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 .
This office action is in response to applicant’s amendment filed on 07/02/2026.
Claims 1-21 are pending and examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/02/2026 with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argued that “operations recite that the electronic device monitors application state transitions and responsively control the flow of physical environment information between an operating system service and applications. A person cannot practically perform in the human mind the act of monitoring application mode transitions on an electronic device and selectively routing physical environment data to applications based on those transitions” and that “The specification describes the claimed solution as providing "a reduced set of physical environment updates to an application that has been in the background" and explains that "[b]y compacting physical environment updates that occur while the application is in the background state, the amount of data stored for the application (and to be provided to the application upon return to the active state) can be reduced,"… The improvement here is apparent. It reduces memory usage, reduces processing overhead, and provides for efficient synchronization of application state with the physical environment upon mode transition.” where the applicant argues that the claims reflect the improvement from the ceasing, storing, and providing steps. Examiner respectfully disagrees, see 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections below for a detailed analysis. The identified abstract idea steps can reasonably be performed in the human mind. For example, a person could reasonably look at an application’s UI or graphical representation to determine whether the application has changed to a second or third mode. Additionally, the cited improvements do not appear to be clearly and specifically tied to the claims as currently amended, such as references to the compaction of physical environment updates and the reduction in processing overhead. Lastly, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as previously described.
Applicant's arguments filed 07/02/2026 with respect to 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argued that “Kahan's view toggling is a display rendering preference, not an application entering different operating modes and updates being provided based on their modes,” “The Office Action maps the claimed "second mode" to the extended reality only view toggle, and maps the claimed "storing a subset" to the image data capture and storage for the composite perspective. However, Kahan does not teach that the composite perspective is updated specifically while the toggle is set to extended reality-only view… The Office Action improperly combines disparate features from different portions of Kahan that are not disclosed as operating together in the manner recited in claim 1,” “Not rendering physical objects in a display view is fundamentally different from "ceasing providing, to the application, the updates to the physical environment information" as recited by claim 1,” and that “The cited portions of Kahan describe when or under what condition the composite perspective is updated, not that only some of the updates are stored. Therefore, Kahan fails to teach "storing a subset of the updates to the physical environment information that occur while the application is in the second mode" as recited by claim 1.” The examiner respectfully disagrees, see 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections below for a detailed analysis.
With regards to the mapped modes, Kahan is interpreted to disclose the first and second modes as described under BRI in claim 1. While dependent claims elaborate on the modes, claim 1 merely describes the application being in a first and second mode. Furtwangler is interpreted to disclose specific elaboration on the modes, such as in claim 4. Therefore, Kahan’s viewer selecting a desired view through a corresponding button correlates to the application being in a first mode and the viewer using a particular button to toggle between viewing a representation of both the physical and extended reality environment to only displaying extended reality objects correlates to determining, by the electronic device, that the application has entered a second mode.
With regards to Kahan’s composite perspective being updated specifically while the toggle is set to extended reality-only view, it is unclear which limitation the applicant is referencing for their arguments. The examiner is interpreting this argument as directing towards the last two limitations in the independent claim. However, the claim language does not appear to suggest updating a third mode (composite perspective) while the application is in a second mode (extended reality-only view), but rather, that the third mode receives the subset of updates after the application is determined to enter a third mode. Therefore, updating the “composite perspective” of Kahan will be interpreted as updating the “image data” to accurately reflect the previous claim mapping and the claim interpretation. Kahan’s particular time period in the example where a user is looking at a first extended reality object can occur while a user is in an extended reality only view and therefore correlates to the application being in a second mode. The image data which is reflective of a physical environment being captured at various time periods such as during the particular time period and stored in a storage correlates to storing updates of physical environment information that occur while the application is in the second mode. The image data being captured at time stamps which can be greater than a threshold amount of time more than the particular time period would involve the image data not being captured and saved continuously. Therefore, the image data being stored at non-continuous time stamps correlates to storing a subset of the updates to the physical environment information that occur while the application is in the second mode. Kahan further describes that “the composite perspective may be updated with image data captured during the particular time period to accurately reflect a current state of the physical environment”.
With regards to rendering physical objects in a display view being fundamentally different from "ceasing providing, to the application, the updates to the physical environment information,” Kahan describes “As another example, the image data may have been captured at an earlier point in time (i.e., prior to the particular time period) and stored in a storage, such as a memory or other storage in the wearable extended reality appliance, a memory or other storage in a device,” where the earlier point in time can be when the application is in an extended reality only view. The image data being stored in a storage of the wearable extended reality appliance rather than being sent to the application, and the application in an extended reality only view not including objects in the physical environment and causing extended reality objects to appear as if they were floating, correlates to ceasing providing, to the application, the updates to the physical environment information.
With regards to storing limitation, Kahan is interpreted to disclose the limitation. Following the example using the particular time period as described by Kahan, the particular time period where a user is looking at a first extended reality object can occur while a user is in an extended reality only view and therefore correlates to the application being in a second mode. The image data which is reflective of a physical environment being captured at various time periods such as during the particular time period and stored in a storage correlates to storing updates of physical environment information that occur while the application is in the second mode. The image data being captured at time stamps which can be greater than a threshold amount of time more than the particular time period would involve the image data not being captured and saved continuously. Non-continuous time stamps of image data being saved and stored in a storage, such as a memory or other storage in the wearable extended reality appliance, a memory or other storage, would mean that not all possible image data is being stored. For example, a sensor used to capture physical environment data can record a video-type format of images. A non-continuous selection of image data captured and stored at threshold amount of time more than the particular time period, such as an hour after the particular time period, would therefore correlate to a subset of updates to the physical environment.
Applicant's arguments filed 07/02/2026 with respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argued that “Furtwangler's purpose is to cut off data to background applications to protect user security. This is contrary to claim 1, which recites "storing a subset of the updates to the physical environment information that occur while the application is in the second mode" and later "providing ... the subset of the updates" to the application when it enters the third mode. This is the opposite of what Furtwangler teaches,” “As discussed above, Kahan does not teach storing such updates in the first place. Parejo's compaction technique, even if applied to Kahan, would not yield the claimed compaction because the underlying data recited in claim 11 is not present in Kahan,” “However, Parejo does not teach "periodically compacting" as recited by claim 13. Parejo teaches incrementally selecting the oldest event records "to fulfill a compaction goal,"” and that “None of the cited references teaches or suggests compacting physical environment updates by evaluating whether one update supersedes or cancels another.” The examiner respectfully disagrees, see 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections below for a detailed analysis.
With regards to the Furtwangler reference, while Furtwangler discloses “Conversely, in particular embodiments, the virtual reality system may prevent a third- party application from receiving sensor data if the user is not currently interfacing the application (e.g., an application running in the background),” Furtwangler additionally discloses directly prior to the statement that “In particular embodiments, the virtual reality system may authorize the third-party application that the user is currently interfacing to receive sensor data.” Therefore, Furtwangler's purpose is not to “cut off data to background applications to protect user security” as described by the applicant, as Furtwangler explicitly allows authorization of third-party applications to receive sensor data.
With regards to Kahan disclosing “storing such updates,” the previous arguments explain the storage of updates by Kahan. With regards to Parejo and “periodically compacting” as recited by claim 13, Parejo is interpreted to disclose periodically compacting a first portion of the set of updates. For example, incrementally selecting the next oldest event records until the remaining records fulfill a specific compaction goal, such as a maximum covered session time or storage space for the recorded data, would involve selecting the next oldest event records at more than one time period in a scenario where new event records are stored. A maximum covered storage session time would involve a moving window where older records would be removed each time step 602 is performed, where step 602 is performed each time the current storage session period exceeds a limit and therefore correlates to periodically compacting a first portion of the set of updates. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kahan with Parejo because required compaction can be used for conditions such as the time period covered by currently stored session recording data exceeding a certain limit or that the amount of memory required on the device to store session recording exceeds a certain limit. This helps to control the memory size of recorded session data.
