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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-6, 8-14, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0197785 A1 (hereinafter Tate-Gans).
Regarding claim 1, the limitations “A method, comprising: receiving, from a first application, a request to render a first object in an environment; and in response to receiving the request to render the first object in the environment, rendering the first object” is taught by Tate-Gans (Tate-Gans, e.g. abstract, paragraphs 54-251 , describes a system for managing display of virtual content from one or more applications running on a mixed reality system. Tate-Gans, e.g. paragraphs 58, 59, teaches using a universe application acting as a 3D windows manager for virtual content in the user’s landscape analogous to a 2D window manager for windows presented on a desktop screen, wherein the application(s) can present rendered content using one or more 3D prisms, analogous to desktop applications presenting rendered content using one or more 3D windows. Further, Tate-Gans, e.g. paragraphs 58-96, 113-145, 157-180, 230-234 teaches that the windows manager controls display of the prisms based on many factors including user input through controls or viewpoint motion, e.g. paragraphs 62-64, 67, 81, 82, 95, 172-179, 230-234, properties of the current set of prisms, e.g. paragraphs 70-76, 89, 90, 113-134, 145, 174-180, and/or communication with the applications, e.g. paragraphs 59-63, 67, 71, 78, 116. That is, the universe application receives request(s) from application(s) to render content in prism(s) in the user’s landscape, and may determine to render the content/prism in the user’s landscape in response to the request, corresponding to the claimed request, application, object, and environment. Finally, it is noted, with respect to claims 19 and 20, Tate-Gans, e.g. paragraphs 80-88, 349-352, describes using a computing system with processor(s) executing program(s) stored in non-transitory media.)
The limitations “after rendering the first object and while the first object is being displayed in the environment, detecting an indication of a request to change a size of content provided by the first application, in response to detecting the indication of the request to change the size of the content provided by the first application, rendering a representation of the environment by: in accordance with a determination that … the first object is a first type of object, … maintaining a physical size of the first object without maintaining an angular size of the first object” are taught by Tate-Gans (As noted above, Tate-Gans teaches that the windows manager controls display of the prisms based on many factors including user input through controls or viewpoint motion and properties of the current set of prisms, where the user input can include moving the position of a prism relative to the user viewpoint, e.g. by moving the viewpoint relative to the 3D position to which the prism is attached and/or changing the 3D position to which the prism is attached as in paragraphs 61, 62, 64, 70, 73, 81, 82, 89, 90, 132-134, 172-179, i.e. the claimed detecting an indication of a request to change a size of the content provided by the first application, the content being displayed in the first object. Further as one of ordinary skill in the art would understand, Tate-Gans’ rendering uses a perspective projection model, i.e. as in paragraphs 174-180, figure 8, the field of view is defined using a frustum, indicating perspective projection, such that prisms having a constant physical size would change in apparent size on the display depending on how far the prism is positioned relative to the viewpoint, i.e. as claimed, in response to a change in viewpoint/3D attachment position causing a change in relative distance of the displayed world locked object(s) to the viewpoint, i.e. the indication of a request to change size of content in the first object(s), the world locked object(s) would be rendered with a changed display size, i.e. angular size, while maintaining the same physical size.)
The limitation “in accordance with a determination that … the first object is a second type of object different from the first type of object, maintaining the angular size of the first object without maintaining the physical size of the first object” is taught by Tate-Gans (It is noted that the limitation “maintaining the angular size of the first object without maintaining the physical size of the first object” is interpreted broadly to only require that the angular size of the first object is maintained, without excluding scenarios where the physical size of the object is not changed, i.e. analogous to depending claims 13 and 14 with respect to the similar limitation of “maintaining a physical size of the first object without maintaining an angular size of the first object” in a first instance both the physical and angular size may be maintained, and in a second instance, the physical size may be maintained while the angular size is changed. Tate-Gans, e.g. paragraphs 70, 73, 89, 90, 172, 231-233 teaches that while some prisms may be attached to world locked 3D positions, other prisms may be attached to a position on the user’s body such that body centric prisms are maintained at a constant relative position, and possibly orientation, relative to the user’s viewpoint, meaning that the angular size of body centric prisms is maintained without maintaining the physical size. That is, Tate-Gans’ world locked prisms correspond to the claimed first type of object as discussed above, and Tate-Gans’ body centric prisms correspond to the claimed second type of object which is rendered by maintaining an angular size without maintaining a physical size, in view of the above noted broad interpretation thereof. It is additionally noted that although, in contrast to the maintaining physical size limitation as further defined in claims 13 and 14, Applicant’s depending claims do not explicitly require the maintaining angular size limitation to include scenarios for both maintaining and changing the physical size, the cited reference U.S. Patent Application 2015/0254905 A1, e.g. figure 6B, paragraph 50, 52, 60, anticipates a scaling function for augmented reality objects which maintains the display size, i.e. angular size, by changing the physical size of the object, i.e. scaling the physical size of the object as a function of a the distance from the viewpoint, corresponding to the narrower possible interpretation of the maintaining angular size limitation.)
