DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/21/2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
3. Claims 1, 9, and 17 are currently amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
5. Claim 1 has been amended to recite wherein the users cannot access or see the associated virtual content. This means the users cannot access and cannot see the associated virtual content. This limitation is not disclosed or described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
6. The closest paragraph in specification pertaining to this limitation is paragraph [0119] which recites: “At block 1104, the processor receives access parameters for the users. The processor receives access parameters for the users from the host or another user with acceptable access levels. The access parameters indicate a respective access level to the collaborative object 700 of each of the users that allows the respective access level of at least one of the users to be different than the respective access level of another user. For example, the host may have a first access level (enabling access to access the collaborative object 700 in order to associate virtual content 702 and view associated virtual content 702 during a collaboration period) and another user may have a second level of access to the collaborative object 700 that is less than the first level of access (e.g., it only permits access after the collaboration period has ended; or it permits access to the collaborative object 700 during the collaboration period, but not associated virtual content 702 until after the collaboration period has ended). In one example, the host receives an access level enabling access by default and the host may grant other users access rights by providing the access rights to the processor 499 of the sever system 498 via a physically remote device.”
7. Paragraph [0119] discloses a first access level and a second access level. The first access level lets a user access and view associate virtual content 702. Second access level, which is less than first access level, prevents a user from accessing associated virtual content 702 but specification is silent with regards to viewing the associated virtual content 702. Viewing virtual content is not equivalent to accessing that virtual content. One can view a virtual content but be unable to access it for modifications, etc. As a matter of fact, the description fails to disclose that users who lack either first access level or second access level are unable to view the associated objects. The specification only states that users with first level access can view or access virtual content 702 while those with second level access cannot access virtual content 702.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
10. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaptsan et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0186064 A1) in view of Srinivasan et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0355181 A1) in view of Nussbaum et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0258463 A1) and further in view of Parker et al. (US Patent Application No. 2009/0006948 A1).
11. Regarding Claim 1 (Currently Amended), Kaptsan discloses A server having a processor (paragraph [0005] reciting “In an embodiment, a method includes, by a server with a processor, providing, at a user device via a network, a user interface displaying a three-dimensional (3D) model of a consumer product selected by a user. …”) configured to
the processor configured to: (paragraph [0059] reciting “In one embodiment, the processor routines 92A, programs 92B, and data 94 are a computer program product (generally referenced 92), including a non-transitory computer-readable medium (e.g., a removable storage medium such as one or more DVD-ROM's, CD-ROM's, diskettes, tapes, etc.) that provides at least a portion of the software instructions for the invention system. …”) provide users with access to a collaborative object; (paragraph [0054] reciting “… A server can provide the user interface at a user device of a user or multiple user devices of multiple users. Then, the process allows customization of the 3D model of the consumer product based on selections and manipulations of the consumer product received at the provided user interface from at least two users of the plurality of users (704). This customization can occur after an initial user has sent invitations to other users to also customize the product. The method further includes, responsive to finalization of the customized 3D model by at least one of the plurality of users, submitting the customized 3D model for 3D printing (706).”) associate virtual content received from the users with the collaborative object during a collaboration period to produce a generated collaborative object; (paragraph [0036] reciting “Upon each user 102 and subsequent users 106 a-c beginning customization of an element of the model of 3D product 103 by selecting the element for editing, the system locks all other users from customizing that element of the object. This prevents conflicts with multiple users editing the same element at the same time. Such simultaneous editing of the same element can cause problems, such as user's attempting to change the same element to different shapes, colors, or materials. A person of ordinary skill in the art can recognize, however, that each user can modify separate/different elements of the model of the 3D product 103
simultaneously.” The different elements that are modified corresponds to associated virtual content to generate the final collaborative object.)
