DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to applicant’s amendment/response filed on 12/04/2025, which has been entered and made of record. Claims 1, 5, 16, 19, and 20 have been amended. Claims 44-46 have been added. Claims 1-2, 5-16, 19-20, 44-46 are pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 6, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petrovskaya et al. (US 20160253844) in view of Huang (US 20220058877).
Regarding claim 1, Petrovskaya discloses A method comprising: at a first device comprising one or more processors (Petrovskaya, “[0182] The instructions stored in memory 3410 can be implemented as software and/or firmware to program the processor(s) 3405 to carry out actions described above”):
determining that a three-dimensional (3D) representation of an environment corresponds to a current physical environment of the first device (Petrovskaya, “[0064] The user may have previously created, or be in the process of creating, a virtual model 600b of all, or a portion, of the real-world environment 600a. In this example, the virtual model already includes a virtual representation of the chair 605b (e.g., as a TSDF or vertex mesh) which corresponds to the real world chair 605a. The virtual representation 600b may be stored in a computer”);
determining a spatial relationship between the 3D representation and the current physical environment (Petrovskaya, “[0064] Some embodiments may make a one-to-one correspondence between real-world coordinate frame 623 and virtual coordinate frame 625”);
determining position data corresponding to a position of the first device relative to the 3D representation based on a location of the first device in the current physical environment and the spatial relationship between the 3D representation and the current physical environment (Petrovskaya, “[0065] The system may seek to determine the pose of the capture device 620 relative to the world coordinate frame 623 when the depth frame having depth values 610a-e was captured (in some embodiments). This capture device pose may be estimated by fitting or aligning the depth data to the virtual model. [0066] Thus, the system may seek to identify a more appropriate transform 635b of the depth values 610a-e. This improved transform 635b (a translation and/or rotation of the depth frame values 610a-e) will better reflect the position and orientation of the capture device 620 relative to the virtual coordinate frame 625, which would serve as an estimate of the transform between the pose of the device 620 and world coordinate frame 623, when the depth frame with values 610a-e was captured. As the “transformation” represents the transformation between the pose 640 of the device 620 and the world coordinate frame 623 and virtual model origin 625, the terms “pose” and “transform” are used interchangeably herein. [0069] These outputs 710 may be used by a tracking system 720. During an AR session, an AR device may provide real-world depth information 725 (e.g., a depth frame taken when the AR device is in some pose in the real world) to the tracking system 720. The tracking system 720 may then determine a pose of the AR device relative to the 3D model 710a corresponding to the AR device's real-world pose based upon the depth data 725”); and
providing the position data during a communication session between the first device and a second device, wherein a view of the 3D representation including a representation of a user of the first device positioned based on the position data is presented to a user of the second device during the communication session (Petrovskaya, figs.27-32, “[0155] multiple users may virtually share the real space (or their virtual space) around them with others. Each person may stay in their own environment, but it may appear to them that all the people are located in the same real space. For example, Person A may share a model or part of a model with person B. Person B may designate an area in their environment that person A's space should map to. The mapping may produce a 3D transform TAB from a location in person B's environment to a location in person A's environment. Once the mapping has been established, person B's virtual location in person A's environment can be determined by first computing the pose TB of person B in their own environment, and then composing with the mapping transform to obtain a pose in person A's environment TA=T.sub.ABT.sub.B. Similarly, the inverse mapping T.sub.AB.sup.−1 can be used to compute the virtual pose of person A in person B's environment. [0156] The location of person A in person B's environment may be marked by a virtual object or avatar”).
