Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 11-13, 15-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Levi (US 20210350235 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Levi teaches A method for augmented reality landscape planning, comprising the steps of: installing an augmented reality landscape planning non-transitory storage media on a client device ( Para.42 and claim 1: describes a system server 102 connected to network 101 also connected to client device. Mentions wide area network and multiple device connections. The server receives input from telemetry device, admin, client and the server outputs Ar displays, predictions, and scores to client device. Claim1 : describes the system using a processor and memory being stored on the client devices. ); capturing an image of a specific area (Para.102: step 876 describes client device 110 gets the next image from the live video stream from the camera); and having the augmented reality landscape planning non-transitory storage media gain a perspective on how their desired landscape choices will appear over time in different seasonal changes (Fig.12a shows a select age feature that inherently deals with time and allows the user to visualize the changes to the plant over time.); further comprising a plurality of augmented reality algorithms residing on an augmented reality landscape planning non-transitory storage media that superimpose a plurality of prospective landscape designs on the image of the specific area in order to visualize potential landscaping options in the specific area (Fig12a -12b and para 129-130: describes a AR landscape tool that is used to visualize the plant in a specific are the user selects).
Regarding Claim 12, Levi teaches the method for augmented reality landscape planning, according to Claim 11, wherein the capturing the image of the specific area is by a camera disposed within the client device (Para 101: describes at step 874 the client device activates the onboard camera. Para.876: step 876 describes client device 110 gets the next image from the live video stream from the camera).
Regarding Claim 13, Levi teaches the method for augmented reality landscape planning, according to Claim 11, wherein the capturing the image of the specific area is from a satellite imagery from a Global Positioning System to provide an overhead view of the specific area (Para. 65: described the yard setup address uses an entered address or GPS to get an aerial view of the yard that is downloaded and stored. The aerial view that is downloaded can be considered as an image that is of the yard which is a specific area.).
Regarding claim 15, Levi teaches the method for augmented reality landscape planning, according to Claim 11, wherein the augmented reality algorithms will further allow for the user to gain a perspective on how their desired landscape choices will appear over time in different seasonal changes (Fig.12a shows a select age feature that inherently deals with time and allows the user to visualize the changes to the plant over time.).
Regarding claim 16, Levi teaches A non-transitory computer storage media having instructions stored thereon which, when executed, execute a method comprising the steps of: installing an augmented reality landscape planning non-transitory storage media on a client device ( Para.42 and claim 1: describes a system server 102 connected to network 101 also connected to client device. Mentions wide area network and multiple device connections. The server receives input from telemetry device, admin, client and the server outputs Ar displays, predictions, and scores to client device. Claim1 : describes the system using a processor and memory being stored on the client devices. ); capturing an image of a specific area (Para.102: step 876 describes client device 110 gets the next image from the live video stream from the camera); and having the augmented reality landscape planning non-transitory storage media gain a perspective on how their desired landscape choices will appear over time in different seasonal changes (Fig.12a shows a select age feature that inherently deals with time and allows the user to visualize the changes to the plant over time.); further comprising a plurality of augmented reality algorithms residing on an augmented reality landscape planning non-transitory storage media that superimpose a plurality of prospective landscape designs on the image of the specific area in order to visualize potential landscaping options in the specific area (Fig12a -12b and para 129-130: describes a AR landscape tool that is used to visualize the plant in a specific are the user selects).
Regarding claim 17, it falls under the same rejection as claim 12 because it is similar in scope and dependent upon the same references.
Regarding claim 18, it falls under the same rejection as claim 13 because it is similar in scope and dependent upon the same references.
Regarding claim 20, it falls under the same rejection as claim 15 because it is similar in scope and dependent upon the same references.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention
was made.