While not explicitly disclosed by Kaptsan, Srinivasan discloses perform an interactive augmented reality method, (paragraph [0005] reciting “In various implementations described herein, the editing occurs while multiple users are concurrently viewing a scene in a three-dimensional immersive environment. Thus, the users can visually see updates to the scene in real-time and in a dynamic manner. Stated another way, while a first user is providing edits to content in the scene, the first user and other users can visually see the response to the content in the scene being edited by the first user. …”;
paragraph [0006] reciting “To avoid problems and user frustrations that may occur when multiple users have the ability to edit a scene in a three-dimensional immersive environment, the techniques described herein use region locking so that content being edited by one user viewing and editing the scene in a three-dimensional immersive environment cannot be edited by another user concurrently viewing and editing the same scene in the three-dimensional immersive environment. …”)
wherein the users cannot access the associated virtual content received from other users until the collaboration period ends. (paragraph [0103] reciting “Example Clause O, the system of any one of Example Clauses H through N, wherein the operations further comprise unlocking the region so that the users other than the first user are able to edit the content in the region, wherein the region is unlocked based at least in part on one of (i) user input indicating the first user is no longer editing the content in the region or (ii) a predetermined time period expiring.” Thus, a predetermined time period can be used during which time no editing of already selected content by any user can be edited and only after time period expiration can those selected for editing content be selected by others for further editing.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kaptsan with Srinivasan so that users cannot access already selected elements for editing during a set time period. This is an obviously beneficial modification so that conflicts do not arise. It is further beneficial to set a predetermined time period such that its expiration allows all elements of the virtual product to be selected by the other users for more editing. Furthermore, Srinivasan discloses having users all view and edit objects in the same scene while wearing augmented reality (AR) headsets. This is also beneficial since the immersion of wearing a headset makes the editing task more intuitive and realistic.
While the combination of Kaptsan and Srinivasan does not explicitly disclose, Nussbaum discloses and provide the users with a timelapse of the generated collaborative object when the collaboration period ends, wherein the timelapse is a series of images including the virtual content received from the users and associated with the collaborative object during the collaboration period, (paragraph [0024] reciting “A server obtains the captured set of image data to generate a virtual model of the overall region using virtual modeling techniques described below. The server may then store the generated virtual models in a model database. In some embodiments, the model database may store multiple versions of a particular virtual model. For example, one version of the virtual model may be based on image data captured prior to damage occurring and a second version of the virtual model may be based on image data captured after damage has occurred. Accordingly, the server may associate each virtual model with a timestamp to enable the rendering of a virtual environment that depicts the overall region at various points in time.”
Therefore, each component or element of the 3D model in Kaptsan can be stored with its own timestamp initially and when the element is modified a timestamp can also be assigned to the modified element. This allows the timelapse rendering of the virtual product along the changing elements using the models at various timestamps.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kaptsan and Srinivasan with Nussbaum so that a timestamp for the virtual elements is tallied and later used to timelapse display the modified/edited product. This is an obviously beneficial modification as it allows the users to see the progress of changes to the product so the users can visually compare and decide if further changes need to be made to the product.
While the combination of Kaptsan, Srinivasan, and Nussbaum does not explicitly disclose, Parker discloses or see (paragraph [0033] reciting “… As another example, an editor may assign a section to a team leader author and the team leader author may reassign the section to a team member. Section details set-up interface 402 may include a view protection field. The view protection field may be set to restrict access of the section. For example, the editor may assign section 1 to author 1. The editor may not want author 2 to view section 1. The editor may set a section view restriction on section 1 so that author 2 cannot see section 1 of the document. …” Therefore, when a 3D portion object is selected for modification by a user in Kaptsan, it can be set to view protection to prevent anyone else from viewing it.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kaptsan, Srinivasan, and Nussbaum with Parker so that the selected portion of a 3D object for modification can be set to view protection to prevent other editors from selecting and viewing that object. This is an obviously beneficial modification since this allows the other users to know certain portions of the object are under editing because they are not even visible. This eliminates and confusion among the other users as to which 3D components of the 3D model are selectable for editing.
12. Regarding Claim 2 (Original), Nussbaum further discloses The server of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to associate a timestamp with the received associated virtual content. (paragraph [0024] reciting “A server obtains the captured set of image data to generate a virtual model of the overall region using virtual modeling techniques described below. The server may then store the generated virtual models in a model database. In some embodiments, the model database may store multiple versions of a particular virtual model. For example, one version of the virtual model may be based on image data captured prior to damage occurring and a second version of the virtual model may be based on image data captured after damage has occurred. Accordingly, the server may associate each virtual model with a timestamp to enable the rendering of a virtual environment that depicts the overall region at various points in time.” Each virtual model (or element) of Kaptsan can be tagged with timestamp for subsequent timelapse rendering.)
