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 .
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on April 10th 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments/remarks with respect to claim(s) 1-28 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7-11, 15-19, 23-24, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pejsa et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 20210350604 A1 (hereinafter Pejsa) in view of Heppner et al. U.S. Patent 10721280 B1 (hereinafter Heppner).
Regarding claim 1, Pejsa teaches A method comprising: at a first device (Head Mounted Display System, Para. 0042) having a processor (Para. 0062):
obtaining an indication of a first surface of a first physical environment (Real Environment 100, Para. 0050, Fig. 1A) the first physical environment comprising the first device (Head Mounted Display, Para. 0048-0051);
(Room A, See Fig 18A Below, Para. 0231-0233) obtained via sensor data of the first device (Head-Mounted Display MR System 210, Para. 0231) and a representation of a second physical environment (Room B or Room C, See Fig 18A Below) obtained via sensor data of a second device (Head-Mounted Display MR System 210), the second physical environment (Room B or Room C) comprising the second device (Head-Mounted Display of User B or User C), wherein the alignment aligns a first portion of the representation of the first physical environment (Room A) corresponding to (Wall, Para. 0116, 0133, and 0192) with a second portion of the representation of the second physical environment (Room B or Room C) corresponding to (Wall) of the second physical environment (Room B or Room C), wherein the first surface and second surface are vertical surfaces,
PNG
media_image1.png
476
737
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and providing a view of an extended reality (XR) environment (Virtual Environment 130 or Real Environment 100, Para. 0050-0051) during a communication session (Para. 0036 and See Fig 18A Above), the XR environment comprising the representation of the first physical environment (Room A, See Fig 18A Above) and the representation of the second physical environment (Room B or Room C, See Fig18A Above) aligned according to the obtained 3D alignment (Coordinate System 108, Para. 0054-0056) Pejsa’s invention promotes Relative Spatial Consistency, which allows remote users to appear in another physical space virtually with their shared virtual content. The rooms A-C in Fig. 18A are aligned by the coordinate system of the host, Para. 0045.
However, Pejsa fails to teach:
determining portal characteristics for providing views of an extended reality (XR) environment in which a first physical environment portal corresponds to a second physical environment portal,
wherein the first physical environment portal and second physical environment portal have common portal characteristics, wherein the common portal characteristics comprise a common size determined based at least in part on sizes of the first surface and the second surface;
Pejsa and Heppner are analogous to the claimed invention because both of them are in the same field of facilitating a multi-user collaboration through aligning/combining spaces.
Heppner teaches:
determining portal (User’s Environment to be Viewed from the Perspective of the other Users Environment by a Divided Plane Col. 9 Lines 20-49, False Wall Col. 13 Lines 59-67 to Col. 14 Lines 1-23, or Common Area Col. 17 Lines 56-63 in the Combined Composite Environments) characteristics (Size and Shape of Environments Col. 17 Lines 56-63) for providing views of an extended reality (XR) environment (Composite Environment Col. 9 Lines 20-49) in which a first physical environment (First Users Environment Col. 9 Lines 20-49) portal corresponds to a second physical environment (Second Users Environment Col. 9 Lines 20-49) portal, wherein the portal characteristics(Size and Shape of Environments Col. 17 Lines 56-63) are determined based on obtaining a three-dimensional (3D) alignment (Dividing Environments along a Specified Plane Col. 9 Lines 20-49 or Combining Environments through a False Wall Col. 13 Lines 59-67 to Col. 14 Lines 1-23) between a representation of the first physical environment(First Users Environment Col. 9 Lines 20-49) obtained via sensor data (User’s Sensors Col. 13 Lines 59-67 to Col. 14 Lines 1-23) of the first device(First Device 102 Col. 19 Lines 29-56) and a representation of a second physical environment(Second Users Environment Col. 9 Lines 20-49) obtained via sensor data(User’s Sensors Col. 13 Lines 59-67 to Col. 14 Lines 1-23) of a second device(Second Device 104 Col. Col. 29-56), the second physical environment(Second Users Environment Col. 9 Lines 20-49) comprising the second device (Second Device 104 Col. Col. 29-56), wherein the alignment aligns(Dividing Environments along a Specified Plane Col. 9 Lines 20-49 or Combining Environments through a False Wall Col. 13 Lines 59-67 to Col. 14 Lines 1-23) a first portion (Separating Plane Col. 9 Lines 20-49 , False Wall Col. 13 Lines 59-67 to Col. 14 Lines 1-23, or Area