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 .
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, 8, 11-13, 15, 18-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borchardt et al. ( US patent: 10984493, “Borchardt”) in view of MESSERVY et al. ( US patent Publication: US 20230351067, “Messervy”) and Kaira et al. ( US patent Publication: 20140316908 , “Kaira”).
Regarding claim 1, Borchardt teaches, A computer-implemented method (Fig. 4) of visualizing a modification proximate a structure, the method comprising:
receiving, with one or more processors, image data of the structure and an indication of the modification; wherein the indication of the modification is received in response to a user selection of the modification from a plurality of modification options presented within a virtual reality (VR) display; (Column 5 Lines 36-43: “In this example, the illustrated scene 200 shows a view of a homeowner's kitchen as it currently exists. The kitchen has original cabinets 202, an original backsplash 204, and an original sink 206. In some examples, the scene 200 is the actual homeowner's kitchen as visualized through the device 102 as the homeowner stands in his/her kitchen. In other examples, the scene 200 is a pre-recorded image of the kitchen.”
Column 8 Lines 55-62: “In operation 404, the scenario plan application receives a selection of a renovation option. In an example, the homeowner, using the AR or VR device (e.g., device 102) may view a particular room of the homeowner's home and select renovation options. In an example, renovation options may relate to new flooring, cabinetry, countertops, paint colors, sinks, furniture, fireplaces, wallpaper patterns, etc.”)
generating, with the one or more processors (element 502 of device 102 in Fig, a virtual reality (VR) feed including a virtual representation of the modification proximate the structure; ( Column 8 Lines 63- Col 9 line 3): “ In some embodiments, the scenario plan application may receive such renovation options from one or more third party servers (e.g., third party server 108). The one or more third party servers may be, for example, appliance stores, contractors, home improvement stores, etc. Accordingly, such third party servers may provide the scenario plan application operating on an AR or VR device with one or more images that show how the home renovation will look based on a selected renovation option.”)
Borchardt doesn’t expressly teach, calculating, with the one or more processors, an improvement to a home score associated with the structure based upon the modification;
However, Messervy teaches, calculating, with one or more processors, an improvement to a home score associated with a structure based upon a modification; (“ Implementation of the suggested improvements would result in a 15% increase in home value and 130 lbs of carbon will be sequestered, as shown in FIG. 7C.”)
Borchardt and Messervy are analogous as they are from the field of display of home improvement.
Therefore it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Borchardt to have included the calculating, with the one or more processors, an improvement to a home score associated with the structure based upon the modification as taught by Messervy.
The motivation for the modification is to provide the user an impact of modification of a structure.
Borchardt as modified by Messervy teaches, providing, with the one or more processors, the VR feed for presentation to a user within the VR display (Borchardt, Column 8 Lines 63- Col 9 line 3): “ In some embodiments, the scenario plan application may receive such renovation options from one or more third party servers (e.g., third party server 108). The one or more third party servers may be, for example, appliance stores, contractors, home improvement stores, etc. Accordingly, such third party servers may provide the scenario plan application operating on an AR or VR device with one or more images that show how the home renovation will look based on a selected renovation option.”)
wherein the one or more processors:
initially, display the structure without the modification, (Messervy, [0049]….In the example of FIG. 7A the property 80 is analyzed and the scoring algorithm 156 determines that the property needs shade trees 84, a gathering zone 82, and that the driveway is too massive 86. and
subsequently, display: (i) the structure with the modification, and (ii) the improvement to the home score (“[0049}…. Implementation of the suggested improvements would result in a 15% increase in home value and 130 lbs of carbon will be sequestered, as shown in FIG. 7C.”)
Messervy’s display of initial and subsequent image with modification with score is integrated in VR display of Borchardt.)
Borchardt as modified by Messervy doesn’t expressly teach. (iii) a representation of a potential contractor for the modification.
However Kaira teaches, (iii) a representation of a potential contractor for the modification. (along with project details or modification of a structure) (“[0061] Referring now to FIG. 10B, the GUI page as shown is an active project page of a service provider. In this example, an active project 1020 is displayed including the detailed project information 1021. The detailed information 1021 includes a budge set forth by a property owner when the property owner posted the project. The service provider can bid on the project to match the budge via button 1022 or alternatively, provide a best offer via button 1023. The service provider can also provide a brief description or message to the property owner in field 1024.” Fig. 10B displays roof modification image and contractor information).
Borchardt as modified by Messervy and Kaira are analogous as they are from the field of display of home improvement.
Therefore it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Borchardt as modified by Messervy to have included (iii) a representation of a potential contractor for the modification as taught by Kaira..
The motivation for the modification is to provide the user with the necessary information to contact the responsible bidder..
