DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the RCE and Amendment dated 14 May 2026. Claims 1, 17, 20 and 21 are amended. No claims have been added or cancelled. Claims 1-17 and 19-22 remain pending and have been considered below.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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, 2, 4, 5, 7, 10-17 and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (US 2021/0110610 A1) in view of Schritter et al. (US 11,269,411 B1).
As for independent claim 1, Xu teaches a method comprising:
obtaining, using the one or more sensors, sensor data for the physical environment [(e.g. see Xu paragraphs 0014, 0018) ”XR anchors come in various types, including location-based anchors and marker-based anchors. In the case of location-based anchors, the location and orientation sensors of the XR device may detect, potentially in real time, the locations of the XR anchors … what portion of the real world environment will be visible on the display of the XR device … there are six degrees of freedom in defining the viewport: three axes of position (e.g., x, y, and z coordinates of the XR device in the real world) and three dimensions of viewing direction (e.g., yaw, pitch, and roll of the XR device)”].
determining a first data set for a three-dimensional environment using at least the sensor data [(e.g. see Xu paragraph 0038 and Fig. 1) ”the real world scene 114 may be viewed by a user through the device 112, e.g., on a display of a head mounted display or mobile phone, or through a set of smart glasses. As discussed above, the field of view of the device 112 and the viewing direction together define a viewport of the user. As the viewport changes, the device 112 (or alternatively the AS 104, edge server 108, or server 110) may detect one or more XR anchors 116.sub.1-116n (hereinafter individually referred to as an “XR anchor 116” or collectively referred to as “XR anchors 116”) within the viewport. In one example, some of the XR anchors 116 may be placed in known, fixed locations (such as buildings, statues, street signs, or the like)”].
running a given application [(e.g. see Xu paragraph 0016) ”an XR application executing on a head mounted display”].
generating a second data set from the first data set based on the spatial restrictions of the given application [(e.g. see Xu paragraphs 0016, 0018, 0053 and Fig. 2) ”the XR anchors that are present in the viewport (or within some configurable distance from the viewport's boundary) can be identified, as well as the digital objects that are associated with the XR anchors. This allows XR anchors that may be nearby, but are not actually present in the predicted viewport (or within the configurable distance from the viewport's boundary) to be filtered out, or removed from consideration … the processing system may remove, from the set of XR anchors, a first subset of anchors including any anchors that are not present in (or are not within some configurable distance from the boundary of) the predicted viewport. This step leaves a second subset of anchors remaining in the set, where the second subset of anchors includes anchors that are present in (or are within the configurable distance from the boundary of) the predicted viewport … an XR application executing on a head mounted display”].
providing only the second data set to the given application [(e.g. see Xu paragraphs 0013, 0061) ”When the XR device detects an XR anchor in a current image of a real world environment, the XR device may establish a connection (e.g., a communication channel) to the XR anchor and download the digital object from the XR anchor. Subsequently, the XR device may render the digital object so that the digital object appears in the XR environment, potentially in the same location as the XR anchor … In step 318, the processing system may render the digital object for presentation by the XR device. For instance, if the digital object includes a visual element (e.g., an image, a video, text, or the like), then the digital object may be displayed on a display of the XR device. In one example, the visual element of the digital object may be rendered as an overlay that can be superimposed over the images of the real world environment that are visible on the display of the XR device”].
Xu does not specifically teach of a plurality of applications, wherein at least one application of the plurality of applications has different spatial restrictions than at least another one of the other applications of the plurality of applications or wherein the spatial restrictions are defined relative to the electronic device. However, in the same field of invention or solving similar problems, Schritter teaches:
of a plurality of applications [(e.g. see Schritter col 4 lines 18-22, col 6 lines 15-16) ”the memory 204 includes application(s) 230, which includes an MR component 232 generally configured to provide MR functionality for the user (e.g., by presenting visual content in the user's FOV of the environment) … switch to a different application 230”].
wherein at least one application of the plurality of applications has different spatial restrictions than at least another one of the other applications of the plurality of applications [(e.g. see Schritter col 8 lines 21-27) ”In other embodiments, the threshold distance is a pre-configured distance set by the application (e.g., application 230) of the MR-capable device providing the MR experience for the user. In these embodiments, the threshold distance may be different depending on how the MR-capable device is being used (e.g., which application is currently executing on the MR-capable device)”]. Examiner notes that the threshold distance may be configured differently for each application.
and wherein the spatial restrictions are defined relative to the electronic device [(e.g. see Schritter col 2 lines 21-23, col 9 line 50 – col 10 line 22 and Figs. 1A and 5) ”a user 102 may wear the MR-capable device 110 (shown as smart glasses in this example) to interact with the physical environment 100 … at a distance beyond a threshold distance from the user … not at a distance beyond the threshold distance from the user”].
