DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2, 6-9, 13-16 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6, 8, 13 and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,417,582 (hereinafter “Reference Patent”), in view of Votaw et al. U.S. Publication 2018/0139204 (hereinafter “Votaw”), and further in view of Falodiya U.S. Publication 2017/0006020. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of the limitations recited in the claims of the Instant Application is not patently distinct from the scope of the limitations recited in the claims of the Reference Patent in view of Votaw and further in view of Falodiya.
Claim 1 of the Instant Application corresponds to claim 1 of the Reference Patent, in view of Votaw and further in view of Falodiya. For example, please see table below which shows that claim 1 of the Reference Patent (especially the bolded limitations) correspond to limitations of claim 1 of the Instant Application (except where italicized):
Instant Application
18/428,141
Reference Patent
12,417,582
1. A system, comprising:
a memory configured to store image data utilized to render an extended reality (XR) environment on an XR device associated with a user and a plurality of XR applications executable within the XR environment; and
one or more processors operably coupled to the memory and configured to:
render, on one or more displays of the XR device, the XR environment, wherein the XR environment is configured to facilitate user interactions with the plurality of XR applications while executing within the XR environment;
detect, based on sensor data obtained from one or more sensors of the XR device, a user gesture performed in three-dimensional (3D) space, wherein the detected user gesture comprises a point cloud representative of one or more user interactions performed in 3D space;
determine, based on the detected user gesture, a unique digital signature of the user in 3D space;
generate, based on the unique digital signature of the user, a single-use interaction token for finalizing an execution of a sequence of user interactions with at least one of the plurality of XR applications; and
finalize the execution of the sequence of user interactions with the at least one of the plurality of XR applications based on the single-use token.
1. A system, comprising:
a memory configured to store a user identification for a user, image data utilized to render an extended reality (XR) environment on an XR device associated with the user, and a plurality of XR applications executable within the XR environment; and
one or more processors operably coupled to the memory and configured to:
render, on one or more displays of the XR device, the XR environment, wherein the XR environment is configured to facilitate user interactions with the plurality of XR applications while executing within the XR environment;
detect, based on sensor data obtained from one or more sensors of the XR device, a sequence of user interactions with at least one XR application of the plurality of XR applications;
identify, based at least in part upon the sequence of user interactions with the at least one XR application and the user identification, a historical user interaction data associated with the user;
generate a first trust token based on the identified historical user interaction data; and
receive an interaction to finalize execution of the sequence of user interactions, and, in response:
access a second trust token associated with the at least one XR application;
compare the first trust token with the second trust token;
validate the second trust token based at least in part upon the comparison of the first trust token with the second trust token;
validate each user interaction of the sequence of user interactions based at least in part upon the identified historical user interaction data; and
in response to validating the second trust token and the user interactions of the sequence of user interactions, finalize execution of the sequence of user interactions.
The “identified historical user interaction data” of the Reference Patent corresponds to the “unique digital signature of the user in 3D space”. The Reference Patent does not explicitly teach: 1) the sequence of user interactions is a user gesture performed in 3D space, where the detected user gesture comprises a point cloud representative of the one or more user interactions performed in 3D space; and 2) the token is a single-use interaction token. Similar to the Instant Application and the Reference Patent, Votaw also teaches an XR environment that uses sensor data to detect user interaction (capture a gesture motion of the user) (Votaw: paragraphs [0003], [0028] and [0060]). In addition, Votaw teaches the user interaction is a user gesture performed in 3D space, where the user gesture comprises a point cloud representative of the one or more user interactions performed in 3D space (capture a gesture motion of the user, where the gesture motion includes the user’s hand position and movements) (Votaw: paragraphs [0003], [0028] and [0060]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the user interaction taught by the Reference Patent to further include the user gesture comprising a point cloud representative of one or more user interactions performed in 3D space, as taught by Votaw. One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to allow a user to execute a document remotely (Votaw: paragraph [0022]). Similar to the Instant Application, Reference Patent and Votaw, Falodiya also teaches using tokens to finalize execution of a sequence of user interactions (using a token to validate the right of the user to perform certain operations) (Falodiya: paragraphs [0013]-[0015] and [0018]). In addition, Falodiya teaches finalizing execution of a sequence of user interactions with at least one of a plurality of applications based on a single-use interaction token (a single use token generator generates a single use access token based on user credentials; the single use access token can be utilized by an application to validate the right of the user to perform certain operations) (Falodiya: paragraphs [0013]-[0015] and [0018]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the token taught by the Reference Patent in view of Votaw to include Falodiya’s use of a single-use access token to validate user interactions with at least one of a plurality of applications. One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to provide “broad access to remote resources” (Falodiya: paragraphs [0011]-[0012]).