With regards to claim 21, while none of the cited references may explicitly teach the limitations described in claim 21, the additional reference of Bloomfield is interpreted to disclose the limitations. For example, the command queue which stores commands correlates to a stored set of the updates. Scanning the command queue for later-issued commands which supercede earlier-issued commands to minimize the size of each discrete data element that must be transmitted would involve the removal of the earlier-issued command from the command queue and therefore correlates to wherein compacting the stored set of the updates comprises at least one of: removing, from the stored set, a first update that is superseded by a second update in the stored set. While Bloomfield does not explicitly teach that the stored set of the updates are for the physical environment information, physical environment information is a popular type of stored set of updates as evidenced by Kahan. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kahan with Bloomfield because enhanced compression techniques minimizes the size of each discrete data element that must be transmitted and increases the repeatability of the data within the protocol stream so that compression algorithms that operate more efficiently on repetitive encoded data can realize a greater degree of compression efficiency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to (an) abstract idea(s) without significantly more.
Claims 1, 14, and 19 recite:
A method comprising:
providing, by an electronic device to an application running on the electronic device in a first mode, updates to physical environment information that corresponds to a current state of a physical environment of the electronic device while the application is in the first mode;
determining, by the electronic device, that the application has entered a second mode;
responsive to determining that the application has entered the second mode:
ceasing providing, to the application, the updates to the physical environment information; and
storing a subset of the updates to the physical environment information that occur while the application is in the second mode;
determining, by the electronic device, that the application has entered a third mode; and
providing, to the application responsive to determining that the application has entered the third mode, the subset of the updates.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes.
Claim 1 is a process.
Claim 14 is a machine.
Claim 19 is a manufacture.
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The ‘determining’ limitation in #2 above, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. The limitation “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses a person analyzing, evaluating, or determining whether the application has entered a second mode, including comparison or judgement.
The ‘determining’ limitation in #5 above, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. The limitation “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses a person analyzing, evaluating, or determining whether the application has entered a third mode, including comparison or judgement.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The ‘providing’ limitation in #1 above, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. The limitation “providing” in the context of this claim encompasses mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The ‘providing’ limitation in #3 above, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. The limitation “providing” in the context of this claim encompasses mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The ‘storing’ limitation in #4 above, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. The limitation “storing” in the context of this claim encompasses merely storing information in memory. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The ‘providing’ limitation in #6 above, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. The limitation “providing” in the context of this claim encompasses mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Additionally, one or more of the claims recite the following additional elements:
a memory (Claim 14)
one or more processors (Claims 14 and 19)
instructions (Claim 19)
These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components) such that they amount to no more than components comprising mere instructions to apply the exception. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas(s).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea(s) into a practical application, the aforementioned additional elements amount to no more than components for obtaining or gathering data and comprising mere instructions to apply the exception which is evidently seen in MPEP 2106.05(g). Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Additionally, with regards to #4 above, per MPER 2106.05(d)(II), the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic matter (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity:
Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
Claim 3 merely further describes the third mode of Claim 1. The claim does not include additional elements that integrate into practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 4 and 16 merely further describe the first and second modes of Claims 1 and 14 respectively. The claims do not include additional elements that integrate into practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 8 merely further describes the subset of the updates to the physical environment of Claim 1. The claim does not include additional elements that integrate into practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 9 merely further describes the subset of the updates to the physical environment of Claim 8. The claim does not include additional elements that integrate into practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 10 merely further describes the first and second portion of the physical environment information of Claim 9. The claim does not include additional elements that integrate into practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, Claims 1, 3, 4, 8-10, 14, 16, and 19 are directed to (an) abstract idea(s) without significantly more.
Claims 2, 15, and 20 recite:
providing, for display while the application is in the first mode, a user interface of the application; and
providing, for display while the application is in the third mode, the user interface with at least one modification that is based on the subset of the updates to the physical environment information.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes.
Claim 2 is a process.
Claim 15 is a machine.
Claim 20 is a manufacture.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The ‘providing’ limitation in #7 above, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. The limitation “providing” in the context of this claim encompasses merely displaying information to a user. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The ‘providing’ limitation in #8 above, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. The limitation “providing” in the context of this claim encompasses merely displaying information to a user. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea(s) into a practical application, the aforementioned additional elements amount to no more than components for obtaining or gathering data and comprising mere instructions to apply the exception which is evidently seen in MPEP 2106.05(g). Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Additionally, with regards to #7 and #8 above, per MPER 2106.05(d)(II), the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic matter (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity:
Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
Therefore, Claims 2, 15, and 20 are directed to (an) abstract idea(s) without significantly more.
Claims 5 and 17 recite:
determining that a second application running on the electronic device is in the first mode while the application is in the second mode; and
providing, to the second application while storing the subset of the updates to the physical environment information that occur while the application is in the second mode, the updates to the physical environment information that occur while the application is in the second mode to the second application.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes.
Claim 5 is a process.
Claim 17 is a machine.
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The ‘determining’ limitation in #9 above, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. The limitation “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses a person analyzing, evaluating, or determining whether the second application is in a first mode while the application is in a second mode, including comparison or judgement.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The ‘providing’ limitation in #10 above, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. The limitation “providing” in the context of this claim encompasses mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea(s) into a practical application, the aforementioned additional elements amount to no more than components for obtaining or gathering data and comprising mere instructions to apply the exception which is evidently seen in MPEP 2106.05(g). Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Additionally, with regards to #10 above, per MPER 2106.05(d)(II), the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic matter (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity:
Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
Therefore, Claims 5 and 17 are directed to (an) abstract idea(s) without significantly more.
Claim 6 recites:
determining, by the electronic device, that the second application has entered the second mode; and
responsive to determining that the second application has entered the second mode:
ceasing providing, to the second application, the updates to the physical environment information; and
storing, for the second application, a second subset of the updates to the physical environment information that occur while the second application is in the second mode.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes.
Claim 6 is a process.
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The ‘determining’ limitation in #11 above, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. The limitation “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses a person analyzing, evaluating, or determining whether the second application has entered a second mode, including comparison or judgement.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The ‘providing’ limitation in #12 above, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. The limitation “providing” in the context of this claim encompasses mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The ‘storing’ limitation in #13 above, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. The limitation “storing” in the context of this claim encompasses merely storing information in memory. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea(s) into a practical application, the aforementioned additional elements amount to no more than components for obtaining or gathering data and comprising mere instructions to apply the exception which is evidently seen in MPEP 2106.05(g). Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Additionally, with regards to #12 and #13 above, per MPER 2106.05(d)(II), the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic matter (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity:
Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
Therefore, Claim 6 is directed to (an) abstract idea(s) without significantly more.
Claim 7 recites:
wherein storing the subset of the updates to the physical environment information that occur while the application is in the second mode comprises
storing the subset of the updates to the physical environment information that occur while the application is in the second mode for the application, the method further comprising:
while the application and a second application at the electronic device are in the second mode, storing, for the second application, a second subset of the updates to the physical environment information.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes.
Claim 7 is a process.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The ‘storing’ limitation in #14 above, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. The limitation “storing” in the context of this claim encompasses merely storing information in memory. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The ‘storing’ limitation in #15 above, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. The limitation “storing” in the context of this claim encompasses merely storing information in memory. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea(s) into a practical application, the aforementioned additional elements amount to no more than components for obtaining or gathering data and comprising mere instructions to apply the exception which is evidently seen in MPEP 2106.05(g). Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Additionally, with regards to #14 and #15 above, per MPER 2106.05(d)(II), the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic matter (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity:
Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
Therefore, Claim 7 is directed to (an) abstract idea(s) without significantly more.