The limitations “rendering a representation of the environment by: in accordance with a determination that the environment is rendered according to a first mode and that the first object is a first type of object, wherein the environment corresponds to the first application and a second application different from the first application while the environment is rendered according to the first mode, maintaining a physical size of the first object without maintaining an angular size of the first object; in accordance with a determination that the environment is rendered according to the first mode and that the first object is a second type of object different from the first type of object, maintaining the angular size of the first object without maintaining the physical size of the first object; and in accordance with a determination that the environment is rendered according to a second mode, wherein the environment corresponds to the first application without corresponding to another application different from the first application while the environment is rendered according to the second mode, maintaining the physical size of the first object without maintaining the angular size of the first object” are taught by Tate-Gans (It is noted that depending claims 2, 10 and 11 indicate that both the first and second modes may be window modes, i.e. claim 2 indicates the second mode is a window mode wherein the first object is within a window, and claims 10 and 11 indicate that in the first mode the first content/object is displayed within a two-dimensional or three-dimensional bounded window, i.e. a window mode, such that the claim limitations requiring determining whether the environment is rendered according to the first mode or the second mode merely requires determining whether more than one application is requesting to render object(s) in the environment, the first mode being active when multiple applications are requesting objects to be rendered and the second mode being active when only one application is requesting objects to be rendered. Tate-Gans, e.g. paragraphs 58-61, 174-180, indicates that the system may run and display prisms for one or more applications concurrently, i.e. as noted above, the claimed determining whether the environment is rendered according to the first or second mode. Further, as discussed above with respect to the first prism/object being a world locked type prism/object or a body centric type prism/object, when multiple applications are presenting content concurrently, i.e. the first claimed mode, a first prism/object presenting content from a first application could be world locked or body centric, corresponding to the claimed first and second types of object rendered by maintaining the physical or angular size, respectively, when the environment is rendered according to the first mode, and similarly, when only one application is presenting content, i.e. the second claimed mode, the first prism/object presenting content from the first application could be in world locked mode, i.e. the claimed first object rendered by maintaining the physical size when the environment is rendered according to the second mode.)
Regarding claim 2, the limitations “wherein the second mode is a window mode, and wherein the first object is within a window while the environment is rendered according to the second mode” are taught by Tate-Gans (As discussed in the claim 1 rejection above, when only one application is presenting content, i.e. the second claimed mode, the first prism/object presenting content from the first application could be in world locked mode, i.e. the claimed first object rendered by maintaining the physical size when the environment is rendered according to the second mode. Further, Tate-Gans, e.g. paragraphs 58, 59, 71, 72, 113-114, teaches that the prisms are the 3D analog to the 2D window of a desktop screen, i.e. as claimed, the second mode is a window mode, and the first application content/prism/object is only displayed within the bounds of the window.)
