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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the filed abstract appears to be the WIPO cover for patent publication WO-2023/242082-A1. While the WIPO cover does contain the abstract, the abstract must be stated separately, on one page, in no more than 250 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1, 4-5, & 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xin Wang Et. Al. (Pat. Pub. US-20220108519-A1, herein after “Wang”) in view of Tamir Berliner Et. Al. (Pat. Pub. US-20220254120-A1, herein after “Berliner”.
In regard to claims 1 & 5, Wang teaches [a] method for generating a scene description of an extended reality scene “A scene description can, for example, provide a format based on immersive content, such as 3DoF and 6DoF content. The format can be used with one or more technologies, such as Augmented Reality (AR), Virtual Reality (VR), and/or Mixed Reality (MR) technologies” (Wang, ¶ [0059]), the method comprising:
obtaining a first list of three-dimensional (3D) models corresponding to objects of a real environment of the extended reality scene and a second list of 3D models corresponding to virtual objects of the extended reality scene “In other embodiments other scene descriptions may be used, such as scene descriptions that include relations using object lists” (Wang, ¶ [0061]) where object lists can be used in scene descriptions to sort or divide objects with similar features;
generating the scene description including a scene graph “A scene graph may be used to describe scenes including different types of video, images, audio, and/or the like and may be implemented by providing extensions to scene description formats in order to support immersive media” (Wang, ¶ [0061]) where the scene graph is used to describe elements of the scene linking nodes and comprising information indicating which nodes correspond to objects of the first list and which nodes correspond to objects of the second list; and
encoding the scene description in a data stream “the information may be encoded on a computer-readable storage media” (Wang, ¶ [0106]) where the information will be encoded for transportation.
Wang fails to explicitly teach of a first list of three-dimensional (3D) models corresponding to objects of a real environment of the extended reality scene and a second list of 3D models corresponding to virtual objects of the extended reality scene; and
linking nodes and comprising information indicating which nodes correspond to objects of the first list and which nodes correspond to objects of the second list.
Berliner teaches of a first list of three-dimensional (3D) models corresponding to objects of a real environment of the extended reality scene “receive a selection of a specific physical object from the plurality of physical objects” (Berliner, ¶ [0209]) where a selection or list of physical objects are present and a second list of 3D models corresponding to virtual objects of the extended reality scene “detect an indication of a selection of a specific virtual object from the plurality of virtual objects” (Berliner, ¶ [0210]) where a list of virtual objects is present; and
linking nodes “data structures may include an array, an associative array, a linked list, a binary tree, a balanced tree, a heap, a stack, a queue, a set, a hash table, a record, a tagged union …” (Berliner, ¶ [0083]) where a data structure holding the description or object information may be of any data type, or linked in the form of lists which is read as nodes that are linked and comprising information indicating which nodes correspond to objects of the first list and which nodes correspond to objects of the second list “a data-structure associating desired selection of virtual objects with different physical objects, may be received from a memory unit, may be received from a user, may be received from an automated process (for example, from an algorithm ranking virtual objects compatibility with physical objects, etc.)” (Berliner, ¶ [0210]) where a data structure can hold a value that discerns whether an object is physical or virtual (i.e. from a first list or a second list).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of using object lists to sort items by categories and using those object lists to produce a scene graph and scene description taught by Wang, with the teachings of Berliner to include nodes that are linked with the information of whether an item or object is physical or virtual. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to have two distinct lists which contain the objects in the augmented reality scene, the lists would then be comprised of a data structure or type that signifies the object’s status as virtual or physical.
In regards to claim 5, claim 1 is substantially similar to claim 5 hence the rejection analysis for claim 1 is also applied to claim 5. Wang in view of Berliner also teach the additional limitations of claim 5 which recites [a] device comprising a memory associated with a processor “an apparatus comprising a processor in communication with a memory” (Wang, ¶ [0018]) configured for:
obtaining a first list of three-dimensional (3D) models corresponding to objects of a real environment of an extended reality scene and a second list of 3D models corresponding to virtual objects of the extended reality scene (Wang, ¶ [0061]), (Berliner, ¶ [0209]), & (Berliner, ¶ [0210]);
generating a scene description including a scene graph linking nodes and comprising information indicating which nodes correspond to objects of the first list and which nodes correspond to objects of the second list (Wang, ¶ [0061]) & (Berliner, ¶ [0083] & [0210]); and
encoding the scene description in a data stream (Wang, ¶ [0106]).
In regard to claims 4 & 8, Wang in view of Berliner teach [t]he method of claim 1, wherein each node of the scene graph comprises information indicating whether the node corresponds to an object of the first list or to an object of the second list “the specific physical object may be from a list or menu including the plurality of physical objects” (Berliner, ¶ [0207]) where a list of physical objects is read as a first list and the process is able “to assign labels to respective physical objects of the plurality of physical objects, and may generate a list or menu including the labels identifying respective physical objects” (Berliner, ¶ [0207]) where each item in the list, or node, is labeled as physical, and the same method is performed for virtual objects as a second list (Berliner, ¶ [0210]).
In regards to claim 8, claim 4 is substantially similar to claim 8 hence the rejection analysis for claim 4 is also applied to claim 8 which recites [t]he device of claim 5, wherein each node of the scene graph comprises information indicating whether the node corresponds to an object of the first list or to an object of the second list (Berliner, ¶ [0207] & [0210]).
