CTNF 18/816,607 CTNF 89133 DETAILED ACTION 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. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement filed on 08/27/2024, 01/14/2025, and 11/10/2025 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.98(a)(4) because it lacks the appropriate size fee assertion. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. 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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp. Claims 1-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent 11,132,827. This is a nonstatutory double patenting rejection. Regarding claim 1: 18150954 US 11132827 1. An artificial reality system comprising: an image capture device configured to capture image data representative of a physical environment; a head-mounted display (HMD) configured to output artificial reality content; a plurality of concurrently executing artificial reality client applications; a concurrent application engine configured to control rendering the artificial reality content as a common scene that include one or more objects from each of the plurality of artificial reality applications. Claim 1. An artificial reality system comprising: an image capture device configured to capture image data representative of a physical environment; a head-mounted display (HMD) configured to output artificial reality content; a plurality of concurrently executing artificial reality client applications; a concurrent application engine comprising processing circuitry and configured to control rendering the artificial reality content as a common scene that includes one or more objects from each of the plurality of artificial reality applications and to validate whether the one or more objects can logically be placed on a layout of one or more offer areas specified by the plurality of artificial reality applications. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other (see the comparison between claim 1 of the instant invention and claim 1 of the US 11132827). Likewise instant dependent claims 2-13 are anticipated by dependent claims 2-13 of the US 11132827, and is not patentably distinct from claims 2-13 of the US 11132827. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 AIA Claim s 2-13 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claims 2 and 9 recite the limitation "the modeling information". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 07-30-05 The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. 07-30-06 This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a concurrent application engine configured to” in claim 1. “a client interface configured to” and “a shell configured to” in claim 2. “an application programming interface (API) configured to” and “a low-level set functions for” in claim 5. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. 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 1-5 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. PGPubs 2012/0210254 to Fukuchi et al. in view of U.S. PGPubs 2018/0286116 to Babu . PNG media_image1.png 314 364 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding claim 1, Fukuchi et al. teach an artificial reality system comprising (abstract, par 0038, “FIG. 1A is an explanatory diagram showing an overview of an information sharing system 1 according to an embodiment of the present disclosure”): an image capture device configured to capture image data representative of a physical environment (Figs 1A and 2, par 0039-0041, par 0049, “The terminal device 100a is connected to an imaging device 102a and a display device 160a that are mounted on the head of the user Ua. The imaging device 102a turns toward the direction of the line of sight of the user Ua, captures the real space, and output a series of input images to the terminal device 100a”; “The imaging unit 102 corresponds to the imaging device 102 of the terminal device 100 shown in FIG. 1A or 1B, and it acquires a series of input images by capturing the real space. Then, the imaging unit 102 outputs the acquired input image to the image recognition unit 130, the position/attitude estimation unit 140, and the object control unit 150”); a head-mounted display (HIMD) configured to output artificial reality content (Fig 1A, par 0038-0041, “The display device 160a displays to the user Ua an image of a virtual object generated or acquired by the terminal device 100a. The screen of the display device 160a may be a see-through screen or a non-see-through screen. In the example of FIG. 1A, the display device 160a is a head-mounted display (HMD)”); a concurrent application engine configured to control rendering the artificial reality content as a common scene that include one or more objects (Figs 4-5 and 12, par 0056-0060, par 0063-0064, par 0091-0094, par 0097-0100, “the object control unit 150 acquires from the information processing apparatus 200, via the communication unit 110, sharing area data defining a virtual sharing area set in the real space. Then, the object control unit 150 causes an auxiliary object (for example, a semitransparent area or a frame that surrounds the sharing area) for allowing the user to perceive the sharing area to be displayed by the display unit 160. The display position of the auxiliary object may be calculated based on the position of the sharing area indicated by the sharing area data and the position and the attitude of the terminal device 100”; “The sharing control unit 240 controls display of the virtual object at the terminal device 100 that presents the AR space used for information sharing