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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 21-40 are currently pending in the present application, with claims 21, 29, and 35 being independent. Claims 1-20 were canceled by preliminary amendment, filed on 18 November 2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 22 August 2024, 18 November 2024, and 20 June 2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
Extended reality (XR) content is being interpreted as “virtual content” or “graphical content”.
Paragraph 2 sets forth that “[t]he present disclosure generally relates to generating virtual content (sometimes also referred to herein as “extended reality (XR) content”)”.
Paragraph 22 sets forth that “XR content (sometimes also referred to herein as “graphical content” or “virtual content”).”
A physical environment is being interpreted as the physical world in which people can sense and/or interact without aid of electronic devices.
Paragraph 17 sets forth “A physical environment refers to a physical world that people can sense and/or interact with without aid of electronic devices.”
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 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,100,109.
Current Application (18/812,432)
U.S. Patent No. 12,100,109
21. A method comprising:
at an electronic device including an image sensor, one or more processors, a non-transitory memory, and a display:
obtaining spatial data associated with a physical environment;
in response to the spatial data indicating that the physical environment includes a first set of physical objects, adapting predetermined XR content based on the first set of physical objects to generate first adapted XR content;
in response to the spatial data indicating that the physical environment includes a second set of physical objects that is different from the first set of physical objects, adapting the predetermined XR content based on the second set of physical objects to generate second adapted XR content that is different from the first adapted XR content; and
overlaying the first adapted XR content or the second adapted XR content onto a representation of the physical environment.
1. A method comprising:
at an electronic device including an image sensor, one or more processors, a non-transitory memory, and a display:
identifying a plurality of subsets associated with a physical environment;
determining a set of spatial characteristics for each of the plurality of subsets within the physical environment, wherein a first set of spatial characteristics characterizes one or more dimensions of a first subset of the plurality of subsets, and a second set of spatial characteristics characterizes one or more dimensions of a second subset of the plurality of subsets;
generating an adapted first extended reality (XR) content portion for the first subset of the plurality of subsets based on the one or more dimensions of the first subset;
generating an adapted second XR content portion for the second subset of the plurality of subsets based on the one or more dimensions of the second subset;
generating one or more navigation options that allow a user to traverse between the first and second subsets based on the first and second sets of spatial characteristics; and
indicating the one or more navigation options by displaying a movement of an XR content item associated with the adapted first XR content portion from the first subset to the second subset.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because independent claim 1 in the current application is an obvious variant of the claim 1 in U.S. Patent No. 12,100,109. The other minor differences between the claim 1 in U.S. Patent No. 12,100,109 and claim 1 in the current application do not appear to change the scope of the claimed invention.
Similar rationale applies to claims 29 and 35 in the current application and claims 21 and 25 in U.S. Patent No. 12,100,109.
Similar mapping can be performed for dependent claims 22-28, 30-34, and 36-40 in the current application and dependent claims 2-20, 22-24, and 26-28 in U.S. Patent No. 12,100,109.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: The specification does not appear to describe the subject matter of “in response to the spatial data indicating that the physical environment includes a first set of physical objects, adapting predetermined XR content based on the first set of physical objects to generate first adapted XR content; in response to the spatial data indicating that the physical environment includes a second set of physical objects that is different from the first set of physical objects, adapting the predetermined XR content based on the second set of physical objects to generate second adapted XR content that is different from the first adapted XR content; and overlaying the first adapted XR content or the second adapted XR content onto a representation of the physical environment”. The originally filed disclosure sets forth identifying a plurality of subsets with in an environment, see for instance, paragraphs 34-36. Paragraph 36 goes on to recite determining a first set of spatial characteristics for the first subset including, for example...an indication of physical objects. Paragraph 38 sets forth generating an adapted first XR content portion by adapting predetermined XR content based on the first set of spatial characteristics. However, adapting predetermined XR content based on volumetric size or an indication of physical objects in the subset, is different than the claimed subject matter.
The specification does not appear to describe the subject matter of “wherein adapting the predetermined XR content based on the first set of physical objects comprises removing XR objects from the predetermined XR content based on a number of physical objects in the first set of physical objects”. Paragraph 40 sets forth “the electronic device 124 removes corresponding adapted XR content 242a-2 and 242-4 (e.g., shown in the second subset 232b of the first physical environment 202) when generating the adapted second XR content in the second subset 232b due to the volumetric size of the second subset 232b and the indication of objects (e.g., the sofa 210, the chair 220a, and the coffee table 220d) within the second subset 232b of the second physical environment 204”. However, adapting the XR content based on volumetric size, is different than removing XR objects from the predetermined XR content based on number of physical objects in the first set of physical objects.
