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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-4, 6-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 4, 6-10, 12-16, 18 and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,014,466 in view of Tomizuka (PGPUB Document No. US 2019/0043264). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following.
The table below shows the correspondence between claim 1 of the ‘518 application and claim 1 of the ‘466 patent.
‘518 Application
‘466 Patent
(Claim 1)
A method comprising:
receiving first sensor data representing a first physical space of an extended reality environment;
generating, using the first sensor data, a first three-dimensional (3D) map of the first physical space;
receiving second sensor data representing a second physical space of the extended reality environment;
generating, using the second sensor data, a second 3D map of the second physical space;
in response to the second 3D map at least partially overlapping with the first 3D map, generating a third 3D map by merging the second 3D map with the first 3D map;
and updating the third 3D map with a virtual object added by a user device.
(Claim 1)
A method comprising:
obtaining first visual data captured from a sensor system of a first user device, the first visual data representing a first physical space of an extended reality environment;
generating, using the first visual data, a first three-dimensional (3D) map of the first physical space…
obtaining second visual data captured from a sensor system of a second user device;
generating, using the second visual data, a second 3D map of a second physical space of the extended reality environment;
and in response to the second 3D map at least partially overlapping with the first 3D map, generating a third 3D map by merging the second 3D map with the first 3D map.
… the first 3D map including a coordinate space having a virtual object added by a user of the first user device;
However, the ‘466 patent does not expressly teach bit Tomizuka teaches the third 3D map including an anchor associated with an identifier, the anchor defining a bounded physical space within the third 3D map (Tomizuka teaches the concept of a marker associated with a physical object (Tomizuka: 0030)), including linking the virtual object to the anchor (the marker is further associated with virtual content (Tomizuka: 0030)).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of the ‘518 Application such as to utilize the AR marker of Tomizuka, because this enable an effective method of associating virtual content to physical objects.
The table below shows the correspondences between the dependent claims.
‘518
2
4
6
7
8
‘466
2
4
6
7
8
The table below shows the correspondences between the remaining claims.
‘518
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
18
19
20
‘466
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
18
19
7
Regarding claim 3 of the ‘518 Application, the ‘466 Patent discloses, the method of claim 1, the method comprising: initiating display of the virtual object on the user device (as suggested by the title of the ‘466 Patent (“Collaborative Augmented Reality Environment”) the Examiner submits that the virtual object is to be displayed on the user device such as the smartphone and HMD disclosed in claims 7 and 8 of the ‘466 patent).
Claims 11 and 17 of the ‘518 Application are similar in scope to claim 3 of the ‘518 Application. Therefore, the rejection to claim 3 similarly applies to claims 11 and 17.
Claims 1, 9 and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,557,097 in view of Tomizuka (PGPUB Document No. US 2019/0043264). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following.
The table below shows the correspondence between claim 1 of the ‘518 application and claim 17 of the ‘097 patent.
‘518 Application
‘097 Patent
(Claim 1)
A method comprising:
receiving first sensor data representing a first physical space of an extended reality environment;
generating, using the first sensor data, a first three-dimensional (3D) map of the first physical space;
receiving second sensor data representing a second physical space of the extended reality environment;
generating, using the second sensor data, a second 3D map of the second physical space;
in response to the second 3D map at least partially overlapping with the first 3D map, generating a third 3D map by merging the second 3D map with the first 3D map; and updating the third 3D map with a virtual object added by a user device.
(Claim 17)
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing executable instructions that when executed by at least one processor are configured to cause the at least one processor to execute operations, the operations comprising:
receiving, via a sensor system of a first computing system, visual data representing a physical space of an AR environment,
the visual data being used to create a first three-dimensional (3D) map of the physical space, the first 3D map including a coordinate space having at least one virtual object added by a user of the first computing system;
…a second ultrasound signal from the second computing system, the second ultrasound signal including a second identifier associated with a second 3D map,
the second 3D map at least partially overlapping with the first 3D map, the second 3D map configured to be combined with the first 3D map.
However, the ‘097 patent does not expressly teach bit Tomizuka teaches the third 3D map including an anchor associated with an identifier, the anchor defining a bounded physical space within the third 3D map (Tomizuka teaches the concept of a marker associated with a physical object (Tomizuka: 0030)), including linking the virtual object to the anchor (the marker is further associated with virtual content (Tomizuka: 0030)).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of the ‘518 Application such as to utilize the AR marker of Tomizuka, because this enable an effective method of associating virtual content to physical objects.
Claims 9 and 15 of the ‘518 Application are similar in scope to claim 17 of the ‘097 Patent. Therefore, the rejection to claim 3 similarly applies to claims 9 and 15.
Conclusion
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 David H Chu whose telephone number is (571)272-8079. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30 - 1:30pm, 3:30-8:30pm.
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, Daniel F Hajnik can be reached at (571) 272-7642. 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.
/DAVID H CHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2616
Prosecution Insights