Therefore, considering the teachings of Xu and Schritter, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add of a plurality of applications, wherein at least one application of the plurality of applications has different spatial restrictions than at least another one of the other applications of the plurality of applications and wherein the spatial restrictions are defined relative to the electronic device, as taught by Schritter, to the teachings of Xu because it enables improved visualization of content on a MR-capable device (e.g. see Schritter col 3 lines 5-6).
As for dependent claim 2, Xu and Schritter teach the method as described in claim 1 and Xu further teaches:
wherein generating the second data set from the first data set based on the spatial restrictions of the given application comprises including a first subset of the first data set in the second data set and wherein the first subset of the first data set is associated with locations inside a boundary [(e.g. see Xu paragraph 0053) ”the processing system may remove, from the set of XR anchors, a first subset of anchors including any anchors that are not present in (or are not within some configurable distance from the boundary of) the predicted viewport. This step leaves a second subset of anchors remaining in the set, where the second subset of anchors includes anchors that are present in (or are within the configurable distance from the boundary of) the predicted viewport”].
As for dependent claim 4, Xu and Schritter teach the method as described in claim 2 and Xu further teaches:
wherein the boundary is defined at least partially by line-of-sight distances to physical objects in the physical environment [(e.g. see Xu paragraphs 0017, 0038, 0043 and Fig. 2 numeral 200) ”the real world scene 114 may be viewed by a user through the device 112, e.g., on a display of a head mounted display or mobile phone, or through a set of smart glasses. As discussed above, the field of view of the device 112 and the viewing direction together define a viewport of the user … The FoV defines the extent of the observable area, which may be a fixed parameter of the XR device … an example viewport 200 for an XR device that is viewing the real world scene 114 of FIG. 1. As illustrated, based on the viewing direction and on the FoV of the XR device, the viewport 200 may comprise less than the entirety of the real world scene 114”].
As for dependent claim 5, Xu and Schritter teach the method as described in claim 2 and Xu further teaches:
wherein the boundary is defined at least partially by user input [(e.g. see Xu paragraph 0018) ”configurable distance from the viewport's boundary”].
As for dependent claim 7, Xu and Schritter teach the method as described in claim 1 and Xu further teaches:
wherein generating the second data set from the first data set based on the spatial restrictions of the given application comprises removing a subset of the first data set that is associated with locations outside a boundary [(e.g. see Xu paragraphs 0012, 0053) ”removing a first subset of the extended reality anchors from the set, wherein locations of anchors in the first subset of extended reality anchors fall outside of a threshold distance from a boundary of the predicted viewport … the processing system may remove, from the set of XR anchors, a first subset of anchors including any anchors that are not present in (or are not within some configurable distance from the boundary of) the predicted viewport. This step leaves a second subset of anchors remaining in the set, where the second subset of anchors includes anchors that are present in (or are within the configurable distance from the boundary of) the predicted viewport”].
As for dependent claim 10, Xu and Schritter teach the method as described in claim 1 and Xu further teaches:
wherein the one or more sensors comprises one or more cameras and wherein the sensor data comprises camera data [(e.g. see Xu paragraphs 0045, 0083) ”various input/output devices 506, e.g., a camera, a video camera … device 112 may periodically send actual measured viewport information … camera position information”].
As for dependent claim 11, Xu and Schritter teach the method as described in claim 1 and Xu further teaches:
wherein the one or more sensors comprises one or more accelerometers and wherein the sensor data comprises accelerometer data [(e.g. see Xu paragraphs 0029) ”The current use context may be inferred from data collected by sensors of the XR device. For instance, an accelerometer”].
As for dependent claim 12, Xu and Schritter teach the method as described in claim 1 and Xu further teaches:
wherein the first data set comprises a three-dimensional representation of the physical environment [(e.g. see Xu paragraphs 0013, 0049) ”XR anchors to determine which digital objects should be rendered at which locations in the real world environment to produce the XR media. In some examples, the XR anchors may predefine precise locations in the real world environment at which certain types of digital objects may be introduced … these six degrees of freedom include three axes of position (e.g., x, y, and z coordinates of the XR device in the real world) and three dimensions of viewing direction (e.g., yaw, pitch, and roll of the XR device)”].
