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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 13, 17; 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 16, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daly et al. U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0414973 in view of Chachek et al. 2025/0029170.
Re: claims 1, 13 and 17 (which are rejected under the same rationale), Daly teaches
1. (Currently Amended) A method comprising: collecting, by a first device, a first set of sensor data for an environment including an object; (“Fig. 1B illustrates an example augmented reality system 100B… The AR HMD 110 may include one or more cameras which can capture images and videos of environment…”; Daly, [0021], Fig. 1B)
Fig. 1B illustrates the AR HMD, which includes cameras that capture images of the environment.
(“… the computing system may receive one or more depth measurements of the real environment… the one or more depth measurements may be determined based on sensor or image data (e.g., images captured by one or more cameras worn by the user that is connected to a head-mounted display…).”; Daly, [0032])
The AR HMD receives depth measurements of the real environment from the images captured by the camera of the AR HMD (collecting, by a first device, a first set of sensor data for an environment).
(“Fig. 2A illustrates a real environment containing one or more physical objects as seen from the viewpoint of a user of an artificial reality system…real environment 200 may include one or more physical objects posed in the real environment, for example.. plant 210A, desk 210B, chair 210C, laptop210D, chair 210E, and recycle bin 210F.”; Daly, [0030], Fig. 2A)
Fig. 2A illustrates a real environment containing plural physical objects as seen from the viewpoint of a user of an AR system. The AR system has captured images of the plural objects such as, the plant 21A, the desk 21B and the chair 210C (collecting, by a first device, a first set of sensor data for an environment including an object).
identifying a plurality of regions of the environment, within a threshold distance to the first device; (“… the computing system may generate one or more depth regions that divide the real environment. Fig. 3 illustrates a real environment from an overhead perspective that has been divided into one or more depth regions… For example, depth region 310 may represent a region of the real environment that is located between 0 and 1 meters from the viewpoint of the user 102, depth region 320 may represent a region of the real environment that is located between 1 and 3 meters from the viewpoint of the user 102, and depth region 330 may represent a region of the real environment that is located between 3 and 5 meters from the viewpoint of the user 102.”; Daly, [0034], Fig.3)
The computing system generates plural depth regions that divide the real environment. Fig. 3 illustrates a real environment that has been divided into plural depth regions (identifying a plurality of regions of the environment) that are within 5 meters of the viewpoint of the user wearing the AR HMD (within a threshold distance to the first device).
detecting a presence of a physical object within a first region of the plurality of regions based on the first set of sensor data, (“... the computing system may use the depth map or the image data to determine a distance of one or more physical objects or pixels from the viewpoint or pose of the user in the real environment. The computing system may determine a pose or viewpoint of the user in the real environment, using for example the current pose of the HMD, the viewpoint of one or more cameras on the HMD, or a viewpoint of one or more of the user's eyes. Based on the current pose or viewpoint of the user in the real environment, the computing system may determine a distance of one or more physical objects or pixels from the viewpoint or pose of the user.”; Daly, [0035], Fig. 3)
The depth map or image data (first set of sensor data) is used to determine a distance of a physical object (detecting a presence of a physical object) from the viewpoint or pose of the camera (sensor), on the user’s HMD, in the environment. The distance determines the region. For example, Fig. 3 illustrates that region 320 (first region of the plurality of regions) is 1-3 meters from the viewpoint of the user and includes physical objects such as a desk 210B, a chair 210C and a laptop 210D.
