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 filed November 4, 2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(1), which requires the following: (1) a list of all patents, publications, applications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office; (2) U.S. patents and U.S. patent application publications listed in a section separately from citations of other documents; (3) the application number of the application in which the information disclosure statement is being submitted on each page of the list; (4) a column that provides a blank space next to each document to be considered, for the examiner’s initials; and (5) a heading that clearly indicates that the list is an information disclosure statement. The information disclosure statement has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(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- 8 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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: remote storage enabling access of spatial information (Fig. 27).
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,100,108 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each localizes a portable device in a 3D environment and computes quality information about persistent coordinate frame for the portable device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention at the time the invention was made to conclude that the invention defined in the claims at issue would have been an obvious variation of the invention defined in a claim in the patent because the patent determines localization of a plurality of portable devices and computes quality information about persistent coordinate frame for each portable device.
Application: 18/780,769 Patent: 12,100,108
Claim 1
Claim 1
Claims 2-8
Claims 2-8
Claim 9
Claim 9
Claims 10-15
Claims 10-15
Claim 16
Claim 16
Claims 17-20
Claims 17-20
The following tables show an example of the corresponding conflicting claims of the current application and Patent 12,100,108.
Application: 18/780,769 (claim 1) Patent: 12,100,108 (claim 1)
A method of operating an electronic system to render virtual content in a 3D environment comprising a portable device, the method comprising, with one or more processors: localizing the portable device in the 3D environment based, at least in part, on stored spatial information about the 3D environment;
A method of operating an electronic system to render virtual content in a 3D environment comprising a first portable device and a second portable device, the method comprising, with one or more processors: localizing the first portable device and the second portable device in the 3D environment based, at least in part, on stored spatial information about the 3D environment
obtaining persistent coordinate frame information from the stored spatial information about the 3D environment based, at least in part, on the localization of the portable device in the 3D environment,
obtaining persistent coordinate frame information from the stored spatial information about the 3D environment based, at least in part, on the localization of the first portable device and the second portable device in the 3D environment
wherein the obtained persistent coordinate frame information comprises a transformation between a coordinate frame local to the portable device and a persistent coordinate frame;
wherein the obtained persistent coordinate frame information comprises a first transformation between a coordinate frame local to the first portable device and a persistent coordinate frame and a second transformation between a coordinate frame local to the second portable device and the persistent coordinate frame
and computing quality information about the persistent coordinate frame for the portable device, wherein: the quality information for the portable device indicates positional uncertainty of virtual content rendered based, at least in part, on a position specified with respect to the persistent coordinate frame, the transformation, and the coordinate frame local to the portable device;
and computing quality information about the persistent coordinate frame for the first portable device, wherein: the quality information for the first portable device indicates positional uncertainty of virtual content rendered based, at least in part, on a first position specified with respect to the persistent coordinate frame, the first transformation, and the coordinate frame local to the first portable device;
and computing the quality information about the persistent coordinate frame for the portable device comprises aggregating a plurality of sources of uncertainty associated with the transformation between the coordinate frame local to the portable device and the persistent coordinate frame by applying one or more error propagation transforms to the plurality of sources of uncertainty to transform estimates of the plurality of sources of uncertainty into a common coordinate frame relevant to rendering of virtual content on the portable device.
and computing the quality information about the persistent coordinate frame for the first portable device comprises aggregating a first plurality of sources of uncertainty associated with the first transformation between the coordinate frame local to the first portable device and the persistent coordinate frame by applying one or more first error propagation transforms to the first plurality of sources of uncertainty to transform estimates of the first plurality of sources of uncertainty into a first common coordinate frame relevant to rendering of virtual content on the first portable device
and computing quality information about the persistent coordinate frame for the second portable device, wherein: the quality information for the second portable device indicates positional uncertainty of virtual content rendered based, at least in part, on a second position specified with respect to the persistent coordinate frame, the second transformation, and the coordinate frame local to the second portable device; and computing the quality information about the persistent coordinate frame for the second portable device comprises aggregating a second plurality of sources of uncertainty associated with the second transformation between the coordinate frame local to the second portable device and the persistent coordinate frame by applying one or more second error propagation transforms to the second plurality of sources of uncertainty to transform estimates of the second plurality of sources of uncertainty into a second common coordinate frame relevant to rendering of virtual content on the second portable device
*Bold type above indicates differences in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: computing the quality information about the persistent coordinate frame for the portable device comprises aggregating a plurality of sources of uncertainty associated with the transformation between the coordinate frame local to the portable device and the persistent coordinate frame by applying one or more error propagation transforms to the plurality of sources of uncertainty to transform estimates of the plurality of sources of uncertainty into a common coordinate frame relevant to rendering of virtual content on the portable device, as recited in independent claims 1, 9, and 16.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANTE HARRISON whose telephone number is (571)272-7659. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am to 5:00 pm EST.
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.
/CHANTE E HARRISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2615