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
The amendment filed 04/13/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Applicant did not formally address the drawing objection(s)
Fig. 5 does not show reference character 522 as mentioned in [0006]. (Pg. 2)
Reference characters 235 and 240 of Fig. 2 are not present in the specification. (Pg. 3)
Figs. 3 and 4 are confusing in light of the disclosure. (Pg. 3)
However, Applicant’s amendments to the Drawings and Specification overcome these unaddressed objections. Regarding the rest of the amendments to the Abstract, Drawings, Specification, and Claims have overcome all of the objections but only some of the rejections as set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 01/14/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 04/13/226 regarding the specification objection in [0026], the Claim objections in Claims 1, 11, and 19, as well as the 112(a) written description rejection in Claims 8 and 18 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The specification objection in [0026], Claim objections in Claims 1, 11, 19, and 112(a) Written Description have been withdrawn.
Applicant argues there is no such thing as a “two-point cloud” in paragraph [0026] so no correction needed.
Examiner replies Applicant’s argument has been fully considered and is persuasive. Therefore, the objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant argues “spatial computing device” in Claims 1, 11, and 19 is used as a modifier of generated content and does not need a preceding article.
Examiner replies The argument pertaining to Claim 19 says it has been corrected although it has not. However, Applicant’s argument has been fully considered and is persuasive. Therefore, the objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant argues the rejection is traversed because paragraph [0024] describes depth sampling, further succeeding paragraphs [0025-0033] describe various methods of synchronizing or aligning images which provides both enabling support and demonstrating possession of invention.
Examiner replies It is unclear as to what is being addressed in the argument, the claim’s being traversed are not identified. There was no enablement rejection, for the sake of further prosecution, Examiner will treat Applicant’s argument to read “… which demonstrates possession of invention.”, traversing the 112(a) rejections of Claims 8 and 18. Even though Claims 8 and 18 use relative terminology, a person skilled in the art would recognize in an applicant’s disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims. Applicant’s argument has been fully considered and is persuasive. Therefore, the objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed 04/13/2026 regarding no error in the abstract is considered moot due to amendments.
Applicant argues there was no error in the abstract as stated in the office action.
Examiner replies Applicant’s argument has been considered but is moot due to the amendments to the Abstract.
Applicant’s arguments filed 04/13/2026 regarding the Office Action’s indication of an MR headset and a spatial computing device are not synonymous is incorrect, Zeng not teaching/suggesting the limitations depth maps from separate devices, Fradet not teaching aligning two depth maps for the purpose of content sharing, and the prior art not reading on the amended claims are fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the Office Action’s indication of an MR headset and a spatial computing device are not synonymous is incorrect and references paragraphs [0010] and [0014] for support.
Examiner replies Paragraphs [0010] and [0014] teach that an example of a spatial computing device is an MR headset. However, while the scopes of an MR headset and spatial computing device do overlap, they are not the same. The terms are not synonymous and cannot be used interchangeably.
Applicant argues due to the amendment on Claim 1, Zeng does not teach or suggest receiving a first depth map from a spatial computing device and a second depth map from a separate mobile device, then aligning those two depth maps to synchronize the spatial relationship between the two devices’ fields of view because Zeng’s multiple depth data sources are co-located sensor modalities on a single device or system, referencing Figs. 4A and 4B.
Examiner replies see MPEP § 2111.01, claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. Within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the amended Claim 1, the spatial computing device and mobile device do not have to be physically separate. Zeng teaches multiple depth data sources co located on a single device or a system, but a first camera on a mobile phone or head mounted device can be interpreted as a spatial computing device and a second camera on that same head mounted device or mobile phone can be interpreted as a mobile device. In this interpretation, Zeng teaches the claimed limitations. Without explicit indication that the depth sources must be physically separate and not co-located modalities on a single device or system, Examiner has to employ broadest reasonable interpretation.
Applicant argues Fradet does not teach receiving and aligning two depth maps from two separate devices as the basis for determining where content should appear in a mobile device camera feed because Fradet’s content sharing relies on exchanging 3D position data, not aligning two depth maps generated by depth sensors on two separate devices.
Examiner replies see MPEP § 2145 (IV), one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on the combination of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Furthermore, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). It is correct that Fradet does not teach aligning depth maps to synchronize MR content, however, the method of Zeng in view of Fradet teaches the claimed subject matter. The teachings of Zeng, when combined with the teachings of Fradet, fully teach the disputed limitation, as the rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as set forth below.
