DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to applicant’s amendment/response filed on 03/18/2026, which has been entered and made of record. Claims 9-20, 28-47 are pending in the application. The double patenting rejection to claim(s) 35-44 is/are maintained.
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) 35-40, 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swenson et al. (US 20190279438) in view of Goldberg et al. (US 20190235641).
Regarding claim 35, Swenson discloses An augmented reality (AR) system for operating with a mobile user interface device that is communicatively connected to an AR backend computer device, comprising: a mobile user interface application stored on and executed on the mobile user interface device (Swenson, “[0011] The mobile device 103 may assist a technician to locate and service one or more defective parts for addressing a fault using augmented reality technology (e.g., using an augmented reality application on the mobile device). [0030] Step 205 may include performing the service with the guide of augmented reality technology. The route and/or instructions in Step 204 may be displayed using augmented reality technology. [0034] the schematics of the locomotive in a cloud-based database are accessible by a mobile device using an augmented reality application so that the technician performing the troubleshooting does not need to read the schematics before the task”);
an AR database stored in the AR backend computer device that stores AR node information for each of a plurality of mapped AR nodes, the AR node information including, for each mapped AR node, an identifier of one or more devices in the real-world environment associated with the mapped AR node and a location in the real-world environment associated with the mapped AR node (Swenson, “[0006] wherein the database comprises technical information of at least a portion of the locomotive and information related to one or more faults of the locomotive, determining a location of the mobile device in a three-dimensional model of the locomotive in the database based on the image. [0026] The determined feature(s) may be used to search in the database 101 for identifying the object. The features of the unique part, or the pattern and/or distance among the set of parts may be searched in the database 101 to determine the relative location of the unique part or the set of parts in the vehicle 102. [0034] Identification of the object captured and the location of the mobile device in the locomotive are determined by searching the features of the object in a database”); and
an AR activation routine executed by a processor on one or both of the mobile user interface device and the AR backend computer device (Swenson, “[0034] the schematics of the locomotive in a cloud-based database are accessible by a mobile device using an augmented reality application so that the technician performing the troubleshooting does not need to read the schematics before the task”),
wherein the activation routine enables a user to enter device information in the real-world environment to use as a basis for detecting a landing point; determines an identity of an AR node as stored in an AR database from the entered device information by using the entered device information to identify the mapped AR node in the AR database; determines the landing point location of a user using the stored location of the identified mapped AR node by using the stored location of the identified mapped AR node as at least an initial landing point location of the user (Swenson, “[0025] Step 203 may include determining the location of the mobile device 103. The location of the mobile device 103 may indicate the location of the technician using the mobile device 103. To determine the location of the mobile device 103, one or more images of an object in the vehicle 102 may be captured by an image sensor, e.g., an image sensor on the mobile device 103. The object may include any portion of the vehicle 102, such as one or more parts of the vehicle 102. In some examples, the image sensor includes two cameras for capturing images of the object. [0026] The determined feature(s) may be used to search in the database 101 for identifying the object. Once the object is identified, the relative location of the object in the three-dimensional model of the vehicle is determined and displayed on the mobile device 103. [0034] A mobile device with two cameras is pointed to an object in the locomotive. Identification of the object captured and the location of the mobile device in the locomotive are determined by searching the features of the object in a database”. Therefore, the captured image(s) corresponds to the entered device information, and the identified object with its relative location correspond to the AR node. Furthermore, the landing point location of the technician, namely, the location of the mobile device, is determined using the location of the object, which is used as an initial landing point location of the user. According to the support of this amended feature (specification [0231], the AR application or the AR activation routine may use the AR node location to determine the current user location to use for the setting the landing point and the initial AR scene), the location of the technician of Swenson is construed as an initial landing point location of the user); and
causes digital information to be presented to the user via a display of the mobile user interface device, the digital information being selected based at least in part on the determined landing point location of the user (Swenson, “[0026] The determined feature(s) may be used to search in the database 101 for identifying the object. Once the object is identified, the relative location of the object in the three-dimensional model of the vehicle is determined and displayed on the mobile device 103. [0027] Step 204 may include displaying a route from the mobile device 103 to a defective part that needs to be serviced. The route may be a graphic overlay with an indicator (e.g., a highlighted line) showing for a technician how to move to a destination for servicing the defective part (e.g., by displaying each next step). [0034] An augmented reality application on the mobile device overlays the wires that need to be inspected”).
