DETAILED ACTION
Preliminary Remarks
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
This application claims the benefit of application no. 63/496,692 filed 07/17/2023.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. It is important that the abstract not exceed 150 words in length since the space provided for the abstract on the computer tape used by the printer is limited. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc.
The abstract comprises the phrase, “…is described herein,” (see lines 1-2) which can be implied and therefore should be omitted.
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 comprises the phrase, “…at a fist objection location,” (last line) which should instead read, “…at a first objection location.”
Claim 5 comprises the phrase, “….to present other XR object a second object location,” (last 2 lines) which should instead read, “….to present the other XR object at a second object location.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In reference to claims 12 and 13, these claims comprise the limitations of, “receive an indication that the first user has moved a second XR object into the three-dimensional volumetric representation; move the second XR object to the area space…” (see lines 3-5 of each claim) of which the Examiner deems as indefinite as it fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim that which Applicant regards as the invention. In particular and with further reference to claim 1 from which claims 12 and 13 depend upon, it is unclear as to the claimed step/limitation, “move the second XR object to the area of space” since claim 1 already defines the “three-dimensional volumetric representation” comprising “an area of space” therewithin. In other words, claims 12 and 13 already recite receiving indication that the XR object has moved in the three-dimensional volumetric representation, the three-dimensional volumetric representation comprising “an area of space within,” therefore “moving the second XR object to the area space” is already completed/inherently performed making such a step redundant. It is not clear whether Applicant is trying to signify some other functionality with the claimed “move the second XR object to the area space,” limitation however as the claims are currently formed/recited, such a limitation is deemed indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim that which Applicant regards as the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 9, 12-15, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maciocci et al. (U.S. Publication 2012/0249741).
In reference to claim 1, Maciocci et al. discloses a non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium including instructions that, when executed by an extended-reality (XR) headset (see paragraphs 3, 5, 12, wherein Maciocci et al. discloses methods of rendering virtual images in an augmented reality system using a head mounted display. Maciocci et al. discloses an implementation of the invention including a computing device that may include a processor configured with processor-executable instructions stored on a non-transitory processor-readable storage medium. Note, the instance application’s specification explicitly notes augmented-reality as equivalent to the claimed “extended-reality” (see at least paragraph 24 of the instant application specification).), cause the XR headset to:
present, via the XR headset worn by a first user, a three-dimensional volumetric representation of an area of space within an XR application that was selected to be collaboratively edited by the first user and a second user (see paragraphs 69, 78, 87-88, 105, 112 and Figures 1, 2 wherein Maciocci et al. discloses users each wearing head mounted display devices and viewing virtual objects in three-dimensional space. Maciocci et al. further discloses that the objects maybe three-dimensional models rendered in three-dimensional space based upon a three-dimensional map of such objects. Maciocci et al. further explicitly discloses allowing for user collaboration such that virtual objects maybe added or anchored by one user and then presented to another user’s head mounted display device for display.),
wherein the three-dimensional volumetric representation of the area of space is viewable by the second user (see paragraphs 87-88, 105 and Figures 9-10 wherein Maciocci et al. discloses allowing for user collaboration such that virtual objects maybe added or anchored by one user and then presented to another user’s head mounted display device for display.),
receive an indication that the second user has provided an input to add an XR object to the area of space (see paragraphs 87-88, 94-95, 105 and Figures 2-3, 9-10 wherein Maciocci et al. discloses allowing for user collaboration such that virtual objects maybe added or anchored by one user and then presented to another user’s head mounted display device for display. Maciocci et al. further explicitly discloses allowing one user to formulate a signal using their head mounted device indicating that a virtual object should be generated for another user, calculate parameters including distance and orientation and the other user receiving the input and generating a display of the virtual object based thereupon.),
in response to receiving the indication, update the three-dimensional volumetric representation to include the area of space with the XR object (see paragraphs 87-88, 94-95, 105 and Figures 2-3, 9-10 wherein Maciocci et al. discloses allowing for user collaboration such that virtual objects maybe added or anchored by one user and then presented to another user’s head mounted display device for display. Maciocci et al. further explicitly discloses allowing one user to formulate a signal using their head mounted device indicating that a virtual object should be generated for another user, calculate parameters including distance and orientation and the other user receiving the input and generating a display of the virtual object based thereupon.).
In reference to claims 8 and 14, Maciocci et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as applied to claim 1 above. Maciocci et al. explicitly discloses allowing for the multiple users to use gestures to rotate the display relative to the horizontal and allow for the display to reflect such orientation changes by displaying the virtual object in a compensated rotated view (see at least paragraph 91). Note, it is clear that such disclosure in Maciocci et al. at least inherently comprises viewing the display/virtual object “from a different angle”, the virtual object at least inherently displayed in the three-dimensional space.
In reference to claim 9, Maciocci et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as applied to claim 8 above. Maciocci et al. explicitly discloses the user performing a swipe gesture for manipulating the virtual object display (see paragraph 91).