13. Regarding Claim 3 (Original), Nussbaum further discloses The server of claim 2, wherein the processor is configured to provide the users with the timelapse of the generated collaborative object as a function of the timestamps. (paragraph [0024] reciting “A server obtains the captured set of image data to generate a virtual model of the overall region using virtual modeling techniques described below. The server may then store the generated virtual models in a model database. In some embodiments, the model database may store multiple versions of a particular virtual model. For example, one version of the virtual model may be based on image data captured prior to damage occurring and a second version of the virtual model may be based on image data captured after damage has occurred. Accordingly, the server may associate each virtual model with a timestamp to enable the rendering of a virtual environment that depicts the overall region at various points in time.” Each virtual model (or element) of Kaptsan can be tagged with timestamp for subsequent timelapse rendering.)
14. Regarding Claim 4 (Original), Nussbaum further discloses The server of claim 2, wherein the processor is configured to record a position of the generated collaborative object for each of the timestamps. (paragraph [0065] reciting “… According to aspects, the imaging vehicle 940 embeds the captured image data with metadata such as a time stamp and/or location data.”;
paragraph [0067] reciting “… To this end, the server 920 may determine that embedded location data of a virtual model generated based on the image data captured by the imaging vehicle 940 is located at a same or similar location as a virtual model already stored in the model database 936. Accordingly, the server 920 may determine that the newly generated virtual model is an updated version of the currently stored virtual model.”)
15. Regarding Claim 5 (Original), Kaptsan further discloses The server of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to allow the users to see the generated collaborative object from different angles of view. (paragraph [0040] reciting “… Once accepted, all users 254 and 264 a-c can customize various aspects of the 3D product. In addition, all users 254 and 264 a-c are enabled to see the product from a customized viewpoint, which includes a customized rotation viewpoint and a customized zoom level. Each user, therefore, may see the 3D product from a different viewpoint in the 3D domain.” While collaboratively customizing the virtual elements, each user can rotate the 3D product from their respective editing interfaces.)
16. Regarding Claim 6 (Original), Kaptsan further discloses The server of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to allow users access to the collaborative object using respective physically remote devices. (see FIG. 8 wherein user interface modules (2) are remote physical devices that are allowed to make updates 3D-model.)
17. Regarding Claim 7 (Original), Kaptsan further discloses The server of claim 6, wherein the processor is configured to serve the collaborative object to the physically remote devices. (paragraph [0055] reciting “… Then, all invited users, via their corresponding user interface module 802, can send customizations 812 to a customization module 806. The customizations 812 are to different elements of the 3D model, but each separate element can be customized simultaneously. However, as described above, two users cannot customize the same element at the same time. In response to receiving the customizations 812, the customization module 806 provides updates 814 to 3D model to each of the user interface modules 802. Then, when the users finalize the 3D model, one or more of the user interface modules 802 send the final 3D model 816 to a 3D printing module 808 for printing. Then, the customized 3D printed product can be shipped to the customer.” The remote user interface modules 802 has the collaborative object which it can send to some 3D printer.)
18. Regarding Claim 8 (Original), Srinivasan further discloses A server of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to maintain a timer including a countdown indicative of when the collaboration period ends. (paragraph [0103] reciting “Example Clause O, the system of any one of Example Clauses H through N, wherein the operations further comprise unlocking the region so that the users other than the first user are able to edit the content in the region, wherein the region is unlocked based at least in part on one of (i) user input indicating the first user is no longer editing the content in the region or (ii) a predetermined time period expiring.” Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the server in Kaptsan to have time period countdown to expiration of the collaborative period.)
19. Regarding Claim 9 (Currently Amended), Kaptsan discloses performed by a processor, (paragraph [0005] reciting “In an embodiment, a method includes, by a server with a processor, providing, at a user device via a network, a user interface displaying a three-dimensional (3D) model of a consumer product selected by a user. …”) comprising: providing users with access to a collaborative object; (paragraph [0054] reciting “… A server can provide the user interface at a user device of a user or multiple user devices of multiple users. Then, the process allows customization of the 3D model of the consumer product based on selections and manipulations of the consumer product received at the provided user interface from at least two users of the plurality of users (704). This customization can occur after an initial user has sent invitations to other users to also customize the product. The method further includes, responsive to finalization of the customized 3D model by at least one of the plurality of users, submitting the customized 3D model for 3D printing (706).”)
associating virtual content received from the users with the collaborative object during a collaboration period to produce a generated collaborative object; (paragraph [0036] reciting “Upon each user 102 and subsequent users 106 a-c beginning customization of an element of the model of 3D product 103 by selecting the element for editing, the system locks all other users from customizing that element of the object. This prevents conflicts with multiple users editing the same element at the same time. Such simultaneous editing of the same element can cause problems, such as user's attempting to change the same element to different shapes, colors, or materials. A person of ordinary skill in the art can recognize, however, that each user can modify separate/different elements of the model of the 3D product 103
simultaneously.” The different elements that are modified corresponds to associated virtual content to generate the final collaborative object.)