On the other hand, Swenson fails to explicitly disclose but Goldberg discloses wherein the activation routine enables a user, via the user interface, to enter device information regarding an identity of a device in the real-world environment (Goldberg, “[0033] The device control engine 120 allows a user to control devices in a physical space such as a building by aiming at the device. For example, when the user aims at a device, the device control engine 120 may use the device identification engine 124 to identify the device at which the user is aiming. [0067] Although in this example, the ID field 522 is shown on the user interface screen 522, in some embodiments the ID of the device is entered by capturing an image of a barcode, QR code, or other type of visual identifier on the controllable device”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Swenson and Goldberg. That is, adding the entering device ID of Goldberg to identify the object of Swenson. The motivation/ suggestion would have been to provide technological improvements that simplify the identification and control of devices within a physical space, such a building (Goldberg, [0018]).
Regarding claim 36, Swenson in view of Goldberg discloses The AR system of claim 35.
On the other hand, Swenson fails to explicitly disclose but Goldberg discloses wherein the AR activation routine enables the user to enter device information regarding an identity of a device in the real-world environment by enabling the user to enter metadata associated with a device in the real-world environment, the metadata including unique device identification information as used in a further electronic system associated with the devices in the real-world environment (Goldberg, “[0033] The device control engine 120 allows a user to control devices in a physical space such as a building by aiming at the device. For example, when the user aims at a device, the device control engine 120 may use the device identification engine 124 to identify the device at which the user is aiming. [0067] Although in this example, the ID field 522 is shown on the user interface screen 522, in some embodiments the ID of the device is entered by capturing an image of a barcode, QR code, or other type of visual identifier on the controllable device”). The same motivation of claim 35 applies here.
Regarding claim 37, Swenson in view of Goldberg discloses The AR system of claim 36.
On the other hand, Swenson fails to explicitly disclose but Goldberg discloses the metadata incudes a unique device tag associated with an electronic control or maintenance system (Goldberg, “[0067] Although in this example, the ID field 522 is shown on the user interface screen 522, in some embodiments the ID of the device is entered by capturing an image of a barcode, QR code, or other type of visual identifier on the controllable device”). The same motivation of claim 35 applies here.
Regarding claim 38, Swenson in view of Goldberg discloses The AR system of claim 36.
On the other hand, Swenson fails to explicitly disclose but Goldberg discloses wherein the AR activation routine enables the user to enter metadata associated with a device in the real-world environment by presenting, to the user via the mobile user interface device, a list of metadata associated with different devices in the real-world environment and enables the user to select, via the mobile user interface device, one of the devices in the real-world environment within the list (Goldberg, “[0068] In some implementations, the user interface screen 520 may display a dropdown list of controllable devices that can be accessed on a particular network (e.g., the values in the list may be searching the network for controllable devices or by querying a directory of known controllable devices in a building or network). In these implementations, the user may simply select the device from the dropdown list to specify all information needed to interact with the device. [0115] present a list of controllable devices; and receive a user input selecting the controllable device from the list. The list is generated by identifying controllable devices that are available over a network”). The same motivation of claim 35 applies here.
Regarding claim 39, Swenson in view of Goldberg discloses The AR system of claim 35.
On the other hand, Swenson fails to explicitly disclose but Goldberg discloses wherein the AR activation routine enables the user to enter device information regarding an identity of a device in the real-world environment by enabling the user to enter unique device identity information obtained from a device in the real-world environment (Goldberg, “[0033] The device control engine 120 allows a user to control devices in a physical space such as a building by aiming at the device. For example, when the user aims at a device, the device control engine 120 may use the device identification engine 124 to identify the device at which the user is aiming. [0067] Although in this example, the ID field 522 is shown on the user interface screen 522, in some embodiments the ID of the device is entered by capturing an image of a barcode, QR code, or other type of visual identifier on the controllable device”). The same motivation of claim 35 applies here.
Regarding claim 40, Swenson in view of Goldberg discloses The AR system of claim 39.