Claims 11 and 18 recite:
wherein storing the subset of the updates to the physical environment information comprises:
storing a set of the updates to the physical environment information that occur while the application is in the second mode; and
compacting, while the application is in the second mode, the stored set of the updates to the physical environment information that occur while the application is in the second mode to form the subset.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes.
Claim 11 is a process.
Claim 18 is a machine.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The ‘storing’ limitation in #16 above, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. The limitation “storing” in the context of this claim encompasses merely storing information in memory. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The ‘compacting’ limitation in #17 above, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is an additional element as “apply it” that is mere instructions to apply an exception. The limitation “compacting” in the context of this claim encompasses merely compacting the stored set of updates. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea(s) into a practical application, the aforementioned additional elements amount to no more than components for obtaining or gathering data and comprising mere instructions to apply the exception which is evidently seen in MPEP 2106.05(g)&(f). Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Additionally, with regards to #16 above, per MPER 2106.05(d)(II), the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic matter (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity:
Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
Therefore, Claims 11 and 18 are directed to (an) abstract idea(s) without significantly more.
Claim 12 recites:
wherein compacting the stored set of updates comprises at least one of:
removing one of the updates from the stored set of updates or combining two or more of the updates in the set of updates.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes.
Claim 12 is a process.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The ‘removing’ limitation in #18 above, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is an additional element as “apply it” that is mere instructions to apply an exception. The limitation “removing” in the context of this claim encompasses merely removing one of the updates from the stored set of updates. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea(s) into a practical application, the aforementioned additional elements amount to no more than components for obtaining or gathering data and comprising mere instructions to apply the exception which is evidently seen in MPEP 2106.05(f). Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Therefore, Claim 12 is directed to (an) abstract idea(s) without significantly more.
Claim 13 recites:
wherein compacting the stored set of the updates to the physical environment information comprises:
periodically compacting a first portion of the set of updates; and
compacting a second portion of the set of updates during an inactive state of the electronic device.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes.
Claim 13 is a process.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The ‘compacting’ limitation in #19 above, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is an additional element as “apply it” that is mere instructions to apply an exception. The limitation “compacting” in the context of this claim encompasses merely periodically compacting a first portion of the stored set of updates. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The ‘compacting’ limitation in #20 above, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is an additional element as “apply it” that is mere instructions to apply an exception. The limitation “compacting” in the context of this claim encompasses merely compacting a second portion of the stored set of updates. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea(s) into a practical application, the aforementioned additional elements amount to no more than components for obtaining or gathering data and comprising mere instructions to apply the exception which is evidently seen in MPEP 2106.05(f). Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Therefore, Claim 13 is directed to (an) abstract idea(s) without significantly more.
Claim 21 recites:
wherein compacting the stored set of the updates to the physical environment information comprises at least one of:
removing, from the stored set, a first update that is superseded by a second update in the stored set; or
removing, from the stored set, a first update and a second update that cancel each other.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes.
Claim 21 is a process.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The ‘removing’ limitation in #21 above, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is an additional element as “apply it” that is mere instructions to apply an exception. The limitation “removing” in the context of this claim encompasses merely removing a first update that is superseded by a second update in the stored set. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The ‘removing’ limitation in #22 above, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is an additional element as “apply it” that is mere instructions to apply an exception. The limitation “removing” in the context of this claim encompasses merely removing a first update and a second update that cancel each other. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea(s) into a practical application, the aforementioned additional elements amount to no more than components for obtaining or gathering data and comprising mere instructions to apply the exception which is evidently seen in MPEP 2106.05(f). Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Therefore, Claim 21 is directed to (an) abstract idea(s) without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8-10, 14-15, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable over Kahan et al. (U.S. Patent No. US 20230237192 A1), hereinafter “Kahan.”
With regards to Claim 1, Kahan teaches:
A method, comprising:
providing, by an electronic device to an application running on the electronic device in a first mode, updates to physical environment information that corresponds to a current state of a physical environment of the electronic device while the application is in the first mode (Paragraphs 8, 378, 424, and 426, “These embodiments may involve receiving image data from an image sensor associated with a wearable extended reality appliance, the image data is reflective of a physical environment… In some examples, the received image data of the physical environment may be analyzed to associate the at least two extended reality objects with the composite perspective of the physical environment… In some embodiments, enabling the non-synchronous display includes enabling a viewer to toggle between viewing only a representation of the physical environment, viewing only an extended reality environment including the at least two extended reality objects, or viewing a representation of both the physical environment and the extended reality environment… By using user interface element 3102, the viewer may select a desired view of the extended reality environment and/or the physical environment… Selecting composite view button 3110 may display a combined physical environment with extended reality objects, such as shown in the lower portion of FIG. 31.” The viewer selecting a desired view through a corresponding button correlate to the application being in a first mode. The wearable extended reality appliance sensors receiving image data reflective of a physical environment, which is analyzed to determine physical and extended reality object positions for a composite view, correlates to providing, by an electronic device to an application running on the electronic device in a first mode, updates to physical environment information that corresponds to a current state of a physical environment of the electronic device while the application is in the first mode);
determining, by the electronic device, that the application has entered a second mode (Fig. 33, paragraphs 424 and 426, “In some embodiments, enabling the non-synchronous display includes enabling a viewer to toggle between viewing only a representation of the physical environment, viewing only an extended reality environment including the at least two extended reality objects, or viewing a representation of both the physical environment and the extended reality environment… By using user interface element 3102, the viewer may select a desired view of the extended reality environment and/or the physical environment… Selecting “Only XR View” button 3106 may display only extended reality object, such as shown and described below in connection with FIG. 33.” The viewer using a particular button to toggle between viewing a representation of both the physical and extended reality environment to only displaying extended reality objects correlates to determining, by the electronic device, that the application has entered a second mode);
responsive to determining that the application has entered the second mode:
ceasing providing, to the application, the updates to the physical environment information (Fig. 33, paragraph 428, “For example, the viewer may have selected to view only the extended reality environment (e.g., by using “Only XR View” button 3106 of user interface element 3102). As shown in FIG. 33, the extended reality environment view 3300 includes virtual representation of the wearer 2902 holding first extended reality object 2608 and second extended reality object 2610. Because the extended reality only view does not include objects in the physical environment, in FIG. 33, it appears as if second extended reality object 2610 is “floating” behind virtual representation of the wearer 2902.” The extended reality only view not including objects in the physical environment and causing extended reality objects to appear as if they were floating correlates to ceasing providing, to the application, the updates to the physical environment information);
and storing a subset of the updates to the physical environment information that occur while the application is in the second mode (Paragraphs 396-397, “In some embodiments, the composite perspective of the physical environment is based on image data captured prior to the particular time period. As discussed above, the particular time period refers to a period of time during which the wearer is looking at the first extended reality object. For example, the composite perspective of the physical environment may be based on image data that was captured when the wearer activated the wearable extended reality appliance. As another example, the image data may have been captured at an earlier point in time (i.e., prior to the particular time period) and stored in a storage, such as a memory or other storage in the wearable extended reality appliance, a memory or other storage in a device (e.g., input unit 202) associated with the wearable extended reality appliance, or a remote storage (e.g., a cloud-based storage) … For example, the image data may include time information about when the image data was captured (e.g., a timestamp or other time indicator). If the particular time period is more than a threshold amount of time (e.g., one hour, one day, one week, or other amount of time) later than the timestamp, the composite perspective may be updated with image data captured during the particular time period (i.e., the period of time during which the wearer is looking at the first extended reality object). The composite perspective may be updated with image data captured during the particular time period to accurately reflect a current state of the physical environment.” The particular time period where a user is looking at a first extended reality object can occur while a user is in an extended reality only view and therefore correlates to the application being in a second mode. The image data which is reflective of a physical environment being captured at various time periods such as during the particular time period and stored in a storage correlates to storing updates of physical environment information that occur while the application is in the second mode. The image data being captured at time stamps which can be greater than a threshold amount of time more than the particular time period would involve the image data not being captured and saved continuously. Therefore, the image data being stored at non-continuous time stamps correlates to storing a subset of the updates to the physical environment information that occur while the application is in the second mode);
determining, by the electronic device, that the application has entered a third mode (Paragraph 424, “In some embodiments, enabling the non-synchronous display includes enabling a viewer to toggle between viewing only a representation of the physical environment, viewing only an extended reality environment including the at least two extended reality objects, or viewing a representation of both the physical environment and the extended reality environment… By using user interface element 3102, the viewer may select a desired view of the extended reality environment and/or the physical environment… Selecting composite view button 3110 may display a combined physical environment with extended reality objects, such as shown in the lower portion of FIG. 31… Once the view is selected, the viewer may use view rotator element 3112 to navigate around in the selected view (i.e., rotate the selected view to achieve a desired perspective of the selected view or a desired viewing angle within the selected view).” The viewer changing from different views through a toggle or picking a button, such as from a view representing only extended reality objects to a composite view, and the view being updated after the selection, correlates to determining, by the electronic device, that the application has entered a third mode); and providing, to the application responsive to determining that the application has entered the third mode, the subset of the updates (Paragraphs 396-397 and 426 “As discussed above, the particular time period refers to a period of time during which the wearer is looking at the first extended reality object… In this example, the stored image data may be retrieved by the wearable extended reality appliance and the composite perspective of the physical environment may be generated based on the stored image data… The composite perspective may be updated with image data captured during the particular time period to accurately reflect a current state of the physical environment… In some embodiments, enabling the non-synchronous display includes enabling a viewer to toggle between viewing only a representation of the physical environment, viewing only an extended reality environment including the at least two extended reality objects, or viewing a representation of both the physical environment and the extended reality environment… Once the view is selected, the viewer may use view rotator element 3112 to navigate around in the selected view (i.e., rotate the selected view to achieve a desired perspective of the selected view or a desired viewing angle within the selected view).” The image data being captured during the particular time period and stored in a storage correlates to the subset of the updates. The stored image data being retrieved to generate the composite perspective after a user selects a composite view button correlates to providing, to the application responsive to determining that the application has entered the third mode, the subset of the updates).
