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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 2/25/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-3, 8-13, and 18-20 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5-6, 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Dependent claim 5 recites "emphasizing an AR field in response to an input question." Parent claim 1 introduces the term "an augmented reality field" and uses that exact term throughout. Claim 5 uses the indefinite article "an" with a differently-named term ("AR field" rather than "augmented reality field"), creating ambiguity as to whether "an AR field" refers back to the previously-introduced augmented reality field of claim 1 or introduces a new, distinct field. Per 37 CFR 1.71(a) and MPEP § 2173.05(e), the same element should be referred to by a consistent name with proper antecedent reference. For purposes of examination, said limitations are interpreted as “emphasizing the augmented reality field in response to an input question.”
Dependent claim 6 recites: "further comprising displaying an inlaid image of a particular text box a zoomed in portion of the physical document in response to receiving a user selection of the interactive interface element with the overlay containing the particular text box." Between "a particular text box" and "a zoomed in portion of the physical document" there appears to be a missing conjunction or modifier. As written, it cannot be determined whether the inlaid image displays (a) the particular text box, (b) a zoomed-in portion of the physical document as an alternative, or (c) the particular text box presented as a zoomed-in portion. The metes and bounds of the limitation are unascertainable. For purposes of examination, said limitations are interpreted as “further comprising displaying an inlaid image of a particular text box as a zoomed in portion of the physical document in response to receiving a user selection of the interactive interface element with the overlay containing the particular text box."
Independent claim 11 recites "A system comprising: one or more processors; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to: receive, by an image sensor of an electronic device, an image of a physical document…" It cannot be determined whether "the system" includes the recited image sensor as a structural component, i.e., whether "the system" is coextensive with "the electronic device", or whether "the system" is structurally distinct from "the electronic device" (such that the system merely receives image data from an external image sensor). The metes and bounds of the claim are thus unascertainable. For purposes of examination, said limitations are interpreted as “A system comprising: an electronic device including an image sensor; one or more processors; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to: receive, by the image sensor, an image of a physical document…”
Dependent claims 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for at least being dependent on and not curing the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) deficiencies of base claim 11.
In addition, dependent claim 15 contains the same defect as claim 5 in system form: "cause the system to emphasize an AR field in response to an input question." Same reasoning and interpretation as claim 5.
In addition, dependent claim 16 contains the same defect as claim 6 in system form: "cause the system to display an inlaid image of a particular text box a zoomed in portion of the physical document in response to receiving a user selection of the interactive interface element with the overlay containing the particular text box." Same reasoning and interpretations as claim 6.
Independent claim 20 recites a "non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: receive, by an image sensor of an electronic device, an image of a physical document…" As with claim 11, it cannot be determined whether the recited "one or more processors" and the "image sensor of an electronic device" are part of the same device or are physically and functionally distinct. The metes and bounds of the claim are unascertainable. For purposes of examination, said limitations are interpreted as “non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of an electronic device, cause the one or more processors to: receive, by an image sensor of the electronic device, an image of a physical document…”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 7-8, 11-12, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Bala et al. (hereinafter Bala), US 2014/0118560 A1, in view of Eschbach et al. (hereinafter Eschbach), US 2015/0200922 A1.
Regarding independent Claim 1, Bala teaches a method of displaying augmented reality views on electronic devices (FIGS. 3–5 and [0034] "a virtual visual marker 502 may be overlaid on an image 500 of printed document 300 and displayed on display 104 of mobile device 100"; describes mobile-device augmented-reality overlays on captured images of printed documents), comprising:
receiving, by an image sensor of an electronic device, an image of a physical document comprising text ([0001], [0029], FIG. 3, the imaging device 204 (an image sensor) of mobile device 100 (an electronic device) captures an image (an image) of a printed document 300 (a physical document), the printed document containing text per the text-block content of [0033]); detecting a document template corresponding to the physical document that defines a location and a type of information on the physical document ([0033], the software module compares the arrangement of text blocks, whitespaces, and images detected in the printed document 300 (the physical document) against reference images stored in memory and identifies the matching reference image (a document template); the reference image (the document template) encodes, for each text block / whitespace / image (a type) of the specific form, the position (a location) of that element within the form); determining an augmented reality template associated with the document template ([0033]–[0034], a computed geometry (an augmented reality template) is derived from the matched reference image (the document template) of the printed document 300 and is used to position the AR overlay on the captured image), and wherein the augmented reality template defines a position of an augmented reality field relative to a corresponding position of a feature included in the document template associated with the physical document ([0034], the computed geometry (the augmented reality template) defines the placement on display 104 (a position) of the virtual visual marker 502 (an augmented reality field), the placement being anchored to a form feature, e.g., a corner angle, side length, or text-block (a feature included in the document template) of the printed document 300 (the physical document), at its position within the reference image (a corresponding position of the feature)); defining, based on the augmented reality template, a view having an overlay including the augmented reality field aligned with the location of the information on the physical document and an interactive interface element ([0034] "a virtual visual marker 502 may be overlaid on an image 500 of printed document 300 and displayed on display 104 of mobile device 100 along with the image 500 in accordance with the computed geometry", [0035] "the image 500 of the virtual marker 502 moves along with the printed document 300 to convey the appearance that the virtual marker is physically connected to the printed document", [0040] “the visual marker 502 may be of any suitable shape and size that is capable of matching the shape and size of the printed document 300 being imaged”); and in response to an interaction with the interactive interface element, changing a display for the augmented reality field in the view according to the type of the information ([0044] "the visual markers 502, 510 may disappear when aligned. Alternatively, a visual, audio, haptic, or other similar signal may be given to the user when the mobile device 100 and the printed document 300 are aligned").