Applicant argues the amended claims require that the first and second depth maps originate from two physically separate devices, that alignment of those depth maps synchronizes the spatial relationship between the two devices’ fields of view, and that the alignment is the base for determining a location for overlay on the mobile device camera feed. Therefore, neither Zeng nor Fradet, alone or in combination, teaches or suggests this inter-device depth map alignment for the purpose of content transfer and synchronized overlay. Further, the additional references to the dependent claims neither individually or in the combination with Zeng and Fradet cures the deficiency of the amended independent claim.
Examiner replies see MPEP § 2111.01, claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. Within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the amended Claim 1, the spatial computing device and mobile device do not have to be physically separate. Zeng teaches multiple depth data sources co located on a single device or a system, but a first camera on a mobile phone or head mounted device can be interpreted as a spatial computing device and a second camera on that same head mounted device or mobile phone can be interpreted as a mobile device. In this interpretation, Zeng teaches the claimed limitations. Further, Claim 1 does not specify the determining a location for overlay on the mobile device camera feed is based on the alignment of depth maps. Without explicit indication that the depth sources must be physically separate and not co-located modalities on a single device or system or that the determining a location for overlay on the mobile device camera feed is based on the alignment of depth maps, Examiner has to employ broadest reasonable interpretation. Because the combination Zeng and Fradet teach the amended claims under broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional references to the dependent claims are not needed individually or in combination to teach the independent claim.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“comprising”” should read “comprising”.
PNG
media_image1.png
44
154
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “spatial computing device field of view location of spatial computing device generated content displayed by the spatial computing device,” this is unclear as content does not have a field of view. For the sake of further prosecution, Examiner will interpret “spatial computing device field of view location of spatial computing device generated content displayed by the spatial computing device” as determining the location of the generated content displayed by the spatial computing device.
Claim 1 also recites “and spatial computing device field of view location”, it is unclear for the reasoning stated above and will be interpreted as the location of the generated content displayed by the spatial computing device as stated above. Claims 2-10 are rejected based on dependency on Claim 1.
Claim 2 recites “a mobile device camera feed,” Claim 1, to which it depends, also recites a cameral feed of the mobile device, it is unclear whether this is a new mobile device camera feed or referring to the same one. For the sake of further prosecution, Examiner will interpret both devices as the same. Claims 3 and 4 are rejected based on dependency on Claim 2.
Claim 8 recites “an area around the spatial computing device” in line 2. “Around” is a visually subjective term and considered relative terminology. For the sake of further prosecution, Examiner will interpret “an area around the spatial computing device” as anywhere in the field of view containing spatial computing device generated content.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “determining a spatial computing device field of view location of spatial computing device generated content displayed by the spatial computing device,” this is unclear as content does not have a field of view. For the sake of further prosecution, Examiner will interpret “determining a spatial computing device field of view location of spatial computing device generated content displayed by the spatial computing device” as determining the location of the generated content displayed by the spatial computing device.
Claim 11 also recites “and spatial computing device field of view location”, it is unclear for the reasoning stated above and will be interpreted as the location of the generated content displayed by the spatial computing device as stated above. Claims 12-18 are rejected based on dependency on Claim 11.
Claim 12 recites “a mobile device camera feed,” Claim 1, to which it depends, also recites a cameral feed of the mobile device, it is unclear whether this is a new mobile device camera feed or referring to the same one. For the sake of further prosecution, Examiner will interpret both devices as the same. Claims 13 and 14 are rejected based on dependency on Claim 12.
Claim 18 recites “an area around the spatial computing device” in line 2. “Around” is a visually subjective term and considered relative terminology. For the sake of further prosecution, Examiner will interpret “an area around the spatial computing device” as anywhere in the field of view containing spatial computing device generated content.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “determining a spatial computing device field of view location of spatial computing device generated content displayed by the spatial computing device,” this is unclear as content does not have a field of view. For the sake of further prosecution, Examiner will interpret “determining a spatial computing device field of view location of spatial computing device generated content displayed by the spatial computing device” as determining the location of the generated content displayed by the spatial computing device.
Claim 19 also recites “and spatial computing device field of view location”, it is unclear for the reasoning stated above and will be interpreted as the location of the generated content displayed by the spatial computing device as stated above. Claim 20 is rejected based on dependency on Claim 19.