Daly is silent regarding the physical object is obstructed by extended reality image data; determining a portion of the extended reality image data corresponding to the first region, and
wherein the physical object is obstructed by extended reality image data; determining a portion of the extended reality image data corresponding to the first region, and applying, by the first device, a first visual treatment to the portion of the extended reality image data . (“ It demonstrates an AR overlay of content that indicates, for example, additional information about products, wherein the additional information is displayed as “popping out” perpendicularly relative to the shelf or the aisle, appearing as AR-based signs or as AR-based boards of information, each such AR-based information board being connected via an AR-based connector line to a particular product or shelf. ”; Chachek, [0088], Fig. 9)
Fig. 9 illustrates an AR image that includes AR overlays of content indicating additional information about products. These AR overlays (extended reality image data) obstruct real objects (physical object is obstructed) in the image. The AR overlays are displayed as “popping out” relative to the shelves of interest (first region). Fig. 9 also illustrates, on the left for example, the shelves of interest and the corresponding AR overlay being in a first region of the field of view. For example, on the left, the dotted line rectangle encompasses shelves of products (extended reality image data corresponding to the first region). Then, the AR overlay is displayed as “popping out” relative to these shelves (applying, by the first device, a first visual treatment to the portion of the extended reality image data). Chachek is combined with Daly such that the regions corresponding to the AR overlays of Chachek are the region of Daly. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date, to modify the method of Daly by adding the feature of wherein the physical object is obstructed by extended reality image data; determining a portion of the extended reality image data corresponding to the first region, and
Re: claims 4 and 16 (which are rejected under the same rationale), Daly and Salter teach
4. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 1, wherein the first visual treatment comprises an animation applied to a virtual object displayed coincident with the first region of the environment having an occupied status. (“Thus, as illustrated at time T2, an animation 706 may be displayed within the field of view 102 indicating movement of object 704 toward the out-of-view location.”; Salter, [0042], Fig. 7) Fig. 7 illustrates that at time T2, an animation (first visual treatment) is displayed within the field of view (first region) that indicates movement of the object (first region having an occupied status) toward the out-of-view location (the first visual treatment comprises an animation applied to a virtual object displayed coincident with the first region of the environment having an occupied status). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date, to modify the method of Daly by adding the feature of the first visual treatment comprises an animation applied to a virtual object displayed coincident with the
Re: claims 5 and 18 (which are rejected under the same rationale), Daly and Salter teach
5. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1, further comprising: in accordance with a determination that the first device satisfies a second predetermined closeness threshold to the first region of the environment assigned an occupied status, causing a second visual treatment to be rendered by the first device. (“... the markers are displayed adjacent to a periphery 103 of the field of view 102, but may have any other suitable appearance. Further, the markers may be displayed in a location that represents a relative location of the corresponding out-of-view object. For example, markers 410, 412, and 414 positioned at the right side of the field of view 102 may indicate objects positioned to the right of the user outside the user’s field of view, and thus may indicate a direction to turn to view the corresponding objects.”; Salter, [0025], Fig. 4)
Fig. 4 illustrates, for example at T1, marker 412, that indicates that an object is detected (occupied status) to the right (determination that the first device satisfies a second predetermined closeness threshold to the first region of the environment assigned an occupied status), outside of the field of view (first region).
(“At time T2, the user has shifted their field of view toward the right so that object 416 associated with marker 412 comes into the user’s field of view 102. In some examples, marker 412 may continue to be displayed after object 416 comes into the field of view in order to direct the user’s attention to object 416. However, in other examples, marker 412 may no longer be displayed or may change in appearance, e.g., change color shape, size, content of information displayed, orientation, etc., when the corresponding object enters field of view 102.”; Salter, [0026])
Fig. 4 illustrates that at time T2, when user turns to the right (first region) and the object associated with marker 412 comes into the field of view (in accordance with a determination that the first device satisfies a second predetermined closeness threshold to the at least one region), that the marker 412 may change in appearance, such as change color, shape or size (causing a second visual treatment to be rendered by the first device). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date, to modify the method of Daly by adding the feature of in accordance with a determination that the first device satisfies a second predetermined closeness threshold to the first region of provide for example, augmented reality visual indications of objects positioned in the environment at locations outside the field of view available for presentation such that when the object comes into the field of view the user’s attention is directed to the object, as taught by Salter ([0011], [0026]).