between users”; “the sharing control unit 240 of the information processing apparatus 200 performs a sharing determination process for each user. For example, the sharing control unit 240 first performs the sharing determination process for the user Ua (step S132), and distributes to the terminal device 100a the object data of a virtual object whose display at the terminal device 100a is permitted (step S134). Next, the sharing control unit 240 performs the haring determination process for the user Ub (step S142), and distributes to the terminal device 100b the object data of a virtual object whose display at the terminal device 100b is permitted (step S144)”). But Fukuchi et al. keep silent for teach a plurality of concurrently executing artificial reality client applications ; a concurrent application engine configured to control rendering the artificial reality content as a common scene that include one or more objects from each of the plurality of artificial reality applications. PNG media_image2.png 501 314 media_image2.png Greyscale In related endeavor, Babu teaches a plurality of concurrently executing artificial reality client applications (Fig 3A, abstract, par 0022-0027, par 0032, “a first client application 310 and a second client application 320 each communicate 3D data (in some examples, over a network) to a client-server interface 330. In some examples, client applications 310 and 320 are "sandboxed" applications that operate independently of each other, and independently communicate their 3D data to a client-server interface 330. Client-server interface 330 can receive updated 3D data from client applications 310 and 320, and communicate that 3D data (in some examples, over a network) to a server-side host application 340”); a concurrent application engine configured to control rendering the artificial reality content as a common scene that include one or more objects from each of the plurality of artificial reality applications ( Fig 3A-3E, par 0022-0030, par 0032-0033, par 0036-0041, “an example computer system includes a plurality of applications that each include 3D data that represents one or more objects in a common 3D environment. Each of the plurality of applications may exist in a "sandboxed" environment, such that it remains agnostic of other applications: for example, the data of each respective application may be independent of the data of each other application; each application may not have access to the data of each other application; and while 3D data of each of the applications may correspond to the same 3D environment, each application maintains its own instance of the 3D environment. For example, each application may represent a player in an online multiplayer video game, where each player exists in an instance of the same game world, or 3D environment, but lacks direct access to data of other players. It may be desirable in such examples for all players to be rendered simultaneously in a single instance of the game world, but it may be undesirable (or computationally prohibitive) for each player to maintain the information necessary to render the 3D data of each other client participant”; “client applications 310 and 320 are "sandboxed" applications that operate independently of each other, and independently communicate their 3D data to a client-server interface 330. Client-server interface 330 can receive updated 3D data from client applications 310 and 320, and communicate that 3D data (in some examples, over a network) to a server-side host application 340”). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to modified Fukuchi et al. to include a plurality of concurrently executing artificial reality client applications; a concurrent application engine configured to control rendering the artificial reality content as a common scene that include one or more objects from each of the plurality of artificial reality applications as taught by Babu to render graphical data from multiple applications to a single display to benefit from minimizing the technical constraints on users and user applications with limiting the hardware requirements for a user to participate in an AR system encourages more users to participate. Regarding claim 2, Fukuchi et al. as modified by Babu teach all the limitation of claim 1, and further teach wherein the concurrent application engine comprises: a client interface configured to provide a set of functions to specify the modeling information of the objects from each of the plurality of artificial reality applications (Fukuchi et al.: Fig 5, par 0064-0065, “The communication unit 210 is a communication interface that intermediates communication connection between the information processing apparatus 200 and the terminal device 100. When a request for joining the information sharing system 1 is received from a terminal device 100, the communication unit 210 establishes a communication connection with the terminal device 100. Exchange of various data, such as the object data, the sharing area data, and the like, between the terminal device 100 and the information processing apparatus 200 is thereby enabled“; Babu: Fig 3A, par 0032-0036, “FIG. 3C illustrates aspects of an example client-server interface 330 with respect to example computer system 300 shown in FIGS. 3A and 3B. In the example, client data 318 and client data 328 are client data communicated to, or updated by, respective client applications 310 and 320, as described above with respect to FIG. 3B”); and a shell configured to aggregate the modeling information of objects from each of the