The specification does not appear to describe the subject matter of “adapting the predetermined XR content based on the first set of physical objects comprises adjusting respective sizes of XR objects in the predetermined XR content based on a number of physical objects in the first set of physical objects”. Paragraph 89 sets forth “the method 500 further includes scaling one or more XR content items associated with the first XR content portion based at least in part on the first set of spatial characteristics of the first subset. For example, as shown in the first XR presentation scenario 200a in Figure 2C, the electronic device 124 generates adapted first XR content 240a-1, 240a-2, 240a-3 within the first subset 230a in the first physical environment 202. Similarly, as shown in the second XR presentation scenario 200b in Figure 2C, the electronic device 124 also generates adapted first XR content 240b-l, 240b-2, 240b-3 within the first subset 230b in the second physical environment 204. However, compared to the first XR presentation scenario 200a, the adapted first XR content 240-bl, 240b-2, 240b-3 in the second XR presentation scenario 200b is scaled down to a smaller size than the adapted first XR content 240a-l, 240a-2, 240a-3 in the first XR presentation scenario 200a due to the difference in dimensions between the first physical environment 202 and the second physical environment 204”. However, adapting the XR content based on dimensional size of the environment, is different than adjusting respective sizes based on the number of objects in the set of physical objects.
The specification does not appear to describe the subject matter of “the first adapted XR content includes a first navigation path that allows a user to navigate between the first set of physical objects and a first set of XR objects in the first adapted XR content; and wherein the second adapted XR content includes a second navigation path that allows the user to navigate around the second set of physical objects and a second set of XR objects in the second adapted XR content”.
Claim Objections
Claims 21, 29, and 35 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 21, 29, and 35 should recite “...adapting predetermined extended reality (XR) [[
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 21 (and similarly claims 29 and 35) recites “obtaining spatial data associated with a physical environment; in response to the spatial data indicating that the physical environment includes a first set of physical objects, adapting predetermined XR content based on the first set of physical objects to generate first adapted XR content; in response to the spatial data indicating that the physical environment includes a second set of physical objects that is different from the first set of physical objects, adapting the predetermined XR content based on the second set of physical objects to generate second adapted XR content that is different from the first adapted XR content; and overlaying the first adapted XR content or the second adapted XR content onto a representation of the physical environment”. These limitations correspond to computer-implemented functional claim limitations as discussed in MPEP 2161.01. Applicant’s disclosure regarding these functions does not appear to describe the methodology by which the claimed functions are performed.
The originally filed disclosure sets forth determining a subset of a physical environment and spatial characteristics of each subset of the physical environment, such as volume/dimensions of the subset, an indication of physical objects, etc, see for instance, paragraphs 34-36. The disclosure goes on to recite generating adaptive XR content portion by adapting predetermined XR content based on the set of spatial characteristics, see for instance, paragraph 38. The disclosure does not appear to provide an explanation, algorithm, description of how the spatial data indicates the physical environment includes a set of physical objects and then adapts predetermined XR content based on the first set of physical objects.
As explained in MPEP 2161.01 I, paragraphs 6-8, “original claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. … An algorithm is defined, for example, as "a finite sequence of steps for solving a logical or mathematical problem or performing a task." Microsoft Computer Dictionary (5th ed., 2002). Applicant may "express that algorithm in any understandable terms including as a mathematical formula, in prose, or as a flow chart, or in any other manner that provides sufficient structure." Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Grp., Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1340, 86 USPQ2d 1609, 1623 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (internal citation omitted). It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement.” With respect to the claimed computer functional limitations of “obtaining spatial data associated with a physical environment; in response to the spatial data indicating that the physical environment includes a first set of physical objects, adapting predetermined XR content based on the first set of physical objects to generate first adapted XR content”, and “in response to the spatial data indicating that the physical environment includes a second set of physical objects that is different from the first set of physical objects, adapting the predetermined XR content based on the second set of physical objects to generate second adapted XR content that is different from the first adapted XR content”, although the disclosure provides examples of desired outcomes with respect to the functional limitations, there is no description of an algorithm, steps, or procedure showing how the inventor(s) intended the functions to be performed. Therefore, the functions recited in claims 21, 29, and 35 correspond to subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims depending thereon do not cure the noted deficiencies and are also rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that set forth with respect to the claims from which they depends.
