Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that in the Chastain reference a network connected object recognition server is not used. To this matter the examiner respectfully disagrees. This is clearly taught by Chastain. Chastain teaches a network connected object recognition server (display device 112 figure 1) since this device recognizes the object and sends the information to the augmentation server (paragraph 21 and 26), meeting the claim language.
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 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.
Claims 1, 3, 9-10, 14, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chastain et al., US 2022/0391619.
Regarding claim 14, Chastain discloses a system for providing an augmented reality experience to a user of a user device, comprising:
a network (paragraph 16-19);
an object recognition server coupled to said user device by said network (112 figure 1, paragraph 21 and 26); and
an augmentation content server (104 figure 1) coupled to said user device and said object recognition device by said network , the augmentation content server including:
a network interface; and a first processor configured to control the augmentation content server to:
receive information communicated via the network to the augmentation content server, said received information being: i)information received from the object recognition server and indicating a first object being viewed by the user which was recognized by the object recognition server or ii)information from the object recognition server indicating program content being viewed by the user (paragraph 21 and 26);
determine supplemental content corresponding the first object being viewed or the program content being viewed to be provided (paragraph 49);
generate, at the augmentation content server, an augmented content reality video stream including supplemental content (paragraph 49); and
supply the augmented content reality stream to the user device said user device supporting one or both of i) a virtual reality application or ii) a mixed reality application (paragraph 26, 30, 41 and 59).
Claims 1 and 20 are rejected on the same grounds as claim 14.
Regarding claim 16, Chastain discloses the system of claim 14, wherein the user device is a pair of augmented reality glasses capable of displaying supplemental content included in the augmented reality stream (paragraph 26, 30, 41 and 59).
Claim 3 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 16.
Regarding claim 9, Chastain discloses the method of The method of wherein the user device includes a camera; and wherein the method further includes: receiving, via the communication network, at the object recognition server, video content captured by the user device; performing, at the object recognition server, an object recognition operation on the received video content; identifying said first object in received video content, and operating the object recognition server to communicate information identifying the first object to the augmentation content server (paragraph 29, 40, 46, 65 and 76).
Regarding claim 10, Chastain discloses the method of claim 9, further comprising: operating an application on the user device to contact the object recognition server and supply, via the network, video of content captured by the camera on the user device to the object recognition sever; and operating the object recognition server to supply information about detected objects to the augmentation content server, said supplied information including said information identifying the first object (paragraph 29, 40, 46, 65 and 76).
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2, 4-5, 11-13, 15 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Chastain in view of Jang et al., US 2017/0238065.
Regarding claim 15, Chastain discloses the system of claim 14, wherein the user device is a head mounted display (HMD) headset being worn by the user for presentation to the user (paragraph 26, 30, 41 and 59), wherein the system further comprises a program content server (paragraph 17), a display device for displaying said program content (paragraph 21).
Chastain is silent about wherein, said object recognition server being configured to perform a program content identification operation.
In an analogous art, Jang discloses a recognition server being configured to perform a program content identification operation (paragraph 55).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify, at the time of filing, Chastain’s System with the teachings of Jang. The motivation would have been to identified the media for the benefit of properly target content.
Claim 2 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 15.
Regarding claim 17, Chastain and Jang disclose the system of claim 15, wherein the augmented reality content stream includes rendered images which can be combined with digital content being displayed on the display of the HMD headset and/or displayed while objects in the environment are being viewed through the display device of the HMD headset (Chastain paragraph 26, 30, 41 and 59).
Claim 4 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 17.
Regarding claim 18, Chastain and Jang discloses the system of claim 17, wherein the augmented reality image stream is used as an augmentation image layer that is combined with the digital content being displayed on the display of the HMD headset (Chastain paragraph 26, 30, 41 and 59).
Claim 5 is rejected on the same grounds as claim 18.
Regarding claim 11, Chastain discloses the method of claim 1, wherein said received information communicated via a network to the augmentation content server indicates program content being viewed by the user that was streamed from a content streaming server, said content streaming server, object recognition server and augmentation content server being separate devices coupled to said user device by said network (figure 1, paragraph 29, 37 and 46).
Chastain is silent about the information indicates program content.
In an analogous art, Jang discloses the information indicates program content (paragraph 55).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify, at the time of filing, Chastain’s method with the teachings of Jang. The motivation would have been to identified the media for the benefit of properly target content.
Regarding claim 12, Chastain and Jang disclose the method of claim 11, further comprising: controlling the user device to display the supplemental content to the user (Chastain figure 4).
Regarding claim 13, Chastain and Jang disclose the method of claim 12, wherein displaying the supplemental content to the user includes displaying the content on a display device, of the user device, through which the environment in which the user is located is being viewed or displaying the supplemental content to the user as part of a display of video content captured by a camera of the user device (Chastain figure 4).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Chastain in view of Jang in view of Drynan, US 11,049,176.
Regarding claim 6, Chastain and Jang discloses the method of claim 2.
Chastain and Jang are silent about receiving, from the user device, at the augmentation server, user color preference information; and wherein generating, at the augmentation content server, the augmented content reality video stream includes generating an image of an object having a color matching the color preference of the user.
In an analogous art, Drynan discloses receive user color preference information; and wherein generating, at the augmentation content server, the augmented content reality video stream includes generating an image of an object having a color matching the color preference of the user (col. 2, line 65 to col. 3, line 16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify, at the time of filing, Chastain and Jang’s method with the teachings of Drynan. This standard in the art. The motivation would have been to give the user the desired product for the benefit of providing quality of service.
Claims 7-8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Chastain in view of Drynan, US 11,049,176.
Regarding claim 19, Chastain discloses the system of claim 14.
Chastain is silent about receive user color preference information; and wherein generating, at the augmentation content server, the augmented content reality video stream includes generating an image of an object having a color matching the color preference of the user.
In an analogous art, Drynan discloses receive user color preference information; and wherein generating, at the augmentation content server, the augmented content reality video stream includes generating an image of an object having a color matching the color preference of the user (col. 2, line 65 to col. 3, line 16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify, at the time of filing, Chastain’s System with the teachings of Drynan. This standard in the art. The motivation would have been to give the user the desired product for the benefit of providing quality of service.
Regarding claim 7, Chastain and Drynan disclose the method of claim 1.
Chastain is silent about receiving, from the user device, at the augmentation server, user item features or model preference information; and wherein generating, at the augmentation content server, the augmented content reality video stream includes generating an image of an object having the features or corresponding to a model indicated by the item feature and/or model preference information.
In an analogous art, Drynan discloses receiving user item features or model preference information; and wherein generating, at the augmentation content server, the augmented content reality video stream includes generating an image of an object having the features or corresponding to a model indicated by the item feature and/or model preference information (col. 2, line 65 to col. 3, line 16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify, at the time of filing, Chastain’s method with the teachings of Drynan. This standard in the art. The motivation would have been to give the user the desired product for the benefit of providing quality of service.
Regarding claim 8, Chastain and Drynan disclose the method of claim 7, further comprising: receiving user color preference information; and receiving user preferred item feature information or user model preference information; and wherein generating, at the augmentation content server, the augmented content reality video stream includes generating an image of an object having the color indicated by the received color preference information and features indicated by the received user preferred item feature information and/or displaying a model of an item indicated by the user model preference information (Drynan col. 2, line 65 to col. 3, line 16).
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OSCHTA I MONTOYA whose telephone number is (571)270-1192. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8 am - 5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nathan Flynn can be reached on 571-272-1915. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
OM
Oschta Montoya
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2421
/OSCHTA I MONTOYA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421