Regarding claim 3, the limitations “while a second object is being displayed in the environment, detecting a second indication of a request to change a size of content, wherein the second indication is different from the indication; and in response to detecting the second indication of the request to change the size of content, rendering a second representation of the environment by: in accordance with a determination that the environment is rendered according to the second mode and that the second object is a third type of object, maintaining a physical size of the second object without maintaining an angular size of the second object; and in accordance with a determination that the environment is rendered according to the second mode and that the second object is a fourth type of object different from the first type of object, maintaining the angular size of the second object without maintaining the physical size of the second object, wherein the fourth type of object is different from the third type of object” are taught by Tate-Gans (Tate-Gans, e.g. paragraphs 59, 61, 78, teaches that each application can render content for display in multiple separate prisms, i.e. the first application may also request display of the claimed second object. As discussed in the claim 1 rejection above, Tate-Gans’ system determines the environment is being rendered according to the second mode when only one application is presenting content/prism/objects, and each of the application’s content/prisms/objects can be world locked or body centric, corresponding to the limitations of claims 1 and 3, i.e. while only one application is presenting content/prisms/objects, a first world locked type prism/object is rendered by maintaining the physical size without maintaining the angular size, and a second prism/object is either world locked, i.e. a third type of object rendered by maintaining physical size without maintaining the angular size, or body centric, i.e. a fourth type of object rendered by maintaining angular size without maintaining physical size, where the fourth type is different from the third type.)
Regarding claim 4, the limitations “while a third object is being displayed concurrently with the first object in the environment and in response to detecting he indication of the request to change the size of content provided by the first application, rendering the representation of the environment by: while maintaining the angular size of the first object, maintaining a physical size of the third object without maintaining an angular size of the third object; and while maintaining the physical size of the first object, maintaining the angular wise of the third object without maintaining the physical size of the third object” are taught by Tate-Gans (As discussed in the claims 1 and 3 rejections above, Tate-Gans, e.g. 58-61, 78, 174-180, teaches that the system may run and display prisms for one or more applications concurrently, and display one or more prisms for each application, i.e. the claimed third object being displayed concurrently with the first object. Further, Tate-Gans teaches that the behavior type of each prism/object can be changed while the system is in operation, e.g. paragraphs 70, 232, i.e. at a first instant when the first prism/object is set to the body centric behavior as in the scenario discussed in claim 1, a third prism/object could be set to world locked, thereby maintaining the physical size of the third object without maintaining the angular size of the third object while maintaining the angular size of the first object, and at a second instant when the first prism/object is set to the world locked behavior as in the scenarios discussed in claim 1, the third prism/object could be set to body centric, thereby maintaining the angular size of the third object without maintaining the physical size of the third object while maintaining the physical size of the first object.)
Regarding claims 5 and 6, the limitations are similar to those treated in the above rejection(s) and are met by the references as discussed in claims 1 and 4 above, i.e. as discussed in the claims 1 and 4 rejections, Tate-Gans, 58-61, 174-180, teaches that the system may run and display content/prisms for one or more applications concurrently, and as discussed in the claim 4 rejection, a third/fourth prism/object could be set to body centric while the first prism/object is set to world locked, and vice versa.
Regarding claims 8 and 12, the limitations “wherein, while the environment is rendered according to the first mode: content corresponding to the first application is in a first area of the environment and not in a second area of the environment and content corresponding to a second application is in the first area and not in the second area, wherein the second area is different from the first area, wherein the second application is different from the first application”, “wherein the second area surrounds the first area” are taught by Tate-Gans (Tate-Gans, e.g. paragraphs 174-180, figure 8, teaches that the system may only render prisms that are both within a given distance of the user, e.g. zone 810, and also within the view frustum based on the user’s head pose/viewpoint, e.g. frustum 850. That is, both the distance based area 810 and the frustum based area 850 correspond to the claimed first area where the content from the applications is rendered, and the area outside the respective areas 810/850 corresponds to the claimed second area where the content of the applications is not rendered, wherein the second area surrounds the first area.)
