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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) were filed on 1/10/2024, 5/30/2024, 10/22/2024, 12/18/2024, 02/24/2025, 6/23/2025, 7/22/2025, 11/25/2025, and 2/11/2026. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Drawings
The drawings filed 9/5/2025 were accepted.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: both claims reference “the physical space” once, but only claim a/the “first physical space” before that. Examiner is not considering this as lacking antecedent basis since the first physical space is still a physical space, but suggests changing the terms to match clearly. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: The first usage of “XRE” should be preceded by either “XR equipment (XRE)” or “extended reality equipment (XRE)” to clarify what the initials stands for. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the physical object.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-8, 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite the abstract idea of setting zones, defining attributes, and determining (determining that applications share an attribute).
Step 2A, Prong 1
The limitations that describe the setting zones, defining attributes, and determining are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. The claims also include elements of receiving user input, and generating a virtual display with XR equipment, however nothing in the claims precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind.
Step 2A, Prong 2
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements regarding receiving user input, and generating a virtual display with XR equipment are considered insignificant extra-solution activity. These limitations are not considered improvements to the functioning of a technology or technical field. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the extrasolutionary elements are not considered significantly more than just applying the steps of setting zones, defining attributes, and determining.
Step 2B
In addition to the abstract idea, the claims have the receiving user input, and generating a virtual display with XR equipment, but they represent only well-understood, routine, conventional activity that can be performed on generic computers. The receiving of data has been recognized by the courts as being well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) and MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. Zurmoehle et al (US20210097775A1; filed 2/21/2019) discloses how well-understood, routine, and conventional the generating a virtual display with XR equipment is: paragraph 4: “With virtual reality, augmented reality, and/or mixed reality systems (hereinafter collectively referred to as “mixed reality” systems), a three dimensional environment is provided for the display of content to a user.” Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
As per claim 2, this claim has similar generating a display and is rejected similarly to claim 1.
As per claim 3, this claim has similar generating a display and is rejected similarly to claim 1.
As per claim 4, this claim has similar generating a display and is rejected similarly to claim 1. this claim also recites an additional element of applications running on a computing device.
(Step 2A, prong 2) The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements regarding applications running on a computing device are considered insignificant extra-solution activity. These limitations are not considered improvements to the functioning of a technology or technical field.
(Step 2B) The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the applications running on a computing device are not considered significantly more than the judicial exception. Zurmoehle et al (US20210097775A1; filed 2/21/2019) discloses how well-understood, routine, and conventional the generating a virtual display with XR equipment is: paragraph 53: “The 2D web page may originate on a web browser of a head-mounted system, a mobile device (e.g., cell phone), a tablet, a television, an application, and the like. In some embodiments, the 2D web page may be received from another application or device such as a laptop computer, a desktop computer, an email application with a link to the 2D web page, an electronic message referencing or including a link to the 2D web page and the like.” The claims are not patent eligible.
As per claim 5, this claim has similar generating a display and is rejected similarly to claim 1.
As per claim 6, this claim has similar running of an application and is rejected similarly to claim 4.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. As per claim 7, this claim recites an additional abstract idea of detecting a change of gaze. The detecting is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. There are no other additional elements.
As per claim 8, this claim has similar gaze detection and is rejected similarly to claim 7.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. This claim has similar generating a display and is rejected similarly to claim 1. As per claim 10, this claim also recites an additional element of transmitting data.
(Step 2A, prong 2) The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements regarding transmitting data are considered insignificant extra-solution activity. These limitations are not considered improvements to the functioning of a technology or technical field.
(Step 2B) The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the transmitting data are not considered significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements represent only well-understood, routine, conventional activity that can be performed on generic computer systems. The transmitting data has been recognized by the courts as being well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) and MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The claims are not patent eligible.
As per claim 11, this claim has similar transmitting data, generating displays, and defining and is rejected similarly to claims 1 and 10.
As per claim 12, this claim has similar defining and is rejected similarly to claim 1.
As per claim 13, this claim has similar defining and is rejected similarly to claim 1.
As per claim 14, this claim has similar receiving and generating a display and is rejected similarly to claim 1.