On the other hand, Swenson fails to explicitly disclose but Goldberg discloses wherein the unique device identity information obtained from a device in the real-world environment includes device information disposed on the device in the real-world environment (Goldberg, “[0067] Although in this example, the ID field 522 is shown on the user interface screen 522, in some embodiments the ID of the device is entered by capturing an image of a barcode, QR code, or other type of visual identifier on the controllable device”). The same motivation of claim 35 applies here.
Regarding claim 45, Swenson in view of Goldberg discloses The AR system of claim 35, wherein Swenson discloses the AR activation routine determines a landing point location of a user using the stored location of the identified mapped AR node by searching the AR database using the entered device information to identify the mapped AR node and setting the landing point location of the user as the stored location of the identified mapped AR node (Swenson, “[0006] wherein the solution data identifies a defective part in the locomotive; capturing an image of an object associated with the locomotive with an image sensor on the mobile device; determining a location of the mobile device in a three-dimensional model of the locomotive in the database based on the image. [0025] Step 203 may include determining the location of the mobile device 103. The location of the mobile device 103 may indicate the location of the technician using the mobile device 103. To determine the location of the mobile device 103, one or more images of an object in the vehicle 102 may be captured by an image sensor, e.g., an image sensor on the mobile device 103. The object may include any portion of the vehicle 102, such as one or more parts of the vehicle 102. [0034] Identification of the object captured and the location of the mobile device in the locomotive are determined by searching the features of the object in a database. An augmented reality application on the mobile device overlays the wires that need to be inspected”).
Claim(s) 41, 42, 43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swenson et al. (US 20190279438) in view of Goldberg et al. (US 20190235641), and further in view of Malaprade et al. (US 20200082452).
Regarding claim 41, Swenson in view of Goldberg discloses The AR system of claim 35, wherein the AR activation routine enables the user to enter device information regarding an identity of a device in the real-world environment, has been disclosed.
On the other hand, Swenson in view of Goldberg fails to explicitly disclose but Malaprade discloses enabling the user to scan a QR code printed on or near a product in the real- world environment and decoding the QR code to determine the unique product identity information (Malaprade, “[0021] the client computing device 104 obtains the product information by decoding information encoded on or in the product (e.g., in a graphical code 132 such as a bar code or QR code, or in a near-field communication (NFC) or radio-frequency identification (RFID) chip) and obtains image data by capturing a color-calibrated image of the product”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Malaprade into the combination of Swenson and Goldberg, to include all limitations of claim 41. That is, adding the decoding QR code of Malaprade to the device of Swenson and Goldberg. The motivation/ suggestion would have been providing a response (e.g., additional product information, product recommendations, and the like) from the backend product computer system (Malaprade, [0017]).
Regarding claim 42, Swenson in view of Goldberg discloses The AR system of claim 35, wherein the AR activation routine enables the user to enter device information regarding an identity of a device in the real-world environment, has been disclosed.
On the other hand, Swenson in view of Goldberg fails to explicitly disclose but Malaprade discloses enabling the user to communicate with a product in the real-world environment via an RFID tag on or near the product in the real-world environment, receiving RFID information from the RFID tag and decoding the RFID information to determine the unique product identity information (Malaprade, “[0021] the client computing device 104 obtains the product information by decoding information encoded on or in the product (e.g., in a graphical code 132 such as a bar code or QR code, or in a near-field communication (NFC) or radio-frequency identification (RFID) chip) and obtains image data by capturing a color-calibrated image of the product”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Malaprade into the combination of Swenson and Goldberg, to include all limitations of claim 42. That is, adding the decoding RFID of Malaprade to the device of Swenson and Goldberg. The motivation/ suggestion would have been providing a response (e.g., additional product information, product recommendations, and the like) from the backend product computer system (Malaprade, [0017]).
Regarding claim 43, Swenson in view of Goldberg discloses The AR system of claim 35, wherein the AR activation routine enables the user to enter device information regarding an identity of a device in the real-world environment, has been disclosed.