Claim 24 (and similarly claims 31, and 37) recites “adapting the predetermined XR content based on the first set of physical objects comprises removing XR objects from the predetermined XR content based on a number of physical objects in the first set of physical objects”. The limitation corresponds to computer-implemented functional claim limitations as discussed in MPEP 2161.01. Applicant’s disclosure regarding these functions does not appear to describe the methodology by which the claimed functions are performed.
The originally filed disclosure sets forth the electronic device 124 removes corresponding adapted XR content 242a-2 and 242-4 (e.g., shown in the second subset 232b of the first physical environment 202) when generating the adapted second XR content in the second subset 232b due to the volumetric size of the second subset 232b and the indication of objects (e.g., the sofa 210, the chair 220a, and the coffee table 220d) within the second subset 232b of the second physical environment 204 in paragraph 40. The disclosure goes on to recite generating adaptive XR content portion by adapting predetermined XR content based on the set of spatial characteristics, see for instance, paragraph 38. The disclosure does not appear to provide an explanation, algorithm, description of how the adapting the predetermined XR content is based on the first set of physical objects comprises removing XR objects from the predetermined XR content based on a number of physical objects in the first set of physical objects.
As explained in MPEP 2161.01 I, paragraphs 6-8, “original claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. … An algorithm is defined, for example, as "a finite sequence of steps for solving a logical or mathematical problem or performing a task." Microsoft Computer Dictionary (5th ed., 2002). Applicant may "express that algorithm in any understandable terms including as a mathematical formula, in prose, or as a flow chart, or in any other manner that provides sufficient structure." Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Grp., Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1340, 86 USPQ2d 1609, 1623 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (internal citation omitted). It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement.” With respect to the claimed computer functional limitations of “adapting the predetermined XR content based on the first set of physical objects comprises removing XR objects from the predetermined XR content based on a number of physical objects in the first set of physical objects”, although the disclosure provides examples of desired outcomes with respect to the functional limitations, there is no description of an algorithm, steps, or procedure showing how the inventor(s) intended the functions to be performed. Therefore, the functions recited in claims 24, 31, and 37 correspond to subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 25 (and similarly claim 38) recites “adapting the predetermined XR content based on the first set of physical objects comprises adjusting respective sizes of XR objects in the predetermined XR content based on a number of physical objects in the first set of physical objects”. The limitation corresponds to computer-implemented functional claim limitations as discussed in MPEP 2161.01. Applicant’s disclosure regarding these functions does not appear to describe the methodology by which the claimed functions are performed.
The originally filed disclosure sets forth in paragraph 89 “the method 500 further includes scaling one or more XR content items associated with the first XR content portion based at least in part on the first set of spatial characteristics of the first subset. For example, as shown in the first XR presentation scenario 200a in Figure 2C, the electronic device 124 generates adapted first XR content 240a-1, 240a-2, 240a-3 within the first subset 230a in the first physical environment 202. Similarly, as shown in the second XR presentation scenario 200b in Figure 2C, the electronic device 124 also generates adapted first XR content 240b-l, 240b-2, 240b-3 within the first subset 230b in the second physical environment 204. However, compared to the first XR presentation scenario 200a, the adapted first XR content 240-bl, 240b-2, 240b-3 in the second XR presentation scenario 200b is scaled down to a smaller size than the adapted first XR content 240a-l, 240a-2, 240a-3 in the first XR presentation scenario 200a due to the difference in dimensions between the first physical environment 202 and the second physical environment 204”.
