DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to applicant’s amendment/response filed on 01/13/2026, which has been entered and made of record.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a client, an AR engine in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The specification of the PG-Pub US 20240062432 A1 of the instant application discloses “[0273] Meanwhile, the AR service device 800 may include a client 810 including a cloud interface, a commerce app, a CID-RSE interaction manager, a policy manager, advertisement monitoring, driving context, personalized recommendations, and so on, and an AR engine 820 including a POI renderer, a display manager, a touch manager, and so on. [0232] From this point of view, the AR service device 800 may be the controller 170. [0234] The AR service device 800 described in this specification may include all kinds of devices capable of controlling vehicles—for example, a mobile terminal”. Therefore, the corresponding structures of the client and AR engine is a controller or a mobile terminal.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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) 1, 3, 4, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HA et al. (US 20180130351) in view of CHILDRESS et al. (US 20180018718).
Regarding claim 1, HA discloses An Augmented Reality (AR) service device comprising: a client configured to perform communication with a server (HA, “[0219] Hereinafter, description will be given of a vehicle control device and method, which may allow a driver or passenger of a vehicle to intuitively recognize a parking space by providing the parking space (parking area) through augmented reality (AR) information. [0227] The communication unit 803 may be the aforementioned communication apparatus 400. The communication unit 803 may be connected to an external server computer system of the vehicle 100 to allow communication therebetween.’); and
an AR engine configured to: render the information sent from the server into an AR object, and output the AR object to be overlaid as an overlay on an image captured through a camera in a preset manner based on information related to a situation a vehicle is in (HA, “[0011] a camera that is configured to capture an outside image of a vehicle in real time; a display that is configured to present the outside image of the vehicle in real time; and a controller that is configured to (i) detect, from the outside image, a virtual parking-available space that corresponds to an actual parking-available space in an area captured in the outside image and that is tagged in the outside image, (ii) generate parking space information based on the virtual parking-available space, and (iii) provide the parking space information to the display to overlay the parking space information over the outside image on the display. [0224] the controller 801 may detect the virtual parking-available space (parking lines) preset in the coordinates information corresponding to the real-time image from a server computer system or the memory 140. [0248] the controller 801 detects only a parking-available space located at the right of a currently-driving road of the vehicle, other than a parking-available space located at the left of the currently-driving road of the vehicle, from the server computer system or the memory 140, and matches the detected parking-available space with the real-time image for output”).
On the other hand, HA fails to explicitly disclose but CHILDRESS discloses make a determination for when to submit a request to a server for information required for providing a service based on: a distance between a current location of a vehicle and a next location for navigation, and a traveling speed of the vehicle, and based on the determination, submit the request for the information from the server and receive the information from the server (CHILDRESS, fig.6, “[0074] As shown in FIG. 6, process 600 may include monitoring a location of a user device (step 610). [0075] Process 600 may further include determining that the user device is within a threshold distance or arrival time of the service provider location (step 620). For example, the service request application 215 of the user device 210 may determine that the user device 210 is within a threshold distance of the service provider location (e.g., within a configurable geofence). Additionally, or alternatively, the service request application 215 may detect that the user device 210 is within a threshold arrival time of the service provider location (e.g., based on the user's travel speed, traffic conditions, etc.). [0076] Process 600 may further include outputting user information to the service provider computing system (step 630). [0081] Process 600 may also include receiving a suggested service list including services associated with the user information (step 640)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined HA and CHILDRESS, to include all limitations of claim 1. That is, adding the information received in response to a request submitted based on the determination of CHILDRESS to the AR overlay of HA. The motivation/ suggestion would have been The outputting causes the service provider to receive the user information for serving the user upon the user's arrival to the service provider location (CHILDRESS, [0003]).
Regarding claim 3, HA in view of CHILDRESS discloses The AR service device of claim 1.
HA further discloses wherein the AR engine displays the image on a display provided in the vehicle, with the information that is sent from the server being overlaid onto the image (HA, “[0252] The controller 801 provides the parking space information to the display. The parking space information that is overlaid over the outside image 10-1 presented on the display. In some implementations, the virtual parking-available space can be preset by an owner of the actual parking-available space. The controller 180 may also obtain, from the server computer system or the memory 140 of the control device, other parking space information 1020 related to the preset virtual parking-available space as well as the parking line 1010”).
Regarding claim 4, HA in view of CHILDRESS discloses The AR service device of claim 1.