Common to All User Spaces Col. 17 Lines 56-63) of the representation of the first physical environment(First Device 102 Col. 19 Lines 29-56) corresponding to the first physical environment(First Users Environment Col. 9 Lines 20-49) portal on the first surface(Separating Plane Col. 9 Lines 20-49 , False Wall Col. 13 Lines 59-67 to Col. 14 Lines 1-23, or Area Common to All User Spaces Col. 17 Lines 56-63) with a second portion(Separating Plane Col. 9 Lines 20-49 , False Wall Col. 13 Lines 59-67 to Col. 14 Lines 1-23, or Area Common to All User Spaces Col. 17 Lines 56-63) of the representation of the second physical environment(Second Users Environment Col. 9 Lines 20-49) corresponding to the second physical environment(Second Users Environment Col. 9 Lines 20-49) portal on a second surface(Separating Plane Col. 9 Lines 20-49 , False Wall Col. 13 Lines 59-67 to Col. 14 Lines 1-23, or Area Common to All User Spaces Col. 17 Lines 56-63) of the second physical environment(Second Users Environment Col. 9 Lines 20-49), wherein the first surface and second surface are vertical surfaces(Separating Plane Col. 9 Lines 20-49 , False Wall Col. 13 Lines 59-67 to Col. 14 Lines 1-23, or Area Common to All User Spaces Col. 17 Lines 56-63. A Plane and False Wall can be Vertical Surfaces.), wherein the first physical environment(First Users Environment Col. 9 Lines 20-49) portal and second physical environment(Second Users Environment Col. 9 Lines 20-49) portal have common portal characteristics (Size and Shape of Environments Col. 17 Lines 56-63), wherein the common portal characteristics(Size and Shape of Environment Col. 17 Lines 56-63) comprise a common size determined based at least in part on sizes of the first surface and the second surface; Heppner teaches generating combined user spaces that are the same shape and size and those that are not(Col. 17 Lines 56-63). Each device used by the users collects the size, shape, and location of the user and environment around the user(Col. 19 Lines 29-56). Thus, compositing environments of the same size and shape results in the plane, false wall, or common area used to combine environments to be a common size. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pejsa’s Alignment of Rooms to incorporate Heppner’s Composite of Environments. Since doing so would provide the benefit of users being able to see the other user’s environment and profile from their environments (Heppner et al. Col. 9 Lines 20-48) which promote collaborative spaces( Heppner et al. Col. 12 Lines 4-42 and Col. 23 Lines 43-67 to Col. 24 Lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 2, Pejsa teaches wherein the first surface and second surface are walls (See Fig 18A Above, Para. 0116, 0133, and 0192)
Regarding claim 3, Pejsa teaches wherein the 3D alignment positions (Coordinate System 108, Para. 0054-0056) at least a portion of the portion of the representation of the first physical environment (Room A, See Fig. 18A Above) corresponding to the first surface (Wall, Para. 0116, 0133, and 0192) parallel (Para. 0158) to at least a portion of the portion of the representation of the second physical environment (Room B or Room C, See Fig. 18A Above) corresponding to the second surface (Wall).
Regarding claim 7, Pejsa teaches wherein obtaining the 3D alignment (Coordinate System 108, Para. 0054-0056) is based on sizes (Para. 0197) of the first surface and the second surface and further based on aligning horizontal surfaces (Surfaces, Para. 0192 and 0197) within the representations of the first and second physical environments (Virtual Environment 130 based on Real Environment 100, Para. 0050-0051).
Regarding claim 8, Pejsa teaches aligning representations of three or more physical environments in the XR environment (Virtual Environment 130 based on Real Environment 100, Para. 0050-0051) based on walls ((Coordinate System 108, Para. 0054-0056 and Surfaces Para. 0192 and 0197) identified in each of the three or more physical environments (Room A-C, See Fig. 18A Above Para. 0231-0233).
Regarding the system claim 9, is drawn to the system correspond to the method of using same as claimed in claim 1. Therefore, system claim 9 corresponds to method claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as used above.
Regarding claim(s) 10 and 18, have similar limitations as of claim 2, therefore they are rejected under the same rationale as claim 2.
Regarding claim(s) 11 and 19, have similar limitations as of claim 3, therefore they are rejected under the same rationale as claim 3.
Regarding claim(s) 15 and 23, have similar limitations as of claim 7, therefore they are rejected under the same rationale as claim 7.
Regarding claim(s) 16 and 24, have similar limitations as of claim 8, therefore they are rejected under the same rationale as claim 8.
Regarding claim 17 has similar limitations as of claim 1 except it is a CRM claim 17, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as Claim 1.
Regarding claim 18, Pejsa fails to teach the method of claim 1, wherein the common portal characteristics and the second surface.