Bala does not expressly teach wherein the augmented reality template includes an interactivity rule, an overlay including an interactive interface element; and in response to an interaction with the interactive interface element, changing a display for the augmented reality field in the view according to the type of the information and the interactivity rule.
However, Eschbach teaches an augmented reality template includes an interactivity rule ([0030], [0032], an AR-overlay template (the augmented reality template) is included with the electronic document file, the template defining an authorization-and-type-based rule (an interactivity rule) that governs which AR-overlay content is displayed when the AR marker is activated), an overlay including an interactive interface element ([0030], [0031], the AR overlays are location-dependent so that an activated AR overlay 40 appears in the vicinity of an AR marker 34 (an interactive interface element) that the user can select through a user input function such as touching it on a touch screen, clicking or hovering with a mouse or other pointer, or activating it with a voice command); and in response to an interaction with the interactive interface element, changing a display for an augmented reality field in a view according to a type of information and the interactivity rule ([0030], when a user selects AR marker 34 (the interactive interface element) through a user input function, the system applies the authorization-and-type-based rule (the interactivity rule), determining the user's authorization level, identifying which sensitive information corresponding to AR marker 34 the user is authorized to view, and displaying the identified sensitive information in AR overlay 40, thereby changing the display of the virtual visual marker 502 (augmented reality field) in the view (a view) according to the type of the information and the interactivity rule).
Because Bala and Eschbach are analogous art and within the same field of endeavor, specifically augmented-reality overlay systems that present supplemental visual content aligned to features detected in a captured image of a physical document, they address the same problem solving area of improving a user's interaction with a paper document by overlaying contextual information at the proper location on the displayed document image, accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Eschbach's bundled AR-overlay template, type-aware interactivity rule, and user-selectable AR marker 34 with Bala's form-template-detection-and-overlay engine, with a reasonable expectation of success, such that the user of Bala's AR-document-capture system can interactively select an AR marker 34 overlaid on a form feature and have the system change the display of the virtual visual marker 502 according to the type of information and the Eschbach authorization-based rule to teach wherein the augmented reality template includes an interactivity rule; defining, based on the augmented reality template, a view having an overlay including the augmented reality field aligned with the location of the information on the physical document and an interactive interface element; and in response to an interaction with the interactive interface element, changing a display for the augmented reality field in the view according to the type of the information and the interactivity rule. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to provide the user with the ability to drill down into selected fields of the captured physical document in a context-appropriate manner (Eschbach: [0030], [0031], [0032]).
Regarding dependent Claim 2, Bala, in view of Eschbach, teach the method of Claim 1, wherein the document template enables data gathering from a physical document (see Bala [0050], post-processing 616 of the captured image of the printed document 300 (a physical document) performs OCR and form-identification, the reference image (the document template) enabling extraction of text-block-level data from the captured image), and changing a display for the information of the augmented reality field comprises a result of a live application function using data gathered from the physical document by the document template (see Eschbach [0030], the authorization-based content-selection routine (a live application function) uses gathered form data to determine which sensitive information to display in AR overlay 40 (the augmented reality field), the displayed sensitive information being the result (a result) of the live application function).
Regarding dependent Claim 7, Bala, in view of Eschbach, teach the method of Claim 1, wherein the electronic device is one of a smartphone, a tablet computer, or a pair of electronic glasses (see Bala [0017], mobile device 100 (the electronic device) may be a Smartphone (a smartphone) or a tablet device (a tablet computer), Bala's enumeration of suitable portable electronic devices expressly including both alternatives, only one alternative of the recited group needing to be taught to satisfy the limitation).
