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 .
Remarks
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 9/30/2025. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination. Independent claims 1, 10, 19 were amended and dependent claims 2-5, 7, 11-18 were amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant, with regard to claims 1, 10, 19, argues that Tate-gans fails to teach or suggest “defined access control restrictions for respective augments of the augment graph restrict access to the respective augment information of the respective augments by one or more of a set of users of the plurality of users and one or more applications”. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
According to Tate-gans, each application process or instance may render its virtual content into a set of Prisms. Each Prism corresponds to a different user. The Universe provides the ability to control sharing of content between multiple users of the mixed reality system. A passable world model allows a user to effectively pass over a piece of the user's world (e.g., ambient surroundings, interactions, etc.) to another user [0060-0063]. Therefore, Tate-gans does teach “defined access control restrictions for respective augments of the augment graph restrict access to the respective augment information of the respective augments by one or more of a set of users of the plurality of users and one or more applications”.
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 recites “respective augments” in line 16. This limitation was already recited in line 13 of claim 1. It is unclear to the Examiner whether the limitation in line 16 is the same or different from the limitation in line 13.
Claim 2 recites “second augment information” in lines 6-7. This limitation was already recited in line 3 of claim 2. It is unclear to the Examiner whether the limitation in lines 6-7 is the same or different from the limitation in line 3.
Claims 3-9 are rejected for depending on at least claim 1.
Claim 10 recites similar limitations as claim 1, but in the form of a computer-readable storage medium. Therefore, claim 10 requires similar corrections as claim 1 above.
Claim 11 recites similar limitations as claim 2. Therefore, claim 11 requires similar corrections as claim 2.
Claims 12-18 are rejected for depending on at least claim 10.
Claim 19 recites similar limitations as claim 1, but in the form of a computing system. Therefore, claim 19 requires similar corrections as claim 1 above.
Claim 20 is rejected for depending on at least claim 19.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 6, 9, 10, 14, 15, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tate-gans et al. (U.S. Patent Application 20190197785).
In regards to claim 1, Tate-gans teaches a method for providing remote augment graph services for a plurality of artificial reality (XR) systems [Fig. 1; e.g. method for mixed reality user devices that are able to connect to a cloud network which are configured to receive and transmit virtual content corresponding to Prisms representing sub-trees, 0065, also see 0014], the method comprising:
receiving, at a remote system [Fig. 1; e.g. external database corresponds to a passable world system, 0076, 0158] from a first XR system affiliated with a first user [Fig. 1; e.g. head-mounted system of a user corresponds to the mixed reality system, 0057, 0076], first augment information for first augments [e.g. retrieving instance data corresponding to Prism properties from the local database to the external database, 0076] associated with the first user [e.g. corresponding to the user, 0076], wherein:
the first augment information comprises augment visual data [e.g. properties and characteristics of the virtual content, 0078] descriptive of each augment's structure and visual appearance [Fig. 3; e.g. boundaries of the virtual content, 2D and 3D content, and textures of the virtual content, 0059, 0069, 0114, 0118] and augment display state data [e.g. display locations of the virtual content within the user’s landscape, 0103, 0118], and
the first XR system generates the first augment information in response to interactions with the first user [e.g. The Prism data are constantly updated while the user is operating the mixed reality system and interacting with the Prisms. For example, the Prism or mini Prism are moved in response to the user inputs, 0129-0130, also see 0081, 0240] and/or software calls from an owner application [e.g. call an API to the browser application, 0237] executing at the first XR system; and
storing, at the remote system, the first augment information for the first augments in a portion of an augment graph [Fig. 1, 3; e.g. storing, at the external database, the retrieved instance data corresponding to the Prism properties, wherein the instance data for each Prism include a data structure of Prism properties defining the Prism. The augment graph corresponds to Tate-gans’ multi-application scene graph, 0014, 0059, 0074-0076, 0129], wherein:
the augment graph comprises a plurality of sub-graphs [e.g. the multi-application scene graph comprises a plurality of sub-trees, 0059] that store respective augment information for respective augments [Fig. 3; e.g. each of the sub-trees corresponding to Prisms store instance data corresponding to the Prism properties, 0014, 0059, 0074, 0129] associated with a plurality of users [e.g. multiple users, 0076, 0160],
the portion of the augment graph comprises a sub-graph for the first augments [e.g. the portion of the multi-application scene graph comprises a sub-tree, 0059] associated with the first user [e.g. user, 0076, 0160],
defined access control restrictions for respective augments of the augment graph restrict access to the respective augment information of the respective augments by one or more of a set of users of the plurality of users and one or more applications [e.g. Each application process or instance may render its virtual content into a set of Prisms. Each Prism corresponds to a different user. The Universe provides the ability to control sharing of content between multiple users of the mixed reality system. A passable world model allows a user to effectively pass over a piece of the user's world (e.g., ambient surroundings, interactions, etc.) to another user, 0060-0063].
the remote system transmits the first augment information from the sub-graph to a subset of the plurality of XR systems [e.g. The external database contains information that is used to manage and share virtual content between multiple users of the mixed reality system. The information is Prism information from the sub-tree, 0076, 0129, 0160] that display one of more of the first augments associated with the first user [e.g. instance data for the Prism from the first user is uploaded to the passable world system and reconstructed on the second user’s mixed reality system for displaying the Prism of the first user, 0160].
