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 .
Applicant's Response
In Applicant's Response dated 9/16/2025, Applicant amended the Claims and argued against all objections and rejections set forth in the previous Office Action.
All objections and rejections not reproduced below are withdrawn.
The prior art rejections of the Claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 previously set forth are withdrawn.
The examiner appreciates the applicant noting where the support for the amendments are described in the specification.
Claims 1-7, 9-18, 20-22 are pending in this case. Claims 1, 12, and 17 are independent claims.
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 1-7, 9-18, 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laukkanen; Joona Antero et al. U.S. Pre-grant Publication 2020/0137140 (Laukkanen) in view of Greunke; Larry Clay U.S. Pre-grant Publication US 20230260224 (Greunke) in view of Marshall; Kevin et al. US Pub. No. 2023/0394440 (Marshall).
Claim 1:
Laukkanen teaches:
A method for providing a collaborative workspace in an artificial reality environment,(See Laukkanen at [0091] where a virtual desktop teaches an artificial reality environment.) the method comprising:
simultaneously rendering a view of a collaborative document and a personal viewport into the collaborative document in the artificial reality environment on an artificial reality device of a user, (See Laukkanen at [0026] one or more viewports and [0141] where a shared document is disclosed) wherein:
the collaborative document is simultaneously being accessed by multiple users via multiple user devices, including an other artificial reality device providing both an other view of the collaborative document and an other personal viewport into the collaborative document for an other user of the other artificial reality device; (See Laukkanen at [0141] where disclosed is “an application window to a text document could appear differently through viewports of different users so that the different users are able to see and interact with different parts of the text document. . .” See also Laukkanen at [0032] regarding multiple devices.);
the personal viewport B) displays a selected portion of the collaborative document, and an indication of the personal viewport and the other personal viewport are overlaid on the collaborative document; (See Laukkanen at [0141] and Fig. 10 and [0151].);
receiving an instruction, provided via the personal viewport, to make one or more edits to the selected portion of the collaborative document, (See Laukkanen at [0167]) the one or more edits being coordinated by a cloud computing system with one or more other edits made by the other user via the other personal viewport; (See Laukkanen [0140] where a server is held to teach the limitations of a cloud computing arrangement);
… ; and
updating the view of the collaborative document with the one or more edits and the one or more other edits as facilitated by the cloud computing system. (See Laukkanen at [0196] for updating)
Laukkanen does not appear to explicitly disclose “interacted with through direct touch”.
However, the disclosure of Greunke discloses:
a virtual object that can be interacted with through direct touch in the artificial reality environment and [¶ 0070, 81] (user interacts with 3D model) [¶ 0034, 109] (interact between 2D and 3D) …
… the artificial reality device provides a three-dimensional interface rendering the artificial reality environment as a three-dimensional environment [¶ 0086-91] (render as 2D or 3D) [¶ 0034, 109] (interact between 2D and 3D);
… the multiple user devices include the artificial reality device, the other artificial reality device, and at least one two-dimensional interface, the at least one two-dimensional interface rendering the artificial reality environment as a two-dimensional environment [¶ 0086-91] (render as 2D or 3D) [¶ 0034, 109] (interact between 2D and 3D);
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of using virtual desktops in Laukkanen and the method of virtual interaction in Greunke, with a reasonable expectation of success.
The motivation for doing so would have been the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; (See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(D)).
The know technique of virtual interaction in Greunke could be applied to the virtual desktop in Laukkanen. Laukkanen and Greunke are similar devices because collaboration. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would improve the similar devices and resulted in an improved system, with a reasonable expectation of success, for improved workflow performance [Greunke: ¶ 0080, 83].
Laukkanen and Greunke do not appear to explicitly disclose “an avatar”.
However, the disclosure of Marshall discloses:
rendering, in the artificial reality environment, an avatar of the other user in conjunction with a part of the collaborative document that the other user is accessing via the other personal viewport [¶ 147-147] (Figs. 9-10) [¶ 0149, 153] (first area 602 is shown including first content 1002 being presented by a first user (e.g., UserA) and second content 1004 being presented by a second user (e.g., UserB). The first content 1002 and the second content 1004 may include first indicia 1006 and second indicia 1008, respectively, to associate the first content 1002 and the second content 1004 with the first user and the second user. Indicia may be highlight, outline or color) [¶ 0043] (wearable computing device, an augmented reality device); …
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of using virtual desktops in Laukkanen and the method of virtual interaction in Greunke and the method of virtual collaboration in Marshall, with a reasonable expectation of success.
The motivation for doing so would have been the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; (See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(D)).
The know technique of avatar interaction in Marshall could be applied to the virtual interaction in Greunke and the virtual desktop in Laukkanen. Laukkanen, Marshall and Greunke are similar devices because collaboration. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would improve the similar devices and resulted in an improved system, with a reasonable expectation of success, to provide “ functionalities that may be helpful in collaboration amongst users” [Marshall: ¶ 0001].