Re: claims 6 and 19 (which are rejected under the same rationale), Daly and Salter teach
6. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 5, wherein the second visual treatment comprises augmenting a presentation of a virtual object coincident with the first region of the environment such that the at least one region of the environment is visible. (“At time T2, the user has shifted their field of view toward the right so that object 416 associated with marker 412 comes into the user’s field of view 102. In some examples, marker 412 may continue to be displayed after object 416 comes into the field of view in order to direct the user’s attention to object 416. However, in other examples, marker 412 may no longer be displayed or may change in appearance, e.g., change color shape, size, content of information displayed, orientation, etc., when the corresponding object enters field of view 102.”; Salter, [0026])
Fig. 4 illustrates that at time T2, when user turns to the right and the object associated with marker 412 comes into the field of view (first region), that the marker 412 may change in appearance, such as change color, shape or size (augmenting a presentation of a virtual object coincident with the first region of the environment such that at least one region of the environment is visible). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date, to modify the method of Daly by adding the feature the second visual treatment comprises augmenting a presentation of a virtual object coincident with the first
Re: claim 10, Daly and Salter teach
10. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of regions are situated in a consistent spatial relationship to the first device. (“… the computing system may generate one or more depth regions that divide the real environment… depth regions may represent a range of distances from a particular coordinate in the real environment, for example a coordinate representing a particular viewpoint or pose of a user or HMD… Although Fig. 3 illustrates depth regions with varying widths, it should be appreciated that in certain non-limiting embodiments the size of each depth region may be constant (e.g., each depth region is a constant width of 1 meter).”; Daly, [0034], Fig. 3)
The depth regions (plurality of regions) represent a range of distances from a particular coordinate, such as the viewpoint of an HMD. Each of the depth regions in the real environment may have, for example, a constant width of 1 meter. Thus, the regions are spaced in 1 meter increments from the viewpoint of the device (the plurality of regions are situated in a consistent spatial relationship to the first device).
Re: claim 11, Daly and Salter teach
11. (Original) The method of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of regions comprise a volumetric portion of the environment. (“… the computing system may generate one or more depth regions that divide the real environment… As illustrated in Fig. 3, depth regions may represent an area or volume of the real environment that is located at a particular range of distances from the viewpoint or pose of user 102.”; Daly, [0034], Fig. 3)
The depth regions of the real environment (each of the plurality of regions) represent a volume of the real environment (comprise a volumetric portion of the environment) that is located at a particular range of distances from the viewpoint of the user.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 7, 8, 12, 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daly in view of Salter as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Doria et al. U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0279049.
Re: claims 2 and 14 (which are rejected under the same rationale), Daly and Salter are silent regarding the first visual treatment comprises applying a shading to the at least one region of the environment having an occupied status, however, Doria teaches
2. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 1, wherein the first visual treatment comprises applying a shading to the portion of the extended reality image corresponding to the first region of the environment having an occupied status. (“Occupied voxels closest to the roadway may be referred to as “front voxels.”… Fig. 5 illustrates example occupancy grids 231, 233 at a region of a roadway 132 with front voxels 234 highlighted… For example, the vehicle 230 of Fig. 5 is traveling at a particular location of the roadway 132 associated with a left occupancy grid 231 and a right occupancy grid 233. As shown in the occupancy grids 231, 233 of Fig. 5, front voxels 234 are highlighted for each layer of each occupancy grid.”; Doria, [0038], [0048], Fig. 4)
Fig. 5 illustrates, for example, an image of the occupancy grid 231, which shows front voxels (which include the first region), which are occupied voxels (portion of the extended reality image corresponding to the first region of the environment having an occupied status), as being highlighted (applying a shading to the portion of the extended reality image corresponding to the first region of the environment having an occupied status). Doria is combined with Daly and Salter such that, the highlighting of Doria is included in the depth regions of Daly. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date, to modify the method of Daly by adding the feature of the first visual treatment comprises applying a shading to the portion of the extended reality image corresponding to the first region of the environment having an occupied status, in order to provide improvements for positional accuracy and identifying objects, or obstacles, within 3D voxel occupancy grids, as taught by Doria ([0028]).