On the other hand, HA fails to explicitly disclose but CHILDRESS discloses wherein the determination for when to submit the request is further based on the information related to the situation the vehicle is in, the information related to the situation the vehicle is in being received from the vehicle (CHILDRESS, “[0064] Additionally, or alternatively, the application may include an estimated time of arrival (ETA) of the user to the service provider facility, and the ETA may be updated based on traffic conditions, etc. [0075] Additionally, or alternatively, the service request application 215 may detect that the user device 210 is within a threshold arrival time of the service provider location (e.g., based on the user's travel speed, traffic conditions, etc.)”). The same motivation of claim 1 applies here.
Regarding claim 6, HA in view of CHILDRESS discloses The AR service device of claim 4.
HA further discloses wherein the AR engine overlays an AR object of information required to provide the AR service onto the image, based on map information and an image received through the camera (HA, “[0249] when a point A (e.g., Los Angeles) is selected within a map output on the display unit 804, the controller 801 may detect a parking space required for the cheapest parking fee within the selected point A from the server computer system or the memory 140, and guide the searched parking space. [0250] the controller 801 captures an outside image of the vehicle in real time through the camera 802, detects a virtual parking-available space (parking lines) preset in coordinates information corresponding to the captured real-time image from the server computer system or the memory 140, and overlaps the detected preset virtual parking-available space (parking lines) with the captured real-time image into one image so as to output the one image”).
Claim(s) 5, 12, 13, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HA et al. (US 20180130351) in view of CHILDRESS et al. (US 20180018718), and further in view of SEO et al. (US 20180357898).
Regarding claim 5, HA in view of CHILDRESS discloses The AR service device of claim 4.
On the other hand, HA in view of CHILDRESS fails to explicitly disclose but SEO discloses wherein the AR engine determines the current location of the vehicle and the traveling speed of the vehicle, based on the information related to the situation the vehicle is in (SEO, “[0010] The status information of the external vehicle may include at least one of location information of the external vehicle, route information, driving speed information, stoppage status information, used traffic lane information, and turning light manipulation status information. [0018] The status information of the external vehicle may include relative status information of the external vehicle based on the information providing vehicle. The status information of the external vehicle may include at least one of relative speed, relative location, and relative distance information. [0128] An augmented reality technology shows a user a view of real objects overlaid with virtual objects. The augmented reality shows an image by combining the view of real objects with a virtual image having additional information in real-time, and thus, may be referred to as mixed reality (MR)”) .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined SEO into the combination of CHILDRESS and HA, to include all limitations of claim 5. That is, applying the determining status information of SEO to determine the location and speed of the vehicle in the AR system of CHILDRESS and HA. The motivation/ suggestion would have been to provide an information providing method which provides a driver with useful information by displaying information about an environment inside and outside a vehicle, which is collected by the vehicle, on a transparent display in the vehicle, and an information providing vehicle therefor (SEO, [0007]).
Regarding claim 12, HA in view of CHILDRESS discloses The AR service device of claim 1.
On the other hand, HA in view of CHILDRESS fails to explicitly disclose but SEO discloses wherein the AR engine overlays the AR object onto the image based on extracted property information about a Point of Interest (POI) (SEO, “[0276] In operation S2040, the information providing vehicle 100 may display the information about the gas stations on the transparent display 121. The information about the gas station may include a location of the gas station, a distance to the gas station, a sign of the gas station, price of the fuel used in the information providing vehicle 100, a route to enter the gas station, and telephone number of the gas station”). The same motivation of claim 5 applies here.
Regarding claim 13, HA in view of CHILDRESS and SEO discloses The AR service device of claim 12.
On the other hand, HA in view of CHILDRESS fails to explicitly disclose but SEO discloses wherein the AR engine determines a size of the AR object based on a distance to the POI (SEO, “[0021] The displaying of the object may include changing at least one of a size, a displaying interval, and a color of the object corresponding to the external vehicle based on a distance between the vehicle and the external vehicle”). The same motivation of claim 5 applies here.
Regarding claim 15, HA in view of CHILDRESS and SEO discloses The AR service device of claim 12.
On the other hand, HA in view of CHILDRESS fails to explicitly disclose but SEO discloses wherein, if the POI in the image where the AR object is overlaid corresponds to a destination, the AR engine varies the AR object depending on a distance to the destination (SEO, “[0221] The destination guide information according to the present exemplary embodiment may include location information of the destination, information about a distance to the destination, information about a route to the destination, speed limit information, and speed camera information”. Therefore, information about a distance to the destination varies depending on a distance to the destination). The same motivation of claim 5 applies here.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HA et al. (US 20180130351) in view of CHILDRESS et al. (US 20180018718), and further in view of LEBECK et al. (US 20220012923).
Regarding claim 7, HA in view of CHILDRESS discloses The AR service device of claim 6.