Claim 2:
Laukkanen discloses wherein the multiple user devices are accessing a same instance of the collaborative workspace (See Laukkanen at [0140] each device connected to the environment) in which the collaborative document is rendered. (See again Laukkanen at [0141].)
Claim 3:
Laukkanen discloses a limitation further comprising: receiving a request to follow the other personal viewport of the other user of the other artificial reality device; and rendering the other personal viewport displaying an other portion of the collaborative document, the other portion. (See Fig. 21 and the description in [0164] where it is stated “[f]or example, the area of the desktop environment 330 visible through a viewport of another user is graphically shown or displayed to user 130 by the rectangular outline 503, providing user 130 with a sense or indication of what resources with which the other user is working.”) including at least one of the one or more other edits (See Laukkanen at [0167]).
Claim 4:
The above cited references disclose the limitations of Claim 3.
Laukkanen discloses a limitation further comprising: replaying the at least one of the one or more other edits in the other personal viewport. (See Laukkanen at [0183] where playback of changes is disclosed.)
Claim 5:
Laukkanen discloses a limitation further comprising: filtering the view of the collaborative document to include the portion and the other portion of the collaborative document. (See Laukkanen at [0149]-[0151] and Figures 6-10 which are described in this section and it is further described that any number of viewports may be made into a composite display.)
Claim 6:
Laukkanen discloses a limitation wherein the view of the collaborative document is updated in real-time as the one or more edits and the one or more other edits are made [¶ 0061, 76] (real time).
Claim 7:
Laukkanen discloses a limitation further comprising: filtering the view of the collaborative document based on an attribute of the user and the other user of the other artificial reality device.(See Laukkanen at [0164] and [0165] the selective presentation of certain user viewable areas based upon geographic proximity (within the system) in [0164] and even the indications of viewable areas themselves, being associated with a particular user, is held to teach the limitation of filtering the document based on an aspect of the user. The viewable areas and user indications teach the limitations of these aspects.)
Claim 9:
Greunke discloses wherein the view of the collaborative document is streamed from a two-dimensional interface of the at least one two-dimensional interface. [¶ 0086-91] (document distributed) [¶ 0177] (information is streamed)
Claim 10:
Laukkanen discloses wherein the view of the collaborative document is streamed from the cloud computing system. (See Laukkanen at [0203] described is the usage of local and remote storage in a distributed computing environment. The claimed limitation is held to be consistent with storing the document in a remote environment.)
Claim 11:
Laukkanen discloses wherein the collaborative document is executed by the cloud computing system for the multiple user devices. (See Laukkanen at [0203] described is the usage of local and remote storage in a distributed computing environment. This limitation is held to be consistent with being “practiced in distributed computing environments where tasks are performed by remote processing devices,” as disclosed by Laukkanen at [0203].)
Claim 21:
Marshall discloses wherein simultaneously rendering the view of the collaborative document and the personal viewport into the collaborative document further includes simultaneously rendering an indication of the part of the collaborative document that the other user is accessing via the other personal viewport [¶ 147-147] (Figs. 9-10) [¶ 0149, 153] (first area 602 is shown including first content 1002 being presented by a first user (e.g., UserA) and second content 1004 being presented by a second user (e.g., UserB). The first content 1002 and the second content 1004 may include first indicia 1006 and second indicia 1008, respectively, to associate the first content 1002 and the second content 1004 with the first user and the second user. Indicia may be highlight, outline or color) [¶ 0043] (wearable computing device, an augmented reality device).
Claims 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laukkanen; Joona Antero et al. U.S. Pre-grant Publication 2020/0137140 (Laukkanen) in view of Greunke; Larry Clay U.S. Pre-grant Publication US 20230260224 (Greunke) in view of Marshall; Kevin et al. US Pub. No. 2023/0394440 (Marshall) in view of Agarawala; Anand et al. US Pub. No. 2019/0313059 (Agarawala).
Claim 22:
Laukkanen, Marshall and Greunke do not appear to explicitly disclose “avatar accessing the other personal viewport”.
However, the disclosure of Agarawala discloses:
wherein rendering the avatar of the other user further includes rendering the avatar accessing the other personal viewport, and
wherein the other personal viewport displays the part of the collaborative document that the other user is accessing [¶ 0059-60] (FIG. 11, both users (who are represented by their avatars) may view an enlarged display element which may be placed against a wall in the room. As shown in the example, each user's gaze may be indicated by a pointer, dot, laser, or other indicator within the environment).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of using virtual desktops in Laukkanen and the method of virtual interaction in Greunke and the method of virtual collaboration in Marshall and the method of collaborative workspaces in Agarawala, with a reasonable expectation of success.