Claim 20 recites “a mobile device camera feed,” Claim 19, to which it depends, also recites a cameral feed of the mobile device, it is unclear whether this is a new mobile device camera feed or referring to the same one. For the sake of further prosecution, Examiner will interpret both devices as the same.
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, 11, and 19 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng et al. (US 2025/0299351 A1), hereinafter referenced as Zeng, in view of Fradet et al. (US 11651576 B2), hereinafter referenced as Fradet.
Regarding Claim 1, Zeng discloses a computer implemented method ([0184], “Processes and methods according to the above-described examples can be implemented using computer-executable instructions”) comprising:
receiving a first depth map of a spatial computing device field of view (Zeng: [Abs], discloses obtaining a first depth data of a first depth data source field of view; [0032], describes depth information <data> can be obtained using a sensor on a device <data source>, including a head mounted device <spatial computing device>; [0099], discloses the obtained depth data from each depth sensing system can include a depth map);
receiving a second depth map of a mobile device camera field of view (Zeng: [Abs], discloses obtaining a second depth data of a second depth data source field of view; [0032], describes depth information <data> can be obtained using a sensor on a device <data source>, including a mobile device; [0099], discloses the obtained depth data from each depth sensing system can include a depth map);
aligning the first and second depth maps to synchronize a spatial relationship between the field of view of the spatial computing device and the field of view of the mobile device camera (Zeng: [Abs], discloses generating a fused depth data seed using the first depth data <first depth map> and adjusted depth data based on the second depth data <second depth map>, <by fusing the depth datas, they are aligned, the depth datas are associated with different FOVs, so the alignment will synchronize the special relationship by unifying them into a fused frame>; see [Figs. 4A and 6]);
PNG
media_image2.png
614
960
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
708
470
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Zeng does not disclose
determining a spatial computing device field of view location of spatial computing device generated content displayed by the spatial computing device;
and sending the spatial computing device generated content and spatial computing device field of view location to the mobile device for overlay on a cameral feed of the mobile device at the determined spatial computing device field of view location.
However, Fradet discloses
determining a spatial computing device field of view location of spatial computing device generated content displayed by the spatial computing device (Fradet: [Col 1, ln 23], discloses rendering an MR scene <determines a location of generated content to be displayed> on a first user device; [Col 5, ln 59], discloses the first user device can be any kind of MR device, which allows the rendering of visual content, for example, a mobile phone, a tablet computer, or a head mounted device <therefore a spatial computing device>);
and sending the spatial computing device generated content and spatial computing device field of view location to the mobile device for overlay on a cameral feed of the mobile device at the determined spatial computing device field of view location (Fradet: [Abs], discloses providing the 3D position of virtual content already generated on the first user device, and the 3D position of the virtual content to a second user device and rendered with regard to viewing position and/or orientation of the second user device in the mixed reality scene <overlay on cameral feed>).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the method of aligning depth maps disclosed by Zeng to synchronizing MR content across different devices as taught by Fradet. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to reduce computational overhead, as aligned depth maps 2D representations of positional data and are more compact than sharing 3D positional data
Regarding Claim 11, it recites the limitations that are similar in scope to claim 1, but as a machine-readable storage device. As shown in the rejection, the combination of Zeng and Fradet disclose the limitations of Claim 1. Additionally, Zeng discloses
a machine-readable storage device having instructions for execution by a processor of a machine to cause the processor to perform operations to perform a method (“the code may be stored on a computer-readable or machine-readable storage medium, for example, in the form of a computer program comprising a plurality of instructions executable by one or more processors.” [0141]) the operations comprising….
Regarding Claim 19, it recites the limitations that are similar in scope to claim 1, but as a device. As shown in the rejection, the combination of Zeng and Fradet disclose the limitations of Claim 1. Additionally, Zeng discloses
a device (“an apparatus” [0005]) comprising:
a processor; and a memory device coupled to the processor (“that includes at least one memory and at least one processor (e.g., implemented in circuitry) coupled to the at least one memory.” [0005]) and having a program stored thereon for execution by the processor to perform operations (“when executed by one or more processors, perform the recited operations” [0140]) comprising….
Claims 2, 3, 12, 13, and 20 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng in view of Fradet, and in further view of Caswell et al. (US 11386627 B2), hereinafter referenced as Caswell.