While not explicitly disclosed by Kaptsan, Srinivasan discloses An interactive augmented reality method (paragraph [0005] reciting “In various implementations described herein, the editing occurs while multiple users are concurrently viewing a scene in a three-dimensional immersive environment. Thus, the users can visually see updates to the scene in real-time and in a dynamic manner. Stated another way, while a first user is providing edits to content in the scene, the first user and other users can visually see the response to the content in the scene being edited by the first user. …”;
paragraph [0006] reciting “To avoid problems and user frustrations that may occur when multiple users have the ability to edit a scene in a three-dimensional immersive environment, the techniques described herein use region locking so that content being edited by one user viewing and editing the scene in a three-dimensional immersive environment cannot be edited by another user concurrently viewing and editing the same scene in the three-dimensional immersive environment. …”)
wherein the users cannot access the associated virtual content received from other users until the collaboration period ends. (paragraph [0103] reciting “Example Clause O, the system of any one of Example Clauses H through N, wherein the operations further comprise unlocking the region so that the users other than the first user are able to edit the content in the region, wherein the region is unlocked based at least in part on one of (i) user input indicating the first user is no longer editing the content in the region or (ii) a predetermined time period expiring.” Thus, a predetermined time period can be used during which time no editing of already selected content by any user can be edited and only after time period expiration can those selected for editing content be selected by others for further editing.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kaptsan with Srinivasan so that users cannot access already selected elements for editing during a set time period. This is an obviously beneficial modification so that conflicts do not arise. It is further beneficial to set a predetermined time period such that its expiration allows all elements of the virtual product to be selected by the other users for more editing. Furthermore, Srinivasan discloses having users all view and edit objects in the same scene while wearing augmented reality (AR) headsets. This is also beneficial since the immersion of wearing a headset makes the editing task more intuitive and realistic.
While the combination of Kaptsan and Srinivasan does not explicitly disclose, Nussbaum discloses and providing the users with a timelapse of the generated collaborative object when the collaboration period ends, wherein the timelapse is a series of images including the virtual content received from the users and associated with the collaborative object during the collaboration period, (paragraph [0024] reciting “A server obtains the captured set of image data to generate a virtual model of the overall region using virtual modeling techniques described below. The server may then store the generated virtual models in a model database. In some embodiments, the model database may store multiple versions of a particular virtual model. For example, one version of the virtual model may be based on image data captured prior to damage occurring and a second version of the virtual model may be based on image data captured after damage has occurred. Accordingly, the server may associate each virtual model with a timestamp to enable the rendering of a virtual environment that depicts the overall region at various points in time.”
Therefore, each component or element of the 3D model in Kaptsan can be stored with its own timestamp initially and when the element is modified a timestamp can also be assigned to the modified element. This allows the timelapse rendering of the virtual product along the changing elements using the models at various timestamps.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kaptsan and Srinivasan with Nussbaum so that a timestamp for the virtual elements is tallied and later used to timelapse display the modified/edited product. This is an obviously beneficial modification as it allows the users to see the progress of changes to the product so they users can visually compare and decide if further changes need to be made to the product.
While the combination of Kaptsan, Srinivasan, and Nussbaum does not explicitly disclose, Parker discloses or see (paragraph [0033] reciting “… As another example, an editor may assign a section to a team leader author and the team leader author may reassign the section to a team member. Section details set-up interface 402 may include a view protection field. The view protection field may be set to restrict access of the section. For example, the editor may assign section 1 to author 1. The editor may not want author 2 to view section 1. The editor may set a section view restriction on section 1 so that author 2 cannot see section 1 of the document. …” Therefore, when a 3D portion object is selected for modification by a user in Kaptsan, it can be set to view protection to prevent anyone else from viewing it.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kaptsan, Srinivasan, and Nussbaum with Parker so that the selected portion of a 3D object for modification can be set to view protection to prevent other editors from selecting and viewing that object. This is an obviously beneficial modification since this allows the other users to know certain portions of the object are under editing because they are not even visible. This eliminates and confusion among the other users as to which 3D components of the 3D model are selectable for editing.
