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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 recites “a processor that executes at least the computer executable components stored in the memory”. The examiner suggests the following amendment: “a processor that executes at least the following computer executable components stored in the memory”.
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.
Claim 1 is 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.
In particular, claim 1 recites “wherein based on interaction with the at least one tag”. This phrase appears to be incomplete, and it is not clear what results from interaction with a tag. Therefore, this phrase is being omitted from examination. Clarification is required.
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 1 of the present application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of the US Patent 11,422,671.
The following table shows in detail the correspondence between claim 1 of the present application and claim 1 of the above US Patent.
Present Application
US Patent 11,422,671
1. A system, comprising:
a memory that stores computer executable components; and
a processor that executes at least the computer executable components stored in the memory:
a 3D model generation component that receives a three-dimensional model of an environment and a tag index, the tag index including tags identifying objects included in the three-dimensional model, at least one tag of the tags is associated with an object or an application related to the object;
a search component that facilitates a search of the tag index for one or more tags which satisfies one or more filter criteria;
a navigation component that facilitates navigation to a view of the three- dimensional model, wherein the view of the three-dimensional model comprises one or more tags which satisfy the one or more filter criteria and are associated with defined positions on or within the three-dimensional model; and
a tag component that facilitates interaction with the tags as included in representations of the three-dimensional model rendered at a digital device in association with navigation of the three-dimensional model.
1. A system, comprising:
a memory that stores computer executable components; and
a processor that executes at least the following computer executable components stored in the memory:
a three-dimensional (3D) model generation component that facilitates generation of a three-dimensional model of an environment and determination of positions of one or more objects in the three-dimensional model; a tag indexing component that facilitates generation of a tag index, the tag index including tags identifying the one or more objects included in the three-dimensional model, at least one tag of the tags is associated with an object or an application related to the object;
a search component that facilitates a search of the tag index for one or more tags which satisfies one or more filter criteria;
a navigation component that facilitates navigation to a view of the three-dimensional model, wherein the view of the three-dimensional model comprises the one or more tags which satisfies the one or more filter criteria and associated with defined positions on or within the three-dimensional model; and
a tag component that facilitates interaction with the tags as included in representations of the three-dimensional model rendered at a device in association with navigation of the three-dimensional model.
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 of this title, 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ballegooij et al. (“Navigation by Query in Virtual Worlds”, 2001), in view of Jankowski et al. (“A Dual-Mode User Interface for Accessing 3D Content on the World Wide Web”, 2012).
Regarding claim 1, Ballegooij discloses a system, comprising:
a memory that stores computer executable components; and
a processor that executes at least the following computer executable components stored in the memory (Section 5.2, last paragraph discusses about implementing virtual environments using standard desktop technology. A desktop inherently has a memory and a processor):
a 3D model generation component that receives a three-dimensional model of an environment (Section 2, 5th paragraph: “Our navigation by query prototype is built for one specific VRML world in our virtual community, a model of the third floor of the CWI building. This model has been constructed based upon a 2D map, see figures 1A and 1B”. In particular, Fig. 1B shows a 3D model of a floor in a building. The logic responsible for receiving and generating this 3D model could be equated to the claimed “3D model generation component”) and a tag index, the tag index including tags identifying objects included in the three-dimensional model, at least one tag of the tags is associated with an object or an application related to the object (Section 5.3, 2nd paragraph: “The applet takes care of scanning the scene-graph for meta-information, and a connection to a database is used to store this information”. In particular, sections 5.1-5.3 discuss about annotating objects in a virtual world (e.g. the 3D model shown in Fig. 1B). Section 5.1 specifically discloses: “we know how certain objects are annotated and can therefore use simple keyword matching to find exactly those objects that we want to find”. Thus, the annotations could be viewed as “tags”, and the database for storing them (shown in Fig. 4) could be equated to the claimed “tag index”);
a search component that facilitates a search of the tag index for one or more tags which satisfies one or more filter criteria (Section 2, 6th paragraph: “Figure 2 shows the interface for our navigation by query prototype. The interface uses a standard user interface component developed for the RIF virtual community. The window, shown in the bottom-left corner of figure 2, takes input that the user types (bottom part) and shows possible answers for the query in a list (top part). This example shows a query for ’coffee machine’ that yields three results. The system presents a list of answers to the user. The user may select one of the matches with the mouse, which instructs the system to take the user to the location for that specific answer”. In the example illustrated in Fig. 2, the tags “coffee machine 1”, “coffee machine 2” and “coffee machine 3” are the search results after the user enters “coffee machine” in the query textbox. The logic responsible for facilitating this query could be equated to the claimed “search component”. Note that the keyword “coffee machine” defines a filter criterion. That is, it limits the search to “coffee machines” only);
a navigation component that facilitates navigation to a view of the three-dimensional model, wherein the view of the three-dimensional model comprises one or more tags which satisfies the one or more filter criteria (Section 2, last paragraph: “In essence navigation by query takes the user from one place to another using a suitable viewpoint transition. An unsuitable viewpoint, such as the viewpoint jump shown in figure 3, can cause disorientation. In our case, where we are working with a VRML model of a building's interior, a ’walking’ paradigm is an option. When the movement follows a route that the user could also ’walk’ along using the normal user interface, there is much less chance of disorientation”. See also section 2, 6th paragraph cited earlier. The logic responsible for facilitating navigation of the 3D virtual world could be equated to the claimed “navigation component”. Note that in the example of querying for a coffee machine, when a user selects “coffee machine 1” from the search result list, they will be taken to a location which provides a view of coffee machine 1, as illustrated in the bottom part of Fig. 3. Thus, it could be said that the view comprises the tag associated with coffee machine 1, although the tag itself is not visible) and associated with defined positions on or within the three-dimensional model (Section 5.3, last paragraph: “First, a path in the graph is calculated from the graph-node nearest to the user to the graph-node nearest to the destination. This can be determined since the graph-nodes refer to actual locations in 3D space. Because the graph-nodes directly refer to a location in the scene, following the route can be accomplished by generating a viewpoint animation through the locations stored in the graph-nodes in the path from source to destination. This technique is used because we have chosen to use a ’walking’ paradigm for navigation”)
.
Ballegooij does not disclose the above lined-through limitation.
In the same field of 3D model navigation, Jankowski teaches associating a label with an object in a 3D environment such that when the label is clicked (interacted with), more information about the object is displayed (Section 3.2.2, 1st paragraph: “One of the underlying premises of this research is that communicating information about 3D environments can be significantly improved by attaching annotations to the environment’s objects. The 3D mode allows users to interactively recall and view the attached hypertextual information by clicking on labels connected to objects of interest during navigation. In response, the hypertextual information is presented in screen-space adjacent to associated objects in scrollable annotation boxes”, and section 5.4, 4th paragraph: “the user can walk through the rooms of the museum and click on object’s labels to read more comprehensive explanations (see Figure 5d)”).
In light of Jankowski’s teaching, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ballegooij by displaying an object and its annotation in a view of the 3D model such that when the annotation is selected, more information about the object would be presented to the user. The motivation would have been to improve communicating information about the 3D model (Jankowski, section 3.2.2, 1st paragraph).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHONG X NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1591. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am - 5pm 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, King Poon can be reached at (571)272-7440. 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.
/PHONG X NGUYEN/ Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2617
Prosecution Insights