As explained in MPEP 2161.01 I, paragraphs 6-8, “original claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. … An algorithm is defined, for example, as "a finite sequence of steps for solving a logical or mathematical problem or performing a task." Microsoft Computer Dictionary (5th ed., 2002). Applicant may "express that algorithm in any understandable terms including as a mathematical formula, in prose, or as a flow chart, or in any other manner that provides sufficient structure." Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Grp., Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1340, 86 USPQ2d 1609, 1623 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (internal citation omitted). It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement.” With respect to the claimed computer functional limitations of “adapting the predetermined XR content based on the first set of physical objects comprises adjusting respective sizes of XR objects in the predetermined XR content based on a number of physical objects in the first set of physical objects”, although the disclosure provides examples of desired outcomes with respect to the functional limitations, there is no description of an algorithm, steps, or procedure showing how the inventor(s) intended the functions to be performed. Therefore, the functions recited in claims 24, 31, and 37 correspond to subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 28 (and similarly claim 34) recites “the first adapted XR content includes a first navigation path that allows a user to navigate between the first set of physical objects and a first set of XR objects in the first adapted XR content; and wherein the second adapted XR content includes a second navigation path that allows the user to navigate around the second set of physical objects and a second set of XR objects in the second adapted XR content”. These limitations correspond to computer-implemented functional claim limitations as discussed in MPEP 2161.01. Applicant’s disclosure regarding these functions does not appear to describe the methodology by which the claimed functions are performed.
The originally filed disclosure sets forth generating navigation options to traverse between subsets (e.g., walking between rooms in a house), see for instance, paragraphs 41-43 and 49.
As explained in MPEP 2161.01 I, paragraphs 6-8, “original claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. … An algorithm is defined, for example, as "a finite sequence of steps for solving a logical or mathematical problem or performing a task." Microsoft Computer Dictionary (5th ed., 2002). Applicant may "express that algorithm in any understandable terms including as a mathematical formula, in prose, or as a flow chart, or in any other manner that provides sufficient structure." Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Grp., Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1340, 86 USPQ2d 1609, 1623 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (internal citation omitted). It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement.” With respect to the claimed computer functional limitations of “the first adapted XR content includes a first navigation path that allows a user to navigate between the first set of physical objects and a first set of XR objects in the first adapted XR content; and wherein the second adapted XR content includes a second navigation path that allows the user to navigate around the second set of physical objects and a second set of XR objects in the second adapted XR content”, although the disclosure provides examples of desired outcomes with respect to the functional limitations, there is no description of an algorithm, steps, or procedure showing how the inventor(s) intended the functions to be performed. Therefore, the functions recited in claims 28 and 34 correspond to subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
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 th0e subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 21-40 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.
With respect to claim 21, given the plain and ordinary meaning of the words themselves when afforded their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the corresponding disclosure, the scope of the claim is unclear. For instance, it is not immediately clear as to how the spatial data indicates that the physical environment includes a first or second set of physical objects and how the spatial data is used to adapt predetermined XR content based on the fist or second set of physical objects to generate adapted XR content. How does the spatial data indicate the physical environment includes a first or second set of physical objects? The originally filed disclosure sets forth identifying a plurality of subsets with in an environment, see for instance, paragraphs 34-36. Paragraph 36 goes on to recite determining a first set of spatial characteristics for the first subset including, for example...an indication of physical objects. Paragraph 38 sets forth generating an adapted first XR content portion by adapting predetermined XR content based on the first set of spatial characteristics. However, taking the disclosure into consideration, it remains unclear as to how the spatial data indicates that the physical environment includes a first or second set of physical objects and how the spatial data is used to adapt predetermined XR content based on the first or second set of physical objects to generate adapted XR content. The examiner respectfully requests the applicant clarify the scope of the claimed limitation.
Claim 29 and 35 recite similar subject matter as to that of claim 21 and are accordingly also rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that set forth with respect to claim 21.
Claims depending thereon do not cure the noted deficiencies and are also rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that which was set forth for the claims from which they depend.
With respect to claims 24, 31, and 37, given the plain and ordinary meaning of the words themselves when afforded their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the corresponding disclosure, the scope of the claim is unclear. For instance, it is not immediately clear as to how the adapting comprises removing XR objects from the predetermined XR content based on a number of physical objects in the first set of physical objects. What content is being removed. The corresponding disclosure, does not appear to discuss removing the XR virtual objects from the XR content based on the number of physical objects in the first set of physical objects. The examiner respectfully requests the applicant clarify the scope of the claimed limitations.