As per claim 15, this claim has similar receiving and generating a display (the preventing of a display is interpreted as not displaying, which is included in the process of generating a display) and is rejected similarly to claim 1.
As per claim 16, this claim has similar generating a display and is rejected similarly to claim 1.
As per claim 17, this claim has similar setting, receiving, and generating a display and is rejected similarly to claim 1.
As per claim 18, this claim has similar XR equipment and is rejected similarly to claim 1.
As per claim 19, this claim has similar XR equipment and is rejected similarly to claim 1.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. As per claim 20, this claim recites an additional abstract idea of denying access to data. The denying of access is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. This claim also has similar XR equipment and is rejected similarly to claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-7, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zurmoehle et al (hereinafter Zurm; US20210097775A1; filed 2/21/2019) in view of Pahud et al (hereinafter Pahud; US20190005724A1; filed 6/30/2017).
With regards to claim 1, Zurm discloses a method comprising: setting, via a computing device, a first virtual display zone having a first location in a first physical space, the first location being anchored with respect to the first physical space (Zurm, Fig. 1: surface 182 on main wall 180);
setting a second virtual display zone having a second location in the first physical space that is different from the first location, the second location being anchored with respect to the physical space (Zurm, Fig. 1: other surfaces (186, 192, etc.) on wall 184 or table);
… a first zone policy for the first virtual display zone, wherein the zone policy defines a first application attribute; … a second zone policy for the second virtual display zone, wherein the second zone policy defines a second application attribute different from the first application attribute (Zurm, Fig. 7: a series of values are stored for each surface; the zone policy (which differs depending on the surface) could be interpreted as the orientation, size, or “multiple” values (“multiple” is described in paragraph 106 as defining the number of version types of each elements));
determining that one or more first applications share the first application attribute, and that one or more second applications share the second application attribute (Zurm, Fig. 5: elements (which can include applications) has attributes such as preference of orientation and “multiple entity” (described in paragraph 88, indicates whether the element contains multiple embodiments/versions)); and
generating for display in the first virtual display zone, by a first extended reality (XR) equipment, one or more first virtual displays, wherein the one or more first virtual displays are generated based on the one or more first applications running on the computing device (Zurm, paragraph 116: “the main video 220 of FIG. 2 is mapped to the vertical surface 182;” Figs. 1-2 and 11A-12F show the XR equipment in use), and
generating for display in the second virtual display zone, by the first XR equipment, one or more second virtual displays, wherein the one or more second virtual displays are generated based on the one or more second applications (Zurm, paragraph 69: “suggested videos 240 may be mapped to display on a different vertical surface 186 from the vertical surface 182;” paragraph 71: “The suggested videos 240 from the YOUTUBE web page may be placed on the vertical surface 186 on the side wall 184 to allow the user 108 to be able to view suggested videos simply by moving the their head slightly to the right in this example.”).
However, Zurm does not disclose receiving a first user input setting a first zone policy for the first virtual display zone… receiving a second user input setting a second zone policy for the second virtual display zone.
Pahud teaches receiving a first user input setting a first zone policy for the first virtual display zone… receiving a second user input setting a second zone policy for the second virtual display zone (Pahud, Paragraph 6: "Augmented reality objects may also be mapped based on received mapping preferences and/or mapping limitations. The preferences and limitations may be received for a specific physical presentation environment and selection of augmented reality display data, or may be determined from previous mapping and rendering of augmented reality display data (e.g., a mapping “history” for a user). For example, certain augmented reality objects may be mapped to certain locations based on a mapping preference indicated by a user, and certain objects may be mapped only to certain locations based on a mapping limitation received from the user.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined Zurm and Pahud such that the user can set the zone policies. This would have enabled the user to customize their augmented reality space (Pahud, paragraph 32: “any physical presentation environment can become a customized augmented reality space. This may be of particular use for cognitively demanding activities, such as data analysis and exploration, or other activities that require multiple views and/or dataset presentations”).
