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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 Jan 8, 2026 has been entered.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 7-9, 11-12, 14-16, and 19 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed Jan 8, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image1.png
296
637
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(lower half of page 9 in filed response).
The Examiner respectfully maintains that the prior art rejections in this matter are proper because Keshavarzi in figure 1(d) shows that virtual components such as virtual chairs and virtual participants are placed into the local environment. Figure 1 and its caption indicates that standable or sittable areas are indicated using yellow and orange boundaries respectively. These boundaries are geometric shapes with properties such as lengths and sizes. Thus, dimensions of an environment available for presentation of the virtual chair components is considered. Also, please see Keshavarzi in section 3.3.2, 2nd paragraph where the bounding boxes of sittable areas are considered with respect to bounding boxes of local objects in the local room environment. In these instances, bounding boxes have dimension properties as well.
Also, Keshavarzi in section 4, 2nd paragraph refers to “Figure 3 illustrates the available standable and sittable boundaries for two sample rooms processed by our system.” (emphasis added). Figure 3 in Keshavarzi shows the standable areas using the local room marked in areas with green and sittable areas using the local room marked in areas with yellow. Again, these green or yellow areas have local geometric dimensions with respect to the local room (as shown in the figure). Keshavarzi emphasizes that the virtual chairs and participants (components) should be placed in accordance with the available local standing and sitting areas (including their dimensions). For example, please see Keshavarzi in section 1, 2nd paragraph “Furthermore, the augmentation of the virtual data in the physical space must be compatible with the contextual properties of the physical space, such as a floor that is standable, a chair that is sittable, and a wall that is also a physical barrier of virtual interactions.” Keshavarzi in figure 1(d) shows the dimensions of the virtual chair objects and virtual participants fit within the dimensions of the local space. Thus, the local and virtual constraints are sized-based constraints based on using what space is available (where this includes dimensions as well) since bounding boxes are being considered.
Applicant remarks:
PNG
media_image2.png
248
633
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(bottom of page 9 in filed response).
The examiner respectfully maintains that this argument is moot since Valli is not relied upon for teaching these newly amended claim features from independent claim 1.
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 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 1-2, 5-6, 10, 13, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keshavarzi et al. (NPL Doc, “Optimization and Manipulation of Contextual Mutual Spaces for Multi-User Virtual and Augmented Reality Interaction”) in view of Valli (Pub No. US 2023/0115563 A1).
As per claim 1, Keshavarzi teaches the claimed:
1. A method comprising:
obtaining, at a first device, local size constraint data associated with a local environment in which the first device is located (Please see Keshavarzi in the 1st column in figures 1a and 1b where a local environment (a user’s bedroom) is shown where a first user’s AR device (HoloLens) is located:
PNG
media_image3.png
181
639
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Keshavarzi in the first column in figure 1b shows the claimed “local size constraint data” as being associated with the yellow and orange bounding boxes overlaid over the floor plan of the first user’s bedroom (the local environment). These boxes represent standing or sitting usable areas within the first user’s local environment (the first user’s bedroom). Also, please see Keshavarzi in the abstract and the first paragraph in sections 3.3.1 “Standable Spaces” and section 3.3.2 “Sittable Spaces”. The “local size constraint data” includes constraints such as “Standing spaces consist of the volume of the room in which no object located within a human user’s height range is present” or “As we mentioned before, sittable spaces normally extend the standable spaces by adding areas where humans are able to sit on. Furniture types such as sofas, chairs, and beds include sitting areas”), wherein the local size constraint data indicates geometric characteristics of a region of the local environment available for virtual component placement (The “local size constraint data” indicates geometric characteristics of a region of the local environment available for virtual chair component placement “Standing spaces consist of the volume of the room in which no object located within a human user’s height range is present” or “As we mentioned before, sittable spaces normally extend the standable spaces by adding areas where humans are able to sit on. Furniture types such as sofas, chairs, and beds include sitting areas”
Figure 1d shows the virtual chair component placement in the local environment. Figure 3 shows that the available sitting and standing areas are based upon geometric space. These geometric spaces have dimensions as well, e.g. length and width with respect to the surrounding local room);
obtaining, at the first device, remote size constraint data associated with a remote environment in which a second device is located, wherein the remote size constraint data indicates geometric characteristics of a region of the remote environment available for virtual component placement, and wherein the first device and the second device are active in a multi-user communication session (Please see Keshavarzi in the 2nd column in figures 1a and 1b:
PNG
media_image4.png
193
647
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In Keshavarzi in the 2nd column in figures 1a and 1b, a remote environment is shown as a second user’s bedroom where a first user’s AR device (HoloLens) is located. This second user is located in a different room from the first user. Thus, the second user is remotely located from the first user.