With respect to claims 25 and 38, given the plain and ordinary meaning of the words themselves when afforded their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the corresponding disclosure, the scope of the claim is unclear. For instance, it is not immediately clear as to how adapting the predetermined XR content is based on the first set of physical objects comprises adjust respective sizes of XR objects in the predetermined XR content based on a number of physical objects in the first set of physical objects. How does the number of physical objects in the first set of physical objects effect the adjustment of sizes of XR objects? How is based on the number of physical objects? The corresponding disclosure, sets forth “the method 500 further includes scaling one or more XR content items associated with the first XR content portion based at least in part on the first set of spatial characteristics of the first subset. For example, as shown in the first XR presentation scenario 200a in Figure 2C, the electronic device 124 generates adapted first XR content 240a-1, 240a-2, 240a-3 within the first subset 230a in the first physical environment 202. Similarly, as shown in the second XR presentation scenario 200b in Figure 2C, the electronic device 124 also generates adapted first XR content 240b-l, 240b-2, 240b-3 within the first subset 230b in the second physical environment 204. However, compared to the first XR presentation scenario 200a, the adapted first XR content 240-bl, 240b-2, 240b-3 in the
second XR presentation scenario 200b is scaled down to a smaller size than the adapted first XR content 240a-l, 240a-2, 240a-3 in the first XR presentation scenario 200a due to the difference in dimensions between the first physical environment 202 and the second physical environment 204” in paragraph 89. However, taking into account the disclosure, the scope of the claimed limitation remains unclear. The examiner respectfully requests the applicant clarify the scope of the claimed limitations.
With respect to claims 28 and 34, given the plain and ordinary meaning of the words themselves when afforded their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the corresponding disclosure, the scope of the claim is unclear. For instance, it is not immediately clear as to how the first navigation path allows a user to navigate between the first set of physical objects and a first set of XR objects in the first adapted XR content. The examiner respectfully requests the applicant clarify the scope of the claimed limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 21-23, 26, 27, 29, 30, 32, 33, 35, 36, 39, and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leung et al. (US PG Publication 2017/0273552) in view of Liu et al. (US PG Publication 2013/0044128).
Regarding claim 21, Leung teaches a method comprising: at an electronic device including an image sensor, one or more processors, a non-transitory memory, and a display (see for instance, paragraphs 48, 49, and 55):
obtaining spatial data associated with a physical environment (The surrounding environment in the real world can be captured by one or more cameras of an HMD and projected on the HMD in real-time, similar to the live preview on the screen of a digital camera, but the projected scene in HMD can be 3D, see for instance, paragraph 48. The captured environment can be analyzed in real-time according to the tested visual performance and visual disability metrics stored in the database for prediction of objects that may not be noticed by the user, see for instance, paragraph 48);
in response to the spatial data indicating that the physical environment includes a first set of physical objects, adapting predetermined XR content based on the first set of physical objects to generate first adapted XR content (see for instance, paragraph 48. For instance, VR objects can be added to and projected onto a physical object, such as a staircase to provide a visual aid to the user, see for instance, paragraph 48);
in response to the spatial data indicating that the physical environment includes a second set of physical objects that is different from the first set of physical objects, adapting the predetermined XR content based on the second set of physical objects to generate second adapted XR content that is different from the first adapted XR content (see for instance, paragraphs 48 and 49); and overlaying the first adapted XR content or the second adapted XR content onto a representation of the physical environment (see for instance, paragraphs 48 and 49. Virtual objects can be displayed on top of real objects, see for instance, paragraph 49).
Leung does not appear to specifically state the content is adapted based on the physical object themselves.
In the same art of augmented reality, Liu teaches that appearance characteristics of virtual objects like size, shape, and color are selected so the virtual objects blend or integrate with the real-world view of the user, see for instance, paragraph 39. The virtual object has an appearance of context by having an appearance of a physical connection with a real object the user actually sees, see for instance, paragraph 39. Graphical design rules define realistic, visual relationships between appearance characteristic may be applied in selecting the appearance characteristics for the virtual object, see for instance, paragraph 39. Physical interaction characteristics for each type of object based on its appearance characteristics may be identified, see for instance, paragraph 100. For example, the size, shape of the object and a surface texture of a surface are all factors which effect the physics of an object or how the object will respond to global physical rules, or at least more simply, user physical interaction with the object...in another example a type of material of an object can effect physical interaction, see for instance, paragraph 100. The reference object data sets provide input parameters for defining the appearance characteristics of a virtual object, see for instance, paragraph 103. The graphical design rules for providing realistic visual relationships are predetermined, for example determined by a programmer working with a graphical designer offline, see for instance, paragraph 119. The context adaptive UI application automatically executes the predetermined graphical design rules for determining which appearance characteristics will be displayed for the virtual object and representing them in display data in a format which can be rendered by the display device system, see for instance, paragraph 119. Appearance characteristics for real objects can be determined, see for instance, paragraph 135. Virtual objects can be overlaid onto real objects, see for instance, paragraph 154.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Leung and Liu in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate real object and virtual object characteristics as taught by Liu into Leung’s augmented system, as taking into account real objects, such as described by Liu was well known at the time of the effective filing date invention and would have yielded predictable results in combination with Leung.
