DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This Office action is in response to amendment filed 5/26/2026. Accordingly, claims 52-71 are pending for examination.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 52-57, 60-67 and 70-71 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bar-Zeev et al. (US 20120127284 A1, hereinafter Bar-Zeev) in view of Harrises et al. (US 2017/0206691 A1, hereinafter Harrises).
Regarding claim 52, Bar-Zeev discloses a method comprising: identifying a supplemental Augmented Reality (AR) content to be displayed on an AR device of a user (figure 12B and [0136], video display screen 1110 includes a scene of a man such as a cowboy standing on a ground region 1216 in a mountain setting with trees 1210 in the background, and a sky 1212 with a cloud 1214, and the supplemental or additional region 1208 provides augmented reality video images in an adjacent region of space of the video display screen 1110 so that the supplemental region 1208 appears to the user as a continuation of the content displayed by the video display screen); identifying a recommended viewing position for the supplemental AR content, wherein the recommended viewing position is visible to the user of the AR device ([0148]-[0150], figure
14A depicts different perspectives and locations of different users relative to a video display screen, and the video display screen 1110 extends in a vertical x-y plane, where the y- and z-axes of a Cartesian coordinate system such that the user views the video display screen from a perspective which is based on the user's angular offset, such as location 1400 and 1402), determining that the user of the AR device is not located at the recommended viewing position ([0149], an angle .alpha.1 represents an angular offset from the z-axis when a user is at a location 1400, while an angle .alpha.1 represents an angular offset from the z-axis when a user is at a location 1402, i.e., Bar-Zeev teaches to determine whether the user of the AR device is located at the recommended viewing position based on angular offset. Bar-Zeev differs from the claimed invention in not specifically disclosing the steps of based at least in part on the determining that the user of the AR device is not located at the recommended viewing position: causing the AR device to generate for display an AR phantom body outline at the recommended viewing position that is visible to the user of the AR device; generating for output a prompt directing the user to cause their body position to match a position of the AR phantom body outline, and based on determining that location of the user has changed to the recommended viewing position, causing the AR device to generate for display the supplemental AR content. However, Harrises teaches a display system to provide a realistic view of a user comprising the steps of determining that the user of the AR device is not located at the recommended viewing position ; based at least in part on the determining that the user of the AR device is not located at the recommended viewing position: causing the AR device to generate for display an AR phantom body outline at the recommended viewing position that is visible to the user of the AR device([0514], the display system may be configured to provide augmented reality content in real time, and the augmented reality content may be used to aid the user); generating for output a prompt directing the user to cause their body position to match a position of the AR phantom body outline ([0515], provide real time feedback regarding whether the user is correctly assuming a posture or performing a motion), and based on determining that location of the user has changed to the recommended viewing position, causing the AR device to generate for display the supplemental AR content
([0446], a determination is made as to whether a reflection of the viewer is within the viewer's field of view, and augmented reality content is displayed). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bar-Zeev in having the steps of based at least in part on the determining that the user of the AR device is not located at the recommended viewing position: causing the AR device to generate for display an AR phantom body outline at the recommended viewing position that is visible to the user of the AR device; generating for output a prompt directing the user to cause their body position to match a position of the AR phantom body outline, and based on determining that location of the user has changed to the recommended viewing position, causing the AR device to generate for display the supplemental AR content, as per teaching of Harrises, in order to provide a realistic view of a user.
Regarding claim 53, Bar-Zeev discloses that the supplemental AR content comprises a 3D AR figure representation of an actor's body (figure 14 and [0150], a 3-D augmented reality object as seen by a first user from a first perspective).
Regarding claim 54, Bar-Zeev discloses that the recommended viewing position is a first recommended viewing position of a plurality of recommended viewing positions; and wherein the method further comprises: based on determining that the location of the user has changed to any of the plurality of recommended viewing positions, causing the AR device to generate for display the supplemental AR content ([0149], a 3-D augmented reality image can be rendered from the perspective of the location 1400 for a first user at that location, while, concurrently, the 3-D augmented reality image is rendered from the perspective of the location 1402 for a second user at that location).