With regards to Claims 14 and 19, the method of Claim 1 performs the same steps as the machine and manufacture of Claims 14 and 19 respectively, and Claims 14 and 19 are therefore rejected using the same rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 1.
With regards to Claim 2, Kahan teaches the method of Claim 1 above. Kahan further teaches:
providing, for display while the application is in the first mode, a user interface of the application (Paragraph 426, “By using user interface element 3102, the viewer may select a desired view of the extended reality environment and/or the physical environment… Selecting composite view button 3110 may display a combined physical environment with extended reality objects, such as shown in the lower portion of FIG. 31… Once the view is selected, the viewer may use view rotator element 3112 to navigate around in the selected view (i.e., rotate the selected view to achieve a desired perspective of the selected view or a desired viewing angle within the selected view). For example, as shown in FIG. 31, display 3100 includes a composite view (e.g., selected by using composite view button 3110) including virtual representation of the wearer 2902 holding first extended reality object 2608 and second extended reality object 2610 positioned on cabinet 2602.” The user selecting a desired view such as a composite view and being able to navigate around the selected view correlates to providing, for display while the application is in the first mode, a user interface of the application); and
providing, for display while the application is in the third mode, the user interface with at least one modification that is based on the subset of the updates to the physical environment information (Paragraphs 396-398 and 426 “As discussed above, the particular time period refers to a period of time during which the wearer is looking at the first extended reality object… The composite perspective may be updated with image data captured during the particular time period to accurately reflect a current state of the physical environment… For example, prior to the particular time period, objects in the physical environment may be in a first location and in the particular time period, objects in the physical environment may have been added, moved, or removed from the prior point in time… During the particular time period (i.e., a later point in time than that shown in FIG. 26), table 2604 is moved to a different location in physical environment 2600 (e.g., next to cabinet 2602). The composite perspective may then be updated to reflect the current location of table 2604... In some embodiments, enabling the non-synchronous display includes enabling a viewer to toggle between viewing only a representation of the physical environment, viewing only an extended reality environment including the at least two extended reality objects, or viewing a representation of both the physical environment and the extended reality environment… Once the view is selected, the viewer may use view rotator element 3112 to navigate around in the selected view (i.e., rotate the selected view to achieve a desired perspective of the selected view or a desired viewing angle within the selected view).” The particular time period where a user is looking at the first extended reality object may occur during a view which only shows extended reality objects. In the example where a physical object is moved during the particular time period, the user would not be updated on the new location until they switch to a mode where the physical objects are visible again such as a composite view. The composite view then being selected and updated to reflect the new location of the moved table, where the user is able to navigate around the selected view and the table was in a different position than in any of the previous modes, correlates to providing, for display while the application is in the third mode, the user interface with at least one modification that is based on the subset of the updates to the physical environment information).
With regards to Claims 15 and 20, the method of Claim 2 performs the same steps as the machine and manufacture of Claims 15 and 20 respectively, and Claims 15 and 20 are therefore rejected using the same rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 2.
With regards to Claim 3, Kahan teaches the method of Claim 1 above. Kahan further teaches:
wherein the third mode is the same as the first mode (Paragraph 424, “In some embodiments, enabling the non-synchronous display includes enabling a viewer to toggle between viewing only a representation of the physical environment, viewing only an extended reality environment including the at least two extended reality objects, or viewing a representation of both the physical environment and the extended reality environment. In some embodiments, the viewer may toggle (i.e., select) the view by using a user interface element.” The user toggling between different views by using a user interface element, such as from a composite mode to an extended reality environment back to a composite mode, correlates to the third mode being the same as the first mode).