On the other hand, Petrovskaya fails to explicitly disclose but Huang discloses wherein the representation comprises a feature map that includes features associated with the current physical environment (Huang, “[0040] The operation principle of the processor 123 performing the feature matching operation on the (i+1).sup.th environmental image and the second template image is the same as the operation principle performing the feature matching operation on the i.sup.th environmental image and the first template image. [0053] the matching result between the i.sup.th environmental image and the first template image may include the multiple feature matching pairs and the matching image block of the component device 131 of the i.sup.th environmental image”. Therefore, the feature matching pairs of the template image correspond to the feature map);
determining a spatial relationship between the representation and the current physical environment by aligning features based on visual matching (Huang, “[0031] the computer device 120 may repeatedly calculate positioning information of the electronic equipment 130 in an augmented reality coordinate system. [0032] In one embodiment, whenever the computer device 120 obtains an environmental image, the computer device 120 may obtain the positioning information of the component device 131 of the electronic equipment 130 by performing feature matching operations on the environmental image and a template image that is associated with the component device 131”),
wherein the visual matching comprises matching the feature map associated with the representation with features identified in the current physical environment (Huang, “[0046] the processor 123 performs a feature matching operation on the (i+1).sup.th environmental image Img_S(i+1) and the second template image Img_T2, so as to find from the (i+1).sup.th environmental image Img_S(i+1) a matching image block M3 similar to the matching image block M2 of the component device 131 of the second template image Img_T2. [0059] Thus, in step S611, the processor 123 may perform a feature matching operation on the (i+1).sup.th environmental image and the first template image to obtain another matching result, so as to display the virtual object through the head-mounted display 110 according to the another matching result”).
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 Huang and Petrovskaya, to include all limitations of claim 1. That is, applyings the feature matching of Huang to determine the spatial relationship between the 3D representation and the current physical environment of Petrovskaya. Especially, positioning information of the electronic equipment 130 in an augmented reality coordinate system of Huang is analogous to the one-to-one correspondence between real-world coordinate frame and virtual coordinate frame of Petrovskaya. The motivation/ suggestion would have been the display position of the virtual object may be determined, and the user can view through the head-mounted display the virtual object shown robustly and accurately around the electronic equipment (Huang, [0010]).
Regarding claim(s) 16, 20, they are interpreted and rejected for the same reasons set forth in claim(s) 1. Specially, claims 16, 20 further recites “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium; and one or more processors coupled to the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, wherein the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprises program instructions that, when executed on the one or more processors, cause the system to perform operations”.
Petrovskaya further discloses in claim 8 “A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions configured to cause a computer system to perform a method”, and “[0183] The various embodiments introduced herein can be implemented by, for example, programmable circuitry (e.g., one or more microprocessors) programmed with software and/or firmware, or entirely in special-purpose hardwired (non-programmable) circuitry, or in a combination of such forms. Special-purpose hardwired circuitry may be in the form of, for example, one or more ASICs, PLDs, FPGAs, etc.”.
Regarding claim 5, Petrovskaya in view of Huang discloses The method of claim 1.
On the other hand, Petrovskaya fails to explicitly disclose but Huang discloses wherein the representation comprises anchor points, each anchor point associated with a particular location within a physical environment, and the visual matching is based on the anchor points (Huang, “[0041] In one embodiment, according to the feature matching result of the (i+1).sup.th environmental image and the second template image, the processor 123 may obtain another matching image block of the component device 130 from the (i+1).sup.th environmental image. For example, the processor 123 may use any corner point or center point of another matching image block from the (i+1).sup.th environmental image as a reference anchor point to calculate the display position of the virtual object according to a preset relative position relationship. Then, the processor 123 may display the virtual object through the head-mounted display. [0049] In one embodiment, the processor 123 may use a Kalman filter to estimate the coordinates of the four corner points of the matching image block of the component device 131”). The same motivation of claim 1 applies here.
Regarding claim(s) 19, it is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons set forth in claim(s) 5.
Regarding claim 6, Petrovskaya in view of Huang discloses The method of claim 1.
Petrovskaya further discloses wherein determining the spatial relationship between the 3D representation and the current physical environment is based on visual simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM) (Petrovskaya, “[0088] The Mapping system produces 3D models (maps) of the environment. The maps may be very accurate to facilitate subsequent operation. FIG. 9 is a flow diagram generally depicting an overview of various steps in a map creation process, e.g., as may occur at block 510 of FIG. 5. In some embodiments, the mapping system uses a Bayesian filter algorithm, e.g., a simultaneous mapping and tracking (SLAM) algorithm, which builds a map based on the camera's pose with respect to the environment. The SLAM method may perform estimation iteratively over the incoming depth frames”).
