DETAILED ACTION
Preliminary Remarks
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The preliminary amendment of 09/12/2024 is noted wherein claims 21-75 were cancelled leaving claims 1-20 for examination herein.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. It is important that the abstract not exceed 150 words in length since the space provided for the abstract on the computer tape used by the printer is limited. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc.
The abstract comprises the phrase, “Systems and methods are provided for…” (line 1) can be implied and therefore should be omitted.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: #924 of Figure 9. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8, 9, 12, 13 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kapinos et al. (U.S. Publication 2019/0035124).
In reference to claim 1, Kapinos et al. discloses a method (see paragraph 11 and Figures 2, 4-6 wherein Kapinos et al. discloses systems and methods for altering presentation of virtual objects presented as part of a virtual rendition in an AR/VR environment system so that a user may avoid real-world objects with which the user may otherwise collide or bump into.) comprising:
generating for display, within a virtual reality (VR) environment via a VR device, a first
virtual object at a first position (see paragraphs 39-41, 53-55, 59, Figure 2, #502, 504 of Figure 5, #600 of Figure 6 wherein Kapinos et al. discloses the example computing devices communication over a network one of which being a headset device for displaying VR/AR content. Kapinos et al. discloses the method of the invention beginning with the device displaying VR/AR object(s) as part of the VR/AR experience. Kapinos et al. discloses a virtual vampire object #504 on the right side of the VR content #502 which the Examiner interprets functionally equivalent to Applicant’s “first virtual object at a first position.”);
detecting a real-world object near the VR device, the real-world object corresponding to a
second position within the VR environment (see paragraphs 53-55, 59-62, #504, 508 of Figure 5, #602, 604 of Figure 6 wherein Kapinos et al. discloses the invention receiving input from one or more cameras to identify one or more real-world objects being a threshold distance to the headset device/user. Kapinos et al. discloses a real-world chair object is determined in a user’s/headset device proximity and therefore alters the presentation of the virtual vampire object. Note, Kapinos et al. explicitly details that the virtual vampire object #504 may already be displayed while the user is experiencing the AR/VR content but prior to the user coming into proximity to the real-world object thus, the Examiner interprets that the real-world object would therefore be in this situation at a “second location within the VR environment.”);
determining an interaction score for the first virtual object within the VR environment based at least in part on a potential interaction with the real-world object at the second position (see paragraphs 54-55, 60-62, #504, 508 of Figure 5, #604, 614 of Figure 6 wherein Kapinos et al. discloses the invention receiving input from one or more cameras to identify one or more real-world objects being a threshold distance to the headset device/user. Kapinos et al. discloses utilizing this threshold distance to determine whether the user comes within proximity of the real-world object. Kapinos et al. explicitly details that the virtual vampire object #504 may already be displayed while the user is experiencing the AR/VR content but prior to the user coming into proximity to the real-world object therefore, the Examiner interprets the “proximity” indicator in Kapinos et al. as functionally equivalent to Applicant’s “interaction score” since again, the virtual vampire object can already be displayed in the content and only when the device’s proximity to the real-world object is within a threshold (or otherwise satisfies a “score” “range”, “level” etc.), is the virtual vampire object modified #504 (e.g. with dotted lines).);
determining a risk score for the first virtual object within the VR environment based at least in part on the real-world object (see paragraphs 58, 60, 70, #606 of Figure 6 wherein Kapinos et al. discloses that the real-world objects when identified are further correlated to a danger level as pertinent to the user if the user were to collide with them. Kapinos et al. further discloses associated this danger level to allow for the representing of the virtual objects in varying appearances based upon the level for example, displaying the virtual object in a larger size if the danger is great.);
based at least in part on the interaction score and the risk score, modifying the first virtual
object within the VR environment (see paragraphs 69-70, #504 of Figure 5, #614 of Figure 6 wherein Kapinos et al. discloses modifying the virtual object presentation in a variety of ways some of which comprise displaying it with a dotted-outline, modifying the transparency and modifying the size of the virtual object.); and
generating for display a second virtual object representing the real-world object at the
second position within the VR environment (see paragraphs 48-49 wherein Kapinos et al. further discloses presenting for the display in the AR/VR content the real-world object using a virtual object such as a virtual boulder in the similar location of the real-world object.).