Regarding dependent claim 8, Bala, in view of Eschbach, teach the method of claim 1, further comprising determining a document type associated with the physical document by performing image recognition on the image of the physical document to identify the document template based on a location of one or more features of the physical document (see Bala [0033], image recognition on the captured printed document 300 (the physical document) locates the unique arrangement of text blocks, whitespaces, and images and compares it against reference images stored in memory to identify the specific form (a document type), the comparison being based on the position (a location) of one or more corner angles, side lengths, or text-block-arrangement features (features of the physical document) of the form, thereby identifying the matching reference image (the document template)).
Regarding claims 11-12 and 17-18, these are system claims that are substantially the same as method of claims 1-2 and 7-8, respectively. Thus, claims 11-12 and 17-18 are rejected for the same reasons as claims 1-2 and 7-8. In addition, Bala teaches a system comprising: an electronic device including an image sensor; one or more processors; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to ([0017], [0053], mobile device 100 (an electronic device) is a portable computing device that includes imaging device 204 (an image sensor), a processor (one or more processors), and tangible computer-readable memory (a memory) storing program instructions, software, or interactive modules (instructions) executable by the processor to cause the system to perform functional steps)
Regarding independent claim 20, it is a non-transitory computer-readable medium claim that is substantially the same as the method of claim 1. Thus, claim 20 is rejected for the same reason as claim 1. In addition, Bala teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of an electronic device, cause the one or more processors to ([0017], [0053], program instructions, software, or interactive modules (instructions) are stored in tangible computer-readable memory (a non-transitory computer-readable medium), including a compact disk, a digital disk, flash memory, a memory card, a USB drive, an optical disc storage medium, or other recording medium, of mobile device 100 (an electronic device), executable by the device's processor (one or more processors of the electronic device)).
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Bala, in view of Eschbach, and further in view of Miller, US 6,202,052.
Regarding dependent claim 3, Bala, in view of Eschbach, teach all the elements of claim 2.
Bala and Eschbach do not expressly teach wherein the data gathered by the document template is tax form data and the result comprises an estimated tax refund.
However, Miller teaches wherein the data gathered by the document template is tax form data and the result comprises an estimated tax refund ( col. 6-7 Step 12, Step 13, Step 16, Step 18, the electronic intermediary electronically collects, from a taxpayer's data providers, a payroll statement / bank statement / savings-and-loan statement / mortgage statement / credit-card-bureau statement / thrift-institution statement / brokerage-account statement / mutual-fund statement / charity statement (tax form data), the tax form data being collected when the captured form is a tax form; processes the tax data by performing the appropriate tax computations to determine gross income, deductions, net taxable income, and tax liability; and determines whether the taxpayer will receive a refund (the result), the refund being an estimated tax refund (an estimated tax refund) computed by the electronic intermediary at Step 16).
Because Bala, in view of Eschbach, and Miller are analogous art and within the same field of endeavor, specifically automated capture and processing of user-specific financial-document data so that the application can present a computed result back to the user, they address the same problem solving area of efficient and accurate computation of a financial result from gathered form data, accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Miller's electronic intake of tax-data documents and automated tax-liability/refund computation with Bala and Eschbach's AR-overlay-on-captured-document pipeline, with a reasonable expectation of success, such that the live application function of claim 2 computes and displays an estimated tax refund using the tax form data gathered when the captured form is a tax form to teach wherein the data gathered by the document template is tax form data and the result comprises an estimated tax refund. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to eliminate many of the inconveniences associated with filing income tax returns or receipt of tax refunds (Miller: col. 3).
Regarding dependent claim 13, this is a system claim that are substantially the same as method of claim 3. Thus, claim 13 is rejected for the same reason as claim 3.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Bala, in view of Eschbach, and further in view of Broga et al. (hereinafter Broga), US 2016/0061586 A1.
Regarding dependent claim 4, Bala, in view of Eschbach, teach all the elements of claim 2.
Bala and Eschbach do not expressly teach wherein the result comprises an estimate based on a measured area using a camera of the electronic device.
However, Broga teaches wherein the result comprises an estimate based on a measured area using a camera of the electronic device ([0008], [0024]-[0025], the camera of the device (a camera of the electronic device) takes an image, a sensor determines the distance between the camera and at least one object recorded in the image, measurement application 139 receives a user request for a desired area measurement of an element in the image via a draggable rectangular outline that the user manipulates to enclose the region to be measured, the application calculates the desired area measurement (a measured area), and provides the answer to the user on the display, the answer being the result (the result), the result being an estimate (an estimate) based on the measured area).