As for dependent claim 13, Xu and Schritter teach the method as described in claim 1 and Xu further teaches:
wherein the electronic device further comprises a display that is configured to display a virtual object in the three-dimensional environment and wherein the first data set comprises data regarding the virtual object in the three-dimensional environment [(e.g. see Xu paragraphs 0013, 0061) ”When the XR device detects an XR anchor in a current image of a real world environment, the XR device may establish a connection (e.g., a communication channel) to the XR anchor and download the digital object from the XR anchor. Subsequently, the XR device may render the digital object so that the digital object appears in the XR environment, potentially in the same location as the XR anchor … In step 318, the processing system may render the digital object for presentation by the XR device. For instance, if the digital object includes a visual element (e.g., an image, a video, text, or the like), then the digital object may be displayed on a display of the XR device. In one example, the visual element of the digital object may be rendered as an overlay that can be superimposed over the images of the real world environment that are visible on the display of the XR device”].
As for dependent claim 14, Xu and Schritter teach the method as described in claim 1 and Xu further teaches:
wherein generating the second data set comprises generating the second data set from the first data set based on spatial and temporal restrictions of the given application [(e.g. see Xu paragraph 0042) ”the viewport of the user may be predicted in advance (e.g., x seconds before the user actually views the viewport). The XR device (e.g., device 112, or a server connected to the XR device) may have prior knowledge of the locations of at least some of the XR anchors 116 in the real world environment and may be able to detect the presence of other XR anchors 116”].
As for dependent claim 15, Xu and Schritter teach the method as described in claim 14 and Xu further teaches:
wherein generating the second data set comprises including a first subset of the first data set in the second data set and wherein the first subset of the first data set is associated with both locations inside a boundary and times after a cutoff time [(e.g. see Xu paragraphs 0018, 0043, 0060) ”what portion of the real world environment will be visible on the display of the XR device, at a given point in the future (e.g., a few seconds from the current time) … in the example illustrated in FIG. 2, the XR anchors 116.sub.2 and 116.sub.3 are visible within the viewport 200, while the XR anchors 116.sub.1 and 116n fall outside of the viewport. As such, if the XR device predicts that the viewport 200 will be visible to the user in x seconds, and if the XR device knows or can detect the locations of the XR anchors 116, then the XR device can determine that the XR anchors 116.sub.2 and 116.sub.3 are likely to be visible to the user in x seconds … processing system may detect that the current viewport of the user matches the predicted viewport that was predicted”].
As for dependent claim 16, Xu and Schritter teach the method as described in claim 14 and Xu further teaches:
wherein generating the second data set comprises including a first subset of the first data set in the second data set and wherein the first subset of the first data set is associated with both locations inside a boundary and times before a cutoff time [(e.g. see Xu paragraphs 0018, 0053) ”what portion of the real world environment will be visible on the display of the XR device, at a given point in the future (e.g., a few seconds from the current time) … the XR anchors that are present in the viewport (or within some configurable distance from the viewport's boundary) can be identified, as well as the digital objects that are associated with the XR anchors. This allows XR anchors that may be nearby, but are not actually present in the predicted viewport (or within the configurable distance from the viewport's boundary) to be filtered out, or removed from consideration … a first subset of anchors including any anchors that are not present in (or are not within some configurable distance from the boundary of) the predicted viewport. This step leaves a second subset of anchors remaining in the set, where the second subset of anchors includes anchors that are present in (or are within the configurable distance from the boundary of) the predicted viewport”].