On the other hand, HA in view of CHILDRESS fails to explicitly disclose but LEBECK discloses wherein the AR engine determines which a point of interest (POI) in the image the AR object is to be overlaid onto, based on the type of the AR object (LEBECK, “[0063] Returning to FIG. 3, at block 310, the real-world object engine 222 determines a first location for the first virtual object based in part on the first virtual object type. [0066] At block 404, the real-world object engine 222 determines a second location for the second virtual object based in part on the second virtual object type”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined LEBECK into the combination of CHILDRESS and HA, to include all limitations of claim 7. That is, adding the determining AR object location based on its type of LEBECK to the AR system of CHILDRESS and HA. The motivation/ suggestion would have been to allow applications to cause virtual objects to be presented in association with the real-world object (LEBECK, [0056]).
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HA et al. (US 20180130351) in view of CHILDRESS et al. (US 20180018718), and further in view of JEONG et al. (US 20210007459).
Regarding claim 9, HA in view of CHILDRESS discloses The AR service device of claim 1.
On the other hand, HA in view of CHILDRESS fails to explicitly disclose but JEONG discloses wherein the request for the information for providing the AR service includes information related to the AR object (JEONG, “[0084] When receiving AR sticker information from the mobile terminal (S550), the server transmits, to the mobile terminal 1000, AR content corresponding to the AR sticker information”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined JEONG into the combination of CHILDRESS and HA, to include all limitations of claim 9. That is, adding the transmitting AR content of JEONG to the AR system of CHILDRESS and HA. The motivation/ suggestion would have been to provide an augmented reality service using an AR sticker image and directly fabricated AR content (JEONG, [0012]).
Regarding claim 10, HA in view of CHILDRESS discloses The AR service device of claim 9.
On the other hand, HA in view of CHILDRESS fails to explicitly disclose but JEONG discloses wherein the information related to the AR object includes at least one of: a type of the AR object, a number of times the AR object is to be displayed, the display time of the AR object, or a number of clicks by a user on to the AR object (JEONG, “[0114] When receiving AR information, including marker information, location information, or time information, from the mobile terminal 5000, the determination unit 6400 extracts, from the storage unit, AR content corresponding to the marker information. [0128] That is, various types of AR content corresponding to respective nail stickers may be provided based on location information and time information”). The same motivation of claim 9 applies here.
Regarding claim 11, HA in view of CHILDRESS discloses The AR service device of claim 9.
On the other hand, HA in view of CHILDRESS fails to explicitly disclose but JEONG discloses wherein the server saves the information related to the AR object in conjunction with location information of the AR service device, and, upon receiving a next request from the AR service device, determines what information to send based on the saved information related to the AR object (JEONG, “[0092] Referring to FIG. 14, in the method of providing AR content based on location information and time information, an AR server 6000 stores a plurality of pieces of AR content in a storage unit 6200 (S710). [0098] The mobile terminal 5000 requests AR content corresponding to marker information by transmitting, to the AR server 6000, AR information including at least one of the identified marker information, location information of the mobile terminal, and current time information (S785). [0099] The AR server 6000 determines whether to provide the AR content based on the AR information (S790). In this case, the AR server extracts the AR content corresponding to the marker information by searching for the AR content, and may determine whether to provide the AR content by comparing a location range in which AR content will be provided, which is preset in the condition setting unit of the server, with the location information received from the mobile terminal”). The same motivation of claim 9 applies here.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HA et al. (US 20180130351) in view of CHILDRESS et al. (US 20180018718), and further in view of SEO et al. (US 20180357898) and TAKAZAWA (US 20180137601).
Regarding claim 14, HA in view of CHILDRESS and SEO discloses The AR service device of claim 12.
On the other hand, HA in view of CHILDRESS and SEO fails to explicitly disclose but TAKAZAWA discloses wherein the AR engine displays the AR object in different ways, based on whether the traveling speed of the vehicle exceeds a threshold speed or not (TAKAZAWA, “[0072] The time when the display form changes, i.e., the transparency changes, depends on various factors, such as the driving speed of the vehicle”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined TAKAZAWA into the combination of CHILDRESS and HA, SEO, to include all limitations of claim 14. That is, adding the changes based on vehicle driving speed of TAKAZAWA to the AR system of CHILDRESS and HA, SEO. The motivation/ suggestion would have been the physical load on the driver tends to decrease, while suppressing occurrence of accidents that may be caused when the driver looks away (TAKAZAWA, [0003]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-7, 9-15 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.
The rejection to claims 1, 3-7, 9-15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) is withdrawn in view of the amendment.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRACE Q LI whose telephone number is (571)270-0497. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am-5:00 pm.
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, DEVONA FAULK can be reached at 571-272-7515. 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.
/GRACE Q LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2618 3/29/2026