and a 3D reconstruction system that employs 2D image data and/or depth data captured from 3D sensors to generate a model 602 generally, as at best disclosed by Ford, alone or in combination, does not provide any specific nexus regarding teaching or suggesting at least and "mapping the plurality of portions" of the "split[] ... 2D image" "onto ... interior portions of a virtual enclosed three-dimensional (3D) shape," as recited by independent claim 32..” The examiner is not persuaded. The Applicant is rehashing arguments already addressed above. The examiner asserts the combination of Ford, Davidson, and Mohan explicitly discloses the Applicant’s claim language. Accordingly, the examiner maintains the rejection.
The Applicant alleges the following: “Additionally, visual data for a window being modified based on position data and/or orientation data associated with a rendering of a 3D model and a 3D reconstruction system that employs 2D image data and/or depth data captured from 3D sensors to generate a model 602, as disclosed by Ford alone or in combination, certainly does not teach or suggest "interpolating ... other images, based on the 2D image portions in the mapped non-overlapping areas, onto unmapped areas of the interior portions" "of a virtual enclosed three-dimensional (3D) shape," as recited by independent claim 32. For at least these reasons, the combination of Ford, Davidson, and Mohan is deficient. The Office relies on "Column 5, Lines 5-15" of Davidson as allegedly disclosing the claimed "non-overlapping areas." (See page 10 of the Office Action). However, Davidson does not.” The examiner is not persuaded. The combination of Ford, Davidson, and Mohan explicitly discloses the Applicant’s claim language. For instant, Ford discloses a virtual enclosed three-dimensional (3D) shape in Figure 5; Paragraphs 0029; 0036; 0041; 0051; 0067; 0071. Moreover, MOHAN discloses “interpolating a machine learning model” in Paragraph 0243. Ford discloses “other images based on the 2D image portions” in Figure 5; Paragraphs 0029; 0036; 0041; 0051; 0067; 0071. In addition, Davidson discloses “mapped non-overlapping areas, onto unmapped areas of the interior portions” in Column 5, Lines 5-15. MPEP § 2106 states 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). Accordingly, the examiner maintains the rejection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 37, 38, 42, 45 and 46 are provisionally objected (in view of the pending 35 USC 112 rejection and 35 USC 101 rejection) 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art references fail to disclose the following claim language COMBINED WITH the language recited in the independent claims:
mapping the plurality of portions onto four interior faces of the 3D cuboid, the four interior faces excluding a top face and a bottom face of the 3D cuboid;
trimming an upper portion from the four faces of the 3D cuboid that border the top face;
creating a border of the top face by adding the trimmed portions to an edge of the top face that borders the face from which that trimmed portion was taken;
and filling in a remainder of the top face by supplying the top face with the created border to a generative adversarial network ("GAN") and receiving, from the GAN, the filled in top face
COMBINED WITH
mapping the plurality of portions onto four interior faces of the 3D cuboid, the four interior faces excluding a top face and a bottom face of the 3D cuboid;
trimming a lower portion from the four faces of the 3D cuboid that border the bottom face;
creating a border of the bottom face by adding the trimmed portions to an edge of the bottom face that borders the face from which that trimmed portion was taken;
and filling in a remainder of the bottom face by supplying the bottom face with the created border to a generative adversarial network ("GAN") and receiving, from the GAN, the filled in bottom face.
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.
Claims 32-51 are 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.
Claims 32 and 41 recites “interpolating a machine learning model, other images based on the 2D image portions in the mapped non-overlapping areas, onto unmapped areas of the interior portions.” However, it is unclear to the examiner exactly how this claim limitation is executed and carried out. The examiner suggest provided additional language point out and distinctly claiming the subject matter.
The dependent claims are rejected for depending upon a rejected base claim.
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.
Claim(s) 32-36, 39-41, 43-44, and 47-51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ford, US Patent Application Publication No.: 20180144555 in view of Davidson, US Patent No.: 8,473,862 and in further view of Mohan, US Patent Application Publication No.: 20200364876.