On the other hand, Swenson in view of Goldberg fails to explicitly disclose but Malaprade discloses enabling the user to communicate with a product in the real-world environment via a near-field communication link, receiving product information via the near- field communication link from the product in the real-world environment and decoding the received product information to determine the unique product identity information (Malaprade, “[0021] the client computing device 104 obtains the product information by decoding information encoded on or in the product (e.g., in a graphical code 132 such as a bar code or QR code, or in a near-field communication (NFC) or radio-frequency identification (RFID) chip) and obtains image data by capturing a color-calibrated image of the product”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Malaprade into the combination of Swenson and Goldberg, to include all limitations of claim 43. That is, adding the decoding NFC of Malaprade to the device of Swenson and Goldberg. The motivation/ suggestion would have been providing a response (e.g., additional product information, product recommendations, and the like) from the backend product computer system (Malaprade, [0017]).
Claim(s) 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swenson et al. (US 20190279438) in view of Goldberg et al. (US 20190235641), and further in view of Allen et al. (US 20180068370).
Regarding claim 44, Swenson in view of Goldberg discloses The AR system of claim 35, wherein the AR activation routine determines a mapped AR node stored in the AR database that includes the identified device using the selected device ID to identify the mapped AR node, has been disclosed.
On the other hand, Swenson in view of Goldberg fails to explicitly disclose but Allen discloses wherein the activation routine enables the user to enter device information regarding an identity of a device in the real-world environment by providing the user with a set of photos of the real-world environment, each photo including an image of one or more devices in the real-world environment and enabling the user to select one of the set of photos to identify a device in the real-world environment (Allen, “[0009] The visual identification system may include a user interface adapted for displaying images to the user and receiving selections from the user, an image acquisition device adapted to acquire an image of the product, an image analysis device coupled to the image acquisition device, adapted to analyze the image to identify image features, a product database having prestored images with image features relating to a plurality of products, each image also having associated product information, an image search device coupled to the image analysis device and the product database adapted to search the image features of the product database to find similar product images and provide the similar product images to the user to select. The image search device may be further adapted to receive the product image selected, and identify product identification information from the selected product image”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Allen into the combination of Swenson and Goldberg, to include all limitations of claim 44. That is, adding the interface of selecting images of Allen to enter the device ID of Swenson and Goldberg. The motivation/ suggestion would have been to aid customers in finding a correct replacement part for a product from a picture of the product taken by the customer (Allen, [0002]).
Claim(s) 46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swenson et al. (US 20190279438) in view of Goldberg et al. (US 20190235641), and further in view of Robaina et al. (US 20190011703).
Regarding claim 46, Swenson in view of Goldberg discloses The AR system of claim 35.
On the other hand, Swenson in view of Goldberg fails to explicitly disclose but Robaina discloses wherein the AR activation routine determines a landing point location of a user using the stored location of the identified mapped AR node by enabling the user to specify the user's location with respect to the stored location of the identified mapped AR node and using the specified user's location as the landing point location of the user (Robaina, “[1346] wherein the head-mounted display is configured to set a point of reference based on said database of object locations and to project an image into the eye of a user such that the image appears to be fixed with respect to the point of reference. [1626] This image may be a real-time image in some cases and/or may appear overlaid on the patient. Additionally, as discussed above, the user can potentially manipulate the image, for example, to select a desired view of the rendered image. [1631] a user can select a virtual location relative to the object from which to view the object. [1632] Effectively, the head mounted display device(s) can image objects in an environment and record their location in a database and a location in that database of locations (e.g., the patient's knee or chest) can used as the frame of reference from which the location and orientation of one or more displayed images are determined based on their selected perspective/location with respect to that frame of reference”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Robaina into the combination of Swenson and Goldberg, to include all limitations of claim 46. That is, applying the user’s location of Robaina to determine the user’s location of Swenson and Goldberg. The motivation/ suggestion would have been Different users with different locations and hence perspectives with respect to the object may also see different image content or views thereof depending on their location. (Robaina, [1632]).
Claim(s) 47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swenson et al. (US 20190279438) in view of Goldberg et al. (US 20190235641), and further in view of Harris et al. (US 20210136509).
Regarding claim 47, Swenson in view of Goldberg discloses The AR system of claim 35.