Regarding claim 10, Petrovskaya in view of Huang discloses The method of claim 1.
Petrovskaya further discloses wherein the first device and the second device are in different physical environments (Petrovskaya, “[0130] Despite these limitations, user 1720c may still be able to interact with the users 1720a,b,d as described in various embodiments herein. Similarly, user 1720d may be located in another environment 1705c and may be using a headset device 1760 and gesture controls 1755a,b. [0146] As discussed above, some systems may allow a user (even a user with only, e.g., a web browser) to access a website (e.g., site 1735a) to influence another, perhaps remote, user's AR experience”).
Regarding claim 11, Petrovskaya in view of Huang discloses The method of claim 1.
Petrovskaya further discloses wherein the representation of at least a portion of the user of the first device is generated based on sensor data obtained during the communication session (Petrovskaya, “[0156] The location of person A in person B's environment may be marked by a virtual object or avatar. Additionally, if person A's device is equipped with a front-facing camera, and image or video stream can be displayed on the virtual marker or avatar. Alternatively, person A's video stream (or image) can be shown on a billboard quad placed at the virtual location of person A in person B's environment. [0160] Once the shared-room application has begun, both users will see avatars 2905a, 2905b of the other users. The avatars may acquire real-time video of the user (e.g., via a camera facing the user on the same side of a tablet as a touch screen)”).
Regarding claim 14, Petrovskaya in view of Huang discloses The method of claim 1.
Petrovskaya further discloses wherein a view of the communication session is presented in an extended reality (XR) experience (Petrovskaya, “[0045] An augmented reality (AR) device 105b (which may be the same as the capture device 105b) may then use 170 the model 130 in conjunction with incoming depth frame data to present an augmented reality experience 100c. [0146] In an application interface 2105, e.g., a browser directed to a social networking site, a user may select various virtual items 2110 to appear in another user's augmented reality environment”).
Regarding claim 15, Petrovskaya in view of Huang discloses The method of claim 1.
Petrovskaya further discloses wherein the first device or the second device is a head- mounted device (HMD) (Petrovskaya, “[0055] A head mounted display may be used as a combined mapping and AR device, or as just one or the other. [0148] The user may place virtual objects, e.g., via a browser, an AR phone, tablet or HMD device, a VR phone, tablet or HMD device, etc.”).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petrovskaya et al. (US 20160253844) in view of Huang (US 20220058877), and further in view of Kiviranta et al. (US 11321932).
Regarding claim 2, Petrovskaya in view of Huang discloses The method of claim 1.
On the other hand, Petrovskaya in view of Huang fails to explicitly disclose but Kiviranta discloses wherein the 3D representation comprises a point cloud representing at least a portion of a physical environment (Kiviranta, “(34) Optionally, the second model comprises a virtual model which comprises at least one of: a virtual model associated with a real-world environment… It will also be appreciated that the first model and the second model can be 3D models, and thus could be represented for example, by a point cloud”).
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 Kiviranta and Petrovskaya in view of Huang. That is, applying the point cloud model of Kiviranta to the 3D model of Petrovskaya. The motivation/ suggestion would have been enabling the user to manipulate the models for advantage of improving their informational content and spatiotemporal awareness (Kiviranta, (54)).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petrovskaya et al. (US 20160253844) in view of Huang (US 20220058877), and further in view of Scott et al. (US 20160139782).
Regarding claim 7, Petrovskaya in view of Huang discloses The method of claim 1, wherein determining the spatial relationship between the 3D representation and the current physical environment, has been disclosed.
On the other hand, Petrovskaya in view of Huang fails to explicitly disclose but Scott discloses determining the spatial relationship between one entities is based on matching a WiFi signature of one entity and a WiFi signature of the first device in the current physical environment (Scott, “[0053] The system can use the audio token in addition to (or as an alternative to) one or more of the short-range communications, the WiFi location tracking and the WiFi signature matching when determining proximity of a computing device to the videoconferencing device 160.”).
