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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/05/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to the amendment filed on January 5th, 2026. Claims 1, 4-7, and 9-12 have been amended. Claims 2, 3, and 8 have been cancelled. Claims 13-19 have been added. The amended claims limitations have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Claims 1, 4-7, and 9-19 remain rejected in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Doan et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0211047).
Regarding claim 1, Doan discloses the system, comprising: a memory storing instructions [Doan: 0031 “the memory may comprise instruction”] (a computer storage component that contains software instructions); and a processor (Doan: Fig. 2, 202) executing the instructions causing the system to: manage one set of feature amounts (interpreted as multiple objects) representing a particular point in a real world for displaying a virtual object [Doan: 0066, “As part of the determination as to how to represent the real world objects as virtual objects in the virtual world environment, the interaction between the identified real world objects may be determined using a rules database.”] [Doan: 0067, “For example, a rule may state that if a first real world object and a second real world object are detected on the detection pad, then the virtual object corresponding to the second real world object should be rendered as being in a particular association with the first real world object.”](teaches managing multiple objects in a real world for displaying them virtually) in linkage with the real world, in association with an identifier corresponding to the virtual object [Doan: 0066, “The identification of the various real world objects in the detection area is used to retrieve information regarding the real world objects and how to represent the real world objects as virtual objects in a virtual world environment… the interaction between the identified real world objects may be determined using a rules database.”] [Doan: 0067, “This information may include an identification of how each item is utilized in the real world and how such usage is mapped to the virtual environment… if a first real world object and a second real world object are detected on the detection pad, then the virtual object corresponding to the second real world object should be rendered as being in a particular association with the first real world object… detected real world object identifiers and retrieved information corresponding to the real world object identifiers to determine how the virtual objects should be rendered in the virtual world environment.”] (Doan: 510-580; Fig 5A) (teaches rendering a virtual object in the real world in correspondence to the identifier) wherein the system is configured to be able to manage the one set of the feature amounts in association with respective identifiers corresponding to a plurality of virtual objects (interpreted as the system can use the same set of real world feature data together with different identifiers for multiple virtual objects)(Doan: Abstract “The detection of multiple real world objects may be performed and identification of each of the multiple objects may be used to determine how these objects may be utilized together in the virtual environment.”); to manage condition information including user attributes, for determining a virtual object[Doan: 0015, “monitor a condition of the virtual world object representation of the real world object within the virtual world environment and, based on the condition of the virtual world object representation of the real world object, may disable the user's ability to use the real world object to generate a virtual world representation of the real world object.”], [ Doan: 0024, “monitoring a condition of the virtual object corresponding to the detected real world object within the virtual world environment.”] (teaches managing how a virtual object is used depending on conditions) [Doan: 0024, “disabling rendering of the virtual object corresponding to the identifier information if the condition meets a predetermined criteria.”] (teaches rendering virtual objects according to condition corresponding to the identifier information) to be provided for a user; and to return, in response to a request including user information of a user and feature amounts in the real world from a terminal, information regarding a virtual object to the terminal (interpreted as a terminal sends a request that includes user information and real world feature data and system sends back information about a virtual object to that terminal)[Doan: 0027 “The method may be implemented in a distributed data processing system. A first computing device may detect the presence of the real world object and may transmit information corresponding to the detection of the real world object to a second computing device in the data processing system. The second computing device may generate, in response to the detection of the presence of the real world object, the virtual object in the virtual world environment.”][Doan: 0073 “The detection pad 410 transmits information to the computing device 420 either through a wired or wireless communication link 415. The information transmitted to the computing device corresponds to real world object identifiers”], wherein the virtual object specified by the returned information is a virtual object determined, from among the plurality of the virtual objects that are managed in association with the feature amounts included in the request, by matching user attributes corresponding to the user information included in the request with the managed condition information, and wherein the terminal is capable of projecting the virtual object into the real world based on the returned information (Doan: Abstract “The detection of the real world object provides an identifier of the object which is correlated with information regarding how to represent the object in the virtual environment, how the object may be utilized in relation to other objects in the virtual environment such that the real world object is modeled in the virtual environment, and the like. The detection of multiple real world objects may be performed and identification of each of the multiple objects may be used to determine how these objects may be utilized together in the virtual environment.”).