However, Heppner teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the common portal characteristics (Size and Shape of Environments Col. 9 Lines 20-49) comprise a common shape determined based at least in part on shapes(Separating Plane Col. 9 Lines 20-49 , False Wall Col. 13 Lines 59-67 to Col. 14 Lines 1-23, or Area Common to All User Spaces Col. 17 Lines 56-63) of the first surface and the second surface. Heppner teaches generating combined user spaces that are the same shape and size and those that are not(Col. 17 Lines 56-63). Each device used by the users collects the size, shape, and location of the user and environment around the user(Col. 19 Lines 29-56). Thus, compositing environments of the same size and shape results in the plane, false wall, or common area used to combine environments to be a common size and shape. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pejsa’s Alignment of Rooms to incorporate Heppner’s Composite of Environments. Since doing so would provide the benefit of users being able to see the other user’s environment and profile from their environments (Heppner et al. Col. 9 Lines 20-48) which promote collaborative spaces( Heppner et al. Col. 12 Lines 4-42 and Col. 23 Lines 43-67 to Col. 24 Lines 1-2).
Claims 4-6, 12-14, 20-22, and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pejsa et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 20210350604 A1 (hereinafter Pejsa) in view of Heppner et al. U.S. Patent 10721280 B1 (hereinafter Heppner) in further view of NPL “GoThrough: a Tool for Creating and Visualizing Impossible 3D Worlds Using Portals” by Luca Silva, Lucas Valenca, Arlindo Gomes, Lucas Figueiredo, and Veronica Teichrieb (hereinafter Silva).
Regarding claim 4, Pejsa teaches wherein the view is provided by the first device (Head Mounted Display, Para. 0048-0051) from a viewpoint position (Users View from Head Mounted Display) within the XR environment (Virtual Environment 130 or Real Environment 100, Para. 0050-0051), wherein the view depicts:
the representation of the first physical environment (Real Environment 100, Para. 0050, Fig. 1A) around the viewpoint;
However, Pejsa fails to teach:
and the representation of the second physical environment through a portal positioned based on a position of the first surface in the first physical environment.
Heppner teaches:
and the representation of the second physical environment(Second Users Environment Col. 9 Lines 20-49) (Separating Plane Col. 9 Lines 20-49 , False Wall Col. 13 Lines 59-67 to Col. 14 Lines 1-23, or Area Common to All User Spaces Col. 17 Lines 56-63) in the first physical environment(First Users Environment Col. 9 Lines 20-49). Heppner teaches each user would see the other user and their environment from their perspectives (Col. 9 Lines 20-49).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pejsa’s Alignment of Rooms to incorporate Heppner’s Composite of Environments. Since doing so would provide the benefit of users being able to see the other user’s environment and profile from their environments (Heppner et al. Col. 9 Lines 20-48) which promote collaborative spaces( Heppner et al. Col. 12 Lines 4-42 and Col. 23 Lines 43-67 to Col. 24 Lines 1-2).
However, Heppner fails to explicitly teach the representation of the second physical environment through a portal.
Pejsa, Heppner, and Silva are analogous to the claimed invention because all of them are in the same field of combining physical or virtual spaces.
Silva teaches:
PNG
media_image2.png
287
325
media_image2.png
Greyscale
the representation of the first physical environment (Red Room, See Fig. 2 Above) around the viewpoint (GoThrough’s Camera, See Fig. 2 Above); While the red and blue rooms are virtual, it has been established in Pejsa that virtual spaces can be based on physical ones.
and the representation of the second physical environment (Blue Room, See Fig. 2 Above) through a portal positioned based on a position of the first surface (Red Room’s Wall) in the first physical environment (Red Room, See Fig. 2 Above).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pejsa’s MR System that aligns physical rooms altered by Heppner’s Combining of Environments to incorporate Silva’s Portals. Since doing so would provide the benefit of seeing into another users physical/virtual space when they walk outside of your own. Portals connecting virtual rooms are a well-known method of traversing in the virtual space and viewing other virtual spaces. In Pejsa’s MR system one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to connect the rooms by a portal as the other rooms associated to users are purely virtual.
Regarding claim 5, Pejsa and Heppner fail to explicitly teach wherein the view excludes a depiction of at least a portion of the portion of the representation of the first physical environment corresponding to the first surface.
However, Silva teaches wherein the view (GoThrough’s Camera, See Fig. 2 Above) excludes a depiction of at least a portion of the portion of the representation of the first physical environment (Red Room, See Fig. 2 Above) corresponding to the first surface (Red Room’s Wall). Placing a portal on the wall in the red room would obscure any object or part of the wall of the red room the portal is on. Similar in Pejsa any virtual object placed in room A from another room like B or C would obscure any real-world object in its place, Para. 0044.Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pejsa’s MR System altered by Heppner’s Combining of Environments to corporate Silva’s portals that obscures real objects. Since doing so would provide the benefit of not having virtual/physical objects intersecting each other when a virtual environment is overlayed. Thus, the user would be able to easily view the virtual objects clearly.
