DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1.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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/06/2026 has been entered.
Remarks
Examiner contact applicants representative and suggested a proposed amendments to overcome the prior arts of the record and to compact a prosecution. No agreement has been reached.
U.S.C. 112 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 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 use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: in claims 23-25 and 27-29.
means for monitoring interactions of participants in a virtual environment
means for identifying an agreement about the element
means for altering a presentation of the parameter of the element
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2.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.
3.Claim(s) 1-3, 5-14, 16-25 and 27-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lyons et al. (US 20200021668) in view of Lin et al. (US 20220321376).
Regarding claims 1, 12, 23 and 30, Lyons discloses a method performed by a computing device for dynamically rendering elements in virtual environments rendered by the computing device (Paragraphs: 0028 and 0032: AR headset or mobile device rendering virtual object), comprising: monitoring interactions of participants in a virtual environment, wherein the interactions are related to an element presented in the virtual environment (Paragraphs: 0034 and 0041: Lyons discusses how a virtual object representing the product or part that is the subject of the collaboration are working in real-time to accomplish changes in the product; and how the collaboration system involving editing, alteration and suggestion to change in real time); and wherein the element comprises one or more parameters (Paragraphs: 0043, 0045 and 0047); identifying an agreement about the element between at least two of the participants based on the interactions (Paragraphs: 0048-0049 and fig.3, 360, 380: Once all parties are satisfied with the virtual object, and “yes” is chosen, finalizes the virtual object; and how the system indicate agreed upon changes to the virtual object); determining a parameter of the one or more parameters to alter based on the interactions (Paragraphs: 0043, 0045 and 0048-0049: Lyons discusses how a user could evaluate a virtual object for appropriateness of size, color, overall appearance with a high degree of certainty or any number of other parameters; and how the system updated version of the virtual object upon evaluation and determining that all parties are satisfied with the alterations of the virtual object);
Lyons discloses the invention set forth above but does not specifically point out “altering a presentation of the parameter of element in the virtual environment based on the agreement about the element”
Lyons however discloses how the system updated version of the virtual object upon evaluation; and determined whether to be deemed satisfactory. If “no”, the cycle continues with suggestions and alterations until it is determined at that the virtual object is satisfactory and until all parties are satisfied with the virtual object (Lyons: Paragraphs: 0039, 0045 and 0048-0049). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to interpret the “suggestions and alterations of the elements, until it is determined that the virtual object is satisfactory and until all parties are satisfied with the virtual object” as “altering a presentation of the parameter of element in the virtual environment based on the agreement about the element” as disclosed by Lyons to reduces number of actual samples needed to achieve desired design as discussed by Lyons.
Lyons discloses the invention set forth above but does not specifically point out “identifying the agreement about the element comprises identifying a selection by the participants of a rendering of the element”
Lin however discloses identifying the agreement about the element comprises identifying a selection by the participants of a rendering of the element (Paragraphs: 0055-0056, 0063 and 0072: Lin discusses receiving selections (such as, button presses) of reaction buttons by the participant(s), to indicate respective reactions such as agreement in the virtual conference/environment; and how the action element, the element properties interface includes further properties for setting what type of action is to be performed in response to user selection of the action element (e.g., button)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Lyons, and modify a system wherein identifying the agreement about the element comprises identifying a selection by the participants of a rendering of the element, as taught by Lin, thus providing a display of reaction buttons which are selectable by the participant to indicate different reactions to the virtual conference, as discussed by Lin.
Considering claims 2, 13 and 24, Lyons discloses the method of claims 1, 12 and 23 wherein the interactions of the participants in the virtual environment are related one or more of a visible aspect, an audible aspect, or a tactile aspect of the element (Paragraphs: 0045-0046: Lyons discusses how collaborators can be sure they are viewing the same sides of the virtual objects from the same angles; and how the system facilitate a more natural collaboration process, the display through which the users view the virtual object could include an avatar or other graphic indicator showing the point of view of the other collaborator).