Claim(s) 1-5, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levi (US- US 20210350235 -A1) in view of Kim (US-20140214664-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Levi teaches a system for augmented reality landscape planning, comprising (abstract and fig.12b: describes a system that enables ar based plant placement and viability analysis in a user’s yard. The system uses AR to visualize plants in real-world environments for landscape planning): a server system with a processor system, a communications interface, a communications system, an input system and an output system, the server system having access to a communications network ; a memory system with an operating system, a communications module, a web browser module, a web server application and an augmented reality landscape planning non-transitory storage media ( Para.42 and claim 1: describes a system server 102 connected to network 101 also connected to client device. Mentions wide area network and multiple device connections. The server receives input from telemetry device, admin, client and the server outputs Ar displays, predictions, and scores to client device. Claim1 : describes the system using a processor and memory being stored on the client devices. ); and a client device having a plurality of screenshots residing on the augmented reality landscape planning non-transitory storage media (Fig.12a-b: describes images of settings, plant selection menus, zone map, care tasks , and zone layout screen. 12b shows an AR view with a rendered tree overlayed on a digital zone in the client interface. The client device contains multiple interactive UI screens. These interfaces are all part of the application stored on the client. Screenshots in this can be interpreted as visual stored visual UI states. Lev, Para 42: describes a system server 102 that is connected to database memory 103. This can be seen as a non-transitory medium. Para.64: Discloses : “once activated, the app is downloaded from the server… all data is stored in the database”. The yard and ar planning data is stored in the database when activated. Para.65: discloses” An aerial view of the yard is then downloaded by the system and stored in the record, as will be further described. Additional user pictures of the yard are added from the user device.” These are equivalent to screenshots. These are considered permanent storage and not runtime only data.).
Levi fails to teach wherein the screenshots include a home page screenshot, a create an account page screenshot, a new subscriptions screenshot, a log-in screenshot, a settings screenshot, a plant and location data screenshot, an augmented reality screenshot, a designer screenshot, a cellphone camera photo screenshot, a GPS photo screenshot, and a map photo screenshot displayed on the client device and fails to explicitly mention a non-transitory storage media.
Kim teaches where in the wherein the screenshots include a home page screenshot, a create an account page screenshot, a new subscriptions screenshot, a log-in screenshot, a settings screenshot, a plant and location data screenshot, an augmented reality screenshot, a designer screenshot, a cellphone camera photo screenshot, a GPS photo screenshot, and a map photo screenshot displayed on the client device (fig.5-9 and fig 22: shows multiple screenshots of different sections of account creation, login and subscription. Para:147: teaches the use of a non-transitory storage. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the system of Levi to incorporate teachings of Kim by allowing the app to have an account management features. This combination would enable user specific customization ,access control, and subscription management to use certain app features).
Regarding claim 2, Levi in view of Kim teaches the system according to Claim 1, wherein the client device will capture an image of a specific area in real time (Para.102: step 876 describes client device 110 gets the next image from the live video stream from the camera).
Regarding claim 3, Levi in view of Kim teaches the system according to Claim 2, wherein the captured image is captured by a camera disposed within the client device(Para 80: describes at step 806 the client device activates the onboard camera. Para.102: step 876 describes client device 110 gets the next image from the live video stream from the camera).
Regarding claim 4, Levi in view of Kim teaches system according to Claim 2, wherein the captured image is captured by a satellite imagery from a Global Positioning System to provide an overhead view of the specific area (Para. 65: described the yard setup address uses an entered address or GPS to get an aerial view of the yard that is downloaded and stored. The aerial view that is downloaded can be considered as an image that is of the yard which is a specific area.).
Regarding to claim 5, Levi in view of Kim teaches the system according to Claim 1, wherein the augmented reality algorithms will gain a perspective on how their desired landscape choices will appear over time in different seasonal changes (Para.07: describes using ai and algorithms to understand growing and climatic trends and rules are built by season (begin season, in season, end season, off season). Para.179 and Fig. 12a-b: describes age list 1224 is activated and a drop downlist of available ages for an ar image based on the plantid. This feature lets users select how a plant will appear at different stages of growth).
Regarding Claim 10, Levi in view of Kim teaches the system according to Claim 1, further comprising a plurality of augmented reality algorithms residing on an augmented reality landscape planning non-transitory storage media superimpose a plurality of prospective landscape designs on the image of the specific area in order to visualize potential landscaping options in the specific area (Fig12a -12b and para 129-130: describes a AR landscape tool that is used to visualize the plant in a specific are the user selects).
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) 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levi (US- US 20210350235 -A1) in view of Kim (US-20140214664-A1) in further view of Lopez (US-20210081450-A1).
Regarding claim 7, Levi teaches the system according to Claim 6, but fails to teach wherein the cellphone camera photo screenshot includes a 9-section grid, an auto focus scope, a digital camera icon, a horizontal directional grid, a plurality of digital photo indicia, and a photo activation button.
Lopez teaches wherein the cellphone camera photo screenshot includes a 9-section grid, an auto focus scope, a digital camera icon, a horizontal directional grid, a plurality of digital photo indicia, and a photo activation button (Para.42 and figures 7c/d: describes a screenshot of a cellphone camera with a 9-section grid, and photo capture button, auto focus is not mention but it is inherent in modern mobile cameras. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the system of Levi in view of Kim to incorporate teachings of Lopez by having a mobile camera with modern camera features. This combination would help the user in capturing properly aligned and focused images).