With regards to Claim 8, Kahan teaches the method of Claim 1 above. Kahan further teaches:
wherein the subset of the updates to the physical environment information that occur while the application is in the second mode comprises:
a first subset of the updates corresponding to a first portion of the physical environment information (Paragraphs 396-397, “In some embodiments, the composite perspective of the physical environment is based on image data captured prior to the particular time period. As discussed above, the particular time period refers to a period of time during which the wearer is looking at the first extended reality object. For example, the composite perspective of the physical environment may be based on image data that was captured when the wearer activated the wearable extended reality appliance. As another example, the image data may have been captured at an earlier point in time (i.e., prior to the particular time period) and stored in a storage, such as a memory or other storage in the wearable extended reality appliance, a memory or other storage in a device (e.g., input unit 202) associated with the wearable extended reality appliance, or a remote storage (e.g., a cloud-based storage) … For example, the image data may include time information about when the image data was captured (e.g., a timestamp or other time indicator). If the particular time period is more than a threshold amount of time (e.g., one hour, one day, one week, or other amount of time) later than the timestamp, the composite perspective may be updated with image data captured during the particular time period (i.e., the period of time during which the wearer is looking at the first extended reality object). The composite perspective may be updated with image data captured during the particular time period to accurately reflect a current state of the physical environment.” The particular time period where a user is looking at a first extended reality object can occur while a user is in an extended reality only view and therefore correlates to the application being in a second mode. The image data which is reflective of a physical environment being captured at various time periods such as during the particular time period and stored in a storage correlates to storing updates of physical environment information that occur while the application is in the second mode. The image data being captured at time stamps which can be greater than a threshold amount of time more than the particular time period would involve the image data not being captured and saved continuously. Each image data snapshot which is represented by the time stamp the image data was captured at would involve at least one image data correlates to a first subset of updates. Therefore, the image data being stored at non-continuous time stamps correlates to a first subset of the updates corresponding to a first portion of the physical environment information); and
a second subset of the updates corresponding to a second portion of the physical environment information (Paragraphs 396-398, “In some embodiments, the composite perspective of the physical environment is based on image data captured prior to the particular time period. As discussed above, the particular time period refers to a period of time during which the wearer is looking at the first extended reality object. For example, the composite perspective of the physical environment may be based on image data that was captured when the wearer activated the wearable extended reality appliance. As another example, the image data may have been captured at an earlier point in time (i.e., prior to the particular time period) and stored in a storage, such as a memory or other storage in the wearable extended reality appliance, a memory or other storage in a device (e.g., input unit 202) associated with the wearable extended reality appliance, or a remote storage (e.g., a cloud-based storage) … For example, the image data may include time information about when the image data was captured (e.g., a timestamp or other time indicator). If the particular time period is more than a threshold amount of time (e.g., one hour, one day, one week, or other amount of time) later than the timestamp, the composite perspective may be updated with image data captured during the particular time period (i.e., the period of time during which the wearer is looking at the first extended reality object). The composite perspective may be updated with image data captured during the particular time period to accurately reflect a current state of the physical environment... During the particular time period (i.e., a later point in time than that shown in FIG. 26), table 2604 is moved to a different location in physical environment 2600 (e.g., next to cabinet 2602).” The particular time period where a user is looking at a first extended reality object can occur while a user is in an extended reality only view and therefore correlates to the application being in a second mode. The image data which is reflective of a physical environment being captured at various time periods such as during the particular time period and stored in a storage correlates to storing updates of physical environment information that occur while the application is in the second mode. The image data being captured at time stamps which can be greater than a threshold amount of time more than the particular time period would involve the image data not being captured and saved continuously. In a scenario where two instances of image data are captured during the particular time period, such as a table being moved to a different location, the second instance of image data which has a different time stamp than the first instance of image data and may account for the new table location correlates to a second subset of updates. Therefore, the image data being stored at non-continuous time stamps correlates to a second subset of the updates corresponding to a second portion of the physical environment information).
With regards to Claim 9, Kahan teaches the method of Claim 8 above. Kahan further teaches:
wherein the updates to the physical environment information include updates corresponding to one or more of: a change in a location of a physical object in the physical environment (Paragraph 397-398, “In some embodiments, the operations further include updating the composite perspective of the physical environment based on image data captured during the particular time period… For example, prior to the particular time period, objects in the physical environment may be in a first location and in the particular time period, objects in the physical environment may have been added, moved, or removed from the prior point in time. For example, assume that FIG. 26 represents a prior point in time (i.e., before the particular time period). At the prior point in time, wearer 2606 is facing a wall of physical environment 2600 and table 2604 appears to the wearer’s left. Depending on the wearer’s point of focus, table 2604 may be within the wearer’s field of view. During the particular time period (i.e., a later point in time than that shown in FIG. 26), table 2604 is moved to a different location in physical environment 2600 (e.g., next to cabinet 2602). The composite perspective may then be updated to reflect the current location of table 2604.” The objects in the physical environment being added, moved, removed between a time prior to the particular time period and the particular time period, such as a table being moved to a different location, correlates to a change in a location of a physical object in the physical environment. The image data being used to update a composite perspective of the physical environment correlates to the updates to the physical environment information including updates corresponding to a change in a location of a physical object in the physical environment), a notification of removal of a physical object from the physical environment, a notification of an addition of a new physical object to the physical environment, or a update to a mesh generated by the electronic device to represent the physical environment.
With regards to Claim 10, Kahan teaches the method of Claim 9 above. Kahan further teaches:
wherein the first portion of the physical environment information comprises the location of the physical object in the physical environment (Paragraph 397-398, “In some embodiments, the operations further include updating the composite perspective of the physical environment based on image data captured during the particular time period… For example, prior to the particular time period, objects in the physical environment may be in a first location and in the particular time period, objects in the physical environment may have been added, moved, or removed from the prior point in time. For example, assume that FIG. 26 represents a prior point in time (i.e., before the particular time period). At the prior point in time, wearer 2606 is facing a wall of physical environment 2600 and table 2604 appears to the wearer’s left. Depending on the wearer’s point of focus, table 2604 may be within the wearer’s field of view. During the particular time period (i.e., a later point in time than that shown in FIG. 26), table 2604 is moved to a different location in physical environment 2600 (e.g., next to cabinet 2602). The composite perspective may then be updated to reflect the current location of table 2604.” The image data being used to update a composite perspective of the physical environment, where the image data may reflect a table being moved to a different location in the physical environment, correlates to the first portion of the physical environment information comprising the location of the physical object in the physical environment), and wherein the second portion of the physical environment information comprises the mesh generated by the electronic device to represent the physical environment (Paragraph 67-68, 101, and 315, “In some examples, the image data may be read from memory, may be received from an external device, may be generated (for example, using a generative model), and so forth… In another embodiment, the digital signals may include a representation of virtual content, for example, by encoding objects in a three-dimensional array of voxels, in a polygon mesh, or in any other format in which virtual content may be presented… Consistent with the present disclosure, the image data may include pixel data streams, digital images, digital video streams, data derived from captured images, and data that may be used to construct one or more 3D images, a sequence of 3D images, 3D videos, or a virtual 3D representation. The image data acquired by image sensor 372 may be transmitted by wired or wireless transmission to any processing device of system 200. For example, the image data may be processed in order to: detect objects, detect events, detect action, detect face, detect people, recognize a known person, or any other information that may be used by system 200… In one example, digital signals associated with the first virtual object may be received. For example, the digital signals may be read from a memory, received from an external device (e.g., using a communications device), generated by at least one processor (for example, based on a geometrical model associated with the first virtual object), and so forth. Some non-limiting examples of digital signals associated with the first virtual object may include digital display signals associated with the first virtual object, a digital three dimensional model associated with the first virtual object, and so forth.” The image data which can be processed by a processing device to detect objects and used to construct a virtual 3D representation such as a digital signal, which can be a polygon mesh of virtual objects that is read from memory, correlates to the second portion of the physical environment information comprising the mesh generated by the electronic device to represent the physical environment).
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) 4-7, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kahan in view of Furtwangler et al. (U.S. Patent No. US 20190339837 A1), hereinafter “Furtwangler.”
With regards to Claim 4, Kahan teaches the method of Claim 1 above. Kahan does not explicitly teach:
wherein the first mode is an active mode, and wherein the second mode is a background mode.
However, Furtwangler teaches:
wherein the first mode is an active mode, and wherein the second mode is a background mode (Paragraphs 5 and 53, “Conversely, in particular embodiments, the virtual reality system may prevent a third-party application from receiving sensor data if the user is not currently interfacing the application (e.g., an application running in the background) … In particular embodiments, a presently active application may be an application with which a user associated with the client system is currently interfacing… At step 530, the client system may determine whether the user is currently interacting with the third-party application. If it is determined that the user is currently interfacing with the application that requested the sensor data, then at step 540, the client system may authorize the third-party application to receive sensor data from the client system. If it is determined that the user is not interfacing the application that requested the sensor data, then at step 550, the client system may prevent the third-party application from receiving sensor data from the client system.” The presently active application being an application the user is currently interfacing correlates to the first mode being an active mode. The user not interfacing with a particular application, such as where the application is running in the background, correlates to the second mode being a background mode).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kahan with wherein the first mode is an active mode, and wherein the second mode is a background mode as taught by Furtwangler because sending sensor data to only authorized applications, such as applications where the user is currently interfacing with, ensures that the security of the user is not compromised. For example, applications that were previously interfaced such as a background application may still be receiving sensor data, which can expose confidential information that the user is inputting into a current application. This data can include characters that a user is inputting into a keyboard in a VR environment (Furtwangler: paragraph 5).