As for independent claim 17, Xu and Schritter teach a method. Claim 17 discloses substantially the same limitations as claims 1 and 2. Therefore, it is rejected with the same rational as claims 1 and 2. Further, Schritter teaches based on a second application running, using the first data set to obtain a third data set by only including, in the third data set, data for portions of the three-dimensional environment associated with locations within a second boundary around the electronic device that is different from the first boundary and providing the third data set to the second application [(e.g. see Schritter col 2 lines 34-39, col 4 lines 18-22, col 6 lines 15-16, col 8 lines 21-27, col 9 line 50 – col 10 line 22, col 11 lines 1-30 and Figs. 1A-B and 6A-C) ”In other embodiments, the threshold distance is a pre-configured distance set by the application (e.g., application 230) of the MR-capable device providing the MR experience for the user. In these embodiments, the threshold distance may be different depending on how the MR-capable device is being used (e.g., which application is currently executing on the MR-capable device) … the memory 204 includes application(s) 230, which includes an MR component 232 generally configured to provide MR functionality for the user (e.g., by presenting visual content in the user's FOV of the environment) … switch to a different application 230 … the virtual object 106 (e.g., lamp) within the user's FOV of the physical environment 100, e.g., to allow the user to visualize what the virtual object 106 would look like in the physical environment 100 (e.g., from different angles, viewpoints, etc.) … the application (e.g., application 230) may enable the user (e.g., user 102) to browse inventory of items for sale on the application and select to preview a particular item (e.g., chair) within the physical environment 100 … At a subsequent point in time, the MR-capable device may determine to render content associated with the object 602 on one or both displays 130 of the MR-capable device. The MR-capable device may determine whether to render the content on a single display (using monocular mode) or both displays (using binocular mode) … a user 102 may wear the MR-capable device 110 (shown as smart glasses in this example) to interact with the physical environment 100 … at a distance beyond a threshold distance from the user … not at a distance beyond the threshold distance from the user”].
As for dependent claim 19, Xu and Schritter teach the method as described in claim 17; further, claim 19 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 15. Therefore, it is rejected with the same rational as claim 15.
As for independent claim 20, Xu and Schritter teach a device. Claim 20 discloses substantially the same limitations as claims 1 and 17. Therefore, it is rejected with the same rational as claims 1 and 17. Further, Xu teaches a head-mounted support structure; one or more sensors coupled to the head-mounted support structure and configured to obtain sensor data for the physical environment [(e.g. see Xu paragraphs 0014, 0034, 0044) ”device 112 may comprise a … a wearable computing device (e.g., smart glasses, a virtual reality (VR) headset or other type of head mounted display, or the like) … a wearable device … which may include sensor … the location and orientation sensors of the XR device”].
As for dependent claim 21, Xu and Schritter teach the device as described in claim 20; further, claim 21 discloses substantially the same limitations as claim 2. Therefore, it is rejected with the same rational as claim 2.
As for dependent claim 22, Xu and Schritter teach the method as described in claim 17, but Xu does not specifically teach the following limitation. However, Schritter teaches:
wherein the second boundary has at least one characteristic different from the first boundary, and wherein the at least one characteristic is selected from the group consisting of: a size and a shape [(e.g. see Schritter col 8 lines 16-27) ”the threshold distance is a pre-configured distance set by the application (e.g., application 230) of the MR-capable device providing the MR experience for the user. In these embodiments, the threshold distance may be different depending on how the MR-capable device is being used (e.g., which application is currently executing on the MR-capable device)”]. Examiner notes that the size (e.g. distance) may be configured differently for different applications.
The motivation to combine is the same as that used for claim 1.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (US 2021/0110610 A1) in view of Schritter et al. (US 11,269,411 B1), as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Lee (US 11,232,644 B1).
As for dependent claim 3, Xu and Schritter teach the method as described in claim 2, but do not specifically teach wherein the boundary is defined by a fixed radius around the electronic device. However, in the same field of invention, Lee teaches:
wherein the boundary is defined by a fixed radius around the electronic device [(e.g. see Lee col 8 lines 31-55 and Figs. 1C and 5A) ”The VR environment 140 may have a virtual boundary 115 corresponding to the real-world environment 100. The VR environment 140 may be a VR game, VR office, or other VR setting that is displayed in the field of view 120 of the user. The virtual boundary 115 may define or drawn mark the edge of a safe area for the user to explore … the virtual boundary 115 may correspond to real-world objects at or just beyond arm's reach of the user (e.g., a 1 meter radius around the user”].
Therefore, considering the teachings of Xu, Schritter and Lee, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add wherein the boundary is defined by a fixed radius around the electronic device, as taught by Lee, to the teachings of Xu and Schritter because this may allow the user to quickly assess obstacles that may be in the user's path (e.g. see Lee col 14 lines 16-18).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (US 2021/0110610 A1) in view of Schritter et al. (US 11,269,411 B1), as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Shishido (US 2024/0007477 A1).
