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 .
35 USC § 101
Claim 20 is patent eligible under 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 6, 10, 15 and 16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and double patenting rejection set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 - 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites:
[…]providing a view of an extended reality (XR) environment, wherein the inaccuracy in the localization affects the inclusion of virtual objects in the view of the XR environment; […]
The examiner notes line 6-7, recites the inaccuracy. It is not clear exactly what inaccuracy the claim is referencing. Furthermore it is not clear exactly how an inaccuracy could occur without determining what condition would cause an inaccuracy to occur.
Claim 11 and 20, recite similar limitations to that of claim 1 and thus is rejected under similar rationale as detailed in claim 1.
The examiner notes the dependent claims are considered to indefinite due to depending upon the independent claims.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 - 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,118,685. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they’re broader in every way.
Instant Application
Patent
1. A method comprising:
1. A method comprising:
at a processor:
at a processor:
performing a localization of an electronic device within a physical environment, the localization based on sensor data obtained by the electronic device;
performing a localization of an electronic device within a physical environment, the localization based on sensor data obtained by the electronic device; determining a condition causing inaccuracy;
providing a view of an extended reality (XR) environment, wherein the inaccuracy in the localization affects the inclusion of virtual objects in the view of the XR environment; and
providing a view of an extended reality (XR) environment, wherein the inaccuracy in the localization affects the inclusion of virtual objects in the view of the XR environment; and
providing a notification at the electronic device regarding the inaccuracy in the localization.
providing a notification at the electronic device based on the condition causing inaccuracy in the localization.
Instant
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Patent
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Instant
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Patent
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skidmore et al. (US 20180349701 A1), cited in an IDS filed, 12/12/2024.
Regarding 1, Skidmore teaches a method (See claim 1, the claim is directed towards a method. ¶33, also describes a method with a processor carrying out the method.) comprising:
at a processor (¶33, the method is carried out by a processor):
performing a localization of an electronic device within a physical environment, the localization based on sensor data obtained by the electronic device (¶23, “Referring now to FIG. 1, an exemplary method 100 is disclosed for providing an augmented reality. At block 101, location information is obtained for a camera. Field of view and orientation information for the camera may also be obtained at this step. Obtaining location or pose information may comprise receiving this information at a processor. The obtaining step may further include actually generating some pose information with sensors, such as a GPS sensor, gyroscope, and/or digital compass. The obtaining step may also include obtaining from one or more databases location information describing the locations of real world objects and/or virtual objects, at least some which correspond with available augmentations. At block 101, accuracy or confidence information for the pose and location information is also obtained. Accuracy or confidence intervals may be obtained by a processor from location or orientation sensors. Accuracy or confidence intervals may also or alternatively be computed by the processor. At block 102, the processor selects or modifies an augmentation for output based on the accuracy or confidence of the orientation and/or location information. For example, blur of an augmentation may be selected based on a confidence interval (a high confidence results in the selection of a comparatively sharp augmentation image, and a low confidence results in the selection of a comparatively blurry augmentation image). At block 103, the augmentation is output with an augmented reality output device.”);
providing a view of an extended reality (XR) environment (¶23-24: AR environment), wherein the inaccuracy in the localization affects the inclusion of virtual objects in the view of the XR environment (¶23, ¶24. Augmented images, virtual object, in an augmented environment. The inaccuracy may be represented by blurriness); and
but doesn’t explicitly disclose
providing a notification at the electronic device regarding the inaccuracy in the localization, in the primary embodiment.
Outside the primary embodiment, of Skidmore teaches providing a notification at the electronic device regarding the inaccuracy in the localization. (¶11, “Characteristics of augmentations which may be selected or altered based on accuracy of positioning include but are not limited to blur/sharpness (e.g., fuzzier versus clearer lines), size/extent (e.g., bigger or smaller), color, and shape (e.g., point versus a cloud). Positioning accuracy may also or alternatively be conveyed by a base icon that does not necessarily change but which is accompanied (e.g., bracketed) by uncertainty indicators. For instance, a point of constant size may be bracketed by an uncertainty indicator that indicates positioning uncertainty based on the extent to which the indicator extends outward from the base icon. The extent to which the indicator extends outside the base icon indicates the area of uncertainty. For instance, a circle of variable size may be used for the indicator, the circle extending out around a point or dot of constant size” ¶31, provides further details of ¶11. The examiner notes ¶11 and ¶31 are considered to be outside the primary embodiment).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the primary embodiment of Skidmore in view of outside the primary embodiment of Skidmore to notify a user of an inaccuracy of localization so avoid any errors that may occur by relying on inaccurate localization data in an augmented reality setting (See ¶9).
Regarding claim 2, Skidmore teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising correcting a condition causing the inaccuracy in the localization based on the notification (¶10 and ¶11).