Claim 12 is a method claim corresponding to the system claim 1 above. Thus, claim 12 is rejected for the same reason as 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, 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 4, 7, 11, 13, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doan et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0211047), in view of
Regarding claim 4, Doan teaches the system as claimed in claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach: wherein one of the user attributes included in the condition information is a value corresponding to progress of the user in a service that provides the virtual object.
However, Faulkner teaches wherein one of the user attributes included in the condition information is a value corresponding to progress of the user (interpreted as any data related to the user, including interaction data) in a service (interpreted as computer-generated experience) that provides the virtual object (Faulkner: Col. 8, Lines 59 – 67 “the portion of the three-dimensional environment that is altered to show the presence of the physical object and the portion of the three-dimensional environment”)(teaches settings based on user progress by showing environment changes determined by experience progression and user interaction data).
Doan and Faulkner are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of interacting with graphic images. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Doan to incorporate Faulkner’s teachings of progress-based settings, resulting in conditions that include settings based on progress of a user. The combination provides a more personalized and contextually relevant experience that adapts to the user’s progression through the service.
Regarding claim 7, Doan teaches the system as claimed in claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose, wherein the conditions include settings based on an environment to which the user belongs.
However, Faulkner teaches wherein the conditions include settings (“settings” is interpreted as system adaptations based on physical environment interactions, such as “boundary conditions”) based on an environment to which the user belongs (Faulkner: Col. 10, Lines 1 – 27 “In some embodiments, the location of the user's contact with the portion of the physical environment is utilized by the computer system to provide more accurate boundary conditions for generating the three-dimensional model of the physical environment and identifying the”)(teaches using settings that are based on the physical environment where the user is located/belongs, which determines how virtual objects are displayed).
Doan and Faulkner are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of interacting with graphic images. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Doan to incorporate Faulkner’s teachings of environment-based settings, resulting in conditions that include settings based on a user’s environment. The motivation for such combination would be to provide more accurate and seamless virtual object display by adapting content based on the specific physical environment where the user is located, enhanced user experience through contextually appropriate virtual content.
Regarding claim 11, Doan teaches the system as claimed in claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach: wherein the terminal includes a head mounted display.
However, Faulkner teaches wherein the terminal (interpreted as display generation component (Faulkner: Col. 4, Lines 3-6)) includes a head mounted display (Faulkner: Col 4, lines 3 - 11).
Doan and Faulkner are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of interacting with graphic images. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Doan to incorporate Faulkner’s teachings of incorporating a head mounted display. The combination represents the application of a known technique (Faulkner’s head mounted display technology) to Doan’s system for managing virtual objects in relation to real-world environments, yielding enhanced immersion and improved spatial registration between virtual and real elements.
Claim 13 is a method claim corresponding to claim 4 without any additional limitations. Thus, claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 4 above.
Claim 16 is a method claim corresponding to claim 7 without any additional limitations. Thus, claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 7 above.
Claim 17 is a method claim corresponding to claim 11 without any additional limitations. Thus, claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 11 above.
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doan et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0211047), in view of Faulkner et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,615,596), and in further view of Yitzhak et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0206586).
Regarding claim 5, Doan as modified by Faulkner disclose a system as claimed in claim 1, but fail to explicitly disclose wherein one of the user attributes included in the condition information is a value indicating whether the user has consented to a contract to use the service that provides the virtual object.
However, Yitzhak teaches wherein one of the user attributes included in the condition information is a value indicating whether the user has consented to a contract to use the service that provides the virtual object [Yitzhak: 0030 “In another example, the user 102 may be presented with a user agreement, and the only way for the user 102 to exits is to select an “AGREE” button, widget, or other 3D virtual object. In accordance with the presently disclosed embodiments, the mere fact that the user 102 is presented with this no alternative state may be enough for the computing platform 204 commence monitoring the motional patterns of the hand gesture performed by the user 102 and to know that the user 102 intends, for example, to select the “AGREE” button, widget, or other 3D virtual object.”] (teaches settings based on whether a user has agreed to agreement as it shows the system monitors and processes user actions differently based on whether they have selected the “agree” button for a user agreement).