Re: claims 3 and 15 (which are rejected under the same rationale), Daly, Salter and Doria teach
3. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 2, wherein the shading is applied based on a distance of the first region from the first device. (“For example, an appearance of a visual indicator may vary based on properties of the object, such as a distance from the object to the user and/or a direction from the object to the user. Thus, an appearance of a marker may vary based on changes in the object relative to the user, such as changes in distance from user and/or direction relative to user, etc.”; Salter, [0028]) The appearance (shading) of the visual indicator is based on, for example, a distance from the object (located in the first region) to the user (shading is applied based on a distance of the first region from the first device). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date, to modify the method of Daly by adding the feature of the shading is applied based on a distance of the first region from the first device, in order to provide for example, augmented reality visual indications of objects positioned in the environment at locations outside the field of view available for presentation such that when the object comes into the field of view the user’s attention is directed to the object, as taught by Salter ([0011], [0026]).
Re: claim 7, Daly and Salter are silent regarding the at least one region of the environment is assigned the occupied status selected from a group consisting of the occupied status, an unoccupied status, and an unknown status, however, Doria teaches
7. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 1, wherein the first region of the environment is assigned a status selected from a group consisting of an occupied status, an unoccupied status, and an unknown status. (“The mobile device 122 and/or the server 125 determines whether each grid voxel of the voxel occupancy grid 149 is an occupied voxel 154 or an unoccupied voxel 152”; Doria, [0047])
The mobile device determines whether each grid voxel of the voxel occupancy grid (the first region of the environment) is an occupied voxel or an unoccupied voxel (is assigned a status selected form a group consisting of an occupied status, an unoccupied status, and an unknown status). Fig. 4 illustrates an occupancy grid where some of the grid voxels (first region of the environment) are occupied (assigned a status), as indicated by shading (first region of the environment is assigned a status selected form a group consisting of an occupied status, an unoccupied status, and an unknown status). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date, to modify the method of Daly by adding the feature of the first region of the environment is assigned a status selected from a group consisting of an occupied status, an unoccupied status, and an unknown status, in order to provide improvements for positional accuracy and identifying objects, or obstacles, within 3D voxel occupancy grids, as taught by Doria ([0028]).
Re: claim 8, Daly and Salter are silent regarding receiving status information for a second one or more regions from a second device in the environment, however, Doria teaches
8. (Original) The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving status information for a second one or more regions from a second device in the environment. (“In Fig. 1, one or more vehicles 124a, 124b,… 124n are connected to the server 125 through the network 127. The vehicles 124a-n may be directly to the server 125 or through an associated mobile device 122… The mobile device 122 and/or the server 125 identifies one or more voxel occupancy grids associated with a region of a roadway.”; Doria, [0031], [0033], Fig. 1)
There are plural vehicles, and each vehicle includes a mobile device (this would include a second device).
(“The mobile device 122 and/or the server 125 determines which voxels of the voxel occupancy grid are occupied. As discussed above, an “occupied” voxel is a voxel that contains data indicative of an object at the 3D space represented by that voxel. Similarly, an “unoccupied” voxel is a voxel containing no data for an object at the 3D space represented by that voxel. The voxel occupancy may be a binary indication (e.g., 1 or 0, on or off) that the voxel has been included to represent an object at the 3D space.”; Doria, [0038])
The mobile device (second device) determines which voxels or more of the voxel occupancy grid are occupied (receiving status information for a second one or more regions from a second device in the environment) and indicates the occupancy with a 1 or 0, where 1 indicates occupied and 0 indicates unoccupied. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date, to modify the method of Daly by adding the feature of receiving status information for a second one or more regions from a second device in the environment, in order to provide improvements for positional accuracy and identifying objects, or obstacles, within 3D voxel occupancy grids, as taught by Doria ([0028]).