plurality of artificial reality applications received from the client interface (Fukuchi et al.: Fig 5, par 0064, par 0091-0094, par 0097-0100, “the terminal device 100a transmits to the information processing apparatus 200 the object data of the virtual object generated at the terminal device 100a (that is, the virtual object whose owner is the user Ua) (step S120). Likewise, the terminal device 100b transmits to the information processing apparatus 200 the object data of the virtual object generated at the terminal device 100b (step S122)”; Babu: Fig 3A-3E, par 0022-0030, par 0032-0033, par 0036-0041, “client applications 310 and 320 are "sandboxed" applications that operate independently of each other, and independently communicate their 3D data to a client-server interface 330. Client-server interface 330 can receive updated 3D data from client applications 310 and 320, and communicate that 3D data (in some examples, over a network) to a server-side host application 340”). Regarding claim 3, Fukuchi et al. as modified by Babu teach all the limitation of claim 2, and further teach wherein the shell is further configured to manage dynamic updates to the objects of the plurality of artificial reality applications (Fukuchi et al.: par 0094, par 0099, par 0137, “The object data as illustrated in FIG. 6 is thereby registered (or updated) in the storage unit 220 of the information processing apparatus 200 (step S124). Such registration or update of the object data may be performed periodically, or may be performed a periodically at a timing of operation of the virtual object”; Babu: par 0031-0040, “client applications 310 and 320 are "sandboxed" applications that operate independently of each other, and independently communicate their 3D data to a client-server interface 330. Client-server interface 330 can receive updated 3D data from client applications 310 and 320, and communicate that 3D data (in some examples, over a network) to a server-side host application 340”). Regarding claim 4, Fukuchi et al. as modified by Babu teach all the limitation of claim 2, and further teach wherein the dynamic updates comprise at least one of a user interaction to the objects of the plurality of artificial reality applications and a network update to the plurality of artificial reality applications (Fukuchi et al.: par 0051, par 0060, par 0094, par 0099, par 0116, par 0137, “the input unit 106 may include a speech recognition module that recognizes, from voice uttered by a user, an operation command or an information input command, or a gesture recognition module that recognizes a gesture of a user reflected on an input image. A user moves a virtual object displayed on the screen of the display unit 160, for example, by an operation via the input unit 106 (for example, dragging of the virtual object, press-down of a direction key, or the like)”; Babu: par 0038, par 0054, “I/O devices 412 and/or 414 and/or controllers 432 and/or 434 (along with any associated modules and/or sets of instructions in medium 401) can detect and track gestures and/or eye movements, and can convert the detected gestures and/or eye movements into interaction with graphical objects, such as one or more user-interface objects”). Regarding claim 5, Fukuchi et al. as modified by Babu teach all the limitation of claim 2, and Babu further teaches wherein the client interface comprises: an application programming interface (API) configured to provide a high-level scene graph comprising the set of functions to specify the modeling information of objects from each of the plurality of artificial reality applications (par 0032-0035, “client data 318 may represent changes made to local scenegraph 316 since the previous client data 318 was sent to client-server interface 330. For example, client data 318 might include nodes that were added to or deleted from local scenegraph 316; changes to relationships between nodes in local scenegraph 316; or changes to properties of nodes in local scenegraph 316. In some examples, client data 318 may use identifiers, such as identification numbers corresponding to scenegraph nodes, to identify relationships between data from local scenegraph 316 and corresponding data on centralized scenegraph 350. Client data 318 can then be communicated to client-server interface 330, for eventual communication to host application 340. In some examples, communication of client data 318 to client-server interface 330 may occur over a network. In some examples, a client helper application may be used in conjunction with client application 310 to generate client data 318 from local scenegraph 316, or from 3D data 312”); and a low- level set of functions for communicating the modeling information of objects from each of the plurality of artificial reality applications with the shell (Figs 3A-3C, par 0032-0036, “FIG. 3C illustrates aspects of an example client-server interface 330 with respect to example computer system 300 shown in FIGS. 3A and 3B. In the example, client data 318 and client data 328 are client data communicated to, or updated by, respective client applications 310 and 320, as described above with respect to FIG. 3B. In some examples, client data 318 and 328 may be updated on client-server interface 330 at different rates. This may occur, for example, if one client application executes on less capable computing hardware than another client application (causing that client application to update its client data less frequently); if one client application communicates with client-server interface 330 over a lower-bandwidth network than