The motivation for doing so would have been the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; (See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(D)).
The know technique of avatar workspaces could be applied to the avatar interaction in Marshall and the virtual interaction in Greunke and the virtual desktop in Laukkanen. Laukkanen, Agarawala, Marshall and Greunke are similar devices because collaboration. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would improve the similar devices and resulted in an improved system, with a reasonable expectation of success, to “improve the interaction with data” [Agarawala: ¶ 0010].
Claims 12-18, 20:
Claim(s) 12 and 17 is/are broader versions of claim 1 and is/are rejected using the same art and the same rationale.
Claim(s) 14 and 18 is/are substantially similar to claim 1 and is/are rejected using the same art and the same rationale. Claims 14 and 18 combined with claims 12 and 17 are similar to claim 1.
Claim(s) 16 is/are substantially similar to claim 2 and is/are rejected using the same art and the same rationale.
Claim(s) 15 is/are substantially similar to claims 10 and 11 and is/are rejected using the same art and the same rationale.
Claim(s) 13 is/are substantially similar to claim 3 and is/are rejected using the same art and the same rationale.
Claim(s) 20 is/are substantially similar to claims 9 and 10 and is/are rejected using the same art and the same rationale.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Please See PTO-892: Notice of References Cited.
Evidence of the level skill of an ordinary person in the art for Claim 1:
Newly Cited:
Bar-Zeev; Avi et al. US 20220084297 teaches: Fig. 1, dotted line of user; generate a virtual proxy of the first user device; and add the virtual proxy to the second image based on the pose of the first user device with respect to the virtual object
MARTINS ANDRADE; Tiago et al. US 20240428512 teaches: a virtual representation of another user (e.g. an avatar) may be included within the VR content displayed to a given user, so as to represent the other user viewing the 2D panel in an indirect fashion.
Erasmus; Daniel et al. US 20230091949 teaches: FIG. 5E illustrates an example data realization in a virtual AR workspace among multiple users.
Moyers; Josh et al. US 20120216131 teaches: the avatar of each communicant who is viewing a shared application (including the sharing communicant) is depicted with a pair of "eyes" to indicate that the represented communicants are viewing the content being shared in connection with the view screen objects (see, e.g., the avatars of Alex and Dan in FIG. 5).
Previously Cited:
US-20160210602-A1 2016-07-21 SIDDIQUE; M.A. Sami
US-20120249741-A1 2012-10-04 MACIOCCI; Giuliano
US-20220221966-A1 2022-07-14 ZIONPOUR; Ron
US-9635091-B1 2017-04-25 Laukkanen; Joona Antero
US-20230164211-A1 2023-05-25 Laukkanen; Joona Antero
Citations to Prior Art
A reference to specific paragraphs, columns, pages, or figures in a cited prior art reference is not limited to preferred embodiments or any specific examples. It is well settled that a prior art reference, in its entirety, must be considered for all that it expressly teaches and fairly suggests to one having ordinary skill in the art. Stated differently, a prior art disclosure reading on a limitation of Applicant's claim cannot be ignored on the ground that other embodiments disclosed were instead cited. Therefore, the Examiner's citation to a specific portion of a single prior art reference is not intended to exclusively dictate, but rather, to demonstrate an exemplary disclosure commensurate with the specific limitations being addressed. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968". In re: Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323,75 USPQ2d 1213,1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264,23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807,10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792,794 n.1, 215 USPQ 569, 570 n.1 (CCPA 1982); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385,1390,163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7, 9-18, 20-22 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.
See also, newly cited prior art:
Bar-Zeev; Avi et al. US 20220084297 teaches: Fig. 1, dotted line of user; generate a virtual proxy of the first user device; and add the virtual proxy to the second image based on the pose of the first user device with respect to the virtual object
MARTINS ANDRADE; Tiago et al. US 20240428512 teaches: a virtual representation of another user (e.g. an avatar) may be included within the VR content displayed to a given user, so as to represent the other user viewing the 2D panel in an indirect fashion.
Erasmus; Daniel et al. US 20230091949 teaches: view a rendering of them as they perform work (e.g., modifying documents with their hands, having certain facial expressions, gazing at portions of the collaborative document, looking at their personal viewport, etc.).
Moyers; Josh et al. US 20120216131 teaches: the avatar of each communicant who is viewing a shared application (including the sharing communicant) is depicted with a pair of "eyes" to indicate that the represented communicants are viewing the content being shared in connection with the view screen objects (see, e.g., the avatars of Alex and Dan in FIG. 5).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN J SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-3825. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11:00 - 7:30 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, RENEE D CHAVEZ can be reached on (571)270-1104. 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.
/Benjamin Smith/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172 Direct Phone: 571-270-3825
Direct Fax: 571-270-4825
Email: benjamin.smith@uspto.gov