Regarding claim 6, Pejsa teaches wherein obtaining the indication of the first surface (Wall, Para. 0116, 0133, and 0192) comprises:
and receiving an input selecting the first surface (Wall) from amongst the one or more surfaces. (Para. 0110) Pejsa has a built-in UI that can be customized to receive input from the user.
However, Pejsa and Heppner fail to teach:
displaying a visualization of a size of the second surface on one or more surfaces in a view of the first physical environment;
Silva teaches:
displaying a visualization of a size of the second surface (Blue wall, See Fig.2 Above) on one or more surfaces in a view of the first physical environment (Red Room, See Fig. 2);
and receiving an input selecting the first surface (Red Wall, See Fig. 2 Above) from amongst the one or more surfaces (Walls for Portal Placement, Section: III. Method). Silva’s details letting users add portals to 3D scenes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pejsa’s MR System that entails a UI for receiving input from the user altered by Heppner’s Combining of Environments to incorporate Silva’s ability to choose and place portals between rooms. Since doing so would provide the benefit of customizing portals and letting users place portals where they choose.
Regarding claim(s) 12 and 20, have similar limitations as of claim 4, therefore they are rejected under the same rationale as claim 4.
Regarding claim(s) 13 and 21, have similar limitations as of claim 5, therefore they are rejected under the same rationale as claim 5.
Regarding claim(s) 14 and 22, have similar limitations as of claim 6, therefore they are rejected under the same rationale as claim 6.
Regarding claim 25, Pejsa fails to teach the method of claim 1, wherein the first surface and second surface are vertical walls, and providing the view comprises:
overlapping the vertical walls;
and excluding the overlapping vertical walls from the view.
Heppner teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first surface and second surface are vertical walls(Separating Plane Col. 9 Lines 20-49 , False Wall Col. 13 Lines 59-67 to Col. 14 Lines 1-23, or Area Common to All User Spaces Col. 17 Lines 56-63), and providing the view comprises:
overlapping the vertical walls; Each user designates a false wall to establish a border (Col. 13 Lines 59-67 to Col. 14 Lines 1-23).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pejsa’s Alignment of Rooms to incorporate Heppner’s Determining of Walls/Planes to Separate Environments. Since doing so would provide the benefit of clearly establishing the boundaries of each environment and designate which parts of the environment will be a shared space.
However, Heppner fails to explicitly teach excluding the overlapping vertical walls from the view.
Silva teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first surface (Red Wall, See Fig.2 Above) and second surface (Blue Wall, See Fig. 2 Above) are vertical walls, and providing the view (GoThrough’s Camera, See Fig. 2 Above) comprises:
overlapping the vertical walls; (See Fig.2 Above)
and excluding the overlapping vertical walls from the view. (Portal location, See Fig.2 Above)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pejsa’s Alignment of Rooms altered by Heppner’s Determining of Walls/Planes to incorporate Silva’s portal properties. Since doing so would provide the benefit of a user being able to view into another virtual/physical space. These types of portals need to exclude the wall they are placed on or the user would not be able to see portal.
Regarding claim 26, Pejsa and Heppner fail to teach the method of claim 1, wherein providing the view further comprises providing a portal that provides a graphic visualization of a planar boundary region between the representation of the first physical environment and the representation of the second physical environment.
However, Silvia teaches the method of claim 1, wherein providing the view further comprises providing a portal that provides a graphic visualization (Color, See Fig. 2 Above or Fig. 1 C, D, G, H) of a planar boundary region between the representation of the first physical environment (Red Room) and the representation of the second physical environment (Blue Room). Portals having a visual boundary region is fairly common as without them the user can become confused. Because of this property portals have been used in the past to visually confuse users. (Silvia et al, Section: I. Introduction Para. 2) Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pejsa’s Alignment of Rooms altered by Heppner’s Determining of Walls/Planes to incorporate Silva’s portal properties. Since doing so would provide the benefit of a user being able to determine where the portal is clearly by visual representing the outline of the portal.
Regarding claim 27, Pejsa and Heppner fail to teach the method of claim 26, wherein providing the portal that provides the graphic visualization of the planar boundary region comprises providing graphical content around edges of the portal to identify its location within the XR environment.
Silva teaches the method of claim 26, wherein providing the portal that provides the graphic visualization (Color, See Fig. 2 Above or Fig. 1 C, D, G, H) of the planar boundary region comprises providing graphical content around edges of the portal to identify its location within the XR environment (Virtual Red and Blue Room, See Fig.2 Above).Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Pejsa’s Alignment of Rooms altered by Heppner’s Determining of Walls/Planes to incorporate Silva’s portal properties. Since doing so would provide the benefit of a user being able to determine where the portal is clearly by visual representing the outline of the portal.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIANNA R COCHRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4671. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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.
/BRIANNA RENAE COCHRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2615
/ALICIA M HARRINGTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2615
Prosecution Insights