With regards to claim 2, which depends on claim 1, Zurm discloses wherein the first application attribute is related to functionality provided by the one or more first applications (Zurm, Fig. 7: a series of values are stored for each surface; the zone policy (which differs depending on the surface) could be interpreted as the orientation, size, or “multiple” values (“multiple” is described in paragraph 106 as defining the number of version types of each elements); each of the orientation, size, and “multiple” attributes can be considered “related” to functionality provided by the applications), and wherein, in response to a launched application sharing the first application attribute, a first virtual display generated based on the launched application is automatically positioned in the first virtual display zone (Zurm, paragraph 9: “The improved systems and methods for navigation and manipulation of browser windows may be applied in the context of 2D content that is deconstructed and displayed in a spatially organized 3D environment. This may include identifying 2D content, identifying elements in the 2D content, identifying surrounding surfaces, mapping the identified elements to the identified surrounding surfaces, and displaying the elements as virtual content onto the surrounding surfaces”).
With regards to claim 3, which depends on claim 1, Zurm discloses wherein the first application attribute is related to a provider source of the one or more applications (Zurm, Fig. 7: a series of values are stored for each surface; the zone policy (which differs depending on the surface) could be interpreted as the orientation, size, or “multiple” values (“multiple” is described in paragraph 106 as defining the number of version types of each elements); each of the orientation, size, and “multiple” attributes can be considered “related” to a provider source of the applications because they are both related to the applications themselves), wherein, in response to a launched application sharing the first application attribute, a first virtual display generated based on the launched application is automatically positioned in the first virtual display zone (Zurm, paragraph 9: “The improved systems and methods for navigation and manipulation of browser windows may be applied in the context of 2D content that is deconstructed and displayed in a spatially organized 3D environment. This may include identifying 2D content, identifying elements in the 2D content, identifying surrounding surfaces, mapping the identified elements to the identified surrounding surfaces, and displaying the elements as virtual content onto the surrounding surfaces”).
With regards to claim 4, which depends on claim 1, Zurm discloses wherein the first virtual display zone comprises a virtual extended display including one or more user interface panels generated based on the one or more first applications (Zurm, paragraph 116: “the main video 220 of FIG. 2 is mapped to the vertical surface 182;” Fig. 12E-12F show a display with an interface panel; ), the one or more first applications running on a computing device (Zurm, paragraph 53: “The 2D web page may originate on a web browser of a head-mounted system, a mobile device (e.g., cell phone), a tablet, a television, an application, and the like. In some embodiments, the 2D web page may be received from another application or device such as a laptop computer, a desktop computer, an email application with a link to the 2D web page, an electronic message referencing or including a link to the 2D web page and the like”), and wherein the first application attribute comprises having an output set by the computing device to be shown as part of the virtual extended display (Zurm, paragraph 116: “the main video 220 of FIG. 2 is mapped to the vertical surface 182;” Figs. 1-2 and 11A-12F show the XR equipment in use; Note: it is unclear if “virtual extended display” is supposed to have more meaning than simply being a display in the XR/AR environment, but it is not defined in a way which would require a more specific interpretation).
With regards to claim 6, which depends on claim 1, Zurm discloses wherein the physical object is the computing device, and the one or more second applications are run on the computing device or are run on a server connected to the computing device (Zurm, paragraph 141: “The network 120 may be the Internet, an internal network, a private cloud network, a public cloud network, etc. The web browser 1104 is also operably coupled to a processor 170 via the network 120. Although the processor 170 is shown as an isolated component separate from the head-mounted system 160, in an alternate embodiment, the processor 170 may be integrated with one or more components of the head-mounted system 160, and/or may be integrated into other system components within the environment 100 such as, for example, the network 120 to access a computing network 125 and storage devices 130”).
Note: See 35 USC 112b rejection above regarding “the physical object.” It lacks antecedent basis so is interpreted as “a physical object” for the purpose of this rejection.
With regards to claim 7, which depends on claim 1, Zurm discloses wherein, in response to a detection of a change of user gaze of a user wearing the first XR equipment, the first location of the first virtual display zone and the second location of the second virtual display zone remain unchanged (Zurm, paragraph 121: “One of ordinarily skill in the art may appreciate that when the user 108 turns their head or looks up or down, the display devices within the head-mounted system 160 may continue to keep the content elements affixed to their respective surfaces to further provide the perception to the user 108 that the content are affixed to the mapped surfaces”).