Regarding claim 3, Skidmore teaches the method of claim 2, wherein correcting the condition causing the inaccuracy comprises a user of the electronic device modifying the physical environment or changing the sensor data used to perform the localization of the electronic device within the physical environment (¶31, describes changing sensors such as motion sensors and multiple cameras. The motion for the motion cameras would modify the physical environment).
Regarding claim 4, Skidmore teaches the method of claim 1, wherein a condition causing the inaccuracy in the localization is determined using a machine learning model or algorithm (See ¶9, ¶21: algorithms).
Regarding claim 9, Skidmore teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising determining an accuracy of the localization (See ¶7, accuracy/confidence of location or orientation).
Claim 11 recites similar limitations to that of claim 1 but doesn’t explicitly disclose: A system comprising:
memory; and
one or more processors at a device coupled to the memory, wherein the memory comprises program instructions that, when executed on the one or more processors, cause the system to perform operations comprising:
Skidmore teaches a system comprising (¶9 and ¶24):
memory (¶24, the databases are stored in a memory); and
one or more processors at a device coupled to the memory, wherein the memory comprises program instructions that, when executed on the one or more processors (¶24), cause the system to perform operations comprising (¶9 and ¶24):
Therefore claim 1 is rejected under similar rationale as detailed in claim 1 and above.
Claims 12, 13, 14, 16 and 19 recite similar limitations to that of claims 2, 3, 4, 6 and 9 and thus are rejected under similar rationale as detailed above.
Claim 20 recites similar limitations to that of claim 1 but doesn’t explicitly disclose a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, storing program instructions executable via one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
Skidmore teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, storing program instructions executable via one or more processors to perform operations comprising (¶9, ¶21, ¶24):
Therefore claim 20 is rejected under similar rationale as detailed in claim 1 and above.
Claim(s) 7, 8, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skidmore et al. (US 20180349701 A1), cited in an IDS filed, 12/12/2024 in view of Ghatak et al. (US Patent No. US 10,467,816 B2) as cited in an IDS.
Regarding claim 7, Skidmore teaches the method of claim 1, but doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein providing the view of the XR environment displays the virtual objects at fixed positions on a display of the electronic device in the view of the XR environment.
Ghatak teaches wherein providing the view of the XR environment displays the virtual objects at fixed positions on a display of the electronic device in the view of the XR environment (See col. 12 lines 11-29, “In such augmented-reality (or mixed reality) implementations, the computing system 600 may be configured to visually present augmented-reality objects that appear display-locked and/or world-locked. A display-locked aug-mented-reality object may appear to move along with a perspective of the user as a pose ( e.g., six degrees of freedom (DOF): x, y, z, yaw, pitch, roll) of the computing system 600 changes. As such, a display-locked, augmented-reality
object may appear to occupy the same portion of the near-eye display 602 and may appear to be at the same distance from the user, even as the user moves in the
physical space. A world-locked, augmented-reality object may appear to remain in a fixed location in the physical space, even as the pose of the computing system 600 changes. In some examples, a world-locked object may appear to move in correspondence with movement of a real, physical object. In yet other examples, a virtual object may be displayed as body-locked, in which the object is located to an estimated pose of a user's body.”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Skidmore in view of Ghatak as virtual objects can remain stable relative to the real world, thus increasing the immersion provided to the user.
Regarding claim 8, Skidmore teaches the method of claim 1, but doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein providing the view of the XR environment displays the virtual objects at fixed positions relative to the electronic device in the view of the XR environment.
Ghatak teaches wherein providing the view of the XR environment displays the virtual objects at fixed positions relative to the electronic device in the view of the XR environment (See col. 12 lines 11-29, “In such augmented-reality (or mixed reality) implementations, the computing system 600 may be configured to visually present augmented-reality objects that appear display-locked and/or world-locked. A display-locked aug-mented-reality object may appear to move along with a perspective of the user as a pose ( e.g., six degrees of freedom (DOF): x, y, z, yaw, pitch, roll) of the computing system 600 changes. As such, a display-locked, augmented-reality
object may appear to occupy the same portion of the near-eye display 602 and may appear to be at the same distance from the user, even as the user moves in the
physical space. A world-locked, augmented-reality object may appear to remain in a fixed location in the physical space, even as the pose of the computing system 600 changes. In some examples, a world-locked object may appear to move in correspondence with movement of a real, physical object. In yet other examples, a virtual object may be displayed as body-locked, in which the object is located to an estimated pose of a user's body.”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Skidmore in view of Ghatak as virtual objects can remain stable relative to the real world, thus increasing the immersion provided to the user.
Claims 17 and 18 recite similar limitations to that of claim 7 and 8 and thus is rejected under similar rationale as detailed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT J CRADDOCK whose telephone number is (571)270-7502. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 AM - 6 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Devona E Faulk can be reached at 571-272-7515. 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.
/ROBERT J CRADDOCK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2618
Prosecution Insights