Because Bala, in view of-Eschbach, and Broga are analogous art and within the same field of endeavor, specifically mobile-device camera-based capture of physical objects with on-screen overlays providing computed feedback to the user, they address the same problem solving area of generating application-level results derived from imagery captured by the device's camera, accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Broga's on-device area-measurement of a region designated through a draggable overlay outline with Bala and Eschbach's AR-overlay-on-captured-document pipeline, with a reasonable expectation of success, such that the live application function of claim 2 computes and displays an estimate derived from a measured area of an element in the captured image to teach wherein the result comprises an estimate based on a measured area using a camera of the electronic device. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to incorporate the ability to make accurate measurements into a mobile communication device (Broga: [0006]).
Regarding dependent claim 14, this is a system claim that are substantially the same as method of claim 4. Thus, claim 14 is rejected for the same reason as claim 4.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Bala, in view of Eschbach, and further in view of Launonen, US 2018/0276896 A1.
Regarding dependent claim 5, Bala, in view of Eschbach, teach all the elements of claim 1.
Bala and Eschbach do not teach further comprising emphasizing an AR (interpreted as emphasizing the augmented reality per the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection set forth above) field in response to an input question.
However, Launonen teaches further comprising emphasizing the augmented reality field in response to an input question ([0010], [0070]-[0071], [0092], on a recognized printed page captured by a mobile augmented-reality device, the AR system applies virtual highlighting, virtual underlining, priority colors, or blinking effects to a matching page feature (the augmented reality field), in response to a user-supplied search query (an input question) entered by handwriting with stylus, finger gesture, or speaking, used to browse and filter the system's content).
Because Bala, in view of Eschbach, and Launonen are analogous art and within the same field of endeavor, specifically AR overlays presented on a mobile device for a recognized physical document or page, they address the same problem solving area of selectively presenting context-appropriate information at the proper location on the displayed document image, accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Launonen's emphatic markup of a selected AR field in response to a user-supplied query with Bala and Eschbach's form-capture-and-interactive-overlay engine, with a reasonable expectation of success, such that the user can pose an input question and the corresponding virtual visual marker on the recognized form is visually emphasized via highlighting, underlining, color, or blinking to teach further comprising emphasizing the augmented reality field in response to an input question. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to allow the virtual highlighting and underlining of rare and/or valuable books without risking damage to the books (Launonen: [0010]).
Regarding dependent claim 15, this is a system claim that are substantially the same as method of claim 5. Thus, claim 15 is rejected for the same reason as claim 5.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Bala, in view of Eschbach, and further in view of Park et al. (hereinafter Park), US 2014/0218611 A1.
Regarding dependent claim 6, Bala, in view of Eschbach, teach all the elements of claim 1.
Bala and Eschbach do not expressly teach further comprising displaying an inlaid image of a particular text box a zoomed in portion (interpreted as as a zoomed in portion per the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection set forth above) of the physical document in response to receiving a user selection of the interactive interface element with the overlay containing the particular text box.
However, Park teaches further comprising displaying an inlaid image of a particular text box as a zoomed in portion of the physical document in response to receiving a user selection of the interactive interface element with the overlay containing the particular text box ([0014], [0024]-[0025], [0028], [0032], [0038], when a user selects (a user selection) a target region in a displayed image of the document, the target region being a particular text box (a particular text box) of the document, an image of the user-designated target region (an inlaid image) is displayed in a window, the window's size being adjustable by the user, the inlaid image presenting a zoomed view of the selected text box (a zoomed in portion of the physical document), and position comparator 140 positions the window adjacent to and non-overlapping with the target region).
Because Bala, in view of Eschbach, and Park are analogous art and within the same field of endeavor, specifically interactive visual presentation of selected regions of a displayed image on an electronic device, they address the same problem solving area of presenting selected portions of a captured / displayed image to the user in an inlaid window that does not obscure the underlying image, accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Park's user-selected-region inlaid magnification window with Bala and Eschbach's AR overlay such that selecting an AR marker 34 associated with a particular text box of the captured printed document 300 displays an inlaid zoomed image of that text box adjacent to the selected region, with a reasonable expectation of success, such that the user can inspect any selected text box at greater detail without losing sight of the underlying document to teach further comprising displaying an inlaid image of a particular text box as a zoomed in portion of the physical document in response to receiving a user selection of the interactive interface element with the overlay containing the particular text box. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to provide an apparatus and a method wherein an image source is more conveniently displayed in a window set by a user in a large-sized reproduction device (Park: [0011]).