With regards to claim 16, which depends on claim 1, Zurm discloses wherein in response to a virtual display of the one or more second virtual displays becoming active, the second virtual display zone is displayed more prominently than first virtual display zone (Zurm, paragraph 72: “the one or more sensors (e.g., the sensors 162) within the head-mounted system 160 will detect the eye focus of the user 108 and cycle through the tabs within the virtual Rolodex 190 accordingly to obtain relevant information for the user 108;” the virtual Rolodex is interpreted as the second virtual display, and the cycling of the rolodex is interpreted as becoming active and being displayed more prominently).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zurmoehle et al (Zurm) in view of Pahud et al, and further in view of Vicente et al (US20240104873A1; filed 9/21/2023).
With regards to claim 5, which depends on claim 1, Zurm and Pahud do not teach displaying, in association with the first virtual display zone, a description of the first virtual display zone, wherein the description is based on the first application attribute.
However, Vicente et al teaches displaying, in association with the first virtual display zone, a description of the first virtual display zone, wherein the description is based on the first application attribute (Vicente et al, paragraph 524: “The computer system concurrently displays (1002), via the first display generation component, a first application window and a first title bar of the first application window” The application is considered being “in associate with” the virtual display zone since it is displayed within it).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined Zurm, Pahud, and Vicente et al such that labels are shown for applications. This would have enabled the invention to provide the user with an identifier for virtual applications (Vicente et al, paragraph 10: “displays a respective identifier of the first application window”).
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zurmoehle et al (Zurm) in view of Pahud et al, and further in view of Centeno et al (US12366917B1; filed 9/1/2023).
With regards to claim 8, which depends on claim 1, Zurm and Pahud do not teach wherein, in response to the detection of the user gaze aligning with the one or more first virtual displays of the first virtual display zone, the first virtual display zone is rendered more prominently than the second virtual display zone.
However, Centeno et al teaches wherein, in response to the detection of the user gaze aligning with the one or more first virtual displays of the first virtual display zone (Centeno et al, col 7, lines 50-60: “may indicate that the user 12 is trying to focus on the XR object 14 instead of the virtual content 40”), the first virtual display zone is rendered more prominently than the second virtual display zone (Centeno et al, col 7, lines 65-67, col 8, lines 1-7: “In some implementations, the electronic device 20 modifies the display characteristic of the virtual content 40 by increasing a transparency of the virtual content 40 in order to generate a more transparent modified virtual content 40′ that does not completely obstruct a view of the XR object 14. As can be seen in FIG. 1C, an entirety of the XR object 14 is visible to the user 12 through the display 22 of the electronic device 20… Referring to FIG. 1D, in various implementations, the electronic device 20 modifies the display characteristic of the virtual content 40 by ceasing to display the virtual content 40 (shown in FIGS. 1A and 1B)”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined Zurm, Pahud, and Centeno et al such that the user gaze and focus effects the display of the virtual objects in the zones. This would have enabled the user to have an unobstructed view of whatever they are gazing at (Centeno et al, col 8, lines 8-15: “the XR environment 30 does not include the virtual content 40 thereby providing the user 12 an unobstructed view of the XR object 14”).
With regards to claim 9, which depends on claim 1, Zurm and Pahud do not teach wherein the first virtual display zone and the second virtual display zone are anchored to the first XR equipment, and wherein, in response to a detection of a change of user gaze of a user wearing the first XR equipment, the first location of the first virtual display zone and the second location of the second virtual display zone are changed according to the changed user gaze.