Claim 8 is directed to a system (Borchardt Column 1 Line33-col 2 line 4 :”In yet another aspect, disclosed is a system for displaying renovation options and financial impact analysis, the system comprising: a financial server; one or more third party servers; and an augmented reality computing device. The augmented reality computing device comprises: a processing unit; and system memory, the system memory including instructions which, when executed by the processing unit, cause the augmented reality computing device to: ….., including a renovation budget amount..”) and its elements are similar in scope and functions of the steps of method claim 1 and therefore claim 8 is rejected with same rationales as specified in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 15 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (Borchardt Column 1 Line33-col 2 line 4) :”In yet another aspect, disclosed is a system for displaying renovation options and financial impact analysis, the system comprising: a financial server; one or more third party servers; and an augmented reality computing device. The augmented reality computing device comprises: a processing unit; and system memory, the system memory including instructions which, when executed by the processing unit, cause the augmented reality computing device to: ….., including a renovation budget amount..”) and its elements are similar in scope and functions of the elements of the device claim 8 and therefore claim 15 is rejected with same rationales as specified in the rejection of claim 8.
Regarding claims 4, 11 and 18, Borchardt as modified by Messervy and Kaira teaches, generating, with the one or more processors, a contractor list comprising one or more contractors who may perform the modification, wherein the VR feed further includes the contractor list. . (Kaira, “[0061] Referring now to FIG. 10B, the GUI page as shown is an active project page of a service provider. In this example, an active project 1020 is displayed including the detailed project information 1021. The detailed information 1021 includes a budge set forth by a property owner when the property owner posted the project. The service provider can bid on the project to match the budge via button 1022 or alternatively, provide a best offer via button 1023. The service provider can also provide a brief description or message to the property owner in field 1024.” Fig. 10B displays roof modification image, bid amount and contractor information).
The motivation is same as claim 1.
Regarding claims 5, 12 and 19, Borchardt as modified by Messervy and Kaira teaches, generating, with the one or more processors, a purchase list comprising one or more devices for implementing the modification, wherein the VR feed further includes the purchase list. (Borchardt, Column 6 Lines 32-36: Fig. 3 element 304 and “ In some embodiments, the device 102 is an electronic computing device with AR or VR functionality that can be worn or carried by the homeowner.”)
Regarding claims 6 and 13, Borchardt as modified by Messervy and Kaira teaches, wherein the VR display comprises a VR headset. (Column 3 Lines 18-20:” In some embodiments, the device 102 is an electronic computing device with AR or VR functionality that can be worn or carried by the homeowner. “)
Regarding claim 21, Borchardt as modified by Messervy and Kaira teaches, display, along with the representation of the potential contractor for the modification, a cost associated with the modification. (Kaira, “[0061] Referring now to FIG. 10B, the GUI page as shown is an active project page of a service provider. In this example, an active project 1020 is displayed including the detailed project information 1021. The detailed information 1021 includes a budge set forth by a property owner when the property owner posted the project. The service provider can bid on the project to match the budge via button 1022 or alternatively, provide a best offer via button 1023. The service provider can also provide a brief description or message to the property owner in field 1024.” Fig. 10B displays roof modification image, bid amount and contractor information).
The motivation is same as claim 15.
Claim(s) 2, 7, 9, 14, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borchardt as modified by MESSERVY and Kaira and in further view of Doken et al. ( US patent Publication: 20240257516, “Doken”).
Regarding claims 2, 9 and 16, Borchardt as modified by MESSERVY and Kaira doesn’t expressly teach, wherein the image data comprises a plurality of images depicting the structure from different orientations.
However, Doken teaches, the image data comprises a plurality of images depicting the structure from different orientations. ( “In some embodiments, the augmented reality scene may comprise augmenting live video or other live-captured moving image, three-dimensional image, panoramic or other immersive image (e.g., a 360-degree image or series of live images surrounding a particular viewpoint) “)
Doken and Borchardt as modified by Messervy and Kaira are analogous as they are from the field of display of home improvement.
Therefore it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified and Borchardt as modified by Messervy and Kaira to have included the image data comprising a plurality of images depicting the structure from different orientations as taught by Docken.
The motivation for the modification is to display the structure from any viewpoint.
Regarding claims 7, 14 and 20, Borchardt as modified by Messervy and Kaira doesn’t expressly teach, generating, by the one or more processors, directions for performing the modification, wherein the VR feed further includes the directions for performing.
However, Doken teaches, generating, by the one or more processors, directions for performing the modification, wherein the VR feed further includes the directions for performing.(Doken, “[0054]….. In some embodiments, notification 326 may be provided based on preferences indicated in a user profile of a user. In some embodiments, augmented reality scene 326 may comprise images and/or video that provides instructions regarding how to install object 326.”)
Doken and Borchardt as modified by Messervy and Kaira are analogous as they are from the field of display of home improvement.
Therefore it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified and Borchardt as modified by Messervy and Kaira to generate, by the one or more processors, directions for performing the modification, wherein the VR feed further includes the directions for performing as taught by Doken..
The motivation for the modification is to provide the idea to the user about how modification would be applied..
Response to Arguments
The rejection of claim 17 is withdrawn as the claim is cancelled.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 06/24/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 8 and 15 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borchardt et al. ( US patent: 10984493, “Borchardt”) in view of MESSERVY et al. ( US patent Publication: US 20230351067, “Messervy”) and Kaira et al. ( US patent Publication: 20140316908 , “Kaira”).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tapas Mazumder whose telephone number is (571)270-7466. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 PM PST.
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, Alicia Harrington can be reached at 571-272-2330. 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.
/TAPAS MAZUMDER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2615
Prosecution Insights