20. Regarding Claim 10 (Original), Nussbaum further discloses The method of claim 9, wherein the method associates a timestamp with the received associated virtual content. (paragraph [0024] reciting “A server obtains the captured set of image data to generate a virtual model of the overall region using virtual modeling techniques described below. The server may then store the generated virtual models in a model database. In some embodiments, the model database may store multiple versions of a particular virtual model. For example, one version of the virtual model may be based on image data captured prior to damage occurring and a second version of the virtual model may be based on image data captured after damage has occurred. Accordingly, the server may associate each virtual model with a timestamp to enable the rendering of a virtual environment that depicts the overall region at various points in time.” Each virtual model (or element) of Kaptsan can be tagged with timestamp for subsequent timelapse rendering.)
21. Regarding Claim 11 (Original), Nussbaum further discloses The method of claim 10, providing the users with the timelapse of the generated collaborative object as a function of the timestamps. (paragraph [0024] reciting “A server obtains the captured set of image data to generate a virtual model of the overall region using virtual modeling techniques described below. The server may then store the generated virtual models in a model database. In some embodiments, the model database may store multiple versions of a particular virtual model. For example, one version of the virtual model may be based on image data captured prior to damage occurring and a second version of the virtual model may be based on image data captured after damage has occurred. Accordingly, the server may associate each virtual model with a timestamp to enable the rendering of a virtual environment that depicts the overall region at various points in time.” Each virtual model (or element) of Kaptsan can be tagged with timestamp for subsequent timelapse rendering.)
22. Regarding Claim 12 (Original), Nussbaum further discloses The method of claim 10, further comprising recording a position of the generated collaborative object for each of the timestamps. (paragraph [0065] reciting “… According to aspects, the imaging vehicle 940 embeds the captured image data with metadata such as a time stamp and/or location data.”;
paragraph [0067] reciting “… To this end, the server 920 may determine that embedded location data of a virtual model generated based on the image data captured by the imaging vehicle 940 is located at a same or similar location as a virtual model already stored in the model database 936. Accordingly, the server 920 may determine that the newly generated virtual model is an updated version of the currently stored virtual model.”)
23. Regarding Claim 13 (Original), Kaptsan further discloses The method of claim 9, wherein a processor allows the users to see the generated collaborative object from different angles of view. (paragraph [0040] reciting “… Once accepted, all users 254 and 264 a-c can customize various aspects of the 3D product. In addition, all users 254 and 264 a-c are enabled to see the product from a customized viewpoint, which includes a customized rotation viewpoint and a customized zoom level. Each user, therefore, may see the 3D product from a different viewpoint in the 3D domain.” While collaboratively customizing the virtual elements, each user can rotate the 3D product from their respective editing interfaces.)
24. Regarding Claim 14 (Original), Kaptsan further discloses The method of claim 9, wherein a processor allows users access to the collaborative object using respective physically remote devices. (see FIG. 8 wherein user interface modules (2) are remote physical devices that are allowed to make updates 3D-model.)
25. Regarding Claim 15 (Original), Kaptsan further discloses The method of claim 14, wherein the processor serves the collaborative object to the physically remote devices. (paragraph [0055] reciting “… Then, all invited users, via their corresponding user interface module 802, can send customizations 812 to a customization module 806. The customizations 812 are to different elements of the 3D model, but each separate element can be customized simultaneously. However, as described above, two users cannot customize the same element at the same time. In response to receiving the customizations 812, the customization module 806 provides updates 814 to 3D model to each of the user interface modules 802. Then, when the users finalize the 3D model, one or more of the user interface modules 802 send the final 3D model 816 to a 3D printing module 808 for printing. Then, the customized 3D printed product can be shipped to the customer.” The remote user interface modules 802 has the collaborative object which it can send to some 3D printer.)
26. Regarding Claim 16 (Original), Srinivasan further discloses The method of claim 14, wherein the processor maintains a timer including a countdown indicative of when the collaboration period ends. (paragraph [0103] reciting “Example Clause O, the system of any one of Example Clauses H through N, wherein the operations further comprise unlocking the region so that the users other than the first user are able to edit the content in the region, wherein the region is unlocked based at least in part on one of (i) user input indicating the first user is no longer editing the content in the region or (ii) a predetermined time period expiring.” Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the server in Kaptsan to have time period countdown to expiration of the collaborative period.)