However, Centeno et al teaches wherein the first virtual display zone and the second virtual display zone are anchored to the first XR equipment, and wherein, in response to a detection of a change of user gaze of a user wearing the first XR equipment, the first location of the first virtual display zone and the second location of the second virtual display zone are changed according to the changed user gaze (Centeno et al, col 4, lines 30-65: “In some implementations, the XR object 14 includes a body-locked virtual object that is locked to a portion of a body of the user 12… Accordingly, the HMD may display the XR object 14 on the display 22 such that the XR object 14 appears to follow the HMD based on a translational movement of the HMD”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined Zurm, Pahud, and Centeno et al such that the individual zones could be locked to the user instead of the world/environment. This would have enabled the objects to be viewed even as the user moves around (Centeno et al, col 4, lines 50-60: “in response to detecting a translational movement (e.g., the user 12 walks to a different room in a house), the HMD maintains the XR object 14 at the particular distance from the portion of the body of the user 12 and at the particular angular offset with respect to the portion of the body of the user 12”)
Claim(s) 10-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zurmoehle et al (Zurm) in view of Pahud et al, and further in view of Millberg et al (hereinafter Millberg; US20240312143A1; filed 3/14/2023).
With regards to claim 10, which depends on claim 1, Zurm and Pahud do not teach transmitting data for generating the one or more first virtual displays to a remote device in a second physical space remote from the first physical space; and generating for display the first virtual display zone in the second physical space, wherein the display of the first virtual display zone comprises the one or more first virtual displays.
However, Millberg teaches transmitting data for generating the one or more first virtual displays to a remote device in a second physical space remote from the first physical space (Millberg, paragraph 55: “Augment graph controller 434 can manage the storing and securing of augment information for a global set of augments. An augment graph can be distributed across several different systems (e.g., XR systems, remote systems, such as cloud or edge systems, etc.);” paragraph 102: “In the illustrated example, the first user and second user are not co-located, and thus the real-world environment of first user view 902 is different than the real-world environment of second user view 904. In this example, source augments 910, 912, and 914 and target augments 916, 918, and 920 comprise the same visual appearance (based on the persisted augment information at the augment graph for the group of augments), however not the same spatial anchors.”); and generating for display the first virtual display zone in the second physical space, wherein the display of the first virtual display zone comprises the one or more first virtual displays (Millberg, abstract: “The distributed augment graph can selectively share graph augment information with requesting applications and/or users according to access control restrictions enforced for the persisted augments. Accordingly, augments generated by an owner application and/or user can be shared with multiple other applications and users via the augment graph;” paragraph 102: “The augment graph can transmit the graph information for the group of augments to the second user's XR system. In some implementations, the second user's XR system can display target augments 916, 918, and 920 using the graph information of the group of augments retrieved from the augment graph;” also see Fig. 9 for an example figure, and paragraphs 99-103 for more details on the sharing of augments between users of XR devices).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined Zurm, Pahud, and Millberg such that the users of XR devices could selectively and privately share augments with other users. This would have enabled multiple users to view the same augments simultaneously (Millberg, paragraph 31: “The distributed augment graph permits efficient sharing of augments to different XR systems located in different physical locations;” paragraph 104: “the second user enhanced the first user's augment group with a new augment based on the flexible access restrictions implemented by the augment graph.”).
With regards to claim 11, which depends on claim 1, Zurm discloses wherein the third and fourth zone are defined, respectively, by third and fourth zone policies (Zurm, Fig. 7: a series of values are stored for each surface; the zone policy (which differs depending on the surface) could be interpreted as the orientation, size, or “multiple” values (“multiple” is described in paragraph 106 as defining the number of version types of each elements), and each zone has its own attributes)
However, Zurm does not disclose transmitting data for generating the one or more first virtual displays to a remote device in a second physical space remote from the first physical space; and generating for display by a second XR equipment, in a third zone anchored to a second object in the second physical space, a first virtual display of the one or more first virtual displays; and generating for display by the second XR equipment, in a fourth zone anchored to the second object in the second physical space, a second virtual display of the one or more first virtual displays.