With regards to Claim 16, the method of Claim 4 performs the same steps as the machine of Claim 16, and Claim 16 is therefore rejected using the same rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 4.
With regards to Claim 5, Kahan teaches the method of Claim 1 above. Kahan does not explicitly teach:
determining that a second application running on the electronic device is in the first mode while the application is in the second mode; and
providing, to the second application while storing the subset of the updates to the physical environment information that occur while the application is in the second mode, the updates to the physical environment information that occur while the application is in the second mode to the second application.
However, Furtwangler teaches:
determining that a second application running on the electronic device is in the first mode while the application is in the second mode (Paragraph 5, “Many users may perform some degree of multitasking and have several applications open and running at any given time… As a result, if a user switches between applications, the previous application may still be receiving sensor data… As an example and not by way of limitation, the virtual reality system may determine whether the user is actively interacting with the application, such as interacting with a keyboard of the application, scrolling through a webpage of a browser application, or hovering over elements of the application (e.g. a pointer over the application) … Conversely, in particular embodiments, the virtual reality system may prevent a third-party application from receiving sensor data if the user is not currently interfacing the application (e.g., an application running in the background).” The user having several applications open and running at any given time correlates to a second application running on the electronic device. The user switching between applications, where a user can be actively interacting with one application while having a third-party application running in the background, correlates to determining that a second application running on the electronic device is in the first mode while the application is in the second mode); and
providing, to the second application, the updates to the physical environment information that occur while the application is in the second mode to the second application (Paragraph 5, “Many users may perform some degree of multitasking and have several applications open and running at any given time… In particular embodiments, these applications may utilize sensor data (e.g., accelerometer data, gyroscope data, magnetometer data, eye tracking data, etc.) received from the VR headset to perform functions related to the application (e.g., changing field of view from user moving his or her head). As a result, if a user switches between applications, the previous application may still be receiving sensor data… As an example and not by way of limitation, the virtual reality system may determine whether the user is actively interacting with the application, such as interacting with a keyboard of the application, scrolling through a webpage of a browser application, or hovering over elements of the application (e.g. a pointer over the application). In particular embodiments, the virtual reality system may authorize the third-party application that the user is currently interfacing to receive sensor data. Conversely, in particular embodiments, the virtual reality system may prevent a third-party application from receiving sensor data if the user is not currently interfacing the application (e.g., an application running in the background).” The user switching between at least two open applications, where one application is currently being interacted with and the other application is running in the background, correlates to second and first application in a first and second mode respectively. The application that the user is currently interacting with receiving sensor data such as accelerometer data, gyroscope data, magnetometer data, eye tracking data, etc., while a background application is open, correlates to providing, to the second application, the updates to the physical environment information that occur while the application is in the second mode to the second application).
Furtwangler does not explicitly teach that the second application is provided updates while storing the subset of the updates to the physical environment information that occur while the application is in the second mode. However, storing the subset of the updates to the physical environment information that occur while the application is in the second mode is a popular method of providing updates while the application is in a second mode as evidenced by Kahan above (Paragraphs 396-397).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kahan with determining that a second application running on the electronic device is in the first mode while the application is in the second mode; and providing, to the second application, the updates to the physical environment information that occur while the application is in the second mode to the second application as taught by Furtwangler because sending sensor data to only authorized applications, such as applications where the user is currently interfacing with, ensures that the security of the user is not compromised. For example, applications that were previously interfaced such as a background application may still be receiving sensor data, which can expose confidential information that the user is inputting into a current application. This data can include characters that a user is inputting into a keyboard in a VR environment (Furtwangler: paragraph 5).
With regards to Claim 17, the method of Claim 5 performs the same steps as the machine of Claim 17, and Claim 17 is therefore rejected using the same rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 5.
With regards to Claim 6, Kahan in view of Furtwangler teaches the method of Claim 5 above. Kahan further teaches:
and storing, for the application, a subset of the updates to the physical environment information that occur while the application is in the second mode (Paragraphs 396-397, “In some embodiments, the composite perspective of the physical environment is based on image data captured prior to the particular time period. As discussed above, the particular time period refers to a period of time during which the wearer is looking at the first extended reality object. For example, the composite perspective of the physical environment may be based on image data that was captured when the wearer activated the wearable extended reality appliance. As another example, the image data may have been captured at an earlier point in time (i.e., prior to the particular time period) and stored in a storage, such as a memory or other storage in the wearable extended reality appliance, a memory or other storage in a device (e.g., input unit 202) associated with the wearable extended reality appliance, or a remote storage (e.g., a cloud-based storage) … For example, the image data may include time information about when the image data was captured (e.g., a timestamp or other time indicator). If the particular time period is more than a threshold amount of time (e.g., one hour, one day, one week, or other amount of time) later than the timestamp, the composite perspective may be updated with image data captured during the particular time period (i.e., the period of time during which the wearer is looking at the first extended reality object). The composite perspective may be updated with image data captured during the particular time period to accurately reflect a current state of the physical environment.” The particular time period where a user is looking at a first extended reality object can occur while a user is in an extended reality only view and therefore correlates to the application being in a second mode. The image data which is reflective of a physical environment being captured at various time periods such as during the particular time period and stored in a storage correlates to storing updates of physical environment information that occur while the application is in the second mode. The image data being captured at time stamps which can be greater than a threshold amount of time more than the particular time period would involve the image data not being captured and saved continuously. Therefore, the image data being stored at non-continuous time stamps correlates to storing a subset of the updates to the physical environment information that occur while the application is in the second mode).
Kahan does not explicitly teach that the application is a second application and that the subset is a second subset. However, second applications are a popular type of configuration supported by electronic devices as evidenced by Furtwangler (Paragraph 5, “Many users may perform some degree of multitasking and have several applications open and running at any given time… As a result, if a user switches between applications, the previous application may still be receiving sensor data.” The user having several applications open and running at the same time, where a user can switch between applications, correlates to a second application). When combining Kahan’s teachings with Furtwangler’s second application, it would be logical to conclude that a second application would therefore be associated with a second subset.
Furtwangler further teaches:
determining, by the electronic device, that the second application has entered the second mode (Paragraph 5, “Many users may perform some degree of multitasking and have several applications open and running at any given time… As a result, if a user switches between applications, the previous application may still be receiving sensor data… As an example and not by way of limitation, the virtual reality system may determine whether the user is actively interacting with the application, such as interacting with a keyboard of the application, scrolling through a webpage of a browser application, or hovering over elements of the application (e.g. a pointer over the application) … Conversely, in particular embodiments, the virtual reality system may prevent a third-party application from receiving sensor data if the user is not currently interfacing the application (e.g., an application running in the background).” The user having several applications open and running at any given time correlates to a second application running on the electronic device. The user switching between applications, where a user can be actively interacting with one application before transitioning to not interfacing the application, correlates to determining, by the electronic device, that the application has entered the second mode); and
responsive to determining that the second application has entered the second mode:
ceasing providing, to the second application, the updates to the physical environment information (Paragraph 5, “Conversely, in particular embodiments, the virtual reality system may prevent a third-party application from receiving sensor data if the user is not currently interfacing the application (e.g., an application running in the background).” The user not currently interfacing with a particular application, such as when it is running in the background, resulting in the particular application no longer receiving sensor data correlates to ceasing providing, to the second application, the updates to the physical environment information responsive to determining that the second application has entered the second mode);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kahan with determining, by the electronic device, that the second application has entered the second mode; and responsive to determining that the second application has entered the second mode: ceasing providing, to the second application, the updates to the physical environment information as taught by Furtwangler because sending sensor data to only authorized applications, such as applications where the user is currently interfacing with, ensures that the security of the user is not compromised. For example, applications that were previously interfaced such as a background application may still be receiving sensor data, which can expose confidential information that the user is inputting into a current application. This data can include characters that a user is inputting into a keyboard in a VR environment (Furtwangler: paragraph 5).