another client application; or if the client data associated with one client application is more complex (and requires more processing time to generate) than the client data associated with another client application …. thread manager 336 may throttle the rates of updating host data 319 and/or 329 to prevent this host data from updating faster than host application 340 can process it (which could result in undesirable desynchronization of client applications 310 and/or 320, centralized scenegraph 350, and/or output to display 370)”). This would be obvious for the same reason given in the rejection for claim 1. PNG media_image3.png 436 363 media_image3.png Greyscale Regarding claim 9, Fukuchi et al. as modified by Babu teach all the limitation of claim 1, and Fukuchi et al. further teach wherein the modeling information from each of objects of the plurality of artificial reality applications comprises: an offer area that specifies a surface for placing the objects of any of the plurality of artificial reality applications (Fig 4, par 0063, par 0091, “Referring to FIG. 4, a plurality of objects Obj11, Obj12, Obj13, Obj21, Obj31, Obj32, and ObjA are displayed being superimposed onto the table 3, in the real space, that is shown in the input image Im0 of FIG. 3. For example, the objects Obj11, Obj12, and Obj13 are virtual objects expressing the information that the user Ua has input. The object Obj21 is a virtual object expressing the information that the user Ub has input. The objects Obj31, and Obj32 are virtual objects expressing the information that the user Uc has input. The object ObjA is an auxiliary object for allowing the user to perceive the sharing area); and a request for attachments that specify connections between the objects of the plurality of artificial reality applications and the offer area (Figs 15-17, par 0091, par 0113-0116, “FIGS. 16 and 17 are each an explanatory diagram for describing a scenario for sharing information that was non-shared in FIG. 15. Referring to FIG. 16, the object Obj22 is moved by the user Ub from the outside of the sharing area to the inside. As a result, the user Ua is enabled to view the object Obj22. Also, referring to FIG. 17, the share flag of the object Obj32 is changed from "False" to "True" by the user Uc. As a result, the user Ua is enabled to view the object Obj32. In contrast, in the case the virtual object is moved from the inside of the sharing area to the outside, or in the case the share flag of the virtual object is changed to "False," the virtual object which was shared will not be shared anymore” …. disclose a sharing area (a planet object) to place virtual documents and further disclose based on the relationship between sharing area and virtual documents to determine the properties of virtual documents for user). Regarding claim 10, Fukuchi et al. as modified by Babu teach all the limitation of claim 9, and Fukuchi et al. further teach wherein the offer area comprises metadata specifying a specific object to provide the offer area, pose of the offer area relative to the object, surface shape of the offer area, and size of the offer area (Figs 6-11, par 0068-0087, “The sharing area data 214 includes five data items: a sharing area ID, the number of vertices, vertex coordinates, the number of users, and a registered user “ …. disclose storage stores setting the sharing area such as shape, size, position, and relationship between the virtual object and sharing area). PNG media_image4.png 383 340 media_image4.png Greyscale Regarding claim 11, Fukuchi et al. as modified by Babu teach all the limitation of claim 9, and Fukuchi et al. further teach wherein the offer area comprises a first offer area, wherein a first object of the objects of the plurality of artificial reality applications is placed on the first offer area, further comprising: a gesture detector configured to identify, from the image data, a gesture to move the first from the first offer area to a second offer area, wherein the concurrent application engine is further configured to process the attachment that specifies a connection between the first object and the second offer area (par 0051, “the input unit 106 may include a speech recognition module that recognizes, from voice uttered by a user, an operation command or an information input command, or a gesture recognition module that recognizes a gesture of a user reflected on an input image. A user moves a virtual object displayed on the screen of the display unit 160, for example, by an operation via the input unit 106 (for example, dragging of the virtual object, press-down of a direction key, or the like)”; Figs 16-17, par 0091, par 0113-0116, “FIGS. 16 and 17 are each an explanatory diagram for describing a scenario for sharing information that was non-shared in FIG. 15. Referring to FIG. 16, the object Obj22 is moved by the user Ub from the outside of the sharing area to the inside. As a result, the user Ua is enabled to view the object Obj22. Also, referring to FIG. 17, the share flag of the object Obj32 is changed from "False" to "True" by the user Uc. As a result, the user Ua is enabled to view the object Obj32. In contrast, in the case the virtual object is moved from the inside of the sharing area to the outside, or in the case the share flag of the virtual object is changed to "False," the virtual object which was shared will not be shared anymore” … move a virtual document from private area to sharing area using a gesture command as a input and the modify the properties of the virtual document based on the relationship between