Claim 32:
Ford discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, in response to being executed by a computing system (See Ford Figure 1; Paragraph 0026), cause the computing system to perform to produce a skybox for an artificial reality (XR) world from a two-dimensional (2D) image (See Ford Abstract; Figure 5, Item 508; Figure 6, Item 604; Paragraphs 0023; 0043; 0047; 0067).
Ford failed to disclose “non-overlapping” however Davidson discloses this feature in Column 5, Lines 5-15. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Ford by the teachings of Davidson to enable objects displayed on a multi-input display device without overlapping while maintaining the relationship between the particular displayed object, more effectively (See Davidson Abstract).
Additionally, Ford and Davidson failed to explicitly disclose “applying a machine learning model.” However, MOHAN discloses this feature in paragraph 0243. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Ford and Davidson by the teachings of Mohan to enable improved displaying of images, by applying a machine learning model, in an XR display technology environment, more effectively (See MOHAN Abstract). Additionally, the references (Ford, Davidson and MOHAN) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as management/display of images. This close relation between both of the references highly suggests an expectation of success.
As modified:
The combination of Ford, Davidson and MOHAN discloses the following:
splitting the 2D image into a plurality of portions to obtain 2D image portions (See Ford Figure 5; Paragraphs 0029; 0036; 0041; 0051; 0067; 00711);
mapping the plurality of portions (See Ford Figure 5; Paragraphs 0029; 0036; 0041; 0051; 0067; 0071) onto non-overlapping areas (See Davidson Column 5, Lines 5-152) of interior portions of a virtual enclosed three-dimensional (3D) shape (See Ford Figure 5; Paragraphs 0029; 0036; 0041; 0051; 0067; 0071);
interpolating a machine learning model (See MOHAN Paragraph 0243), other images based on the 2D image portions (See Ford Figure 5; Paragraphs 0029; 0036; 0041; 0051; 0067; 0071) in the mapped non-overlapping areas, onto unmapped areas of the interior portions (See Davidson Column 5, Lines 5-153)
and applying the interior portions of the 3D shape as a skybox in the XR world (See Ford Figure 5, Item 508; Figure 6, Item 604; Paragraphs 0023; 0043; 0047; 0067).
Claim 33:
The combination of Ford, Davidson and MOHAN discloses wherein the machine learning model comprises a generative adversarial network (See MOHAN Paragraph 0243).
Claim 34:
The combination of Ford, Davidson and MOHAN discloses wherein the applying the 3D shape as the skybox in the XR world is performed without setting a sky area of the XR world with data from the skybox; and the sky area is generated, associated with the XR world, by an application in control of the XR world (See Ford Figure 5, Item 508; Figure 6, Item 604; Paragraphs 0023; 0043; 0047; 0067).
Claim 35:
The combination of Ford, Davidson and MOHAN discloses wherein the plurality of portions are two portions of equal size (See Ford Figure 3; Paragraphs 0032; 0048; 0060).
Claim 36:
The combination of Ford, Davidson and MOHAN discloses wherein: the virtual enclosed 3D shape comprises a 3D cube (See Ford Figure 5; Paragraphs 0029; 0036; 0041; 0051; 0067; 0071); the plurality of portions are two portions of unequal size (See Ford Figure 5; Paragraphs 0029; 0036; 0041; 0051; 0067; 0071); the two portions are each mapped to an interior face of the 3D cube (See Ford Figure 5; Paragraphs 0029; 0036; 0041; 0051; 0067; 0071); and the machine learning model (See MOHAN Paragraph 0243) or another machine learning model (See MOHAN Paragraph 0243) is used to fill in one of the interior faces, of the 3D cube, to which the smaller of the two portions is mapped (See Ford Figure 5; Paragraphs 0029; 0036; 0041; 0051; 0067; 0071).
Claim 39:
The combination of Ford, Davidson and MOHAN discloses wherein the produce the skybox is performed in response to a user command (See Ford Paragraph 0089) while the user is viewing the XR world (See Ford Figure 5, Item 508; Figure 6, Item 604; Paragraphs 0023; 0043; 0047; 0067) such that, in response to the user command (See Ford Paragraph 0089), an XR device updates the XR world, in real-time (See Ford Paragraph 0069), to show the produced skybox (See Ford Figure 5, Item 508; Figure 6, Item 604; Paragraphs 0023; 0043; 0047; 0067).