Re: claim 12, Daly and Salter are silent regarding determining a status for each of a plurality of regions of the environment, wherein at least one region of the environment is assigned an occupied status, however, Doria teaches
12. (Original) The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining a status for each of a plurality of regions of the environment, wherein at least one region of the environment is assigned an occupied status. (“The mobile device 122 and/or the server 125 determines whether each grid voxel of the voxel occupancy grid 149 is an occupied voxel 154 or an unoccupied voxel 152… an occupied voxel 154 is a grid voxel that represents a portion of a 3D space containing data for an object at that portion of the 3D space and an unoccupied voxel 152 is a grid voxel that represents a portion of the 3D space containing no data for the object at that portion of the 3D space.”; Doria, [0047], Fig. 4)
The mobile device determines whether each grid voxel of the voxel occupancy grid (each of a plurality of regions of the environment) is an occupied voxel or an unoccupied voxel (determining a status). Fig. 4 illustrates an occupancy grid where some of the grid voxels (at least one region of the environment) are occupied, as indicated by shading (at least one region of the environment is assigned an occupied status). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date, to modify the method of Daly by adding the feature of determining a status for each of a plurality of regions of the environment, wherein at least one region of the environment is assigned an occupied status, in order to provide improvements for positional accuracy and identifying objects, or obstacles, within 3D voxel occupancy grids, as taught by Doria ([0028]).
Claim(s) 9 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daly in view of Salter as applied to claims 1 and 18 above, and further in view of Santos et al. U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0265621.
Re: claims 9 and 20 (which are rejected under the same rationale), Daly and Salter are silent regarding assigning an unoccupied status to a second one or more regions in accordance with a determination that the device has passed through a portion of the environment comprising the second one or more regions, however, Santos teaches
9. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1, further comprising: assigning an unoccupied status to a second one or more regions in accordance with a determination that the first device has passed through a portion of the environment comprising the second one or more regions. (“Every time the 2D sensor gives a signal, the cell in the occupancy grid 270 is marked as occupied… Each operator 230 determines occupancy of the portion of the occupancy grid 270 that maps to the corresponding portion 252, 254, 256 of the environment 250 in which the operator 230 is moving… The scanner 30 identifies cells 272 that are mapped and which elements, such as tables, chairs, walls, or any other objects are detected… the “occupied” cells 272 are denoted using a color, pattern, or any other visual indication that is different from an “unoccupied” or “empty” cell 274.”; Santos, [0084], [0085], Fig. 27)
The operator moves through the environment, using the scanner (in accordance with a determination that the first device has passed through a portion of the environment comprising the second one or more regions), to determine which cells of the occupancy map of the environment are occupied and which cells are unoccupied. Fig. 27 illustrates which cells of the occupancy map of the environment have been determined to be occupied (cell 272 which is shaded) and which cells have been determined to be unoccupied (cell 274 which is not shaded) (assigning an unoccupied status to a second one or more regions). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date, to modify the method of Daly by adding the feature of assigning an unoccupied status to a second one or more regions in accordance with a determination that the device has passed through a portion of the environment comprising the second one or more regions, in order to enable the user to determine the locations of objects in the environment or to enable the user to know which parts of the environment are occupied for search and rescue missions during a fire or earthquake, as taught by Santos ([0088]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues:
“In rejecting the claims, the Examiner concedes that Daly fails to disclose determining that the object is positioned within a first region and assigning an occupied status, and instead relies on Salter. See Office Action, p. 5. Generally, Salter is directed to showing an indication of a virtual object off screen, and changing presentation of the visual indication when the associated physical object is visible. See Salter, Abstract, FIGs. 3-4. The Examiner cities to paragraph [0022] and FIG. 3 of Salter. However, these portions of Salter are actually directed to sensors detecting the presence of physical objects outside the field of view of the user. When the user shifts their field of view so that the physical object comes into view, the presentation of the associated marker changes. "In some examples, marker 412 may no longer be displayed or may change in appearance, e.g., change