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 Scott and Petrovskaya in view of Huang, to include all limitations of claim 7. That is, adding the WiFi signature matching of Scott to determine the spatial relationship between the 3D representation and the current physical environment of Petrovskaya in view of Huang. The motivation/ suggestion would have been determining that the computing device is proximate to the videoconferencing system (Scott, [0005]).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petrovskaya et al. (US 20160253844) in view of Huang (US 20220058877), and further in view of Glatfelter et al. (US 20180371712).
Regarding claim 8, Petrovskaya in view of Huang discloses The method of claim 1, wherein determining the spatial relationship between the 3D representation and the current physical environment, has been disclosed.
On the other hand, Petrovskaya in view of Huang fails to explicitly disclose but Glatfelter discloses wherein determining the spatial relationship is based on a best fit analysis between the representation and sensor data of the first device in the current physical environment (Glatfelter, “[0035] Alternatively, the expected position may be determined using geometric methods such as an RMS best-fit analysis of lateral, vertical, and longitudinal sensors to the body of the aircraft or a vision-driven shape analysis of the aircraft door to determine positive target location based on proximity sensor input”).
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 Glatfelter and Petrovskaya in view of Huang, to include all limitations of claim 8. That is, applying the best fit analysis of Glatfelter to determine the spatial relationship between the 3D representation and the current physical environment of Petrovskaya in view of Huang. The motivation/ suggestion would have been determining that the computing device is proximate to the videoconferencing system (Scott, [0005]).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petrovskaya et al. (US 20160253844) in view of Huang (US 20220058877), and further in view of Hu et al. (US 20200008024).
Regarding claim 9, Petrovskaya in view of Huang discloses The method of claim 1, wherein determining the spatial relationship between the 3D representation and the current physical environment, has been disclosed.
On the other hand, Petrovskaya in view of Huang fails to explicitly disclose but Hu discloses wherein determining the spatial relationship is based on matching semantic data associated with objects in a physical environment represented by the representation and objects in the current physical environment (Hu, “[0025] The localization and mapping module 112 may have multiple models available for determining the current location of the client device 102. In one embodiment, the models include a point cloud based model (e.g., as provided by SLAM), a plane matching model, a line matching model, a geographic information system (GIS) model, a building recognition model, a landscape recognition model, a cube matching model, a cylinder matching model, a horizon matching model, a light source matching model, etc., as well as object and/or semantic matching models”).
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 Hu and Petrovskaya in view of Huang, to include all limitations of claim 9. That is, applying the semantic matching models of Hu to determine the spatial relationship between the 3D representation and the current physical environment of Petrovskaya in view of Huang. The motivation/ suggestion would have been to allow a user with a handheld or wearable device to alter their visual or audible perception of their environment, as experienced through the device (Hu, [0003]).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petrovskaya et al. (US 20160253844) in view of Huang (US 20220058877), and further in view of Potetsianakis et al. (US 20240212294)
Regarding claim 12, Petrovskaya in view of Huang discloses The method of claim 1.
On the other hand, Petrovskaya in view of Huang fails to explicitly disclose but Potetsianakis discloses updating at least a portion of the view at the second device based on user input at the first device (Potetsianakis, “[0174] The partitioning between assets to be rendered locally and assets to be rendered remotely may be adjusted during a rendering session, e.g., at any time. It may therefore be desirable to keep the scene descriptor data in sync between the XR client and the rendering server. For that purpose, when a scene update occurs, which update may be initiated by the XR client, the rendering server, the content server, or a remote service, for example based on user input or external events, the scene descriptor data at both entities may be updated, for example by transmitting a scene description update (‘delta’) and optionally new assets associated with the scene description update from one entity to another. Such an update mechanism may also be used if the communication between the rendering server and the XR client is disrupted but subsequently re-established”).