With regards to Claim 7, Kahan in view of Furtwangler teaches the method of Claim 1 above. Kahan further teaches:
wherein storing the subset of the updates to the physical environment information that occur while the application is in the second mode comprises storing the subset of the updates to the physical environment information that occur while the application is in the second mode for the application (Paragraphs 396-397, “In some embodiments, the composite perspective of the physical environment is based on image data captured prior to the particular time period. As discussed above, the particular time period refers to a period of time during which the wearer is looking at the first extended reality object. For example, the composite perspective of the physical environment may be based on image data that was captured when the wearer activated the wearable extended reality appliance. As another example, the image data may have been captured at an earlier point in time (i.e., prior to the particular time period) and stored in a storage, such as a memory or other storage in the wearable extended reality appliance, a memory or other storage in a device (e.g., input unit 202) associated with the wearable extended reality appliance, or a remote storage (e.g., a cloud-based storage) … For example, the image data may include time information about when the image data was captured (e.g., a timestamp or other time indicator). If the particular time period is more than a threshold amount of time (e.g., one hour, one day, one week, or other amount of time) later than the timestamp, the composite perspective may be updated with image data captured during the particular time period (i.e., the period of time during which the wearer is looking at the first extended reality object). The composite perspective may be updated with image data captured during the particular time period to accurately reflect a current state of the physical environment.” The particular time period where a user is looking at a first extended reality object can occur while a user is in an extended reality only view and therefore correlates to the application being in a second mode. The image data which is reflective of a physical environment being captured at various time periods such as during the particular time period and stored in a storage correlates to storing updates of physical environment information that occur while the application is in the second mode. The image data being captured at time stamps which can be greater than a threshold amount of time more than the particular time period would involve the image data not being captured and saved continuously. Therefore, the image data being stored at non-continuous time stamps correlates to storing a subset of the updates to the physical environment information that occur while the application is in the second mode), the method further comprising:
storing, for the application, a subset of the updates to the physical environment information (Paragraphs 396-397, “In some embodiments, the composite perspective of the physical environment is based on image data captured prior to the particular time period. As discussed above, the particular time period refers to a period of time during which the wearer is looking at the first extended reality object. For example, the composite perspective of the physical environment may be based on image data that was captured when the wearer activated the wearable extended reality appliance. As another example, the image data may have been captured at an earlier point in time (i.e., prior to the particular time period) and stored in a storage, such as a memory or other storage in the wearable extended reality appliance, a memory or other storage in a device (e.g., input unit 202) associated with the wearable extended reality appliance, or a remote storage (e.g., a cloud-based storage) … For example, the image data may include time information about when the image data was captured (e.g., a timestamp or other time indicator). If the particular time period is more than a threshold amount of time (e.g., one hour, one day, one week, or other amount of time) later than the timestamp, the composite perspective may be updated with image data captured during the particular time period (i.e., the period of time during which the wearer is looking at the first extended reality object). The composite perspective may be updated with image data captured during the particular time period to accurately reflect a current state of the physical environment.” The particular time period where a user is looking at a first extended reality object can occur while a user is in an extended reality only view and therefore correlates to the application being in a second mode. The image data which is reflective of a physical environment being captured at various time periods such as during the particular time period and stored in a storage correlates to storing updates of physical environment information that occur while the application is in the second mode. The image data being captured at time stamps which can be greater than a threshold amount of time more than the particular time period would involve the image data not being captured and saved continuously. Therefore, the image data being stored at non-continuous time stamps correlates to storing a subset of the updates to the physical environment information that occur while the application is in the second mode).
Kahan does not explicitly teach that the application is a second application, that the subset is a second subset and the application and a second application at the electronic device are in the second mode. However, second applications are a popular type of configuration supported by electronic devices as evidenced by Furtwangler (Paragraph 5). When combining Kahan’s teachings with Furtwangler’s second application, it would be logical to conclude that a second application would therefore be associated with a second subset. Additionally, the application and a second application at the electronic device [being] in the second mode is popular type of configuration supported by electronic devices as evidenced by Furtwangler (Paragraph 5, “Many users may perform some degree of multitasking and have several applications open and running at any given time… As a result, if a user switches between applications, the previous application may still be receiving sensor data… Conversely, in particular embodiments, the virtual reality system may prevent a third-party application from receiving sensor data if the user is not currently interfacing the application (e.g., an application running in the background).” The user having several applications open and running at any given time, where a user can be interfacing with one particular application and not be interfacing with multiple other background applications, correlates to the application and a second application at the electronic device being in the second mode).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kahan with the application and a second application at the electronic device are in the second mode as taught by Furtwangler because sending sensor data to only authorized applications, such as applications where the user is currently interfacing with, ensures that the security of the user is not compromised. This can be a common issue as many users have several applications open and running at any given time. For example, applications that were previously interfaced such as a background application may still be receiving sensor data, which can expose confidential information that the user is inputting into a current application. This data can include characters that a user is inputting into a keyboard in a VR environment (Furtwangler: paragraph 5).
Claim(s) 11-12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kahan in view of Parejo et al. (U.S. Patent No. US 20230214240 A1), hereinafter “Parejo.”
With regards to Claim 11, Kahan teaches the method of Claim 1 above. Kahan further teaches:
wherein storing the subset of the updates to the physical environment information comprises:
storing a set of the updates to the physical environment information that occur while the application is in the second mode (Paragraphs 396-397, “In some embodiments, the composite perspective of the physical environment is based on image data captured prior to the particular time period. As discussed above, the particular time period refers to a period of time during which the wearer is looking at the first extended reality object. For example, the composite perspective of the physical environment may be based on image data that was captured when the wearer activated the wearable extended reality appliance. As another example, the image data may have been captured at an earlier point in time (i.e., prior to the particular time period) and stored in a storage, such as a memory or other storage in the wearable extended reality appliance, a memory or other storage in a device (e.g., input unit 202) associated with the wearable extended reality appliance, or a remote storage (e.g., a cloud-based storage).” The particular time period where a user is looking at a first extended reality object can occur while a user is in an extended reality only view and therefore correlates to the application being in a second mode. The image data which is reflective of a physical environment being captured at various time periods such as during the particular time period and stored in a storage correlates to storing updates of physical environment information that occur while the application is in the second mode. The image data being stored using time stamps correlates to storing a set of the updates to the physical environment information that occur while the application is in the second mode);
Kahan does not explicitly teach:
and compacting, while the application is in the second mode, the stored set of the updates to the physical environment information that occur while the application is in the second mode to form the subset.
However, Parejo teaches:
and compacting, while the application is in the second mode, the stored set of the updates to form the subset (Paragraphs 95-96, “The process starts with step 601, when the agent detects a condition that indicates a required compaction of stored session recording data. Such conditions may include that the time period covered by currently stored session recording data exceeds a certain limit or that the amount of memory required on the device to store session recording exceeds a certain limit. Following step 602 may then identify the set of oldest event records of event records that need to be removed to fulfill a compaction goal. Step 602 may e.g., start by selecting the eldest event record stored in a session record and then incrementally select the next oldest event records until the remaining, not selected event records fulfill a specific compaction goal, like a maximum covered session time period or a maximum storage space for session recording data. Some variants may continue selecting event records for removal until the remaining session recording data is below the compaction goal minus specific buffer. As an example, the maximum covered session time may be 1 minute, and step 602 may select event records for deletion until the remaining session data only covers a time of 50 seconds.” The agent detecting a condition requiring compaction of stored session recording data correlates to the application being in a second mode. The oldest event records stored in a session record being removed to fulfill a compaction goal correlates to and compacting, while the application is in the second mode, the stored set of the updates to form the subset).