The modification of Leung with Liu would have explicitly allowed the content to adapted based on the physical object themselves.
The motivation for combining Leung with Liu would have been to improve the user experience, enhance functionality and adjust appearance characteristics based on criteria, see for instance, Liu abstract, and paragraph 1.
Regarding claim 22, Leung in view of Liu teach the method of claim 21 and further teach wherein the spatial data includes image data captured by the image sensor (see for instance, Leung, paragraphs 30 and 48 and Liu, paragraph 52). The motivation to combine Leung and Liu is the same as that which was set forth in claim 21.
Regarding claim 23, Leung in view of Liu teach the method of claim 21 and further teach wherein the spatial data includes depth data captured by a depth sensor (see for instance, Leung, paragraphs 30 and 48 and Liu, paragraph 52). The motivation to combine Leung and Liu is the same as that which was set forth in claim 21.
Regarding claim 26, Leung in view of Liu teach the method of claim 21 and further teach wherein generating the first adapted XR content comprises adapting a first XR object in the predetermined XR content to a first size based on the first set of physical objects in order to generate a first adapted XR object (see for instance, Leung, paragraphs 38, 39, 48, 49 and Liu, paragraph 100, 103, 106, 116, 135, and 150); and wherein generating the second adapted XR content comprises adapting the first XR object in the predetermined XR content to a second size based on the second set of physical objects in order to generate a second adapted XR object (see for instance, Leung, paragraphs 38, 39, 48, 49 and Liu, paragraph 100, 103, 106, 116, 135, and 150). The motivation to combine Leung and Liu is the same as that which was set forth in claim 21.
Regarding claim 27, Leung in view of Liu teach the method of claim 21 and further teaches wherein the first adapted XR content includes a first number of XR objects that is based on the first set of physical objects and the second adapted XR content includes a second number of XR objects that is based on the second set of physical objects (see for instance, Leung, paragraphs 48, 49 and Liu, paragraphs 114 and 173). The motivation to combine Leung and Liu is the same as that which was set forth in claim 21.
Regarding claims 29 and 35, claim 29 is the electronic device claim and claim 35 is the non-transitory computer readable medium claim of the method claim 21 and are accordingly rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that set forth in claim 21. In addition, Leung in view of Liu teach an electronic device comprising: an image sensor; a display; one or more processors; a non-transitory memory; and one or more programs stored in the non-transitory memory, which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the electronic device to perform different actions (see for instance, Leung, paragraphs 41, 48, and 55 and fig. 7 and Liu, paragraphs 57 and 200-207) and a non-transitory memory storing one or more programs, which, when executed by one or more processors of an electronic device with an image sensor and a display, cause the electronic device to perform different actions (see for instance, Leung, paragraphs 41, 48, and 55 and fig. 7 and Liu, paragraphs 57 and 200-207)
Regarding claim 30, claim 30 is the electronic device claim of the method claim 22 and is accordingly rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that set forth in claim 22.
Regarding claims 32 and 39, claim 32 is the electronic device claim and claim 39 is the non-transitory computer readable medium claim of the method claim 26 and are accordingly rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that set forth in claim 26.
Regarding claims 33 and 40, claim 33 is the electronic device claim and claim 40 is the non-transitory computer readable medium claim of the method claim 27 and are accordingly rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that set forth in claim 27.
Regarding claim 36, claim 36 is the non-transitory computer readable medium claim of the method claim 23 and is accordingly rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that set forth in claim 23.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J COBB whose telephone number is (571)270-3875. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 11am - 7pm ET.
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.
/MICHAEL J COBB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2615
Prosecution Insights