27. Regarding Claim 17 (Currently Amended), Kaptsan discloses A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing program code that, when executed by an electronic processor of an electronic device (paragraph [0058] reciting “FIG. 10 is a diagram of an example internal structure of a computer (e.g., client computer/device 50 or server computers 60) in the computer system of FIG. 9. … 9). Memory 90 provides volatile storage for computer software instructions or routines 92A and data 94 used to implement an embodiment of the present invention (e.g., user interface module, invitation module, customization module code detailed above). Disk storage 95 provides non-volatile storage for computer software instructions or operating system (OS) programs 92B and data 94 used to implement an embodiment of the present invention. A central processor unit 84 is also attached to the system bus 79 and provides for the execution of computer instructions.”) having a display, (paragraph [0031] reciting “FIG. 1 is a diagram 100 illustrating an example embodiment of the present invention. A user 102 can collaborate with subsequent users 106 a-c on a model of a 3D product 103 displayed on a user device 104. The user device 104 is operatively connected to a retail server 114 and one or more social media platforms 112, and other user devices 108 via a cloud 110. …”) configures the electronic device to:
provide users with access to a collaborative object; (paragraph [0054] reciting “… A server can provide the user interface at a user device of a user or multiple user devices of multiple users. Then, the process allows customization of the 3D model of the consumer product based on selections and manipulations of the consumer product received at the provided user interface from at least two users of the plurality of users (704). This customization can occur after an initial user has sent invitations to other users to also customize the product. The method further includes, responsive to finalization of the customized 3D model by at least one of the plurality of users, submitting the customized 3D model for 3D printing (706).”)
associate virtual content received from the users with the collaborative object during a collaboration period to produce a generated collaborative object; (paragraph [0036] reciting “Upon each user 102 and subsequent users 106 a-c beginning customization of an element of the model of 3D product 103 by selecting the element for editing, the system locks all other users from customizing that element of the object. This prevents conflicts with multiple users editing the same element at the same time. Such simultaneous editing of the same element can cause problems, such as user's attempting to change the same element to different shapes, colors, or materials. A person of ordinary skill in the art can recognize, however, that each user can modify separate/different elements of the model of the 3D product 103
simultaneously.” The different elements that are modified corresponds to associated virtual content to generate the final collaborative object.)
While not explicitly disclosed by Kaptsan, Srinivasan discloses wherein the users cannot access the associated virtual content received from other users until the collaboration period ends. (paragraph [0103] reciting “Example Clause O, the system of any one of Example Clauses H through N, wherein the operations further comprise unlocking the region so that the users other than the first user are able to edit the content in the region, wherein the region is unlocked based at least in part on one of (i) user input indicating the first user is no longer editing the content in the region or (ii) a predetermined time period expiring.” Thus, a predetermined time period can be used during which time no editing of already selected content by any user can be edited and only after time period expiration can those selected for editing content be selected by others for further editing.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kaptsan with Srinivasan so that users cannot access already selected elements for editing during a set time period. This is an obviously beneficial modification so that conflicts do not arise. It is further beneficial to set a predetermined time period such that its expiration allows all elements of the virtual product to be selected by the other users for more editing. Furthermore, Srinivasan discloses having users all view and edit objects in the same scene while wearing augmented reality (AR) headsets. This is also beneficial since the immersion of wearing a headset makes the editing task more intuitive and realistic.
While the combination of Kaptsan and Srinivasan does not explicitly disclose, Nussbaum discloses and provide the users with a timelapse of the generated collaborative object, wherein the timelapse is a series of images including the virtual content received from the users and associated with the collaborative object during the collaboration period, (paragraph [0024] reciting “A server obtains the captured set of image data to generate a virtual model of the overall region using virtual modeling techniques described below. The server may then store the generated virtual models in a model database. In some embodiments, the model database may store multiple versions of a particular virtual model. For example, one version of the virtual model may be based on image data captured prior to damage occurring and a second version of the virtual model may be based on image data captured after damage has occurred. Accordingly, the server may associate each virtual model with a timestamp to enable the rendering of a virtual environment that depicts the overall region at various points in time.”