Millberg teaches transmitting data for generating the one or more first virtual displays to a remote device in a second physical space remote from the first physical space; and generating for display by a second XR equipment, in a third zone anchored to a second object in the second physical space, a first virtual display of the one or more first virtual displays (Millberg, paragraph 102: “In the illustrated example, the first user and second user are not co-located, and thus the real-world environment of first user view 902 is different than the real-world environment of second user view 904. In this example, source augments 910, 912, and 914 and target augments 916, 918, and 920 comprise the same visual appearance (based on the persisted augment information at the augment graph for the group of augments), however not the same spatial anchors.”); and
generating for display by the second XR equipment, in a fourth zone anchored to the second object in the second physical space, a second virtual display of the one or more first virtual displays (Millberg, paragraph 102: “source augments 910, 912, and 914 and target augments 916, 918, and 920 comprise the same visual appearance (based on the persisted augment information at the augment graph for the group of augments), however not the same spatial anchors.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined Zurm, Pahud, and Millberg such that the users of XR devices could selectively and privately share augments with other users. This would have enabled multiple users to view the same augments simultaneously (Millberg, paragraph 31: “The distributed augment graph permits efficient sharing of augments to different XR systems located in different physical locations;” paragraph 104: “the second user enhanced the first user's augment group with a new augment based on the flexible access restrictions implemented by the augment graph.”).
With regards to claim 12, which depends on claim 11, Zurm discloses wherein the third zone policy defines a first application attribute (Zurm, Fig. 7: a series of values are stored for each surface; the zone policy (which differs depending on the surface) could be interpreted as the orientation, size, or “multiple” values (“multiple” is described in paragraph 106 as defining the number of version types of each elements)).
With regards to claim 13, which depends on claim 11, Zurm and Pahud do not disclose wherein the third zone policy is a sharing policy defining that the third zone is displayed by a third XR equipment.
However, Millberg teaches wherein the third zone policy is a sharing policy defining that the third zone is displayed by a third XR equipment (Millberg, abstract: “The distributed augment graph can selectively share graph augment information with requesting applications and/or users according to access control restrictions enforced for the persisted augments. Accordingly, augments generated by an owner application and/or user can be shared with multiple other applications and users via the augment graph”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined Zurm, Pahud, and Millberg such that the users of XR devices could selectively and privately share augments with other users. This would have enabled multiple users to view the same augments simultaneously (Millberg, paragraph 31: “The distributed augment graph permits efficient sharing of augments to different XR systems located in different physical locations;” paragraph 104: “the second user enhanced the first user's augment group with a new augment based on the flexible access restrictions implemented by the augment graph.”).
With regards to claim 14, which depends on claim 1, Zurm and Pahud do not disclose receiving a sharing policy; and in response to the receiving of the sharing policy, generating for display, by a second XR equipment located in the first physical space, the first virtual display zone, including display of the one or more first virtual displays.
However, Millberg teaches receiving a sharing policy; and in response to the receiving of the sharing policy, generating for display, by a second XR equipment located in the first physical space (Millberg, Paragraph 105: "In some implementations, different users and/or applications can share, using the augment graph, augments within a same real-world environment"), the first virtual display zone, including display of the one or more first virtual displays (Millberg, abstract: “The distributed augment graph can selectively share graph augment information with requesting applications and/or users according to access control restrictions enforced for the persisted augments. Accordingly, augments generated by an owner application and/or user can be shared with multiple other applications and users via the augment graph;” the augment graph is interpreted as the sharing policy).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined Zurm, Pahud, and Millberg such that the users of XR devices could selectively and privately share augments with other users. This would have enabled multiple users to view the same augments simultaneously (Millberg, paragraph 31: “The distributed augment graph permits efficient sharing of augments to different XR systems located in different physical locations;” paragraph 104: “the second user enhanced the first user's augment group with a new augment based on the flexible access restrictions implemented by the augment graph.”).
With regards to claim 15, which depends on claim 11, Zurm and Pahud do not disclose in response to the receiving of the sharing policy, preventing display by the second XR equipment of the second virtual display zone, including display of any of the one or more second virtual displays.