Regarding Claims 2, 12, and 20, the combination of Zeng and Fradet disclose the method and devices of Claims 1, 11, and 19 respectively. They do not expressly disclose the limitations of Claims 2, 12, and 20; however, Caswell discloses a system for cross reality, enabling multiple devices to efficiently render shared location-based content, with a world reconstruction component which contains a perception module that receives and fuses depth maps and other sensor data from devices such as a wearable XR device or a handheld mobile device.
PNG
media_image4.png
484
758
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
428
744
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Caswell also teaches wherein
adding the spatial computing device generated content as an overlay to a mobile device camera feed such that the spatial computing device generated content appears in the camera feed at a synchronized location (“A localization process, which may be used to identify location-based virtual content, may be used for of the functions of the XR system, such as to provide realistic shared experiences for multiple users. To provide realistic XR experiences to multiple users, an XR system must know the users' physical surroundings in order to correctly correlate locations of virtual objects in relation to real objects. An XR system may build an environment map of a scene, which may be created from image and/or depth information collected with sensors that are part of XR devices worn by users of the XR system.” [Col 9, ln 51]; “AR contents may also be presented on the display 508, overlaid on the see-through reality 510” [Col 14, ln 58]);Fig 57; where AR contents reads as spatial computing device generated content and overlaid on the display reads on an overlay to a mobile device camera feed such that the spatial computing device generated content appears in the camera feed and a localization process … to provide realistic shared experiences for multiple users reads on at a synchronized location).
PNG
media_image6.png
522
682
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply and/or modify the method or device as taught by Zeng in view of Fradet by adding the spatial computing device generated content as an overlay to a mobile device camera feed such that the spatial computing device generated content appears in the camera feed at a synchronized location as taught by Caswell. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make this modification to provide users a collaborative experience where they can view the same virtual content synchronized with their mobile device.
Regarding Claims 3 and 13, the combination of Zeng, Fradet, and Caswell disclose the method and device of the Claims 2, and 12 respectively. Zeng and Fradet do not expressly disclose the limitations of Claims 3 and 13. However, Caswell further discloses wherein:
executing interactions with the spatial computing device generated content via the mobile device (“That orientation may change from session to session as a user interacts with the XR system, whether different sessions are associated with different users, each with their own wearable device with sensors that scan the environment, or the same user who uses the same device at different times.” [Col 9, ln 47]; “Users of XR devices may interact with that virtual content as they pass through the park playing the game.” [Col. 81, ln 21]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply and/or modify the method or device as taught by Zeng in view of Fradet, in further view of Caswell, by further comprising executing interactions with the MR generated content via the mobile device as taught by Caswell. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make this modification to provide users an immersive experience where they can interact with virtual content within a game, simulation, or interactive learning situation.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng in view of Fradet in further view of Caswell, and in further view of Holland (US 2023/0013539 A1).
Regarding Claims 4 and 14, the combination of Zeng, Fradet, and Caswell disclose the method and device of Claims 3 and 13 respectively. They do not expressly disclose the limitations of Claims 4 and 14; however, Holland discloses wherein
the spatial computing device generated content comprises a QR code ("XR generated content comprising a QR code" (Abstract); Fig. 5A <where the illustrated XR device, HMD with display, is a spatial computing device>).
PNG
media_image7.png
302
430
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply and/or modify the method or device as taught by Zeng in view of Fradet, in further view of Caswell, by including MR generated content comprising a QR code as taught by Holland. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make this modification because MR content comprising a QR code would allow devices to directly interact with the QR code without needing a physical copy of it, or holding their device up to another screen. QR codes allow instant access to shared resources like a hyperlink that automatically navigates to a webpage.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng in view of Fradet, and in further view of Bloch et al. (US 11417001 B1), hereinafter referenced as Bloch.
Regarding Claims 5 and 15, the combination of Zeng and Fradet disclose the method and device of Claims 1 and 11 respectively. They do not expressly disclose the limitations of Claims 5 and 15; however, Bloch discloses wherein
the first depth map is generated by a LIDAR sensor of the spatial computing device and the second depth map is generated by a LIDAR sensor of the mobile device. ("receiving a first depth map of the real scene, wherein data for the first depth map is acquired by a ranging system using a laser; and receiving a second depth map of the real scene, wherein data for the second depth map is acquired by the ranging system" [Col. 18, ln 35]; "the depth sensor 116 is a laser-ranging system, such as a LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) system" [Col 6, ln 45]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply and/or modify the method or device as taught by Zeng in view of Fradet with the technique of using a LIDAR sensor to generate depth maps as taught by Bloch. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because LIDAR directly measures precise distances using laser pulses, allowing it to generate detailed and accurate depth maps.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng in view of Fradet, and in further view of Son et al. (US 2015/0109415 A1), hereinafter referenced as Son.