In reference to claims 2 and 17, Kapinos et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as applied to claims 1 and 16 respectively. Kapinos et al. discloses presenting for the display in the AR/VR content the real-world object using a virtual object such as a virtual boulder in the similar location of the real-world object (see paragraphs 48-49). Kapinos et al. further discloses displaying text such as “REAL-WORLD DANGER” (see #408 of Figure 4) of which, in combination with the “boulder” object, the Examiner interprets functionally equivalent to Applicant’s “visual deterrent.” Further as indicated in the above rejection of claim 1, the virtual objects are displayed based on user proximity threshold and real-world objection relational danger indices. Lastly, the Examiner notes the language of the claims which comprise “or” type limitation concatenation requiring the prior art teaching of at least one of the listed limitations.
In reference to claims 3 and 18, Kapinos et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as applied to claims 1 and 16 respectively. Kapinos et al. discloses that the real-world objects when identified are further correlated to a danger level as pertinent to the user if the user were to collide with them (see paragraph 60). Note, it is clear that the “effect of a potential interaction” in Kapinos et al. is equivalent to how “dangerous” a collision would be with the real-world object.
In reference to claim 8, Kapinos et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as applied to claim 1 above. Since Kapinos et al. discloses altering the transparency of the virtual object (see at least paragraph 54), the Examiner interprets that the display of the virtual object in Kapinos et al. can be made to “cease display” thereof.
In reference to claim 9, Kapinos et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as applied to claim 1 above. Kapinos et al. discloses modifying the virtual object presentation in a variety of ways some of which comprise modifying the size/scale of the virtual object (see paragraphs 69-70, #504 of Figure 5, #614 of Figure 6). Note, the Examiner acknowledges the language of the claim which comprises “or” type limitation concatenation requiring the prior art teaching of at least one of the listed limitations.
In reference to claim 12, Kapinos et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as applied to claim 1 above. Kapinos et al. discloses displaying a virtual object such that it is selected to match the rest of the VR content displayed (see at least paragraph 49) of which the Examiner interprets as functionally equivalent to displaying the content to a “theme of the VR environment.”
In reference to claim 13, Kapinos et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as applied to claim 1 above. Kapinos et al. explicitly discloses the invention determining whether the user is sitting or standing using the headset device and allows for the invention to be implemented in either situation (see paragraphs 63-64 and #606 of Figure 6). Note, the Examiner acknowledges the language of the claim which comprises “or” type limitation concatenation requiring the prior art teaching of at least one of the listed limitations.
In reference to claim 16, claim 16 is similar in scope to claim 1 and is therefore rejected under like rationale. In addition to the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, claim 16 further recites, “A system comprising: control circuitry configured to…” Kapinos et al. discloses the invention implemented via various computing devices of which comprise processing and memory systems circuitry (see paragraph 28, 39-41 and Figure 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7, 10, 11, 14, 15, 19 and 20 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.
References Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Zhang et al. (U.S. Patent 12,437,489)
Zhang et al. discloses a method of interacting with AR content at an AR headset that includes displays and cameras.
Hong et al. (U.S. Publication 2025/0200904)
Hong et al. discloses techniques for automatic repositioning virtual objects in an augmented or mixed reality environment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Antonio Caschera whose telephone number is (571) 272-7781. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday between 6:30 AM and 2:30 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Said Broome, can be reached at (571) 272-2931.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Mail Stop ____________
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
or faxed to:
571-273-8300 (Central Fax)
See the listing of “Mail Stops” at http://www.uspto.gov/patents/mail.jsp and include the appropriate designation in the address above.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the Technology Center 2600 Customer Service Office whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600.
/Antonio A Caschera/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2612
1/7/26