Considering claims 3, 14 and 25, Lyons discloses the method of claims 1, 12 and 23, wherein identifying the agreement about the element between at least two of the participants based on the interactions is performed based on one or more of words spoken in the virtual environment, user gestures performed in the virtual environment, user emotions detected in the virtual environment, or text conveyed in the virtual environment (Paragraphs: 0047-0049: Lyons discusses how interaction and suggestions could be made via instant messaging or audio communication in real-time or any other known near instantaneous communication method, in order to determine if all parties are satisfied with the virtual object).
Considering claims 5, 16 and 27, Lyons discloses the method of claims 1, 12 and 23, wherein altering the presentation of the element in the virtual environment based on the agreement about the element comprises: generating two or more renderings of the element based on the interactions; selecting one of the two or more renderings of the element based on the agreement about the element; and rendering the selected one of the two or more renderings of the element in the virtual environment (Paragraphs: 0022, 0043 and 0047: Lyons discusses real-time interaction, likely both D and E would be inspecting and evaluating the virtual object for any number of qualities).
Considering claims 6, 17, and 28, Lyons discloses the method of claims 1, 12 and 23 further comprising: identifying a disagreement about the element based on the interactions; and generating two or more renderings of the element based on the disagreement about the element (Paragraphs: 0047-0049: if the user finds the virtual object to be unsatisfactory (“no” at 360), suggestions are made at E for alterations).
Considering claim 7, 18 and 29, Lyons discloses the method of claim 6, 17 and 28 wherein identifying the agreement about the element comprises identifying a selection by the participants of one of the two or more renderings of the element that were generated based on the disagreement about the element (Paragraphs: 0047-0049).
Considering claims 8 and 19, Lyons discloses the method of claim 1 and 12, further comprising updating user preference data of at least one of the participants based on the element (Paragraphs: 0048-0049 and fig.3, 360, 380: Once all parties are satisfied with the virtual object, and “yes” is chosen, finalizes the virtual object).
Considering claims 9 and 20, Lyons discloses the method of claims 1 and 12, further comprising updating a generative model (i.e. personalized model to create VR data based on design choice) used for generating elements of the virtual environment based on the identified agreement about the element (Paragraphs: 0041, 0048 and 0049).
Considering claims 10 and 21, Lyons discloses the method of claims 1 and 12, wherein identifying the agreement about the element comprises: applying a large language model to words (i.e. known input system in VR) conveyed in the interactions; and receiving as an output from the large language model an identification of the agreement about the element (Paragraphs: 0047-0049).
Considering claims 11 and 22, Lyons discloses the method of claim 1 and 12, wherein altering the presentation of the element in the virtual environment based on the agreement about the element is performed using a personalized generative model (i.e. personalized model to create VR data based on design choice) that is based on user data (Paragraphs: 0022, 0043 and 0047).
Considering claims 31, 32 and 33, Lin further discloses the method of claim 1, 12 and 23, wherein the element is an object (Paragraphs: 0048-0049 and 0051: Lin discusses how elements include, but are not limited to: an action button, analog clock, audience question board, backpack item etc.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants argues, the prior arts of the record (Lyons et al.) does not describe or suggest, at least, "determining a parameter of the element to alter based on the interactions [wherein the element comprises one or more parameters]," as recited in amended independent claims.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The prior arts of the record (Lyons et al.) discloses how a user could evaluate a virtual object for appropriateness of size, color, overall appearance with a high degree of certainty or any number of other parameters; and how the system updated version of the virtual object upon evaluation and determining that all parties are satisfied with the alterations of the virtual object (Lyons: Paragraphs: 0043, 0045 and 0048-0049). Therefore, the prior arts of the record disclosed the argued claims limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YOSEF K LAEKEMARIAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5149. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6:30 M-F.
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, Duc Nguyen can be reached at (571) 272-7503. 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.
YOSEF K. LAEKEMARIAM
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2651
/YOSEF K LAEKEMARIAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2691
Prosecution Insights