Doan, Faulkner, and Yitzhak are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of augmented reality and interacting with graphic images. Therefore, 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 the teachings of Doan and Faulkner as applied in claim 4, and further incorporate Yitzhak’s teachings of monitoring user agreement. The motivation for such combinations would be to ensure appropriate system responses based on required legal agreements and to enable the system to track user status regarding terms of service acceptance, which is a common progression point in many digital services.
Claim 14 is a method claim corresponding to claim 5 without any additional limitations. Thus, claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 5 above.
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doan et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0211047), in view of Yitzhak et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0206586).
Regarding claim 6, Doan discloses the system claimed in claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the user attributes included in the condition information include settings based on personal attributes of the user.
However, Yitzhak teaches wherein the user attributes included in the condition information include settings based on personal attributes of the user [Yitzhak: 0005 “the computing platform may then generate a motion-stabilization profile associated with the user based on the motional patterns…the motion stabilization profile may be associated with only the particular user, such that the computing platform may generate N different motion - stabilization profiles for each of N different users.”] and (Yitzhak: 410; Fig. 4)(teaches system settings (corresponding to rules) that are specifically based on personal physical attributes of users and correspond to specific user information).
Doan and Yitzhak are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of augmented reality. 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 combined the teachings of Doan and Yitzhak to include the settings based on personal attributes of a user.
Claim 15 is a method claim corresponding to claim 6 without any additional limitations. Thus, claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 6 above.
Claims 9, 10, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doan et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0211047), in view of Salter et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0368534).
Regarding claim 9, Doan discloses the system claimed in claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the condition information is set by an owner of who has generated the virtual objects.
However, Salter teaches wherein the condition information is set by an owner of who has generated the virtual objects [Salter: 0087 “For example, when a commonly viewed a virtual object is to be shared between users, sharing control of the object may be defined by a user (such as user 18a) or an owner of a common environment 100…. a virtual object definition for each object may include which users are allowed to view a virtual object as well positioning and orientation rules, object rendering information, and perspective information.”](teaches an owner can control how virtual objects are provided to users).
Doan and Salter are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of augmented reality. 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 combined the teachings of Doan and Salter to incorporate the known technique of allowing the owner to control the method of providing virtual objects. The motivation for such combination would be to enable content creators to maintain appropriate control over their intellectual property while facilitating customized sharing experiences. This combination provides the significant advantage of a more flexible and secure virtual object distribution system where creators can determine how their content is experienced by different users, thereby enhancing both content protection and user experience through creator defined provision methods.
Regarding claim 10, Doan as modified by Salter, discloses the method claimed in claim 9, Salter further teaches, wherein, if the owner of the virtual objects instructs the user to share one or more virtual objects of the virtual objects, the one or more virtual objects are provided without checking the user attributes of the user and the condition information [Salter: 0087] (describes owners direct choice to share a virtual object with specific users is interpreted as providing the virtual objects without checking the user attributes).
Doan and Salter are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of augmented reality. 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 combined the teachings of Doan and Salter to incorporate the known technique of allowing the owner to control the method of providing virtual objects. The motivation for such combination would be to streamline content sharing by recognizing the owner’s inherent authority over their virtual objects, thereby enabling more efficient content distribution while maintaining appropriate access controls through owner directed sharing.
Claim 18 is a method claim corresponding to claim 9 without any additional limitations. Thus, claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 9 above.
Claim 19 is a method claim corresponding to claim 10 without any additional limitations. Thus, claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 10 above.
Response to Arguments
In response to applicant’s arguments, Examiner notes the applicant merely recites what the references discussed and broadly claimed they individually or in combination don’t teach the claimed invention, without clearly explaining the differences they believe exist. For the sake of compact prosecution, examiner kindly requests clear articulate arguments noting the differences between the cited references and the claimed invention. Claims 1, 4-7 and 9-19 remain rejected in the application.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AHMED TAHA whose telephone number is (571)272-6805. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am - 5 pm, Mon - Fri.
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, XIAO WU can be reached at (571)272-7761. 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.
/AHMED TAHA/Examiner, Art Unit 2613
/XIAO M WU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2613
Prosecution Insights