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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/09/2026 has been entered.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Two Specification(s) have been filed on 12/02. It is not clear which one is the correct specification. Applicant indicated that Fig 4A to 6 are removed but one specification still has the description of those ( which are not supported in original specification). On the specification having description of Fig.4A to 6, the disclosure of Fig.4A to 6 has to be cut out, instead it is underlined.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The subject matter of this application admits of illustration by a drawing to facilitate understanding of the invention. Applicant is required to furnish a drawing under 37 CFR 1.81(c). No new matter may be introduced in the required drawing. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d).
New Fig. 4 filed on 12/02/2025 should label the major structures. For example element 418 should be labelled 418 and name of the structure on the figure. All major boxes should be labelled with reference number and name of the structure without introducing new matters.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 56-74 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 and 65 recite, “the 360 interactive environment includes:
a 360 degree image acquisition assembly selectable activation object corresponding to the 360 degree image acquisition assembly,
one or more 360 degree camera selectable activation objects corresponding to the] one or more 360 degree cameras”;
Claims 1 and 64 also recite “ select, via the electronic device, one or more 360 degree camera selectable activation objects” and “display, via the electronic device, an output from each of the one or more 360 degree camera selectable activation objects”.
Specification doesn’t have support of a 360 degree image acquisition assembly selectable activation object and one or more 360 degree camera selectable activation objects.
Claims 56-64 and 66-74 are also rejected by virtue of dependency.
Claims 57 and 67 recite “generate, via the electronic device, a hot spot for each of the plurality of the workstation selectable activation objects, each of the hot spots comprises information and data associated with each of the plurality of the workstation selectable activation objects’. Specification doesn’t have support for this.
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 and 56-74 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 An apparatus comprising: “a facility comprising::” The limitation doesn’t have proper scope because a facility can’t be part of an apparatus. A facility is a physical space and not a part of the apparatus.
Claim 65 recites “a facility comprising….”. The limitation doesn’t have proper scope because a facility can’t be part of method as facility is a physical space.
Claims 1 and 65 recite “a plurality of the workstation selectable activation objects corresponding to the plurality of workstation.”
capture, via the one or more 360 degree image acquisition assembly”
Each of the bolded phrases has a lack of antecedent basis. Therefore the scope of the limitation is not clear.
Claim 1 and 65 also recite, “wherein the one or more processing units are in bidirectional communication with the other units, the devices, the communication hardware and software, the operating system or structure, and the implementing apparatus software, protocols, and elements”.
Each of the bolded phrases has a lack of antecedent basis. Therefore the scope of the limitation is not clear.
Claims 1 and 64 also recite “ select, via the electronic device, one or more 360 degree camera selectable activation objects, one or more of plurality of the workstation selectable activation objects” Here it is not clear whether these are new activation objects as they already exist in previous limitation.
Claim 1 and 65 also recite “display, via the electronic device, an output from each of the one or more 360 degree camera selectable activation objects, the one or more of the plurality of the workstation selectable activation objects”.
Here it is not clear how output comes from selectable activation objects as these are virtual objects/icons for selection/activation.
Claims 56-64 and 66-74 are also rejected by virtue of dependency.
Claims 63 and 73 recite “the output from each output from each of the selected one or more 360 degree camera selectable activation objects and the selected one or more of plurality of the workstation selectable activation objects comprise a live feed therefrom”. Here the phrase “the output from each output” is not clear what it means. Also both of the selection objects are virtual objects so it is not clear how virtual objects provide live feed.
Claims 63 and 73 also recite “the 360 degree image acquisition assembly further includes one or more directional cameras and output from the one or more directional cameras” . It is not clear how assembly will have output from one or more cameras.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 60 and 70 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 60 depends on claim 57 ( AS claim 58 depends on claim 57).
Claim 60 recites, “wherein each select action occurs from a hard select output from a hard select input device, a motion from the one or more of the motion sensors, a gesture from the one or more of the motion sensors, or any combination thereof.”
Claim 57 also recites same limitation. Therefore claim 60 doesn’t limit claim 57.
Similarly Claim 70 doesn’t limit claim 67.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks Pages 15-16, filed 12/02/2025, with respect to Figure have been fully considered and are not persuasive. The objection has been maintained ( See above for the details).
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks Page 16, filed 12/02/2025, with respect to objections to claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks Pages 16-18, filed12/02/2025, with respect to rejections of claims under 35 USC 112(a) have been fully considered and are partially persuasive. Some of the 112(a) rejections have been withdrawn and new 112(a) rejections are introduced by amendment.
Applicant argues, see remarks Page 18. “Applicant has amended the claims to address these claim rejection issues. The amendments are supported at least in the specification at paragraphs [0003], [0005-0008], [0131], [0160], and [0209-0276]. Additionally, the interaction with the nD environment use motion based processing, which require motion sensor devices as set forth in paragraphs [0131] and [0160]. Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the same.”
Examiner replies, some of the 112(a) rejections have been withdrawn and new 112(a) rejections are introduced by amendment. See details in the rejection section of the office action.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks Pages 18-20, filed12/02/2025, with respect to rejections of claims under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are partially persuasive. Some of the 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn and new 112(b) rejections are introduced by amendment.
Applicant argues, see remarks Page 20. “Applicant has amended the claims to address these claim rejection issues. The amendments are supported at least in the specification at paragraphs [0003], [0005-0008], [0131], [0160], and [0209-0276]. Additionally, the interaction with the nD environment use motion based processing, which require motion sensor devices as set forth in paragraphs [0131] and [0160]. Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the same.”
Examiner replies, some of the 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn and new 112(b) rejections are introduced by amendment. See details in the Rejections section of the office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAPTARSHI MAZUMDER whose telephone number is (571)270-3454. The examiner can normally be reached 8 am-4 pm PST.
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.
/SAPTARSHI MAZUMDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2612
Prosecution Insights