Regarding claim 55, Bar-Zeev differs from the claimed invention in not specifically disclosing to cause the AR device to generate for display a respective AR phantom body outline at each of the plurality of recommended viewing positions. However, Harrises teaches that the display system is configured to position an image such that the location of that image in the user's field of view coincides with the line of sight of the real object that the image, i.e., to cause the AR device to generate for display a respective AR phantom body outline at each of the plurality of recommended viewing positions ([0447]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bar-Zeev to cause the AR device to generate for display a respective AR phantom body outline at each of the plurality of recommended viewing positions, as per teaching of Harrises, in order to provide a realistic view of a user.
Regarding claims 56-57, Bar-Zeev differs from the claimed invention in not specifically disclosing that the prompt directing the user to cause their body position to match the position of the AR phantom body outline comprises a text prompt or the prompt directing the user to cause their body position to match the position of the AR phantom body outline comprises a voice prompt. However, Harrises teaches that the display system may cause the system to display optical indicators, e.g., an arrow, a compass, or a map, and/or auditory signals, e.g., voice prompts or alarms, for directing the user to the reflective surface ([0464]) in order to make user friendly. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bar-Zeev in having that the prompt directing the user to cause their body position to match the position of the AR phantom body outline comprises a text prompt or the prompt directing the user to cause their body position to match the position of the AR phantom body outline comprises a voice prompt, as per teaching of Harrises in order to make user friendly.
Regarding claim 60, Bar-Zeev discloses that the recommended viewing position is determined based at least in part on an angle between (a) the user and (b) a position associated with the supplemental AR content ([0149], an angle .alpha.1 represents an angular offset from the z-axis when a user is at a location 1400, while an angle .alpha.1 represents an angular offset from the z-axis when a user is at a location 1402).
Regarding claim 61, Bar-Zeev discloses that the recommended viewing position is additionally determined based at least in part on an angle between (a) the user and (b) a position associated with a main content corresponding to the supplemental AR content ([0149]-[0150], a 3-D augmented reality image can be rendered from the perspective of the location 1400 for a first user at that location, while, concurrently, the 3-D augmented reality image is rendered from the perspective of the location 1402 for a second user at that location such that a 3-D augmented reality object as seen by a first user from a first perspective, where the object appears to be coming out of the video display screen).
Regarding claim 62, the limitations of the claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 52.
Regarding claim 63, the limitations of the claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 53.
Regarding claim 64, the limitations of the claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 54.
Regarding claim 65, the limitations of the claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 55.
Regarding claims 66-67, the limitations of the claims are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claims 56-57.
Regarding claim 70, the limitations of the claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 60.
Regarding claim 71, the limitations of the claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 61.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 58-59 and 68-69 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record fails to teach nor suggest “wherein causing the AR device to generate for display the AR phantom body outline at the recommended viewing position comprises: identifying a furniture item, wherein a position of the furniture item comprises the recommended viewing position; identifying a mesh representation of the furniture item; and overlaying the AR phantom body outline on the furniture item based on the identified mesh representation” as recited in claims 58 and 68. Claims 59 and 69 are also objected because of depending on claims 58 and 68, containing the same allowable subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 52-71 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cooper et al. (US 2020/0225904 A1) discloses an extendable augmented reality (AR) system for recognizing objects. The AR system may incorporate plugins to improve the AR system's ability to recognize objects, such as by adding external matchable data or using external recognition algorithms (abstract and [0015]-[0017]).
Bell et al. (US 12,069,013 B1) discloses an extendable augmented reality (AR) system for recognizing user-selected objects in different contexts and the augmented reality system may be configured to receive user input regarding objects the user wishes to designate for later viewing or consideration (abstract and figure 1A).
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 GEORGE ENG whose telephone number is (571)272-7495. The examiner can normally be reached Flex M to F, 7 am to 3 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, Gregory Toatley can be reached at (571) 272-4650. 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.
/GEORGE ENG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2699