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 Potetsianakis and Petrovskaya in view of Huang, to include all limitations of claim 12. That is, applying the updating scene based on user input of XR client of Potetsianakis to the method of Petrovskaya in view of Huang. The motivation/ suggestion would have been to keep the scene descriptor data in sync between the XR client and the rendering serve (Potetsianakis, [0174]).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petrovskaya et al. (US 20160253844) in view of Huang (US 20220058877), and further in view of Scheper et al. (US 9955318)
Regarding claim 13, Petrovskaya in view of Huang discloses The method of claim 1.
On the other hand, Petrovskaya in view of Huang fails to explicitly disclose but Scheper discloses wherein the view of the 3D representation at the first device comprises an indication of the view the 3D representation at the second device (Scheper, “(630) In still other cases, the halo assembly 1860 in FIG. 109 may be controlled to indicate a remote user's view in some fashion. remote view indication may only be presented when a remote user's view includes a view of a local conferee. In other cases the remote view indicator may always indicate the remote conferee's FOV regardless of the object within the FOV”).
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 Scheper and Petrovskaya in view of Huang, to include all limitations of claim 13. That is, applying the indication of Scheper to the first device of Petrovskaya in view of Huang. The motivation/ suggestion would have been distinguishing physical spaces and helping people take optimal advantage of affordances within a generally open office plan (Scheper, (2)).
Claim(s) 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petrovskaya et al. (US 20160253844) in view of Huang (US 20220058877), and further in view of KUMAR et al. (US 20240181625).
Regarding claim 44, Petrovskaya in view of Huang discloses The method of claim 1.
On the other hand, Petrovskaya in view of Huang fails to explicitly disclose but KUMAR discloses wherein the visual matching is based on matching semantic data identifying objects, floors, and walls (KUMAR, “[0016] if finer classifications are available, the additional semantic information may also be taken into consideration. For example, if a plurality of background classes is available, e.g. separate classes for walls, ceilings, floors, or the like, this additional semantic information may facilitate a matching of the environment data with available BIM data”).
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 KUMAR and Petrovskaya in view of Huang, to include all limitations of claim 44. That is, applying the semantic information based matching of KUMAR to the matching of Petrovskaya in view of Huang. The motivation/ suggestion would have been in order to infer the position and/or the orientation of the mobile construction robot (KUMAR, [0018]).
Claim(s) 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petrovskaya et al. (US 20160253844) in view of Huang (US 20220058877), and further in view of WANG et al. (US 20220084316).
Regarding claim 45, Petrovskaya in view of Huang discloses The method of claim 1.
On the other hand, Petrovskaya fails to explicitly disclose but Huang discloses wherein the feature map generated for the current physical environment includes location/position information for identified objects (Huang, “[0031] the computer device 120 may repeatedly calculate positioning information of the electronic equipment 130 in an augmented reality coordinate system. [0032] whenever the computer device 120 obtains an environmental image, the computer device 120 may obtain the positioning information of the component device 131 of the electronic equipment 130 by performing feature matching operations on the environmental image and a template image that is associated with the component device 131”). The same motivation of claim 1 applies here.
On the other hand, Petrovskaya in view of Huang fails to explicitly disclose but WANG discloses wherein the feature map identifies a location of the user (WANG, “[0064] the detection frame information (including the center point position information) corresponding to the user may be determined using the characteristic map processing manner, and then the detection frame information is compared with the intermediate characteristic map corresponding to the present scene image to determine the present position information of the user”).
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 WANG and Petrovskaya in view of Huang, to include all limitations of claim 45. That is, adding the determining the user’s position based on the characteristic map of WANG to the feature map of Petrovskaya in view of Huang. The motivation/ suggestion would have been to provide a method of determining the user’s positional information (WANG, “[0041] a present sitting posture of each user located within the cabin may be determined according to a relative positional relationship between key point information of each user and a set reference object”).
Claim(s) 46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petrovskaya et al. (US 20160253844) in view of Huang (US 20220058877), and further in view of Efland (US 20200309557).
Regarding claim 46, Petrovskaya in view of Huang discloses The method of claim 1.