sharing area and virtual documents) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. PGPubs 2012/0210254 to Fukuchi et al. in view of U.S. PGPubs 2018/0286116 to Babu, further in view of U.S. PGPubs 2020/0004759 to Brebner . Regarding claim 6, Fukuchi et al. as modified by Babu teach all the limitation of claim 5, but do not explicitly teach wherein the low-level set of functions is based on a serialization format protocol for communicating the modeling information of objects of the plurality of artificial reality applications to the shell. In related endeavor, Brebner teaches wherein the low-level set of functions is based on a serialization format protocol for communicating the modeling information of objects of the plurality of artificial reality applications to the shell (par 0073, par 0078, par 0211-0213, par 0249, “the visual editor 108 may interact with the engine 102, (e.g., via an engine application programming interface (API) 114), and may include, connect to, or integrate with an abstraction engine 118, a runtime editor 110, a serialization engine 112, and/or a capability for collaboration and synchronization of applications and assets in a multi-user development environment 120 (referred to for simplicity in some cases as "multi-user sync")“; par 0087, par 0089, par 0102, par 0218, par 0258, par 0278, par 0308-0310, “serializing content code may allow users to actually edit and load user projects into the engine 102 at runtime. In embodiments, serialization may refer to the process of translating data structures, objects, and/or content code into a format that can be stored (e.g., in a file or memory buffer file) or transmitted (e.g., across a network) and reconstructed later (possibly in a different computer environment)”). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to modified Fukuchi et al. as modified by Babu to include wherein the low-level set of functions is based on a serialization format protocol for communicating the modeling information of objects of the plurality of artificial reality applications to the shell as taught by Brebner to edit a scene tree simultaneously with other users of the editor as they share the same engine to allow a user to create, save, and change an application in the visual editor using serialization code on the drive of the user to quickly and easily create, manage, and share applications and content that use data (such as dynamically changing enterprise data from various databases) and rich media content across personal endpoint devices. Regarding claim 7, Fukuchi et al. as modified by Babu and Brebner teach all the limitation of claim 6, and Brebner further teaches wherein the serialization format protocol is based on GL transmission format (glTF) extended to communicate the dynamic updates to the objects of the plurality of artificial reality applications (par 0087, par 0345, par 0391, “As well as serializing the project in the application system format, it may also be possible to export a scene tree as JSON or in a binary format. Additionally, only a subset of the full application system language may be required for the editor 108 and viewer/portal 144. Such a subset may support objects/components, properties, states and lists of method calls against events. The subset may also be suitable for exporting to JSON. The scene tree may also be provided as a low level binary format, which may explicitly define the structures, data types, and/or lengths of variable length data, of all records and values written out. This may provide extremely fast loading and saving, as there is no parsing phase at all. The ability to serialize to other formats may also make it more efficient for porting data to other operating systems and software containers, such as the Java Virtual Machine and Runtime (JVM) or an asm.js framework inside a WebGL capable browser”; par 0008, par 0211-0213, “the application system 100 may support a multi-user infrastructure that may allow a developer or editor to edit a scene tree simultaneously with other users of the editor 108 and the editor and runtime infrastructure 104, yet all rendered simulations will look the same, as they share the same engine 102. In embodiments, a "scene tree" (also sometimes called a "scene graph") may refer to a hierarchical map of objects and their relationships, properties, and behaviors in an instantiation. A "visible scene tree" may refer to a representation of objects, and their relationships, properties, and behaviors, in a corresponding scene tree, that are simultaneously visible in a display. An "interactive scene tree" may refer to a representation of objects, and their relationships, properties, and behaviors, in a corresponding scene tree, that are simultaneously available for user interaction in a display. … code may be serialized, such as by a serialization engine 112. Serializing code may allow a user to create an application in the visual editor 108, save it, and make changes on the drive of the user, and the change may appear in the visual editor 108, or a runtime editor 110. Assets, such as maps, models, scripts, videos and fonts may be synchronized up to a bucket within the cloud associated with a server in a cloud services 142, such as an S3.TM. bucket” …. glTF (derivative short form of GL Transmission Format ) is a file format for 3D scenes and models using the JSON standard). This would be obvious for the same reason given in the rejection for claim 6 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. PGPubs 2012/0210254 to Fukuchi et al. in view of U.S. PGPubs 2018/0286116 to Babu, further