In regards to claim 5, Tate-gans teaches the method of claim 1, wherein,
the augment display state data, for the first augments associated with the first user and received from the first system, indicate display locations within an XR environment displayed by the first XR system [e.g. display locations of the virtual content within the user’s landscape, 0103, 0118],
the augment display state data, for the first augments associated with the first user stored at the sub-graph [Fig. 3; e.g. each of the sub-trees corresponding to Prisms store instance data including the virtual content, 0014, 0059, 0074, 0129], includes the indicated display locations [e.g. display locations of the virtual content within the user’s landscape, 0103, 0118], and
the one or more augments are displayed by a second XR system affiliated with a second user in a second XR environment at display locations that correspond to the display locations for the one or more augments in the first XR environment [e.g. The virtual content of the first user from the first user’s landscape are shared with the second user’s mixed reality system at the same location. The virtual content is displayed by the second user’s mixed reality system in the landscape of the second user at the same location, 0160].
In regards to claim 6, Tate-gans teaches the method of claim 5, wherein,
the first and second XR systems are located in a same real-world environment [e.g. the first and second user’s mixed reality systems are located at the same physical location, 0160], and the first XR environment and the second XR environment comprise a visual depiction of the same real-world environment [e.g. Such interaction may involve the user and the digital world, one or more other users interfacing the representative environment, and objects within the digital and physical world, 0080];
the indicated display locations comprise spatial anchors [e.g. anchors with anchor locations, 0073, 0118, 0131-0133] for the augments associated with the first user with respect to the same real-world environment; and
the one or more augments are displayed by the second XR system in the second XR environment with respect to the spatial anchors of the same real-world environment [e.g. The virtual content of the first user from the first user’s landscape are shared with the second user’s mixed reality system at the same location. The virtual content is displayed at the anchor location by the second user’s mixed reality system in the landscape of the second user at the same location, 0160, also see 0061, 0103, 0118].
In regards to claim 9, Tate-gans teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the remote system comprises a cloud system [e.g. cloud network, 0065, 0074].
In regards to claim 10, the claim recites similar limitations as claim 1, but in the form of a computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by a computing system, cause the computing system to perform the method of claim 1. Furthermore, Tate-gans teaches a computer-readable storage medium [Fig. 17; e.g. main memory, 0350] storing instructions [Fig. 17; e.g. one or more instructions, 0350] that, when executed by a computing system [Fig. 17; e.g. computing system, 0349], cause the computing system to perform the method of claim 1. Therefore, the same rationale as claim 1 is applied.
In regards to claim 14, the claim recites similar limitations as claim 5. Therefore, the same rationale as claim 5 is applied.
In regards to claim 15, the claim recites similar limitations as claim 6. Therefore, the same rationale as claim 6 is applied.
In regards to claim 18, the claim recites similar limitations as claim 9. Therefore, the same rationale as claim 9 is applied.
In regards to claim 19, the claim recites similar limitations as claim 1, but in the form of a computing system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more memories storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing system to perform a process comprising the method of claim 1. Furthermore, Tate-gans teaches a computing system [Fig. 17; e.g. computing system, 0349] comprising: one or more processors [Fig. 17; e.g. processor, 0349]; and one or more memories [Fig. 17; e.g. main memory, 0350] storing instructions [Fig. 17; e.g. one or more instructions, 0350] that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing system to perform a process [e.g. specific operations, 0350] comprising the method of claim 1. Therefore, the same rationale as claim 1 is applied.
In regards to claim 20, the claim recites similar limitations as claim 9. Therefore, the same rationale as claim 9 is applied.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 7, 8, 11-13, 16, 17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
In regards to claim 2, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest the method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving, at the remote system, a request from a second XR system affiliated with a second user for second augment information from the sub-graph;
determining, by the augment graph, that the access control restrictions for one or more augments of the sub-graph permit access by the second user; and
transmitting, to the second XR system from the remote system, second augment information from the sub-graph for the one or more augments, wherein the second XR system displays the one or more augments, to the second user, using the transmitted second augment information.
In regards to claims 3 and 4, the claims depend on at least claim 2. Therefore, the claims are allowable for at least the same reason as claim 2 if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
In regards to claim 7, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest the method of claim 1, wherein,
the first XR system comprises a publisher component of the augments associated with the first user such that the first XR system pushes updates for the augment display state data of the augments associated with the first user to the remote system, and
the second XR system comprises a subscriber component of the one or more augments such that the remote system pushes updates for the augment display state data of the one or more augments to the second XR system.
In regards to claim 8, the claim depends on at least claim 7. Therefore, the claim is allowable for at least the same reason as claim 7 if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
In regards to claim 11, the claim recites similar limitations as claim 2. Therefore, the claim is allowable for at least the same reason as claim 2 if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
In regards to claims 12-13, the claims depend on at least claims 11. Therefore, the claims are allowable for at least the same reason as claim 11 if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
In regards to claim 16, the claim recites similar limitations as claim 7. Therefore, the claim is allowable for at least the same reason as claim 7 if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
In regards to claim 17, the claim depends on at least claim 16. Therefore, the claim is allowable for at least the same reason as claim 16 if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ANDREW SHIN whose telephone number is (571)270-5764. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 11:00AM to 7:00PM 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.
/ANDREW SHIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2612
/Said Broome/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2612