However, Millberg teaches in response to the receiving of the sharing policy, preventing display by the second XR equipment of the second virtual display zone, including display of any of the one or more second virtual displays (Millberg, abstract: “The distributed augment graph can selectively share graph augment information with requesting applications and/or users according to access control restrictions enforced for the persisted augments. Accordingly, augments generated by an owner application and/or user can be shared with multiple other applications and users via the augment graph;” the augment graph is interpreted as the sharing policy, and the user can selectively choose to share or not share individual augment information).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined Zurm, Pahud, and Millberg such that the users of XR devices could selectively and privately share augments with other users. This would have enabled multiple users to view the same augments simultaneously (Millberg, paragraph 31: “The distributed augment graph permits efficient sharing of augments to different XR systems located in different physical locations;” paragraph 104: “the second user enhanced the first user's augment group with a new augment based on the flexible access restrictions implemented by the augment graph.”).
Claim(s) 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zurmoehle et al (Zurm) in view of Millberg.
With regards to claim 17, Zurm discloses A method comprising: setting via a computing device a first virtual display zone having a first location in a first physical space that is anchored with respect to a first location in the first physical space (Zurm, Fig. 1: surface 182 on main wall 180);
setting a second virtual display zone having a second location in the first physical space that is different from the first location, the second location anchored with respect to the physical space (Zurm, Fig. 1: other surfaces (186, 192, etc.) on wall 184 or table); …
generating for display in the first virtual display zone, by a first extended reality (XR) equipment, one or more first virtual displays based on output of one or more applications running on the computing device (Zurm, paragraph 116: “the main video 220 of FIG. 2 is mapped to the vertical surface 182;” Figs. 1-2 and 11A-12F show the XR equipment in use), and
generating for display in the second virtual display zone, by the first XR equipment, one or more second virtual displays (Zurm, paragraph 69: “suggested videos 240 may be mapped to display on a different vertical surface 186 from the vertical surface 182;” paragraph 71: “The suggested videos 240 from the YOUTUBE web page may be placed on the vertical surface 186 on the side wall 184 to allow the user 108 to be able to view suggested videos simply by moving the their head slightly to the right in this example.”).
However, Zurm does not disclose receiving a first user input setting a first sharing policy for the first virtual display zone; receiving a second user input setting a second sharing policy for the second virtual display zone… generating for display in the first virtual display zone, by a second XR equipment different from the first XR equipment, the one or more first virtual displays, and preventing display, by the second XR equipment, of the one or more virtual displays of the second virtual display zone.
Millberg discloses receiving a first user input setting a first sharing policy for the first virtual display zone; receiving a second user input setting a second sharing policy for the second virtual display zone (Millberg, abstract: “The distributed augment graph can selectively share graph augment information with requesting applications and/or users according to access control restrictions enforced for the persisted augments. Accordingly, augments generated by an owner application and/or user can be shared with multiple other applications and users via the augment graph”)… generating for display in the first virtual display zone, by a second XR equipment different from the first XR equipment, the one or more first virtual displays (Millberg, paragraph 102: “In the illustrated example, the first user and second user are not co-located, and thus the real-world environment of first user view 902 is different than the real-world environment of second user view 904. In this example, source augments 910, 912, and 914 and target augments 916, 918, and 920 comprise the same visual appearance (based on the persisted augment information at the augment graph for the group of augments), however not the same spatial anchors.”), and preventing display, by the second XR equipment, of the one or more virtual displays of the second virtual display zone (Millberg, abstract: “The distributed augment graph can selectively share graph augment information with requesting applications and/or users according to access control restrictions enforced for the persisted augments. Accordingly, augments generated by an owner application and/or user can be shared with multiple other applications and users via the augment graph;” the augment graph is interpreted as the sharing policy, and the user can selectively choose to share or not share individual augment information).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined Zurm, Pahud, and Millberg such that the users of XR devices could selectively and privately share augments with other users. This would have enabled multiple users to view the same augments simultaneously (Millberg, paragraph 31: “The distributed augment graph permits efficient sharing of augments to different XR systems located in different physical locations;” paragraph 104: “the second user enhanced the first user's augment group with a new augment based on the flexible access restrictions implemented by the augment graph.”).
With regards to claim 18, which depends on claim 17, Zurm and Pahud do not disclose wherein the second XR equipment is located in the first physical space.
However, Millberg teaches wherein the second XR equipment is located in the first physical space (Millberg, Paragraph 105: "In some implementations, different users and/or applications can share, using the augment graph, augments within a same real-world environment").