In reference to claims 12 and 13, Maciocci et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as applied to claim 1 above. (see paragraphs 87-88, 94-95, 105 and Figures 2-3, 9-10 wherein Maciocci et al. discloses allowing for user collaboration such that virtual objects maybe added or anchored by one user and then presented to another user’s head mounted display device for display (see paragraphs 87-88, 105). Maciocci et al. further explicitly discloses allowing one user to formulate a signal using their head mounted device indicating that a virtual object should be generated for another user, calculate parameters including distance and orientation and the other user receiving the input and generating a display of the virtual object based thereupon (see paragraphs 94-95). Maciocci et al. discloses allowing users to add new assets/object (see paragraph 105) therefore, the Examiner interprets Maciocci et al. to inherently allow for “second” and “third” objects to be added to the three-dimensional space and display, via updating, of the display of the three-dimensional space.
In reference to claim 15, Maciocci et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as applied to claim 1 above. Maciocci et al. explicitly discloses each of the users of the invention in remote locations (e.g. first, second locations) (see paragraph 98 and Figure 4)..
In reference to claim 19, claim 19 is similar in scope to claim 1 and is therefore rejected under like rationale. Claim 19 recites a “method” of the invention of which has at least inherently been disclosed by Maciocci et al. with reference to the prior art rejection of claim 1 above.
In reference to claim 20, claim 20 is similar in scope to claim 1 and is therefore rejected under like rationale. In addition to the rejection of claim 1 above, claim 20 recites, “An extended-reality (XR) headset, comprising: a display; one or more processors; and memory including instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the XR headset, worn by a first user, to…” Maciocci et al. discloses the head mounted device comprising a display and in one embodiment a processor, memory and a camera (see at least paragraph 61). Maciocci et al. discloses the processor configured with processor-executable instructions stored on a non-transitory processor-readable storage medium (see paragraphs 12 & 58-60).
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.
Claim(s) 10 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maciocci et al. (U.S. Publication 2012/0249741).
In reference to claim 10, Maciocci et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as applied to claim 9 above. Although Maciocci et al. discloses performing a multitude of different gestures for manipulating the virtual object display/orientation in the three-dimensional space such as pokes, pats, taps, pushes, guiding, flicks, turning, rotating, grabbing and pulling (see paragraph 91) , Maciocci et al. does not explicitly discloses manipulating the object at the edges specifically. At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the gesture techniques of Maciocci et al. in order to include object edge specific gestures for manipulation. Applicant has not disclosed that specifically using edge gesture manipulations provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with the gesture manipulation techniques of Maciocci et al. because the exact location on an interface object/space at which a gesture is operated upon is a matter of engineering design choice as preferred by the inventor or to which best suits the application at hand. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art to modify Maciocci et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 10.
In reference to claim 18, Maciocci et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as applied to claim 1 above. Maciocci et al. discloses allowing for user collaboration such that virtual objects maybe added or anchored by one user and then presented to another user’s head mounted display device for display (see paragraphs 87-88, 105). Maciocci et al. further explicitly discloses allowing one user to formulate a signal using their head mounted device indicating that a virtual object should be generated for another user, calculate parameters including distance and orientation and the other user receiving the input and generating a display of the virtual object based thereupon (see paragraphs 94-95). Although Maciocci et al. therefore discloses two users in collaboration (paragraph 141), Maciocci et al. does not explicitly disclose the detailed configuration of headset per user/different three-dimensional volumetric representation of a second area of space and the functionality thereof. The Examiner points out that such functionality and detailed configuration is equivalent to simply extending another user to the collaboration techniques/environment of Maciocci et al.. In other words, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to implement further users wearing third, fourth, fifth, etc. head mounted display devices and inherently each displaying to the user third, fourth fifth three-dimensional spaces and updating the display of such spaces using the indications from other users when virtual objects are added (again as per the techniques of Maciocci et al.). Such techniques would simply be an extension of that which is already found in the prior art or in other words, it would simply be a duplication of parts for a multiplied effect (St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., Inc., 193 USPQ 8, 11 (7th Cir. 1977).). Motivation to perform such a modification would allow a greater number of users to be included in collaboration on projects represented using the techniques of Maciocci et al. above thereby creating a more customizable and user-friendly computing experience.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-7, 11, 16 and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
References Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Bascle et al. (U.S. Publication 2002/0107674)
Bascle et al. discloses a room planning and design system comprising a virtual room space that allows for collaboration amongst users visualizing 3D virtual objects via virtual or augmented reality.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Antonio Caschera whose telephone number is (571) 272-7781. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday between 6:30 AM and 2:30 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Said Broome, can be reached at (571) 272-2931.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Mail Stop ____________
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
or faxed to:
571-273-8300 (Central Fax)
See the listing of “Mail Stops” at http://www.uspto.gov/patents/mail.jsp and include the appropriate designation in the address above.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the Technology Center 2600 Customer Service Office whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600.
/Antonio A Caschera/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2612
1/26/26