Regarding claims 9-11, the limitations “wherein, while the environment is rendered according to the first mode and in accordance with a determination that a first set of one or more criteria is satisfied, content provided by the first application is within a three-dimensional bounded window”, “wherein while in the first mode and in accordance with a determination that a second set of one or more criteria is satisfied, content corresponding to the first application is within a two-dimensional bounded window, and wherein the second set of one or more criteria is different from the first set of one or more criteria”, “wherein the first set of one or more criteria includes a criterion that is satisfied when a first window corresponding to the first application includes a style defining that the window is a three-dimensional bounded window, and wherein the second set of one or more criteria includes a criterion that is satisfied when a second window corresponding to the first application includes a style defining that the second window is a two-dimensional bounded window” are taught by Tate-Gans (Tate-Gans, e.g. paragraphs 58, 71, 79, 228, teaches that the applications may be planar applications using 2D windows and/or render 3D content displayed in the 3D prisms, analogous to 3D windows, i.e. the claimed providing content from the first application in a 2D window or a 3D window, wherein the bounds may or may not be rendered, e.g. paragraphs 114, 142, 168. Further, the use of 2D or 3D windows is based on the application type, e.g. paragraphs 71, 228 indicating video and web browser applications use planar 2D windows, paragraphs 64, 71, 73, 191, indicating exemplary applications providing 3D content in a 3D prism/window, which could be defined by the application using the default size application specific parameters, e.g. paragraphs 89, 90, 118, 119, 159, i.e. a default size having an extent depth of 0 corresponding to a 2D window and an a default size having an extent depth greater than 0 corresponding to a 3D prism/window. That is, as claimed the 3D window would be used when first criteria including a criterion that is satisfied that the first application includes a style defining a three-dimensional bounded window, i.e. the extent depth being greater than 0, and a 2D window would be used when second criteria including a criterion that is satisfied when the first application includes a style defining a two-dimensional bounded window, i.e. the extent depth being 0.)
Regarding claims 13 and 14, the limitations “wherein: maintaining the physical size of the first object without maintaining the angular size of the first object includes: at a first time while the size of content provided by the first object is changed, maintaining a physical size of the first object and maintaining the angular size of the first object”, “wherein: maintaining the physical size of the first object without maintaining the angular size of the first object includes: at a second time, different from the first time, while the size of content provided by the first object is changed, changing the angular size of the first object while maintaining the physical size of the first object” are taught by Tate-Gans (Tate-Gans, e.g. paragraphs 59, 115, teaches that the applications have control over the transforms applied to the rendered 2D/3D content, i.e. changes to the position, orientation, and size of content rendered within the 2D windows/3D prisms. Further, Tate-Gans, e.g. paragraph 126, teaches that the application may change the content size by only scaling the content, per se, i.e. as with conventional 2D windows, different controls allow for scaling the content within the current window/prism bounds, i.e. a zoom control, and for resizing the bounds of the window/prism in which the content is displayed, i.e. a border/extent control. When first prism/object is in the world locked mode, corresponding to maintaining the physical size without maintaining the angular size as discussed in the claim 1 rejection above, if the user instructs the first application to adjust the scaling of the content in the first object/prism, i.e. zooming in or out, without resizing the borders of the prism/object, then the physical size of the first prism/object and the angular size of the first object would be maintained, i.e. the prism remains world locked and with the same bounds/dimensions while the content rendered therein is scaled up or down, corresponding to the claim 13 scenario. Finally, after the time instant where the content is scaled up or down, if the user causes the first prism/object in world locked mode to move to a different position relative to the viewpoint, i.e. by moving the viewpoint and/or prism anchor location as discussed in the claim 1 rejection above, then the physical size of the first prism/object would be maintained while changing the angular size of the first prism/object due to the perspective projection effect scaling the apparent display size of the first prism/object, corresponding to the claim 14 scenario.)
Regarding claims 19 and 20, the limitations are similar to those treated in the above rejection(s) and are met by the references as discussed in claim 1 above.