On the other hand, Swenson in view of Goldberg fails to explicitly disclose but Harris discloses wherein the AR activation routine determines a landing point location of a user using the stored location of the identified mapped AR node by using image processing to detect the user's location with respect to the stored location of the identified mapped AR node and using the detected user's location as the landing point location of the user (Harris, “[0114] the user U is viewing the virtual scene 760 overlaid on the physical environment 701 in real-time via a display of a computing device 730 while the playback devices 702 play back the associated virtual media audio 766 out loud in the room 750. As described in greater detail below, the MPS 700 may transmit the locations 750a-750c of the playback devices 702 relative to the user U to a virtual media content provider (“VMP”) to enable playback of spatial audio by the playback devices 702. The spatial audio may include one or more aural cues that enable the user U to spatially perceive the locations of the virtual objects 760 within the physical environment”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Harris into the combination of Swenson and Goldberg, to include all limitations of claim 47. That is, applying the user’s location of Harris to determine the user’s location of Swenson and Goldberg. The motivation/ suggestion would have been providing a more realistic, immersive experience for the user U (Harris, [0114]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 03/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant submitted: As the Office action stated, Swenson captures one or more images of an object, extracts features, searches a database using those features, identifies an object, and then determines the location of the mobile device in a model based on the image. Office action at 7-9 (citing Swenson [0006], [0025]-[0027], [0034]). That alleged correspondence does not teach identifying a mapped AR node in an AR database by using entered device information as a lookup key. Instead, Swenson infers object identity and device location from image-derived features. Applicant's amended claim 35 now expressly recites a different mechanism: the entered device information is used to identify the mapped AR node in the AR database. Swenson does not disclose that architecture (Remarks, page 17, last paragraph).
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Swenson ([0025], [0034]) teaches capturing images of an object, and determining features of the object in the images. Then identification of the object captured and the location of the mobile device in the locomotive are determined by searching the features of the object in a database. The captured images, which correspond to the entered device information, are used to identify AR node (e.g., mapped identification and location) in the AR database.
The applicant submitted: Applicant acknowledges that Goldberg may be relevant to the narrow concept of user entry of device identity information. However, Goldberg still does not disclose using that entered device information to identify a mapped AR node in an AR database in the sense now expressly recited in amended claim 35. Goldberg's disclosure is directed to identifying a controllable device in a building context for control or interaction, not to identifying a mapped AR node as a landing point for AR scene activation using an AR-node database architecture (Remarks, page 18, 1st paragraph).
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Swenson already discloses the activation routine enables a user to enter device information in the real-world environment to use as a basis for detecting a landing point; determines an identity of an AR node as stored in an AR database from the entered device information by using the entered device information to identify the mapped AR node in the AR database, and Goldberg is only used to teach the activation routine enables a user, via the user interface, to enter device information regarding an identity of a device in the real-world environment, as set forth in the claim mapping for claim 35. It is the combination of Swenson and Goldberg to teach all limitations of claim 35.
The applicant submitted: Further, neither Swenson nor Goldberg teaches or suggests using the stored location of the identified mapped AR node as at least an initial landing point location of the user, as now recited in amended claim 35. Swenson determines the location of the mobile device from images and image-derived feature matching. Office action at 8-9. That is fundamentally different from initializing the user landing point from a previously stored AR-node location once the node has been identified. The Office action's alleged correspondence effectively equated "computing the mobile device location from image analysis" with "using the stored location of the identified mapped AR node as at least an initial landing point location." Those are not the same. The former is image-derived localization; the latter is node-location initialization (Remarks, page 18, 2nd paragraph).
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Initial landing point location is a general term cited in claim(s) 35 without further detailed explanations. The specification of the instant application discloses “[0231], the AR application or the AR activation routine may use the AR node location to determine the current user location to use for the setting the landing point and the initial AR scene”. Therefore, the initial landing point location of the user is interpreted as the current user location. On the other hand, Swenson discloses “[0025] Step 203 may include determining the location of the mobile device 103. The location of the mobile device 103 may indicate the location of the technician using the mobile device 103. [0034] A mobile device with two cameras is pointed to an object in the locomotive. Identification of the object captured and the location of the mobile device in the locomotive are determined by searching the features of the object in a database”. Therefore, Swenson teaches using the stored location of the identified mapped AR node (e.g., location of the mobile device) as at least an initial landing point location (e.g., the location of the technician using the mobile device).