Regarding dependent claim 16, this is a system claim that are substantially the same as method of claim 6. Thus, claim 16 is rejected for the same reason as claim 6.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Bala, in view of Eschbach, and further in view of Filimonova, US 2016/0307067 A1.
Regarding dependent claim 9, Bala, in view of Eschbach, teach all the elements of claim 8.
Bala and Eschbach do not expressly teach wherein determining the document type comprises providing the image of the physical document to a machine learning model and receiving the document type from the machine learning model.
However, Filimonova teaches wherein determining the document type comprises providing the image of the physical document to a machine learning model and receiving the document type from the machine learning model ([0004]- [0005], [0007], [0153], a machine learning algorithm (a machine learning model), specifically the first MLA classifier 202, is trained using a labelled training data set to determine the document type of a digital document; the trained MLA classifier 202 is executed using scaled-down images of digital documents, such that the captured image of the printed document (the image of the physical document) is provided to MLA classifier 202 (the machine learning model), which identifies the unknown document's features and uses its trained MLA formula to output the document type (the document type)).
Because Bala, in view of Eschbach, and Filimonova are analogous art and within the same field of endeavor, specifically automated identification of document type from a captured digital image of a document, they address the same problem solving area of accurately classifying a captured document image to enable subsequent type-appropriate handling of the document content, accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Filimonova's MLA classifier 202 with Bala and Eschbach's hand-curated reference-image library matching, with a reasonable expectation of success, such that the document-type identification of claim 8 scales to many more document classes and to documents whose reference images have not been pre-curated to teach wherein determining the document type comprises providing the image of the physical document to a machine learning model and receiving the document type from the machine learning model. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to obtain accurate, generalizable document-type identification across many document classes (Filimonova: [0004]–[0007], [0153]).
Regarding dependent claim 19, this is a system claim that are substantially the same as method of claim 9. Thus, claim 19 is rejected for the same reason as claim 9.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Bala, in view of Eschbach, and further in view of Aronsson et al. (hereinafter Aronsson), US 2012/0019557 A1.
Regarding dependent claim 10, Bala, in view of Eschbach, teach all the elements of claim 1.
Bala and Eschbach do not expressly teach wherein the interactivity rule comprises changing the display for the type of information of the augmented reality field based on a distance between the physical document and the electronic device satisfying a threshold distance between the physical document and the electronic device.
However, Aronsson teaches wherein the interactivity rule comprises changing the display for the type of information of the augmented reality field based on a distance between the physical document and the electronic device satisfying a threshold distance between the physical document and the electronic device ([0073]-[0074], [0076], image renderer 412 of the AR display device 202 (the electronic device) identifies an object the viewer is looking at and obtains the distance (a distance) from AR display device 202 to the object (the physical document) using an acoustic sensor, a laser distance meter, an infrared time-of-flight range camera, or a gaze-angle estimate; image renderer 412 then generates AR information (the augmented reality field) at a virtual distance equal to the determined object-to-device distance when that distance is determinable (a distance satisfying a threshold distance), or, when the distance cannot be determined or falls outside the renderer's operating range, at a default presentation distance, such that the renderer changes the display of the AR information based on whether the distance condition is satisfied).
Because Bala, in view of Eschbach, and Aronsson are analogous art and within the same field of endeavor, specifically augmented-reality presentation by an electronic device of supplemental content aligned with a physical object or document viewed through the device, they address the same problem solving area of properly aligning the AR overlay with the physical target so that the user can comfortably and accurately consume the AR information, accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Aronsson's distance-aware AR rendering rule with Bala and Eschbach's form-template-detection-and-overlay engine, with a reasonable expectation of success, such that the virtual visual marker is presented at the correct virtual distance and content level for the current device-to-document spacing to teach wherein the interactivity rule comprises changing the display for the type of information of the augmented reality field based on a distance between the physical document and the electronic device satisfying a threshold distance between the physical document and the electronic device. This modification would have been motivated by the desire to address the problems with AR information projected at different relative distances for users interacting with each other (Aronsson: [0043]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s filing of an approved terminal disclaimer is acknowledged and consequently the double patenting rejection set forth in the Office Action dated 12/4/2025 is withdrawn.
Applicant’s claim amendments and Remarks filed 2/25/2026 with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but are moot in view of a new ground of rejection made under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bala in view of Eschbach as set forth above.
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 KUANG FU CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1393. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30pm ET.
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, Jennifer Welch can be reached on (571) 272-7212. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KC CHEN/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2143
Prosecution Insights