Parejo does not explicitly teach that the stored set of the updates [are for] the physical environment information that occur while the application is in the second mode. However, physical environment information that occur while the application is in the second mode is a popular type of stored set of updates as evidenced by Kahan above (Paragraphs 396-397).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kahan with and compacting, while the application is in the second mode, the stored set of the updates to form the subset as taught by Parejo because required compaction can be used for conditions such as the time period covered by currently stored session recording data exceeding a certain limit or that the amount of memory required on the device to store session recording exceeds a certain limit. This helps to control the memory size of recorded session data (Parejo: paragraph 95).
With regards to Claim 18, the method of Claim 11 performs the same steps as the machine of Claim 18, and Claim 18 is therefore rejected using the same rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 11.
With regards to Claim 12, Kahan in view of Parejo teaches the method of Claim 11 above. Parejo further teaches:
wherein compacting the stored set of updates comprises at least one of: removing one of the updates from the stored set of updates (Paragraphs 96 and 98, “Following step 602 may then identify the set of oldest event records of event records that need to be removed to fulfill a compaction goal. Step 602 may e.g., start by selecting the eldest event record stored in a session record and then incrementally select the next oldest event records until the remaining, not selected event records fulfill a specific compaction goal, like a maximum covered session time period or a maximum storage space for session recording data… Following step 604 may then remove the event records that were selected for removal by step 602 and subsequent step 605 may then identify and remove screenshot records 122 that are now no longer referred by any event record 121.” The oldest event records being removed from storage correlates to removing one of the updates from the stored set of updates) or combining two or more of the updates in the set of updates.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kahan with wherein compacting the stored set of updates comprises at least one of: removing one of the updates from the stored set of updates or combining two or more of the updates in the set of updates as taught by Parejo because required compaction can be used for conditions such as the time period covered by currently stored session recording data exceeding a certain limit or that the amount of memory required on the device to store session recording exceeds a certain limit. This helps to control the memory size of recorded session data (Parejo: paragraph 95).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kahan in view of Parejo and Sharma et al. (U.S. Patent No. US 20240386984 A1), hereinafter “Sharma.”
With regards to Claim 13, Kahan in view of Parejo teaches the method of Claim 12 above. Parejo further teaches:
wherein compacting the stored set of the updates to the physical environment information comprises:
periodically compacting a first portion of the set of updates (Paragraph 96, “Following step 602 may then identify the set of oldest event records of event records that need to be removed to fulfill a compaction goal. Step 602 may e.g., start by selecting the eldest event record stored in a session record and then incrementally select the next oldest event records until the remaining, not selected event records fulfill a specific compaction goal, like a maximum covered session time period or a maximum storage space for session recording data. Some variants may continue selecting event records for removal until the remaining session recording data is below the compaction goal minus specific buffer. As an example, the maximum covered session time may be 1 minute, and step 602 may select event records for deletion until the remaining session data only covers a time of 50 seconds.” Incrementally selecting the next oldest event records until the remaining records fulfill a specific compaction goal, such as a maximum covered session time or storage space for the recorded data, would involve selecting the next oldest event records at more than one time period in a scenario where new event records are stored, and therefore correlates to periodically compacting a first portion of the set of updates);
Kahan in view of Parejo does not explicitly teach:
and compacting a second portion of the set of updates during an inactive state of the electronic device.
However, Sharma teaches:
and compacting a second portion of the set of updates during an inactive state of the electronic device (Paragraphs 23 and 132, “The memory compaction process may be performed during a garbage collection (GC) process or during an idle time of a computing device and/or data storage device. During the memory compaction process, used and unavailable memory areas located between available and free memory areas, are moved to create contiguous available and free memory areas. To generate the contiguous memory area, data written in multiple pages of a memory block (referred to herein as a source memory block) is read and subsequently written to another memory block (referred to herein as a destination memory block) … In an example, the intermediate memory block is a set of memory blocks including a primary memory block and a secondary memory block. In an example, the reserved memory location in the intermediate memory block is selected from a first subset of memory locations in the primary memory block and a second subset of memory locations in the secondary memory block… In an example, the corrected data is written to the reserved memory location in the intermediate memory block during a first reading phase and wherein the corrected data from the reserved memory location and the data associated with the second page is written to the destination memory block during a second reading phase.” The memory compaction process being performed during an idle time of a computing device correlates to compacting the set of updates during an inactive state of the electronic device. The compaction process moving data from an intermediate memory block, which is selected from a subset of memory locations, to a destination memory block correlate to compacting a second portion of the set of updates).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kahan with wherein compacting the stored set of the updates to the physical environment information comprises: periodically compacting a first portion of the set of updates as taught by Parejo because required compaction can be used for conditions such as the time period covered by currently stored session recording data exceeding a certain limit or that the amount of memory required on the device to store session recording exceeds a certain limit. This helps to control the memory size of recorded session data (Parejo: paragraph 95).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kahan with and compacting a second portion of the set of updates during an inactive state of the electronic device as taught by Sharma because performing a memory compaction process can be executed in any number of different phases. These phases can be based, at least in part, on timeout conditions associated with a data storage device, garbage collection operations, an amount of idle time of the data storage device or host device (Sharma: paragraph 97).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kahan in view of Parejo and Bloomfield et al. (U.S. Patent No. US 20030063119 A1), hereinafter “Bloomfield.”
With regards to Claim 21, Kahan in view of Parejo teaches the method of Claim 11 above. Kahan in view of Parejo does not explicitly teach:
wherein compacting the stored set of the updates to the physical environment information comprises at least one of: removing, from the stored set, a first update that is superseded by a second update in the stored set; or removing, from the stored set, a first update and a second update that cancel each other.
However, Bloomfield teaches:
wherein compacting the stored set of the updates comprises at least one of: removing, from the stored set, a first update that is superseded by a second update in the stored set (Paragraph 51, “In this manner, the invention minimizes the size of each discrete data element that must be transmitted and increases the repeatability of the data within the protocol stream so that compression algorithms that operate more efficiently on repetitive encoded data can realize a greater degree of compression efficiency. The invention uses a number of techniques to realize this enhanced compression, including the following: scanning a command queue for later-issued commands which supercede earlier-issued commands…” The command queue which stores commands correlates to a stored set of the updates. Scanning the command queue for later-issued commands which supercede earlier-issued commands to minimize the size of each discrete data element that must be transmitted would involve the removal of the earlier-issued command from the command queue and therefore correlates to wherein compacting the stored set of the updates comprises at least one of: removing, from the stored set, a first update that is superseded by a second update in the stored set); or removing, from the stored set, a first update and a second update that cancel each other.
Bloomfield does not explicitly teach that the stored set of the updates [are for] the physical environment information. However, physical environment information is a popular type of stored set of updates as evidenced by Kahan above (Paragraphs 396-397).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kahan with wherein compacting the stored set of the updates comprises at least one of: removing, from the stored set, a first update that is superseded by a second update in the stored set as taught by Bloomfield because enhanced compression techniques minimizes the size of each discrete data element that must be transmitted and increases the repeatability of the data within the protocol stream so that compression algorithms that operate more efficiently on repetitive encoded data can realize a greater degree of compression efficiency (Bloomfield: paragraph 51).
Prior Art Made of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Green et al. (U.S. Patent No. US 20170357413 A1); teaching a method of viewing applications in a preview mode and monitoring the state of applications switching from states such as s suspended state to an inactive state. Updates are displayed while the application is in the inactive state, and information can be received by the application about its need to update information on various modes such as live, semi-static, and static. Environmental sensors can provide information related to external conditions around a wearable device, which can send sensor information to a processing subsystem.
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 SELINA HU whose telephone number is (571)272-5428. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:30.
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, Chat Do can be reached at (571) 272-3721. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
The publicPAIR and privatePAIR systems are no longer available. 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.
SELINA HU
Examiner
Art Unit 2193
/Chat C Do/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2193
Prosecution Insights