Claim 2 of the Instant Application: see Votaw at paragraphs [0047]-[0048]
Claim 6 of the Instant Application: see claim 6 of the Reference Patent
Claim 7 of the instant Application: see Falodiya at paragraphs [0014] and [0018]
Claim 8 of the Instant Application recites a method embodiment that corresponds to the system embodiment of claim 1 of the Instant Application. Similar to the mapping of claim 1 of the Instant Application to claim 1 of the Reference Patent in view of Votaw and further in view of Falodiya, claim 8 of the Instant Application is mapped to claim 8 of the Reference Patent in view of Votaw and further in view of Falodiya in a similar manner.
Claims 9 of the Instant Application: see Votaw at paragraphs [0047]-[0048]
Claim 13 of the Instant Application: see claim 13 of the Reference Patent
Claim 14 of the Instant Application: see Falodiya at paragraphs [0014] and [0018]
Claim 15 of the Instant Application recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium embodiment that corresponds to the system embodiment of claim 1 of the Instant Application. Similar to the mapping of claim 1 of the Instant Application to claim 1 of the Reference Patent in view of Votaw and further in view of Falodiya, claim 15 of the Instant Application is mapped to claim 15 of the Reference Patent in view of Votaw and further in view of Falodiya in a similar manner.
Claim 16 of the Instant Application: see Votaw at paragraphs [0047]-[0048]
Claim 20 of the Instant Application: see Falodiya at paragraphs [0014] and [0018]
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-9, 13-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Votaw et al. U.S. Publication 2018/0139204 (hereinafter “Votaw”), in view of Falodiya U.S. Publication 2017/0006020.
Referring to claim 1, Votaw teaches a system, comprising:
a memory configured to store image data utilized to render an extended reality (XR) environment on an XR device associated with a user and an XR application executable within the XR environment (an augmented reality (AR) system comprising an AR user device that provides a virtual display for displaying an application) (Votaw: paragraphs 0025], [0028] and [0035]; this is further shown in Figures 1 and 3); and
one or more processors operably coupled to the memory and configured to (Votaw: Figure 3):
render, on one or more displays of the XR device, the XR environment, wherein the XR environment is configured to facilitate user interactions with the XR application while executing within the XR environment (AR environment displayed in Figure 1) (Votaw: paragraphs 0025], [0028] and [0035]);
detect, based on sensor data obtained from one or more sensors of the XR device, a user gesture performed in three-dimensional (3D) space (capture a gesture motion of the user) (Votaw: paragraphs [0003], [0028] and [0060]), wherein the detected user gesture comprises a point cloud representative of one or more user interactions performed in 3D space (the gesture motion includes the user’s hand position and movements) (Votaw: paragraphs [0003], [0028] and [0060]);
determine, based on the detected user gesture, a unique digital signature of the user in 3D space (the captured gesture motion is used to generate a user signature) (Votaw: paragraphs [0003] and [0028];
generate, based on the unique digital signature of the user, an interaction token for finalizing an execution of a sequence of user interactions with at least one of the XR application (generate a transfer token that includes the signature; the transfer token facilitates creating an executed virtual file document) (Votaw: paragraphs [0003], [0009], [0037] and [0065]); and
finalize the execution of the sequence of user interactions with the at least one of the XR application based on the interaction token (using the transfer token to execute the virtual file document) (Votaw: paragraphs [0037] and [0068]).
However, Votaw fails to explicitly teach that the application is one of a plurality of applications and that the interaction token is a single-use interaction token. Similar to Votaw, Falodiya also teaches using tokens to finalize execution of a sequence of user interactions (using a token to validate the right of the user to perform certain operations) (Falodiya: paragraphs [0013]-[0015] and [0018]). In addition, Falodiya teaches finalizing execution of a sequence of user interactions with at least one of a plurality of applications based on a single-use interaction token (a single use token generator generates a single use access token based on user credentials; the single use access token can be utilized by an application to validate the right of the user to perform certain operations) (Falodiya: paragraphs [0013]-[0015] and [0018]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the interaction token for finalizing an execution of a sequence of user interactions with the XR application taught by Votaw to include Falodiya’s use of a single-use access token to validate user interactions with at least one of a plurality of applications. One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to provide “broad access to remote resources” (Falodiya: paragraphs [0011]-[0012]).
Referring to claim 2, Votaw, as modified by Falodiya, teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more sensors of the XR device comprises one or more Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) sensors or one or more depth cameras (camera 306 shown in Figure 3) (Votaw: paragraphs [0047]-[0048]).
Referring to claim 6, Votaw, as modified by Falodiya, teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to finalize the execution of the sequence of user interactions with the at least one of the plurality of XR applications to execute a predetermined action (performing the action of executing the virtual file document) (Votaw: paragraphs [0037] and [0068]).