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined Zurm, Pahud, and Millberg such that the users of XR devices could selectively and privately share augments with other users. This would have enabled multiple users to view the same augments simultaneously (Millberg, paragraph 31: “The distributed augment graph permits efficient sharing of augments to different XR systems located in different physical locations;” paragraph 104: “the second user enhanced the first user's augment group with a new augment based on the flexible access restrictions implemented by the augment graph.”).
With regards to claim 19, which depends on claim 17, Zurm and Pahud do not disclose wherein the second XR equipment is located in a second physical space remote from the first physical space and remote from the first XR equipment.
However, Millberg teaches wherein the second XR equipment is located in a second physical space remote from the first physical space and remote from the first XR equipment (Millberg, paragraph 55: “Augment graph controller 434 can manage the storing and securing of augment information for a global set of augments. An augment graph can be distributed across several different systems (e.g., XR systems, remote systems, such as cloud or edge systems, etc.);” paragraph 102: “In the illustrated example, the first user and second user are not co-located, and thus the real-world environment of first user view 902 is different than the real-world environment of second user view 904. In this example, source augments 910, 912, and 914 and target augments 916, 918, and 920 comprise the same visual appearance (based on the persisted augment information at the augment graph for the group of augments), however not the same spatial anchors.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined Zurm, Pahud, and Millberg such that the users of XR devices could selectively and privately share augments with other users. This would have enabled multiple users to view the same augments simultaneously (Millberg, paragraph 31: “The distributed augment graph permits efficient sharing of augments to different XR systems located in different physical locations;” paragraph 104: “the second user enhanced the first user's augment group with a new augment based on the flexible access restrictions implemented by the augment graph.”).
With regards to claim 20, which depends on claim 17, Zurm and Pahud do not disclose wherein the second XR equipment is located in a second physical space remote from the first physical space and remote from the first XR equipment, wherein a third XR equipment, different from the first XR equipment and from the second XRE, is located in the first physical space, and wherein the third XRE is denied access to the first virtual display zone based on the zone sharing policy.
However, Millberg teaches wherein the second XR equipment is located in a second physical space remote from the first physical space and remote from the first XR equipment (Millberg, paragraph 102: “the first user and second user are not co-located, and thus the real-world environment of first user view 902 is different than the real-world environment of second user view 904. In this example, source augments 910, 912, and 914 and target augments 916, 918, and 920 comprise the same visual appearance (based on the persisted augment information at the augment graph for the group of augments), however not the same spatial anchors.”), wherein a third XR equipment, different from the first XR equipment and from the second XRE, is located in the first physical space, and wherein the third XRE is denied access to the first virtual display zone based on the zone sharing policy (Millberg, Abstract: "The distributed augment graph can selectively share graph augment information with requesting applications and/or users according to access control restrictions enforced for the persisted augments. Accordingly, augments generated by an owner application and/or user can be shared with multiple other applications and users via the augment graph;" since the sharing is based on the permissions of the augment graph, the locations of the XREs is irrelevant for denying access to shared content).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined Zurm, Pahud, and Millberg such that the users of XR devices could selectively and privately share augments with other users. This would have enabled multiple users to view the same augments simultaneously (Millberg, paragraph 31: “The distributed augment graph permits efficient sharing of augments to different XR systems located in different physical locations;” paragraph 104: “the second user enhanced the first user's augment group with a new augment based on the flexible access restrictions implemented by the augment graph.”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lynen et al (US20190340836A1): Teaches anchoring virtual objects to physical locations and allowing other users to view them.
Ghatak (US20200160602A1): Teaches tracking candidate locations for showing virtual content items.
Forutanpour et al (US20140168262A1): Teaches using user preferences and history to determine where to display virtual application windows.
Ording (US20120096392A1): Teaches grouping application windows into clusters based on functionality, and labeling the clusters.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRODERICK C ANDERSON whose telephone number is (313)446-6566. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Tuesday, Thursday-Saturday 9-5 PST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Stephen Hong can be reached at 5712724124. 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.
/B.C.A/Examiner, Art Unit 2178 /STEPHEN S HONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2178
Prosecution Insights