The second column in figure 1b shows the claimed “remote size constraint data” as being associated with the yellow and orange bounding boxes overlaid over the second user’s bedroom. These boxes represent standing or sitting usable areas within the second user’s bedroom (the remote environment). Also, please see the abstract and the first paragraph in sections 3.3.1 “Standable Spaces” and section 3.3.2 “Sittable Spaces”. The “remote size constraint data” includes constraints such as “Standing spaces consist of the volume of the room in which no object located within a human user’s height range is present” or “As we mentioned before, sittable spaces normally extend the standable spaces by adding areas where humans are able to sit on. Furniture types such as sofas, chairs, and beds include sitting areas”.
The claimed “remote size constraint data” is received at the first device when a common collaborative environment is created that includes both the first and second user sitting a table (please see the 1st column in figure 1d of Keshavarzi).
PNG
media_image5.png
196
650
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Remote size constraint data is received at the first device because this data is used to create the virtual representation of the second user appearing within the first user’s local environment, e.g. the second user’s appears around the area of the second user’s chair where they are sitting down in the remote environment. In this instance, the “remote size constraint data” includes the area in which the second user is sitting (shown as a virtual representation) within the first user’s local environment. Also, in the 1st column in figure 1d, the first device (first user’s device) and the second device (second user’s device) are active in a multi-user communication session when these two users are actively communicating with each other in real-time. Also, please see the end of the abstract which refers to “Results show the proposed
algorithm can effectively discover optimal shareable space for multiuser virtual interaction and hence facilitate remote spatial computing communication in various collaborative workflows”);
determining a usable geometry based on the local size constraint data and the remote size constraint data (This is shown in Keshavarzi in figure 1b in the first and second columns respectively. In particular, the yellow and orange bounding boxes determine the usable geometry based on the local size constraint data and the remote size constraint data. The local size constraint data and the remote size constraint data includes standing areas or sittable areas within the local or remote environments for the first and second users respectively), wherein the usable geometry delineates a region which fits in the local environment and the remote environment (This is shown in Keshavarzi in the first column in figure 1d where the usable geometry defines (delineates using bounding boxes) common sitting regions which fits in the local environment and the remote environment for collaborative meetings and communication)
presenting a representation of the virtual components of the multi-user communication session within the usable geometry in the local environment (This is also shown in Keshavarzi in the first column in figure 1d where the representation of the virtual participants and virtual chairs (virtual components) of the multi-user communication session is presented graphically to the first user within the usable geometry (valid standing areas and sittable areas in the first and second user’s bedrooms). In figure 1d on the left side, the available standing or sitting area where virtual participants in virtual chairs are placed in first user’s bedroom is an example of usable geometry in the local environment).
Keshavarzi alone does not explicitly teach the remaining claim limitations relating to the claimed “using a common set of dimensions”.
However, Keshavarzi in combination with Valli teaches the claimed “using a common set of dimensions”.