Referring to claim 7, Votaw, as modified by Falodiya, teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to destroy the single-use interaction token subsequent to the execution of the sequence of user interactions with the at least one of the plurality of XR applications (once the access token has been utilized to validate the user’s right to perform certain operations, the token expires and cannot be used again) (Falodiya: paragraphs [0014] and [0018]).
Claims 8-9 and 13-14 recite a method embodiment comprising essentially the same limitations as those recited in the system embodiment of claims 1-2 and 6-7. Therefore, the limitations of claims 8-9 and 13-14 are rejected similarly to the rejection of the limitations of claims 1-2 and 6-7.
Claims 15-16 and 20 recite a non-transitory computer-readable medium embodiment comprising essentially the same limitations as those recited in the system embodiment of claims 1-2 and 7. Therefore, the limitations of claims 15-16 and 20 are rejected similarly to the rejection of the limitations of claims 1-2 and 7.
Claim(s) 3, 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Votaw et al. U.S. Publication 2018/0139204 (hereinafter “Votaw”), in view of Falodiya U.S. Publication 2017/0006020, as applied to claims 1, 8 and 15 above, and further in view of Eshraghian et al. U.S. Publication 2013/0076950 (hereinafter “Eshraghian”).
Referring to claims 3, 10 and 17, Votaw in view of Falodiya (hereinafter “the combination of Votaw/Falodiya”) teaches all of the limitations as applied to claims 1, 8 and 15 above. However, although the combination of Votaw/Falodiya teaches encrypting the interaction token with the unique digital signature of the user (the single-use transfer token comprising the user signature is encrypted) (Votaw: paragraph [0018]; Falodiya: paragraph [0043]), the combination of Votaw/Falodiya fails to explicitly teach using a 3D discrete wavelet transform (DWT). Similar to the combination of Votaw/Falodiya, Eshraghian also teaches encrypting data (Eshraghian: paragraphs [0029]-[0030]). In addition, Eshraghian teaches utilizing a 3D discrete wavelet transform (DWT) (Eshraghian: paragraphs [0024] and [0029]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the encryption of the single-use interaction token with the unique digital signature of the user taught by the combination of Votaw/Falodiya with Eshraghian’s 3D discrete wavelet transform. One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to use a widely used image processing technique that provides better compression ratios (Eshraghian: paragraphs [0024] and [0029]).
Claim(s) 4-5, 11-12 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Votaw et al. U.S. Publication 2018/0139204 (hereinafter “Votaw”), in view of Falodiya U.S. Publication 2017/0006020, as applied to claims 1, 8 and 15 above, and further in view of Hill et al. U.S. Publication 2009/0245811 (hereinafter “Hill”).
Referring to claims 4, 11 and 18, the combination of Votaw/Falodiya teaches all of the limitations as applied to claims 1, 8 and 15 above. However, the combination of Votaw/Falodiya fails to explicitly teach wherein the single-use interaction token is configured to be modulated into a plurality of optical bits utilizing a radiant crystal waveguide. Similar to the combination of Votaw/Falodiya, Hill also teaches encrypting data for communication (Hill: paragraphs [0020] and [0034]). In addition, Hill teaches modulating a signal into a plurality of optical bits utilizing a radiant crystal waveguide (modulation technique for generating optical data bits using a waveguide) (Hill: paragraphs [0006] and [0021]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication of the single-use interaction token across a network taught by the combination of Votaw/Falodiya to include Hill’s optical communication method of utilizing a radiant crystal waveguide to modulate data into a plurality of optical bits. One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to provide durable, robust and secure communication (Hill: paragraphs [0001], [0004]-[0005] and [0020]).
Referring to claims 5, 12 and 19, the combination of Votaw/Falodiya, as modified by Hill, teaches wherein the plurality of optical bits is configured to be transmitted utilizing steganography and wavelength division multiplexing (WDM) based fiber optical communication (Votaw teaches masking the information to be communicated; Hill teaches wave division multiplexing techniques) (Votaw: paragraphs [0009] and [0018]; Hill: paragraph [0048]).
The prior art made of record on form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action. US2022/0038891 to duPont et al. teaches a similar virtual reality space that detects user gestures performed in 3D space for performing activities. US2007/0192619 to Gifford et al., US2025/0045735 to Araujo et al. and US2022/0247753 to Dunjic et al. teach similar methods of generating single-use tokens to validate user interaction with an application.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TING ZHOU LEE whose telephone number is (571) 272-4058. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Thursday 9AM – 1PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kieu Vu can be reached on (571) 272-4057. 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.
/TING Z LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
Prosecution Insights