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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/10/2025, 07/05/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-10, 13-17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MCCLEAN, E, "An Augmented Reality System for Urban Environments using a Planar Building Facade Model", MS Thesis, NUI Maynooth, [Online] Retrieved from the Internet:URL: http: search.proquest.com docview 1535029816, (1 January 2013), 90 pgs., cited in IDS filed on 09/10/2025, in view of Perez et al. (US 20130083003 A1) hereinafter referred to as Perez.
Claim 1. A system comprising: a memory; and at least one hardware processor couple to the memory and comprising instructions that cause the system to perform operations (McClean, augmentation of building disclosed in section. Further the disclosure of rendering OpenGL in section 4.3. OpenGL being an application programming interface, it is understood that there is presence of hardware processor and memory) comprising: detecting a client device at a location (McClean, page 57 section 5.2 discloses tagging image captured with GPS coordinates which are location information of the user. Further on page 7 location data is from GPS sensor of mobile device of the user. Hence detecting client device at a location);
McClean doesn’t explicitly disclose accessing user profile data associated with a user of the client device responsive to detecting the client device at the location; generating media content associated with the location based on the user profile data; and causing display of a presentation of the media content at the client device based on attributes associated with the location.
However, Perez discloses accessing user profile data associated with a user of the client device responsive to detecting the client device at the location (Perez, [0451] user profile is accessed. In [0453] the user profile indicates the language preference); generating media content associated with the location based on the user profile data (Perez, In [0453] the user profile indicate the language preference and translation is performed based on language preference settings in user profile); and causing display of a presentation of the media content at the client device based on attributes associated with the location (Perez, [0451] - [0453] the advertisement and textual references at the destination location are provided in the language preference. Destination location is the field of view of the user).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of McClean with the teachings of Perez since they are both analogous in augmented reality related field.
One ordinary skilled in the art before the filing of the claimed invention would have been motivated to combine the teachings of McClean with the teachings of Perez in order to provide a personalized experience for the user of the system.Regarding claims 8 and 15, they essentially recite the same limitations as claim 1. Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 is applied to claims 8 and 15.Claims 2, 9 and 16. The system of claim 1, wherein the user profile data includes a language preference, and wherein the generating the media content based on the user profile data further comprises: generating the media content based on the language preference (Perez, In [0453] the user profile indicate the language preference and translation is performed based on language preference settings in user profile). Same rationale as claim 1
Claims 3, 10 and 17. The system of claim 1, further comprising: determining a perspective of the client device relative to the location; and causing display of the presentation of the media content based on the attributes associated with the location and the perspective (Perez, [0451] - [0453] the advertisement and textual references at the destination location are provided in the language preference. Destination location is the field of view of the user). Same rationale as claim 1Claims 6, 13 and 20. The system of claim 1, wherein the configuring the media content further comprises: accessing the media content based on the location (MCClean, fig. 5.1where images are captured and geo-referenced with GPS coordinates. A backend server stores these in a geo-referenced image database. Providing the generated facade 3D model with such geo-locations would be straightforward to the skilled person, in order to solve the problem of e.g., displaying more relevant augmentations). Same rationale as claim 1
Claims 7 and 14. The system of claim 1, further comprising: receiving from the client device, an input that defines an update to a property of the media content; and storing the update to the property of the media content within a database (McClean, page 55 section 5.1 image captured with a mobile device is sent to a server and matched with georeferenced image database. The image is sent along with location information in order to be matched with stored images). Same rationale as claim 1
Claim(s) 5, 12 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of McClean and Perez, in view of Lyons et al. (US 20130281206 A1) hereinafter referred to as Lyons.
Claims 5, 12 and 19, the combination of McClean and Perez does not disclose The system of claim 1, wherein the media content comprises a text string, and the configuring the media content based on the user profile data further comprises: generating the text string based on the user profile data.
Lyons discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the media content includes 3D typography that comprises a text string (Lyons, [0269])
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of McClean and Perez with the teachings of Lyons since they are all analogous in augmented reality related field.
One ordinary skilled in the art before the filing of the claimed invention would have been motivated to combine the teachings of McClean and Perez with the teachings of Lyons in order to improve the experience with augmented reality effects.
and the configuring the media content based on the user profile data further comprises: generating the text string based on the user profile data. As a matter of design choice, using the language preference from the user profile as disclosed by Perez, the text as disclosed in Lyons will be provided to the user in language preference in order to provide a more friendly environment application.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 11, 18 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:Claims 4, 11 and 18, no prior art discloses the features “The system of claim 3, wherein the attributes associated with the location include a set of features associated with the location, and wherein the determining the perspective of the client device relative to the location is based on the set of features.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is as follows:
US 20110279445 A1 An approach is provided for rendering content associated with a location-based service. Content is retrieved that is associated with a point on an object identified in the location-based service. The object can be represented by, but is not limited to, a three-dimensional or two-dimensional model or models or by an augmented reality view. A model of the object is retrieved. Rendering of the content is caused, at least in part, on one or more surfaces of the object model in a user interface of the location-based service.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARTIN MUSHAMBO whose telephone number is (571)270-3390. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (8:00AM-5:00PM).
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, Alicia Harrington can be reached at (571) 272-2330. 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.
/MARTIN MUSHAMBO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2615 03/21/2026