As for dependent claim 6, Xu and Schritter teach the method as described in claim 2, but do not specifically teach wherein the first data set is binned into a plurality of different groups, wherein each group of the plurality of different groups has a respective centroid, and wherein the first subset of the first data set comprises each group that has a centroid inside the boundary. However, in the same field of invention, Shishido teaches:
wherein the first data set is binned into a plurality of different groups, wherein each group of the plurality of different groups has a respective centroid, and wherein the first subset of the first data set comprises each group that has a centroid inside the boundary [(e.g. see Shishido paragraphs 0037, 0061 and Figs. 4-5) ”In the example of FIG. 4, the boundary region obtainment unit 62 obtains information on a boundary region ARA for the avatar Aa, information on a boundary region ARB for the avatar Ba, and information on a boundary region ARC for the avatar Ca. In the example of FIG. 4, the boundary region ARA is a circular region around a position of the avatar Aa, the circular region having a radius equal to a distance DA, the boundary region ARB is a circular region around a position of the avatar Ba, the circular region having a radius equal to a distance DB, and the boundary region ARC is a circular region around a position of the avatar Ca, the circular region having a radius equal to a distance DC … processing unit 66 determines whether the avatar Ba is positioned in the boundary region ARA of the avatar Aa (Step S20), and in a case where the avatar Ba is not positioned in the boundary region ARA (Step S20; No), proceeds to Step S18 and generates image data on the avatar Aa for the existing mode of display, that is, for example, without imparting transparency. On the contrary, in a case where the avatar Ba is positioned in the boundary region ARA of the avatar Aa (Step S20; Yes), the image processing unit 66 generates image data on the avatar Aa for a different mode of display, that is, for example, by imparting transparency (Step S22)”].
Therefore, considering the teachings of Xu, Schritter and Shishido, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add wherein the first data set is binned into a plurality of different groups, wherein each group of the plurality of different groups has a respective centroid, and wherein the first subset of the first data set comprises each group that has a centroid inside the boundary, as taught by Shishido, to the teachings of Xu and Schritter because it allows privacy within an augmented or virtual environment to be appropriately protected (e.g. see Shishido paragraphs 0042, 0065).
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (US 2021/0110610 A1) in view of Schritter et al. (US 11,269,411 B1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Forster (US 10,824,923 B1).
As for dependent claim 8, Xu and Schritter teach the method as described in claim 1, but do not specifically teach wherein the first data set comprises spatial mesh data and identifies one or more objects in the three-dimensional environment. However, in the same field of invention, Forster teaches:
wherein the first data set comprises spatial mesh data and identifies one or more objects in the three-dimensional environment [(e.g. see Forster col 4 lines 22-26) ”The 3D data, which may be stored in the form of … meshes in particular embodiments, may represent a 3D model of the environment”].
Therefore, considering the teachings of Xu, Schritter and Forster, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add wherein the first data set comprises spatial mesh data and identifies one or more objects in the three-dimensional environment, as taught by Forster, to the teachings of Xu and Schritter because it may determine the expected landmarks with respect to the subsequent location promptly and more efficiently (e.g. see Forster col 14 lines 39-41).
As for dependent claim 9, Xu and Schritter teach the method as described in claim 1, but do not specifically teach the following limitation. However, Forster teaches:
wherein the one or more sensors comprises one or more depth sensors and wherein the sensor data comprises depth sensor data [(e.g. see Forster col 4 lines 16-22) ”the device may perform an initialization process to obtain 3D data of the environment and store the data in the landmark database. For example, it may use … depth sensors to compute the position and orientation of objects in the environment”].
The motivation to combine is the same as that used for claim 8.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 14 May 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that [“Partheesh fails to show or suggest that geofences are spatial restrictions that are defined relative to an electronic device … boundary around an electronic device” (Pages 10-13).].
The argument described above, in paragraph number 9, with respect to the newly added limitations to the independent claims has been considered, but is moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. PGPub 2025/0182335 A1 issued to Mohalik et al. on 05 June 2025. The subject matter disclosed therein is pertinent to that of claims 1-17 and 19-22 (e.g. high resolution sphere distance around the user in XR environment).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J FIBBI whose telephone number is (571)-270-3358. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday (8am-6pm).
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, William Bashore can be reached at (571)-272-4088. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J FIBBI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2174
Prosecution Insights