Claim 40:
The combination of Ford, Davidson and MOHAN discloses, wherein the user command to produce the skybox comprises a verbal command (“microphone” See Ford Paragraph 0089).
Claim 41:
Claim 41 is rejected on the same basis as claim 32.
Claims 43:
Claim 43 is rejected on the same basis as claim 39.
Claims 44:
Claim 44 is rejected on the same basis as claim 32.
Claim 47:
Claim 47 is rejected on the same basis as claim 39.
Claim 48:
The combination of Ford, Davidson and MOHAN discloses wherein: the splitting the 2D image into a plurality of portions includes splitting the 2D image into a first portion and a second portion (See Ford Figure 5; Paragraphs 0029; 0036; 0041; 0051; 0067; 0071);
the method further comprises creating a panoramic image (See Ford Paragraph 0045) by swapping positions of the first portion and the second portion and applying a generative adversarial network ("GAN") to fill in a space between the first portion and second portion (See MOHAN Paragraph 0243);
and the mapping the plurality of portions onto non-overlapping areas of the interior portions of the virtual enclosed 3D shape comprises (See Davidson Column 5, Lines 5-15) includes:
mapping the plurality of portions onto a 3D cube with the panoramic image mapped onto four interior faces associated with the interior portions of the 3D cube (See Ford Figure 5; Paragraphs 0029; 0036; 0041; 0051; 0067; 0071);
creating a border of a top face of the 3D cube from a top edge of the four interior faces (See Ford Figure 5; Paragraphs 0029; 0036; 0041; 0051; 0067; 0071);
and applying the GAN to fill in the top face based on the created border of the top face (See MOHAN Paragraph 0243).
Claim 49:
The combination of Ford, Davidson and MOHAN discloses wherein the first portion and the second portion are equal sizes (See Ford Figure 3; Paragraphs 0032; 0048; 0060).
Claim 50:
The combination of Ford, Davidson and MOHAN discloses wherein: the applying the interior of the 3D shape as a skybox in the XR world is performed without setting a floor area of the XR world with data from the skybox (See Ford Figure 5, Item 508; Figure 6, Item 604; Paragraphs 0023; 0043; 0047; 0067);
and the floor area is generated, associated with the XR world, by an application in control of the XR world (See Ford Figure 5, Item 508; Figure 6, Item 604; Paragraphs 0023; 0043; 0047; 0067).
Claim 51:
The combination of Ford, Davidson and MOHAN discloses wherein: the produce the skybox is performed in response to a user command (See Ford Paragraph 0089) while the user is in the XR world (See Ford Figure 5, Item 508; Figure 6, Item 604; Paragraphs 0023; 0043; 0047; 0067) such that, in response to the user command, an XR device (See Ford Paragraphs 0029; 0044-0045) updates the XR world to show the produced skybox (See Ford Paragraph 0050);
and the user command (See Ford Paragraph 0089) to produce the skybox is a user interaction with a virtual object in the XR world (See Ford Figure 5, Item 508; Figure 6, Item 604; Paragraphs 0023; 0043; 0047; 0067).
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHEREE N BROWN whose telephone number is (571)272-4229. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30-2:00 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, SAID BROOME can be reached at (571) 272-2931. 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.
/SHEREE N BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2612
April 30, 2026
1 Paragraph 0036 of Ford recites “identify a portion of an image (e.g., a portion of an image associated with a window area of a 3D model) that corresponds to a window view based on data associated with pixels of the image. For example, the identification component 104 can analyze pixels of the image and/or data associated with pixels of the image to determine a portion of the image that corresponds to a window view. Therefore, the identification component 104 can determine one or more portions of the image that are associated with window view pixels”.
2 Davidson Column 5, Lines 5-15 recites “the location of the particular displayed object are not overlapping”.
3 Davidson Column 5, Lines 5-15 recites “the location of the particular displayed object are not overlapping”.
Prosecution Insights