DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s amendment/response filed on 03 February 2026, which has been entered and made of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office Action.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites “wherein including” in lines 5-7, which appears to be a typographical error. Claims 10 and 16 contain the same deficiency. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8-12, 14, 16, and 18-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (US 2023/0273706; hereinafter “Smith”) in view of Comer et al. (US 2019/0272674; hereinafter “Comer”).
Regarding claim 1, Smith discloses A method for manipulating an artificial reality environment, the method comprising: rendering the artificial reality environment on an artificial reality device of a user (“an electronic device presenting an extended reality (XR) environment,” para. 22), wherein including rendering one or more virtual objects overlaid onto a view of a real-world environment surrounding the artificial reality device, at positions in the real-world environment relative to an anchor object, wherein the anchor object is a physical object in the real-world environment (“display a virtual object 114 … positioned on (e.g., anchored to) the top of a computer-generated representation 106′ of real-world table 106 [of Fig. 1],” para. 22); receiving input indicating a move for the anchor object in the artificial reality environment, wherein the input comprises detected movement of the physical object in the real-world environment; and based on the received input, identifying a reposition of the anchor object (“one or more cameras configured to capture movement of physical objects in the real-world environment,” para. 31).
Smith discloses anchoring a virtual reality object to a physical object (para. 22) and detecting movement of physical objects (para. 31). By definition of the word “anchor” in the augmented reality technology area, this implies that as a physical object is moved, the “anchored” virtual reality object would be moved in a corresponding manner. However, since Smith does not explicitly recite wherein reposition of the anchor object causes corresponding repositioning of the one or more virtual objects relative to the anchor object on the artificial reality device, such that relational positioning between the anchor object and the one or more virtual objects is maintained, an additional reference is introduced for clarity.
In the same art of augmented reality, Comer teaches wherein reposition of the anchor object causes corresponding repositioning of the one or more virtual objects relative to the anchor object on the artificial reality device, such that relational positioning between the anchor object and the one or more virtual objects is maintained (“tracking virtual object position changes related to virtual object anchor movement. The process starts at step 114 [of Fig. 7] with virtual object anchor 54 physically moved to a new location … based upon the new location of virtual object anchor 54 and the location of the virtual object relative to virtual object anchor 54 … present the virtual object relative to virtual object anchor 54's new location and orientation,” para. 29).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Comer to Smith. The motivation would have been “One example of an important technical advantage is that a virtual object presented at a head mounted display correlates in its relative physical position to virtual objects of other head mounted displays so that end users wearing the head mounted displays can collaborate with interactions at the virtual objects” (Comer, para. 9) and to “substantially reduce the disadvantages and problems associated with previous methods” (Comer, para. 7), and the previous methods have “limitations in distance accuracy, field of view, processing power and user tracking” (Comer, para. 5).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Smith and Comer renders obvious wherein the artificial reality environment is rendered from a perspective of the user relative to a position of an avatar of the user in the artificial reality environment (Smith, Fig. 5A).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Smith and Comer renders obvious wherein: the one or more virtual objects include another avatar of another user accessing the artificial reality environment via another artificial reality device (Smith, Fig. 5A); and reposition of the anchor object causes corresponding repositioning of the other avatar relative to the anchor object, such that relational positioning between the anchor object and the other avatar is maintained (“virtual object anchor 54 physically moved to a new location … based upon the new location of virtual object anchor 54 and the location of the virtual object relative to virtual object anchor 54 … present the virtual object relative to virtual object anchor 54's new location and orientation,” Comer, para. 29; see claim 1 for motivation to combine).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Smith and Comer renders obvious wherein rotational movement of the anchor object causes corresponding rotational movement of the one or more virtual objects (“while the spatial refinements illustrated in FIGS. 5A-5I include translational movements, in some examples, the spatial refinements may include a translation, a rotation, and/or both a translation and a rotation,” Smith, para. 117; “an information handling system 10 that knows virtual object anchor 54's position and rotation along with the offset can render virtual object 70 relative to virtual object anchor 54,” Comer, para. 21; see claim 1 for motivation to combine).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Smith and Comer renders obvious wherein the anchor object is a stage device in operable communication with the artificial reality device and the stage device is configured to track its position relative to the artificial reality device (“In order to coordinate presentation of virtual object 70 [of Fig. 1] for multiple end users, a virtual object anchor 54 placed on desktop 46 locally stores a virtual object offset 50 that defines a presentation location, orientation and scale for virtual object 70,” Comer, para. 21; “virtual object anchor 54 [of Fig. 2] in one embodiment continues to track head mounted display 32 as it moves and updates positions stored in virtual object anchor 54,” Comer, para. 26; Comer, Fig. 4, block 82, illustrates “Calculate distance and angle of anchor from head mounted display” as being performed by the anchor; see claim 1 for motivation to combine).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Smith and Comer renders obvious wherein the artificial reality device is configured to track a position of the anchor object in the real-world environment (“one or more cameras configured to capture movement of physical objects in the real-world environment,” Smith, para. 31).
Regarding claim 10, it is rejected using the same citations and rationales described in the rejection of claim 1, with the additional limitations of A computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by a computing system, cause the computing system to perform a process (“computer-readable storage medium … that stores computer-readable instructions,” Smith, para. 29).
Regarding claims 11, 12, and 14, they are rejected using the same citations and rationales described in the rejections of claims 2, 3, and 5, respectively.
Regarding claim 16, it is rejected using the same citations and rationales described in the rejection of claim 1, with the additional limitations of A computing system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more memories storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing system to perform a process (Smith, para. 29).
Regarding claims 18 and 19, they are rejected using the same citations and rationales described in the rejections of claims 8 and 9, respectively.
Regarding claim 20, it is rejected using the same citations and rationales described in the rejections of claims 2 and 3.
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Smith and Comer renders obvious wherein the artificial reality environment further comprises a second anchor object that is a virtual object within the artificial reality environment (virtual tray 514 of Fig. 5A).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Smith and Comer renders obvious wherein the second anchor object is configured to have one or more functions other than moveability and display functions (virtual tray 514 of Fig. 5A has other functions such as collaboration, spatial awareness, holding mug 552, etc.).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Smith and Comer renders obvious movement of the second anchor object caused by the user, and wherein the movement of the second anchor object is not rendered for other users of the artificial reality environment (Figs. 5D-5E illustrate a viewpoint 560 of a first user, where the first user initiates movement 574B of virtual tray 514, but as can be seen from the viewpoint 570 of a second user when comparing Fig. 5D and Fig. 5E, the virtual tray 514 does not move in the viewpoint 570 of the second user).
Regarding claims 24 and 25, they are rejected using the same citations and rationales described in the rejections of claims 21 and 22, respectively.
Regarding claim 26, it is rejected using the same citations and rationales described in the rejection of claim 21.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any 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 Ryan McCulley whose telephone number is (571)270-3754. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 8:00am - 4:30pm.
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, Kee Tung can be reached at (571) 272-7794. 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.
/RYAN MCCULLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611