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levi (US- US 20210350235 -A1) in view of Kim (US-20140214664-A1) in further view of Blom (US-20070162971-A1).
Regarding claim 8, Levi in view of Kim teaches the system according to Claim 6, but fails to teach wherein the GPS photo screenshot includes a base snapshot, a location and date stamp of when the GPS photo was taken, and an “- “indicia that is activated to delete the GPS photo corresponding to the respective GPS photo screenshot.
Blom teaches wherein the GPS photo screenshot includes a base snapshot, a location and date stamp of when the GPS photo was taken, and an “- “indicia that is activated to delete the GPS photo corresponding to the respective GPS photo screenshot (Fig 8A and Para.46: shows a captured content image displayed on a device with location coordinates and a time stamp along with the image. Fig.8b and Para 51: describes an authorization menu with a delete content option allowing users to delete content from memory such as images. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the system of Levi in view of Kim to incorporate teachings of Blom by allowing the captured images have displayed meta data and a method for deleting the image. This combination would enhance user control and data manageability by allowing them to view metadata and manage storage.).
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levi (US- US 20210350235 -A1) in view of Kim (US-20140214664-A1), Lopez (US-20210081450-A1) and in further view of Peters (US-20080133592-A1).
Regarding claim 9, Levi in view of Kim and in further view of Lopez teaches the system according to Claim 7, wherein the augmented reality page screenshot includes an augmented reality background, a plurality of supplemental indicia, a plurality of augmented reality tools, and a plurality of type of plant fields (Levi, Fig. 12a -12b and para 130: describes an ar plant projection superimposed on the user’s yard, a plurality of ar tools that the user can select. Lastly a plant list and care task lists that are linked to zones of the yard. Fig.12a also shows a select age feature that inherently deals with time and allows the user to visualize the changes to the plant.).
Levi in view of Kim and in further view of Lopez fails to teach a cross-hair, a year timeline, a plurality of seasons.
Peters teaches a cross-hair, a year timeline, a plurality of seasons (Para 11 and fig 3: describes a tool that allows users to select a season and depending on that selection it shows the user the change of the physical environment and bird in that season. A cross hair is inherent in mobile device applications when they select something on screen and is based on user design to display the actual cross hair. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the system of Levi in view of Kim and Lopez to incorporate teachings of Peters by allowing the mobile app design to have a timeline or season selector. This combination would allow the user to see the changes to the plant or environment over time).
Claim(s) 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levi (US- US 20210350235 -A1) in view of MESSERVY (US-20230351067-A1).
Regarding claim 14, Levi teaches the method for augmented reality landscape planning, according to Claim 11, wherein the augmented reality landscape planning non-transitory storage media but fails to teach that it provides a cost analysis of a landscape process.
Messervy teaches providing a cost analysis of a landscape process (Para.46 and fig.2: describes a landscape design application that gives the user a cost analysis based on the landscape design they created. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the system of Levi to incorporate teachings of Messervy by including a landscape cost analysis into the device. This cost analysis would allow the user to know how much is needed to complete the design they created and will also allow them to go back and adjust details).
Regarding claim 19, it falls under the same rejection as claim 14 because it is similar in scope and dependent upon the same references.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/04/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-5, 10-13, 15-18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Levi and Kim as fully explained above. The applicant argues that the prior art fails to disclose non transitory storage media and stored screenshots because Levi allegedly generates runtime user interfaces dynamically. Levi, Para 42: describes a system server 102 that is connected to database memory 103. This can be seen as a non-transitory medium. Para.64: Discloses : “once activated, the app is downloaded from the server… all data is stored in the database”. The yard and ar planning data is stored in the database when activated. Para.65: discloses” An aerial view of the yard is then downloaded by the system and stored in the record, as will be further described. Additional user pictures of the yard are added from the user device.” These are equivalent to screenshots. These are considered permanent storage and not runtime only data. Levi Additionally discloses client device 110, system server 102, and database memory 103, which inherently include conventional operating systems, communication modules, and application modules necessary to execute the augmented reality application.).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LATRELL ANTHONY CREARY whose telephone number is (703)756-1219. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30am - 4:30pm.
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, Xiao Wu can be reached on (571) 272-7761. 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.
/LATRELL ANTHONY CREARY/Examiner, Art Unit 2613
/XIAO M WU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2613