CTNF 18/786,433 CTNF 91401 DETAILED ACTION This office action is in response to the application filed on 07/26/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending and are examined. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority Applicant's claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged. Information Disclosure Statement The reference(s) listed on the Information Disclosure Statement(s) submitted on 12/09/2024, 12/22/2025, and 06/04/2026 has/have been considered by the examiner (see attached PTO-1449). Claim Objections Claim 9 are objected to because of the following informalities: Regarding Claim 9, it appears that the language is contradictory, and it is unclear what the processing algorithm is actually doing (or not doing). Specifically, the claim states: “providing the adjusted content data to a processing algorithm that is separate from the adjusting , wherein the content data is adjusted based on the processing algorithm ” (emphasis added). After reviewing similar claims, such as Claims 12 and 18, for purposes of examination, the limitation will be reasonably and broadly interpreted as adjusting the content data using the context signal, and providing the adjusted content data to a processing algorithm for further processing separate from the adjusting. Applicant is invited to amend the claim or provide clarification in any reasonable way so as to overcome this objection. Examiner respectfully requests from Applicant verification and requires appropriate correction regarding this matter. Double Patenting 08-33 AIA 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. 08-34 AIA Claim s 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim s 1-7, 10, 12-15, and 17-21 of U.S. Patent No. 12052430 B2 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because not only the scope of the features of the claims is the same, but also, for instance, the independent claims of the instant application are broader in scope than the corresponding Claims 1, 12, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12052430 B2 . Examiner notes that Claim 9 of the instant application includes the corresponding Claims 1, 1, 9, and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12052430 B2, in different permutations. As such, the invention is made obvious, since they were previously shown in the parent patented claims, albeit in different embodiments. Examiner notes that Claim 11 of the instant application includes the corresponding Claims 1, 12, and 21 of U.S. Patent No. 12052430 B2, in different permutations. As such, the invention is made obvious, since they were previously shown in the parent patented claims, albeit in different embodiments. Examiner further notes that any minor differences to the wording of the claims are merely a matter of semantics and do not carry significant patentable weight . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1, 4, 6, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Smith et al., US Patent Application Publication No.: 2019/0176027 A1, here by Smith . Regarding Claim 1, Smith discloses a method (Figs. 3-5, 7, and 9-12) , comprising: “receiving content data captured by a sensor (Fig. 4, element 408, and [0037]-[0044]; Fig. 5, element 502, and [0045]-[0051]; see also Figs. 3, 7, and 9-12) ; receiving a context signal representing a user context, the context signal comprising an indication of a content type of the content data (Fig. 4, elements 404, 406, 408, and 428, and [0037]-[0044]; see [0040], disclosing a context type example, such as a user walking through a woodland park; Fig. 5, element 502, and [0045]-[0051]; see [0046], disclosing a user context example, such as user viewpoint parameters, to arrive at context determination and description (elements 526 and 528); see also Figs. 3, 7, and 9-12) ; adjusting the received content data using the context signal (Fig. 4, elements 404, 406, 408, 414, and 428, and [0037]-[0044]; see [0041], disclosing an example of the context parameters used to cause a mixed-reality object to appear to react to physical objects in the physical environment, such as, for example, to bounce off of or to stick to physical objects; Fig. 5, element 502, and [0045]-[0051]; see also Figs. 3, 7, and 9-12) ; and providing the adjusted content data for presentation to a user (Fig. 4, elements 402, 404, 406, 408, 414, and 428, and [0037]-[0044]; Fig. 5, element 502, and [0045]-[0051]; see also Figs. 3, 7, and 9-12) .” Regarding Claim 4, Smith discloses: “wherein the sensor is a camera and the content data comprises video data (Fig. 4, element 408, and [0037]-[0044]; Fig. 5, elements 502 and 508, and [0045]-[0051]; see also Figs. 3, 7, and 9-12) .” Regarding Claim 6, Smith discloses: “wherein the sensor is a microphone and the content data comprises audio data (Fig. 4, element 408, and [0037]-[0044]; Fig. 5, elements 502 and 510, and [0045]-[0051]; see also Figs. 3, 7, and 9-12) .” Regarding Claim 10, Smith discloses: “wherein the content data is received via a wireless connection (Fig. 7, disclosing wireless connection; Fig. 4, and [0037]-[0044]; Fig. 5, elements 502 and 510, and [0045]-[0051]; see also Figs. 3, and 9-12) .” Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 2-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith , in view of Woo, US Patent Application Publication No.: 2019/0384414 A1, hereby Woo . Smith discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Regarding Claim 2, Smith discloses: “wherein the received content data has a . . . resolution, and the adjusted content data has a . . . resolution . . . (Fig. 4, and [0037]-[0044]; Fig. 5, and [0045]-[0051]; see also Figs. 3, 7, and 9-12) .” However, although Smith does not expressly disclose the claimed resolutions, Woo does expressly disclose the following: “wherein the received content data has a first resolution, and the adjusted content data has a second resolution greater than the first resolution ([0439]; examiner notes that the terms “first” and “second” in this case are a mere matter of semantics) .” Accordingly, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Smith and Woo (hereby Smith-Woo ), to modify the method of Smith to use the claimed resolutions as in Woo . The motivation for doing so would have been to create the advantage of allowing a user to see a particular viewing region with more clarity (i.e., higher resolution) (see Woo , [0439]). Regarding Claim 3, Smith-Woo discloses: “wherein the second resolution is based on ( Woo , [0439]) the context signal ( Smith , Fig. 4, and [0037]-[0044]; Fig. 5, and [0045]-[0051]; see also Figs. 3, 7, and 9-12) .” The motivation that was utilized in Claim 2 applies equally as well here. Regarding Claim 5, Smith-Woo discloses: “wherein the context signal ( Smith , [0041], disclosing context parameters (element 428) may be used to scale a selected mixed-media reality object based on events sensed in the user’s physical environment; Fig. 4, and [0037]-[0044]; Fig. 5, and [0045]-[0051]; see also Figs. 3, 7, and 9-12) identifies a region of interest in the content data, and wherein the region of interest is scaled to a greater resolution than a resolution of the content data outside of the region of interest ( Woo , [0439]) .” The motivation that was utilized in Claim 2 applies equally as well here . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-21-aia AIA Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith , in view of Ishikawa, US Patent Application Publication No.: 2022/0012922 A1, hereby Ishikawa . Regarding Claim 7, Smith discloses: “wherein a . . . of the sensor is . . . ( Smith , Fig. 4, and [0037]-[0044]; Fig. 5, and [0045]-[0051]; see also Figs. 3, 7, and 9-12) .” However, although Smith does not expressly disclose the claimed resolution of the sensor set based on the context signal, Ishikawa does expressly disclose the following: “wherein a resolution of the sensor is set based on the context signal (Figs. 1-4 and [0150]-[0152]) .” Accordingly, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Smith and Ishikawa , to modify the method of Smith to use the claimed resolution of the sensor set based on the context signal as in Ishikawa . The motivation for doing so would have been to create the advantage of selectively suppressing an amount of image data (see Ishikawa , Figs. 1-4 and [0150]-[0152]) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 8-9, 11-12, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith , in view of Hicks et al., US Patent Application Publication No.: 2021/0398507 A1, hereby Hicks . Regarding Claims 8 and 16, Smith discloses: “wherein adjusting the received content data using the context signal comprises scaling . . . content using the context signal ( Smith , [0041], disclosing context parameters (element 428) may be used to scale a selected mixed-media reality object based on events sensed in the user’s physical environment; Fig. 4, and [0037]-[0044]; Fig. 5, and [0045]-[0051]; see also Figs. 3, 7, and 9-12) .” However, although Smith generally discloses the claimed scaling the received content, Hicks does expressly disclose the following: “wherein adjusting the received content data using the context signal comprises scaling the received content . . . (Fig. 19, element 1936, and [0230]; see also Figs. 1-2, 6-9, and 12) .” Accordingly, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Smith and Hicks (hereby Smith-Hicks ), to modify the method of Smith to use the claimed scaling the received content as in Hicks . The motivation for doing so would have been to create the advantage of enhancing the visual quality of generated images and video (see Hicks , Fig. 19, element 1936, and [0230]; see also Figs. 1-2, 6-9, and 12). Regarding Claims 9, 12, and 18, Smith discloses each and every feature of Claim 1, as outlined above, and Smith-Hicks further discloses the remaining features of: “. . . ; adjusting the received content data using the context signal ( Smith , Fig. 4, elements 404, 406, 408, 414, and 428, and [0037]-[0044]; see [0041], disclosing an example of the context parameters used to cause a mixed-reality object to appear to react to physical objects in the physical environment, such as, for example, to bounce off of or to stick to physical objects; Fig. 5, element 502, and [0045]-[0051]; see also Figs. 3, 7, and 