in view of U.S. PGPubs 2012/0154557 to Perez et al .. Regarding claim 12, Fukuchi et al. as modified by Babu teach all the limitation of claim 9, but do not explicitly teach wherein the concurrent application engine is further configured to automatically place the objects of any of the plurality of artificial reality applications on the offer area based on heuristic information of the offer area. In related endeavor, Perez et al. teach wherein the concurrent application engine is further configured to automatically place the objects of any of the plurality of artificial reality applications on the offer area based on heuristic information of the offer area (Figs 17A-17D, par 0156-0159, “the appearance of the basket of apples may be automatically enhanced based on determining that the basket of apples increases the user's comprehension of the user's environment. An optimized image that includes an enhanced appearance of the basket of apples 1132 in the user's focal region may be generated, in accordance with the process described in FIG. 15C. The optimized image 1133 may also display augmented content 1134. In the illustrated example, the augmented content 1134 is a menu with choices, "Do you wish to make an apple pie?" or "Do you wish to view your reminder?" that is displayed to the user 1112”). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to modified Fukuchi et al. as modified by Babu to include wherein the concurrent application engine is further configured to automatically place the objects of any of the plurality of artificial reality applications on the offer area based on heuristic information of the offer area as taught by Perez et al. to display optimized image through visually enhances the appearance of objects that the user intends to interact with in the scene and diminishes the appearance of objects that the user does not intend to interact with in the scene to the user, via the see-through display device to visually enhance the appearance of the objects that increase the user's comprehension with large amounts of information that the user is not necessarily interested in looking at. Regarding claim 13, Fukuchi et al. as modified by Babu and Perez et al. teach all the limitation of claim 12, and further teach wherein the heuristic information of the offer area comprises at least one of dimensions of the offer area and the objects placed on the offer area, semantic information including a type of the offer area and the objects placed on the offer area, and physics information of the offer area and the objects placed on the offer area (Fukuchi et al.: Figs 6-11, par 0068-0087, disclose a sharing area including a size, type and relationship between objects; Perez et al.: Figs 17A-17D, par 0156-0159, disclose specify information in an offer area) . Allowable Subject Matter 07-43-02 Claim 8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 (DP) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. 13-03-01 AIA The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The cited prior art fails to teach the combination of elements recited in claim 8, including "wherein the low-level set of functions comprises: one or more protocol buffers comprising a format for creating, updating, or deleting the objects specified in the high-level scene graph; server-side code for unmarshalling the high-level scene graph, creating the objects from each of the plurality of artificial reality applications, and updating the objects of the plurality of artificial reality applications, client-side code to represent a reference count of the high-level scene graph; and one or more wrappers that provide access to the high-level scene graph" . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jin Ge whose telephone number is (571)272-5556. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 to 5:00. 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, Jason Chan can be reached at (571)272-3022. 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. JIN . GE Examiner Art Unit 2619 /JIN GE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2619 Application/Control Number: 18/816,607 Page 2 Art Unit: 2619 Application/Control Number: 18/816,607 Page 3 Art Unit: 2619 Application/Control Number: 18/816,607 Page 4 Art Unit: 2619 Application/Control Number: 18/816,607 Page 5 Art Unit: 2619 Application/Control Number: 18/816,607 Page 6 Art Unit: 2619 Application/Control Number: 18/816,607 Page 7 Art Unit: 2619 Application/Control Number: 18/816,607 Page 8 Art Unit: 2619 Application/Control Number: 18/816,607 Page 9 Art Unit: 2619 Application/Control Number: 18/816,607 Page 10 Art Unit: 2619 Application/Control Number: 18/816,607 Page 11 Art Unit: 2619 Application/Control Number: 18/816,607 Page 12 Art Unit: 2619 Application/Control Number: 18/816,607 Page 13 Art Unit: 2619 Application/Control Number: 18/816,607 Page 14 Art Unit: 2619 Application/Control Number: 18/816,607 Page 15 Art Unit: 2619 Application/Control Number: 18/816,607 Page 16 Art Unit: 2619 Application/Control Number: 18/816,607 Page 17 Art Unit: 2619 Application/Control Number: 18/816,607 Page 18 Art Unit: 2619 Application/Control Number: 18/816,607 Page 19 Art Unit: 2619 Application/Control Number: 18/816,607 Page 20 Art Unit: 2619 Application/Control Number: 18/816,607 Page 21 Art Unit: 2619 Application/Control Number: 18/816,607 Page 22 Art Unit: 2619 Application/Control Number: 18/816,607 Page 23 Art Unit: 2619 Application/Control Number: 18/816,607 Page 24 Art Unit: 2619 Application/Control Number: 18/816,607 Page 25 Art Unit: 2619
Prosecution Insights