Therefore, each component or element of the 3D model in Kaptsan can be stored with its own timestamp initially and when the element is modified a timestamp can also be assigned to the modified element. This allows the timelapse rendering of the virtual product along the changing elements using the models at various timestamps.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kaptsan and Srinivasan with Nussbaum so that a timestamp for the virtual elements is tallied and later used to timelapse display the modified/edited product. This is an obviously beneficial modification as it allows the users to see the progress of changes to the product so they users can visually compare and decide if further changes need to be made to the product.
While the combination of Kaptsan, Srinivasan, and Nussbaum does not explicitly disclose, Parker discloses or see (paragraph [0033] reciting “… As another example, an editor may assign a section to a team leader author and the team leader author may reassign the section to a team member. Section details set-up interface 402 may include a view protection field. The view protection field may be set to restrict access of the section. For example, the editor may assign section 1 to author 1. The editor may not want author 2 to view section 1. The editor may set a section view restriction on section 1 so that author 2 cannot see section 1 of the document. …” Therefore, when a 3D portion object is selected for modification by a user in Kaptsan, it can be set to view protection to prevent anyone else from viewing it.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kaptsan, Srinivasan, and Nussbaum with Parker so that the selected portion of a 3D object for modification can be set to view protection to prevent other editors from selecting and viewing that object. This is an obviously beneficial modification since this allows the other users to know certain portions of the object are under editing because they are not even visible. This eliminates and confusion among the other users as to which 3D components of the 3D model are selectable for editing.
28. Regarding Claim 18 (Original), Nussbaum further discloses The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 17 storing program code that, when executed by the electronic processor, associates a timestamp with each received associated virtual content. (paragraph [0024] reciting “A server obtains the captured set of image data to generate a virtual model of the overall region using virtual modeling techniques described below. The server may then store the generated virtual models in a model database. In some embodiments, the model database may store multiple versions of a particular virtual model. For example, one version of the virtual model may be based on image data captured prior to damage occurring and a second version of the virtual model may be based on image data captured after damage has occurred. Accordingly, the server may associate each virtual model with a timestamp to enable the rendering of a virtual environment that depicts the overall region at various points in time.” Each virtual model (or element) of Kaptsan can be tagged with timestamp for subsequent timelapse rendering.)
29. Regarding Claim 19 (Original), Nussbaum further discloses The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 18 storing program code that, when executed by the electronic processor, further configures the electronic device to record a position of the generated collaborative object for each of the timestamps. (paragraph [0065] reciting “… According to aspects, the imaging vehicle 940 embeds the captured image data with metadata such as a time stamp and/or location data.”;
paragraph [0067] reciting “… To this end, the server 920 may determine that embedded location data of a virtual model generated based on the image data captured by the imaging vehicle 940 is located at a same or similar location as a virtual model already stored in the model database 936. Accordingly, the server 920 may determine that the newly generated virtual model is an updated version of the currently stored virtual model.”)
30. Regarding Claim 20 (Original), Srinivasan further discloses The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 19 storing program code that, when executed by the electronic processor, configures the electronic device to maintain a timer including a countdown indicative of when the collaboration period ends. (paragraph [0103] reciting “Example Clause O, the system of any one of Example Clauses H through N, wherein the operations further comprise unlocking the region so that the users other than the first user are able to edit the content in the region, wherein the region is unlocked based at least in part on one of (i) user input indicating the first user is no longer editing the content in the region or (ii) a predetermined time period expiring.” Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the server in Kaptsan to have time period countdown to expiration of the collaborative period.)
Response to Arguments
31. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 8/21/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Parker.
32. Parker discloses editing a document, which is a virtual object. Sections of the document can be edited and can be set with view protection to prevent other authors from viewing the edited section. The view protection only allows the author who is currently editing the section to edit/view that section. This concept an be applied to the combination of Kaptsan, Srinivasan, and Nussbaum. Kaptsan discloses a 3D model wherein its individual sub-components can be selected for editing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art to modify Kaptsan so that the selected 3D sub-component cannot be viewed by other editors. This is a beneficial modification because it prevents other editors from selecting already selected/locked 3D sub-components since those selected 3D sub-components will not be viewable.
CONTACT
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANK S CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7993. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8-11:30 and 1:30-6.
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 5712727794. 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.
/FRANK S CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Prosecution Insights