On the other hand, Petrovskaya in view of Huang fails to explicitly disclose but Efland discloses wherein the feature map and visual matching facilitate aligning the 3D representation with respect to the current physical environment so that the user's current position within the physical environment can be used to identify a corresponding position of the user with respect to the 3D representation (Efland, “[0006] In an embodiment, the map data comprises, for each point of at least some of the plurality of points, three-dimensional point cloud data captured from the geographic location associated with the point. [0049] In various embodiments, sensor data can include image data captured by a camera (e.g., captured by a camera on a user's mobile device, or captured by a camera mounted to a vehicle in which the user is riding). By comparing features in image data with features for known objects (e.g., edges, features, points of interest) in the scene and in map data, and aligning features in the image data with features present in map data, the real-time guidance module 408 can determine a position of the user within map data (e.g., relative to one or more known objects represented in map data)”).
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 Efland and Petrovskaya in view of Huang, to include all limitations of claim 46. That is, adding the determining the user’s position within map data of Efland to determine the user’s position with respect to the 3D representation of Petrovskaya in view of Huang. The motivation/ suggestion would have been image data captured by a camera on the user's mobile device can be analyzed to identify the train within the image data, and a navigation guidance indicator which highlights the train can be presented on the user's mobile device (Efland, [0051]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 12/04/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant submitted: Huang does not disclose or suggest that the "template" corresponds to, or is associated with, a previously captured 3D representation of the environment, does not disclose a feature map that is part of a stored environment scan, and does not use such an environment feature map to align a prior 3D environment representation to the present environment. In short, Huang's device-template anchoring is not environment-to-environment alignment based on a stored environment feature map (remarks, page 9).
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Huang discloses “[0017] FIG. 4 is a schematic view of an example showing an original template image and a template image that is generated based on a content of a previous environmental image according to one embodiment of the disclosure”. Therefore, the template corresponds a previously captured representation of the environment. Huang further teaches “[0040] The operation principle of the processor 123 performing the feature matching operation on the (i+1).sup.th environmental image and the second template image is the same as the operation principle performing the feature matching operation on the i.sup.th environmental image and the first template image. [0053] the matching result between the i.sup.th environmental image and the first template image may include the multiple feature matching pairs and the matching image block of the component device 131 of the i.sup.th environmental image”. Therefore, the feature matching pairs of the template image correspond to the feature map. Since Petrovskaya teaches 3D representation in fig.6, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined Huang and Petrovskaya, to include all limitations of claim 1. That is, adding the feature matching of Huang to determine the spatial relationship between the 3D representation and the current physical environment of Petrovskaya. Especially, positioning information of the electronic equipment 130 in an augmented reality coordinate system of Huang is analogous to the one-to-one correspondence between real-world coordinate frame and virtual coordinate frame of Petrovskaya. The motivation/ suggestion would have been anchoring a virtual object, capable of displaying through a head-mounted display a virtual object that uses an electronic device in a real scene as an anchor point (Huang, [0006]).
The applicant submitted: Furthermore, the combination analysis relies on substituting Huang's template-based device anchoring into Petrovskaya's environment/model framework. That rationale is insufficient because it changes the nature of what is being matched and aligned. The amended claim requires that the feature map is "associated with the 3D representation" of the environment and that the visual matching uses that environment-feature map to align the stored representation to the current environment. Neither reference, alone or in combination, teaches or suggests using a feature map that is part of a previously captured 3D environment representation to perform environment-level correspondence and alignment (remarks, page 9).
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The combination is applying the feature matching of Huang to determine the spatial relationship between the 3D representation and the current physical environment of Petrovskaya. Especially, positioning information of the electronic equipment 130 in an augmented reality coordinate system of Huang is analogous to the one-to-one correspondence between real-world coordinate frame and virtual coordinate frame of Petrovskaya because they are both related to the positional relationship between real and virtual environment. As addressed above, Huang discloses “[0017] FIG. 4 is a schematic view of an example showing an original template image and a template image that is generated based on a content of a previous environmental image according to one embodiment of the disclosure”, which teaches the template corresponds a previously captured representation of the environment. Therefore, Huang suggests using a feature map that is part of a previously captured environment representation to perform environment-level correspondence and alignment.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 44-46 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 2/28/2026