As mentioned above, Keshavarzi in the first column in figure 1d shows a virtual collaborate meeting that includes usable geometry and local and remote size constraints to define standable and sittable areas within the local environment and remote environment. Keshavarzi is silent about a common set of dimensions being used for their multi-user collaborate virtual meeting. Valli provides additional evidence that this technical feature was known in the art, e.g. please see Valli in figure 2 and in paragraph [0046]: “A virtual meeting layout may be formed by placing captured meeting spaces in a spatial relation. The captured spaces may be mapped to a common coordinate system, e.g., one relative to the real world, by a cascaded matrix operation performing rotation, scaling, and translation. In particular, any user position in a captured sub-space, e.g. space 210, 220, 230 can be mapped to the coordinates of any other sub-space. Correspondingly, all viewpoints and viewing directions between participants are known, as indicated by arrows 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255 representing lines-of-sight in a global coordinate system between the users.” In this instance, the virtual meeting where a plurality of captured spaces from different users may be mapped to a common coordinate system. This “common coordinate system” in Valli corresponds to the claimed “using a common set of dimensions”. This is because the common coordinate system in Valli helps define a common set of dimensions for all participants and their usable spaces in the virtual collaborative meeting.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a common set of dimensions as taught by Valli with the system of Keshavarzi. This helps ensure consistent spatial size and appearance for each of the participants collaborating together within the virtual meeting. For example, a common set of dimensions may help ensure that the dimensions for each location have a common size scale when these are displayed together as a single virtual meeting. This ensures that each virtual representation of each participant has a consistent body size and that some virtual representations of participants do not appear to be much larger or smaller than other participants within the virtual meeting. This helps ensure that the virtual meeting has proportional sizes that mimics how people would be sized in a real-world meeting.
As per claim 2, Keshavarzi teaches the claimed:
2. The method of claim 1, wherein components of the multi user communication session are presented within the usable geometry (Keshavarzi teaches this feature in the first column in figure 1d where components relating to each participant and their body (e.g. their arms, legs, or top of their head) of the multi-user communication session are presented within the usable geometry (they are presented within their respective available standing areas or sittable areas from their respective locations)).
As per claim 5, Keshavarzi teaches the claimed:
5. The method of claim 1, further comprising generating the local size constraint data based on one or more images of the local environment (In section 6, 2nd paragraph “In addition, we scan the space using a Matterport camera, and perform the semantic segmentation step using Matterport classifications to locate the bounding boxes of all the furniture located in the room. We then feed the bounding box data to our algorithm for mutual boundary search. The implementation outputs spatial coordinates for standable and sittable areas which are automatically updated in the Unity Game Engine to be rendered in the Hololenses” In this instance, by using the camera to scan the space, images of the local environment are obtained. These images are used to generate local size constraints relating to valid standing or sittable areas within the room).
As per claim 6, Keshavarzi teaches the claimed:
6. The method of claim 1, further comprising generating the local size constraint data based on user input (According to the first paragraph in section 3.3.1 “Standable Spaces” and section 3.3.2 “Sittable Spaces” the local size constraint data is based upon the layout of the room including its furniture and object placement within that room. Thus, the local size constraints relating to available standing areas or sittable areas is based on user input of where the user places those items in the room. For example, based upon where the user places their sittable areas such as their chair and bed in their bedroom environment (including for a first user in a local environment)).
As per claim 10, Keshavarzi teaches the claimed:
10. The method of claim 1, further comprising displaying a representation of the usable geometry within the local environment (Please see figure 6 and its caption which recites: “Figure 6: Screenshots from HoloLens illustrating the identified mutual boundaries as augmented overlays for three rooms: A) kitchen; B) conference room; C) robotic laboratory. Blue color indicates mutual boundaries, green color indicates standable spaces and red color indicates non-standable spaces”).
As per claim 13, Keshavarzi teaches the claimed:
13. The method of claim 1, wherein the usable geometry comprises an area or volume (Figure 1b in the 1st and 2nd columns shows that the usable geometry comprises an area or volume defined by orange and yellow bounding boxes. Also, the first paragraph in sections 3.3.1 “Standable Spaces” and section 3.3.2 “Sittable Spaces”, defines the usable geometry comprises an area or volume in which the user can stand or sit within their space or environment).
As per claims 17 and 18, these claims are similar in scope to limitations recited in claims 1 and 2, respectively, and thus are rejected under the same rationale. The system of Keshavarzi would have to have some type of non-transitory computer readable medium and processor present in order to function and run on a computer as described by the reference.
As per claim 20, this claim is similar in scope to limitations recited in claims 1 and 17, and thus is rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL F HAJNIK whose telephone number is (571) 272-7642. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-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.
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.
/DANIEL F HAJNIK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2616