The applicant submitted: This distinction is further clarified in amended claim 45. Swenson discloses determining a mobile device location in a three-dimensional model based on an image and features of the captured object. Id. Swenson does not disclose searching an AR database using entered device information to identify the mapped AR node and then setting the landing point location of the user as the stored location of that identified mapped AR node, as amended claim 45 now expressly requires. Swenson's image-based localization therefore does not anticipate or render obvious the amended claim 45 language (Remarks, page 18, 3rd paragraph).
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Swenson discloses “[0006] wherein the solution data identifies a defective part in the locomotive; capturing an image of an object associated with the locomotive with an image sensor on the mobile device; determining a location of the mobile device in a three-dimensional model of the locomotive in the database based on the image. [0025] Step 203 may include determining the location of the mobile device 103. The location of the mobile device 103 may indicate the location of the technician using the mobile device 103. To determine the location of the mobile device 103, one or more images of an object in the vehicle 102 may be captured by an image sensor, e.g., an image sensor on the mobile device 103. The object may include any portion of the vehicle 102, such as one or more parts of the vehicle 102. [0034] Identification of the object captured and the location of the mobile device in the locomotive are determined by searching the features of the object in a database. An augmented reality application on the mobile device overlays the wires that need to be inspected”. Therefore, Swenson teaches searching an AR database (e.g., a database) using entered device information (e.g., captured images of an object) to identify the mapped AR node (e.g., Identification of the object captured and the location of the mobile device) and then setting the landing point location of the user (e.g., location of the technician) as the stored location of that identified mapped AR node.
The applicant submitted: Even assuming arguendo that Goldberg could be added to Swenson to provide entry of a device identifier, the Office action did not explain why a skilled artisan would have further modified Swenson's image-based localization so that the entered device information identifies a mapped AR node in an AR database and the stored location of that identified mapped AR node is used as at least an initial landing point location of the user. The Office action therefore did not articulate a sufficient technical nexus between Goldberg's device- control disclosure and Applicant's AR landing-point initialization architecture (Remarks, page 19, 1st paragraph).
The examiner respectfully disagrees. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Swenson and Goldberg. That is, adding the entering device ID of Goldberg to identify the object of Swenson. The motivation/ suggestion would have been to provide technological improvements that simplify the identification and control of devices within a physical space, such a building (Goldberg, [0018]). Goldberg is analogous to Swenson in that they both discloses methods of entering device information, while Goldberg provides extra detailed examples such as the ID of the device is entered by capturing an image of a barcode, QR code, or other type of visual identifier on the controllable device. The combination enables the user to enter the device information using various methods.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-20, 28-34 is/are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 9, it recites, inter alia, “enabling the user to provide image information regarding one or more devices in the real-world, mapped environment in a field of view of a camera of the mobile device of the user, detecting, by a machine learning (ML) model processing one or more images captured by the camera, an object associated with the determined AR node; determining a more accurate location of the user with respect to the detected object associated with the determined AR node in the real-world environment; and using the more accurate location of the user to cause second digital information to be superimposed on a real-world view presented to the user via a display of the mobile user interface device”. None of the prior arts on the record or any of the prior arts searched, alone or in combination, renders obvious the combination of elements recited in the claim(s) as a whole.
Regarding claim 28, it recites, inter alia, “enables the user to provide image information regarding one or more devices in the real- world environment in a field of view of a camera of the mobile user interface device, detects, by a machine learning (ML) model processing one or more images captured by the camera, an object associated with the determined mapped AR node; determines an updated location of the user with respect to the detected object associated with the determined mapped AR node in the real-world environment; and uses the updated location of the user to cause second digital information to be superimposed on a real-world view presented to the user via a display of the mobile user interface device”. None of the prior arts on the record or any of the prior arts searched, alone or in combination, renders obvious the combination of elements recited in the claim(s) as a whole.
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 GRACE Q LI whose telephone number is (571)270-0497. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am-5:00 pm.
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, DEVONA FAULK can be reached at 571-272-7515. 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.
/GRACE Q LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2618 5/24/2026
Prosecution Insights