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0197785 A1 (hereinafter Tate-Gans) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of “Layerable Apps: Comparing Concurrent and Exclusive Display of Augmented Reality Applications” by Brandon Huynh, et al. (hereinafter Huynh)
Regarding claim 7, the limitations “while the environment is rendered according to the first mode, detecting a request to transition to the second mode; and in response to detecting the request to transition to the second mode, causing the environment to operate in the second mode, wherein causing the environment to operate in the second mode includes removing, from the environment, content provided by another application different from the first application” are not explicitly taught by Tate-Gans (As discussed in the claim 1 rejection above, Tate-Gans e.g. paragraphs 58-61, 174-179, indicates that the system may run and display prisms for one or more applications concurrently, i.e. the claimed determining whether the environment is rendered according to the first or second mode, corresponding to more than one application, or only one application, respectively. Tate-Gans does not discuss transitioning from the first mode to the second mode by removing content provided by second application(s) other than the first application, although as discussed further below in view of Huynh, Tate-Gans, e.g. paragraphs 174-180, figure 8, does teach that the applications may be placed into different states corresponding to different amounts of activity and rendering.) However, this limitation is taught by Huynh (Huynh, e.g. abstract, sections 1, 3-8, describes an augmented reality system capable of running multiple applications using two alternative display modes, e.g. section 3.1, a layerable mode where one or more applications may be toggled on or off based on user preference, and an immersive mode where a single application is selected to be active at a time, and opening a selected application will suspend any other currently open app. It is noted that Huynh, e.g. section 4.1, implemented both modes using the same control application and AR device, i.e. the device would be set to different modes for different parts of the test procedure, such that Huynh teaches the claimed transitioning effect, i.e. while the device is in the layerable mode, multiple applications may have display elements concurrently displayed, but when the mode is changed to the immersive mode, the selected application remains open, and all other applications would be suspended. Further, Huynh, e.g. sections 5.6, 6, indicates that testing found the modes had different relative advantages and disadvantages, i.e. providing both options to a user would allow the user to select the mode that fit the user’s current needs. Finally, as noted above, Tate-Gans, e.g. paragraphs 174-180, figure 8, teaches that the applications may be placed into different states corresponding to different amounts of activity and rendering, such that supporting Huynh’s layerable and immersive modes would merely require additionally setting the non-selected applications to a non-render and/or inactive state while in the immersive mode.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tate-Gans’ mixed reality content management system to include Huynh’s layerable and immersive application display modes because the testing found the modes had different relative advantages and disadvantages, i.e. providing both options to a user would allow the user to select the mode that fit the user’s current needs. In the modified system, as noted above, Tate-Gans, e.g. paragraphs 174-180, figure 8, teaches that the applications may be placed into different states corresponding to different amounts of activity and rendering, such that including Huynh’s layerable and immersive modes would merely require additionally setting the non-selected applications to a non-render and/or inactive state while in the immersive mode. Finally, in the modified system, while Tate-Gans’ modified system is in the layerable mode, multiple applications may have prisms/objects concurrently displayed, but when the mode is changed to the immersive mode, the selected application remains open, and all other applications would be suspended, i.e. set to a non-render and/or inactive state, corresponding to the claimed transition removing content provided by other applications.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed 2/27/26, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 3, 10, and 11 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 3, 10, and 11 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 2/27/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Tate-Gans “only uses type of object and not a mode of an environment to affect manipulation of objects”. As discussed in the claim 1 rejection above, the claim limitations requiring determining whether the environment is rendered according to the first mode or the second mode merely requires determining whether more than one application is requesting to render object(s) in the environment, the first mode being active when multiple applications are requesting objects to be rendered and the second mode being active when only one application is requesting objects to be rendered. That is, Tate-Gans does either render a single application’s objects at a time, or multiple applications’ objects at a time, corresponding to the claimed modes. Applicant’s independent claims do not require any particular change to how objects are manipulated based on being in one of the two modes as implied by Applicant’s remarks, but instead recite that in the modes, different object types respectively maintain physical or angular size, meaning that Tate-Gans’ system, wherein a user can cause one or more applications to render prism objects which can be set to world locked or body centric type objects by the user, reads on the claimed scenarios requiring operation in either a single application mode or multiple application mode, with world locked objects maintaining physical size and body centric objects maintaining angular size. Therefore Applicant’s argument that Tate-Gans “does not take into account any mode of the environment in such a manipulation” cannot be considered persuasive because the claims do not require altering how objects are manipulated based on the current mode of the system.
Applicant’s remarks further suggest that the Office is citing to Tate-Gans’ claims 2, 10, and 11. However, the full sentence to which Applicant refers clearly indicates it is Applicant’s depending claims being discussed, because the full sentence is explaining how the independent claim scope is being interpreted in view of Applicant’s depending claims 2, 10 and 11, which establish that both of Applicant’s claimed modes may be window modes, i.e. claim 2 recites “the second mode is a window mode”, and claims 10 and 11 recite that while in the first mode, the first application content is displayed within a 2D or 3D bounded window. That is, contrary to Applicant’s assertion in the previous paragraph that the claimed modes include “an immersive mode, such that no windows are used”, Applicant’s claims explicitly require that the scope of both modes includes the use of windows. Therefore, this argument also cannot be considered persuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ROBERT BADER whose telephone number is (571)270-3335. The examiner can normally be reached 11-7 m-f.
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, Tammy Goddard can be reached at 571-272-7773. 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.
/ROBERT BADER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611