Regarding Claims 6 and 16, the combination of Zeng and Fradet disclose the method and device of Claims 1 and 11 respectively. They do not expressly disclose the limitations of Claims 6 and 16; however, Son discloses wherein
aligning the first and second depth maps comprises synchronizing the first and second depth maps using an iterative closest point algorithm ("… aligning plurality of depth maps to reconstruct a 3D model in an embedded system." [0006] "It matches point cloud data in the first depth map with point cloud data in a previous first depth map by using an iterative closest point (ICP) algorithm" [0012]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply and/or modify the method or device as taught by Zeng in view of Fradet by aligning depth maps using an ICP algorithm as taught by Son. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make this modification because ICP algorithms iteratively find the best rigid transformation between two point clouds, derived from depth maps, by minimizing distance errors. An ICP algorithm is an obvious choice for aligning depth maps because it can handle overlap, is precise, and its’ simple implementation has led to widespread use within the art.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng in view of Fradet, and in further view of Wei et al. (US 2016/0012633 A1), hereinafter referenced as Wei.
Regarding Claims 7 and 17, the combination of Zeng and Fradet disclose the method and device of Claims 1 and 11 respectively. They do not expressly disclose the limitations of Claims 7 and 17; however, Wei discloses wherein
aligning the first and second depth maps comprises synchronizing the first and second depth maps by selecting multiple portions of the first depth map and searching for corresponding portions of the second depth map (Figure 4; "At (403) a plurality of correspondences between each of a plurality of pairs of depth maps can be identified. More particularly, in some embodiments, the plurality of depth maps obtained at (402) can be organized into a plurality of pairs of depth maps. For example, each pair of depth maps that exhibit some overlap in their corresponding portions of the scene can be considered together as a pair. Each pair of depth maps can consist of a source depth map and a target depth map. At (403) a plurality of correspondences between each of such pairs can be identified. Each correspondence can consist of a pair of points <read on portion> (e.g. one point from the source depth map and one point from the target depth map) that are close in distance and likely to correspond to the same object in the scene." [0070]).
PNG
media_image8.png
384
354
media_image8.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply and/or modify the method or device as taught by Zeng in view of Fradet by aligning depth maps by selecting multiple portions of the first depth map and searching for corresponding points in the second depth map as taught by Wei. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make this modification because selecting multiple portions in the first depth map then searching for corresponding portions in the second depth map would improve accuracy by reducing the influence of outlying points because a larger set of correspondences are available, as well as better geometric representation in the alignment by enforcing localized consistency within the map.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng in view of Fradet in further view of Newman (US 2024/0087094 A1), hereinafter referenced as Newman.
Regarding Claims 8 and 18, the combination of Zeng and Fradet disclose the method and device of Claims 1 and 11 respectively. Fradet does not expressly disclose the limitations of Claims 8 and 18; however, the combination of Newman and Zeng do.
Newman discloses a method and system combining multiple depth maps from different fields of view. Newman further teaches wherein
aligning the first and second depth maps comprises synchronizing the first and second depth maps (“combining depth information collected from at least two source depth maps” [0010])
selecting an area (“select at least a first selected location” [0012])
searching for a corresponding area of the second depth map (“locate corresponding locations and depth values in at least two of the source depth maps and by using zero or at least one of the corresponding depth values” [0012]).