9-12) ; and providing the adjusted content data to the processing algorithm ( Smith , Fig. 4, and [0037]-[0044]; Fig. 5, and [0045]-[0051]; see also Figs. 3, 7, and 9-12) for further processing separate from the adjusting ( Hicks , [0146]-[0147]; see also Fig. 19 and [0230]; see also Figs. 1-2, 6-9, and 12) .” Accordingly, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Smith-Hicks , to modify the method of Smith to use the claimed further and separate processing as in Hicks . The motivation for doing so would have been to create the advantage of providing a more enjoyable viewing experience by providing additional processing such as future content-based image processing, feature/object recognition, etc. (see Hicks , [0146]-[0147]; see also Fig. 19 and [0230]; see also Figs. 1-2, 6-9, and 12). Regarding Claim 11, Smith-Hicks discloses: “wherein the processing algorithm performs at least one of: determining scene geometry corresponding to the content data, tracking an object represented in the content data, or classifying the object represented in the content data ( Smith , [0053], disclosing an example of a class of objects; Fig. 4, and [0037]-[0044]; Fig. 5, and [0045]-[0051]; see also Figs. 3, 7, and 9-12) .” Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 13-15, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith-Hicks , and in further view of Woo (hereby Smith-Hicks-Woo ) . Regarding Claim 13, Smith-Hicks-Woo discloses: “wherein the received content data ( Smith , Fig. 4, and [0037]-[0044]; Fig. 5, and [0045]-[0051]; see also Figs. 3, 7, and 9-12) has a first resolution, and the adjusted content data has a second resolution greater than the first resolution ( Woo , [0439]) .” Accordingly, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Smith-Hicks-Woo , to modify the method, non-transitory computer-readable medium, and device of Smith-Hicks to use the claimed resolutions as in Woo . The motivation for doing so would have been to create the advantage of allowing a user to see a specific viewing region easily (i.e., higher resolution) (see Woo , [0439]). Regarding Claim 14, Smith-Hicks-Woo discloses: “wherein the second resolution ( Woo , [0439]) is based on the context signal ( Smith , Fig. 4, and [0037]-[0044]; Fig. 5, and [0045]-[0051]; see also Figs. 3, 7, and 9-12) .” The motivation that was utilized in Claim 13 applies equally as well here. Regarding Claims 15 and 20, Smith-Hicks-Woo discloses: “wherein the context signal ( Smith , [0041], disclosing context parameters (element 428) may be used to scale a selected mixed-media reality object based on events sensed in the user’s physical environment; Fig. 4, and [0037]-[0044]; Fig. 5, and [0045]-[0051]; see also Figs. 3, 7, and 9-12) identifies a region of interest in the content data, and wherein the region of interest is scaled to a greater resolution than a resolution of the content data outside of the region of interest ( Woo , [0439]) .” The motivation that was utilized in Claim 13 applies equally as well here. Regarding Claim 17, Smith-Hicks-Woo discloses: “wherein the content data is received via a wireless connection ( Smith , Fig. 7, disclosing wireless connection; Fig. 4, and [0037]-[0044]; Fig. 5, elements 502 and 510, and [0045]-[0051]; see also Figs. 3, and 9-12) .” Regarding Claim 19, Smith-Hicks-Woo discloses: “wherein the received content data is augmented ( Smith , [0041], disclosing context parameters (element 428) may be used to scale a selected mixed-media reality object based on events sensed in the user’s physical environment; Fig. 4, and [0037]-[0044]; Fig. 5, and [0045]-[0051]; see also Figs. 3, 7, and 9-12) by scaling the received content data from a first resolution to a second resolution greater than the first resolution ( Woo , [0439]) .” The motivation that was utilized in Claim 13 applies equally as well here . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure : Examiner notes that references cited disclose mixed-reality applications and processes. For example, the following references show similar features in the claims, although not relied upon: Sztuk (US 20220392111 A1), Figs. 1-8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHLEEN M WALSH whose telephone number is (571)270-0423. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 5:00 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, Chris Kelley can be reached at (571) 272-7331. 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. /KATHLEEN M WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482 Application/Control Number: 18/786,433 Page 2 Art Unit: 2482 Application/Control Number: 18/786,433 Page 3 Art Unit: 2482 Application/Control Number: 18/786,433 Page 4 Art Unit: 2482 Application/Control Number: 18/786,433 Page 5 Art Unit: 2482 Application/Control Number: 18/786,433 Page 6 Art Unit: 2482 Application/Control Number: 18/786,433 Page 7 Art Unit: 2482 Application/Control Number: 18/786,433 Page 8 Art Unit: 2482 Application/Control Number: 18/786,433 Page 9 Art Unit: 2482 Application/Control Number: 18/786,433 Page 10 Art Unit: 2482 Application/Control Number: 18/786,433 Page 11 Art Unit: 2482
Prosecution Insights