color shape, size, content of information displayed, orientation, etc., when the corresponding object enters the field of view 102." By contrast, the claims indicate that the presence of the physical object is detected, "wherein the physical object is obstructed by extended reality image data." In Salter, the object associated with the marker is not obstructed by the marker. Rather, the system determines how to display the marker based on whether or not the detected physical object is in view. In fact, a review of the entirety of Salter indicates that Salter is concerned primarily with using markers to provide a visual clue to a user as to a physical object outside the field of view. Salter never describes the markers as "obstructing" physical objects, but rather that the placement of the marker may be selected to bring a user's attention to a physical object that has come into view. See Salter, para. [0025]-[0026]. Further, with respect to the "applying" feature, the Examiner takes the position that the marker changing colors, shape or size in Salter discloses the claimed visual treatment. However, there is no indication that the image data for the marker stays the same, and a treatment is applied to the image data comprising the marker. Said another way, Salter does not indicate whether the marker is selected from a set of markers of different colors, or that a single marker is used and the change is caused by a visual treatment. For at least the reasons described above, the combination of Daly and Salter fails to disclose each and every feature of claim 1. Thus, claim 1 is allowable over the combination of cited art. Claims 13 and 17 include similar subject matter and, thus, are allowable for similar reasons. The remaining claims depend, directly or indirectly, from claims 1, 13, and 17 and, thus are also allowable at least by virtue of their dependence from allowable independent claims. Withdrawal of the rejection is respectfully requested.”
Examiner disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., assigning an occupied status) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Claim 1 recites, “detecting a presences of a physical object within a first region of the plurality of regions based on the first set of sensor data, wherein the physical object is obstructed by the extended reality image data.” There is no recitation in claim 1 of assigning an occupied status. This amended limitation is taught by Daly and Chachek. Daly teaches that the depth map or image data (first set of sensor data) is used to determine a distance of a physical object (detecting a presence of a physical object) from the viewpoint or pose of the camera (sensor), on the user’s HMD, in the environment. The distance determines the region. For example, Fig. 3 illustrates that region 320 (first region of the plurality of regions) is 1-3 meters from the viewpoint of the user and includes physical objects such as a desk 210B, a chair 210C and a laptop 210D. (Daly, [0035], Fig. 3). And, Chachek illustrates in Fig. 9 that an AR image that includes AR overlays of content indicating additional information about products. These AR overlays (extended reality image data) obstruct real objects (physical object is obstructed) in the image. The AR overlays are displayed as “popping out” relative to the shelves of interest (first region). Fig. 9 also illustrates, on the left for example, the shelves of interest and the corresponding AR overlay being in a first region of the field of view. For example, on the left, the dotted line rectangle encompasses shelves of products (extended reality image data corresponding to the first region). Then, the AR overlay is displayed as “popping out” relative to these shelves (applying, by the first device, a first visual treatment to the portion of the extended reality image data). (Chachek, [0088], Fig. 9).
Applicant's arguments filed 2/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues:
“Claims 2, 3, 7, 8, and 12 depend from claim 1. Claims 14 and 15 depend from claim 13. As described above, claims 1 and 13 are allowable. Thus, claims 2, 3, 7, 8, 12, 14 and 15 are also allowable at least by virtue of their dependence from allowable independent claims.“
Examiner disagrees. Claims 1, 13, as well as claims 2, 3, 7, 8, 12, 14 and 15 have been rejected. Please see the corresponding rejections.
Applicant's arguments filed 2/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues:
“Claim 9 depends from claim 1. Claim 20 depends from claim 17. As described above, claims 1 and 17 are allowable. Thus, claims 9 and 20 are also allowable at least by virtue of their dependence from allowable independent claims. Withdrawal of the rejection is respectfully requested.“
Examiner disagrees. Claims 1 and 17 as well as claim 9 and 20 have been rejected. Please see the corresponding rejections.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DONNA J RICKS whose telephone number is (571)270-7532. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30am-5pm EST (alternate Fridays off).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Devona Faulk can be reached on 571-272-7776. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Donna J. Ricks/Examiner, Art Unit 2618
/DEVONA E FAULK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2618
Prosecution Insights