Newman does not disclose
area around the spatial computing device generated content
However, Zeng discloses within
an area around the spatial computing device generated content (This limitation is being interpreted as: as anywhere in the field of view containing spatial computing device generated content; “the XR system 200 can generate a map (e.g., a three-dimensional (3D) map) of an environment in the physical world, track a pose (e.g., location and position) of the XR system 200 relative to the environment (e.g., relative to the 3D map of the environment), position and/or anchor virtual content in a specific location(s) on the map of the environment, and render the virtual content on the display 209 such that the virtual content appears to be at a location in the environment corresponding to the specific location on the map of the scene where the virtual content is positioned and/or anchored.” [0067]; where the map generated by the XR system of the scene including the position and/anchor of the virtual content reads on anywhere in a field of view containing spatial computing device generated content and virtual content reads on spatial computing device generated content)
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date could recognize “an area around the spatial computing device generated content” as the anchor point of the content within the field of view.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply and/or modify the method or device as taught by Zeng in view of Fradet by synchronizing the first and second depth maps by selecting a location and searching for a corresponding area of the second depth map as taught by Newman. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification would improve position and orientation accuracy of the spatial computing device generated content by focusing on the area of the generated content.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng in view of Fradet, and in further view of Islam et al. (US 10510155 B1), hereinafter referenced as Islam.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Zeng and Fradet disclose the method of Claim 1. They do not expressly disclose the limitations of Claim 9; however, Islam discloses wherein
first and second depth maps have resolutions of 640x480 pixels ("... of the first depth map 382 may correspond with a surface of the object 360. While FIG. 3B depicts the first depth map 382 as having a resolution of 12×15 pixels, the first depth map 382 may have a different resolution in other examples, such as a resolution of 1280×1024 pixels, 320×240 pixels, 640×480 pixels, or a higher or lower resolution (e.g., 64×48 pixels or 204×204 pixels)." [Col. 13, ln 39]; "While the second depth map 392 in this example has a resolution of 4×5 pixels, it may have a different resolution in other examples, such as 1280×1024 pixels, 320×240 pixels, 640×480 pixels, or a higher or lower spatial resolution..." [Col. 14, ln 65]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply and/or modify the method or device as taught by Zeng in view of Fradet by setting depth map resolution as 640x480 as taught by Islam. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make these modifications because a 640x480 resolution matches a traditional 4:3 aspect ratio, known as VGA (Video Graphics Array) Resolution. This mid-resolution depth capture balances computational efficiency and high data rates which is important when capturing multiple frames for seamless feed synchronization between devices.
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Zeng and Fradet disclose the method of Claim 1. They do not expressly disclose the limitations of Claims 9 and 10; however, Islam discloses wherein
the first and second depth maps have resolutions that are variable to adjust processing resources required to perform aligning of the first and second maps ("In an embodiment, up-sampling may be performed as part of updating the first depth map, so as to enhance a quantity of empty pixels of the first depth map that are updated. In some cases, the up-sampling may be performed in a situation in which, e.g., the first depth map has a higher resolution than the second depth map. In such a situation, a pixel from the second depth map may be used to update multiple empty pixels of the first depth map. For instance, the pixel from the second depth map may be used to update a corresponding empty pixel in the first depth map as well as a set of adjacent empty pixels. If up-sampling is not performed, the number of empty pixels in the first depth map that are updated may be small relative to a total number of empty pixels or a total number of pixels of the first depth map in a scenario in which the resolution of the first depth map is much higher than the resolution of the second depth map. Thus, updating the empty pixels may have only a limited impact on the first depth map as a whole if the up-sampling is not performed. Accordingly, the up-sampling may be performed when updating empty pixels of the first depth map so as to have a greater impact on how much depth information is in the first depth map." [Col. 4, ln 41]; “ Embodiment 18 of the present disclosure relates to a method of updating one or more depth ” [Col 31, ln 61]; “ Embodiment 19 includes method of embodiment 18. In Embodiment 19, the method the first depth map has a first resolution higher than a second resolution of the second depth map, and the method further comprises: identifying, for at least one pixel that belonged or belongs to the one or more empty pixels, a respective set of one or more adjacent empty pixels of the first depth map which are adjacent to the at least one pixel and which have no assigned depth values; and assigning to the respective set of one or more adjacent empty pixels a depth value that was assigned or is to be assigned to the at least one pixel.” [Col 32, ln 50]; where up-sampling reads on adjusting the resolutions to perform aligning and updating one or more depth maps reads on first and second depth maps).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply and/or modify the method or device as taught by Zeng in view of Fradet by having resolutions that are variable to adjust processing resources required to perform aligning the depth maps as taught by Islam. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make these modifications to adapt to situations where the depth maps have different resolutions, or if a user would like to enhance or limit either the speed or accuracy of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure that was not recorded in the non-final rejection.
Boesel et al. (US 2024/0402869 A1) discloses sharing content in an extended reality environment using 3D map data, which includes depth.
Jayaram et al. (US 2023/0260240 A1) discloses aligning AR graphics.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISABELLA OCHSNER whose telephone number is (571)272-9322. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 - 6:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Devona Faulk can be reached at (571) 272-7515. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/I.O./Examiner, Art Unit 2618
/DEVONA E FAULK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2618
Prosecution Insights