Claims 2-3 & 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Berliner and further in view of Szu Fan Et. Al. (Pat. Pub. US-20220198756-A1, herein after “Fan”).
In regard to claims 2 & 6, Wang in view of Berliner teach [t]he method of claim 1, wherein the information is an array of indices of the nodes corresponding to objects of the first list stored at a scene level “the specific physical object may be from a list or menu including the plurality of physical objects” (Berliner, ¶ [0207]) where a list of physical objects is read as a first list and the process is able “to assign labels to respective physical objects of the plurality of physical objects, and may generate a list or menu including the labels identifying respective physical objects” (Berliner, ¶ [0207]) where each item in the list, or node, is labeled as physical.
Wang in view of Berliner fail to explicitly teach the use of an array of indices.
Fan teaches the use of an array of indices “an intersected object list (e.g., in the form of an array) I may be generated, to identify the set of objects intersected by the first and/or second rays” (Fan, ¶ [0085]) where an object list specifically in the form of an array holds the object information.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of using object lists to sort items by categories, to produce a scene graph and scene description, and nodes that are linked with the information of whether an item or object is physical or virtual taught by Wang and Berliner with the method of storing the objects as an array of indices taught by Fan. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to have two distinct lists that are stored as arrays of indices with the object information.
In regards to claim 6, claim 2 is substantially similar to claim 6 hence the rejection analysis for claim 2 is also applied to claim 6 which recites [t]he device of claim 5, wherein the information is an array of indices of the nodes corresponding to objects of the first list stored at a scene level (Berliner, ¶ [0207]) & (Fan, ¶ [0085]).
In regard to claims 3 & 7, Wang in view of Berliner teach [t]he method of claim 1, wherein the information is an array of indices of the nodes corresponding to objects of the second list stored at a scene level “the selection of the specific virtual object may be from a list or menu including the plurality of virtual objects” (Berliner, ¶ [0210]) where the list of virtual objects is read as a second list.
Wang in view of Berliner fail to explicitly teach the use of an array of indices.
Fan teaches the use of an array of indices “an intersected object list (e.g., in the form of an array) I may be generated, to identify the set of objects intersected by the first and/or second rays” (Fan, ¶ [0085]) where an object list specifically in the form of an array holds the object information.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of using object lists to sort items by categories, to produce a scene graph and scene description, and nodes that are linked with the information of whether an item or object is physical or virtual taught by Wang and Berliner with the method of storing the objects as an array of indices taught by Fan. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to have two distinct lists that are stored as arrays of indices with the object information.
In regards to claim 7, claim 3 is substantially similar to claim 7 hence the rejection analysis for claim 3 is also applied to claim 7 which recites [t]he device of claim 5, wherein the information is an array of indices of the nodes corresponding to objects of the second list stored at a scene level (Berliner, ¶ [0207]) & (Fan, ¶ [0085]).
Claims 9, 12-13, & 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu You Et. Al. (Pat. Pub. US-20220108534-A1, herein after “You”) in view of Berliner.
In regard to claims 9 & 13, You teaches [a] method for rendering an extended reality scene “an XR spatial description, through which virtual objects, especially virtual media objects, can be positioned, rendered and played back” (You, ¶ [0039]), the method comprising:
obtaining, from a data stream, a scene description of the extended reality scene from a data stream “receive, from a client device in a wireless network, feature information describing at least part of one or more extended reality scenes in an extended reality environment” (You, ¶ [0009]) where feature information describing a scene is read as a scene description and receiving the information from a client device is read as obtaining a data stream;
decoding, from the scene description, a scene graph “the hierarchical data structure may be stored in a payload format, which can be a file format that can be encoded and decoded. In an exemplary embodiment, “multi-scaling” means “pixel-to-meter” (or other length unit). That is, a 3D representation or graph can be mapped to different absolute scales such as to different lens parameters” (You, ¶ [0066]) where the descriptive data structure may be decoded, and can include a graph for scene details linking nodes and comprising information indicating which nodes correspond to objects of a real environment of the extended reality scene and which nodes correspond to virtual objects of the extended reality scene.
You fails to explicitly teach linking nodes and comprising information indicating which nodes correspond to objects of a real environment of the extended reality scene and which nodes correspond to virtual objects of the extended reality scene; and
processing the nodes of the scene graph according to the information.
Berliner teaches linking nodes “data structures may include an array, an associative array, a linked list, a binary tree, a balanced tree, a heap, a stack, a queue, a set, a hash table, a record, a tagged union …” (Berliner, ¶ [0083]) where a data structure holding the description or object information may be of any data type, or linked in the form of lists which is read as nodes that are linked and comprising information indicating which nodes correspond to objects of a real environment of the extended reality scene and which nodes correspond to virtual objects of the extended reality scene “a data-structure associating desired selection of virtual objects with different physical objects, may be received from a memory unit, may be received from a user, may be received from an automated process (for example, from an algorithm ranking virtual objects compatibility with physical objects, etc.)” (Berliner, ¶ [0210]) where a data structure can hold a value, or information, that discerns whether an object is physical or virtual; and
processing the nodes of the scene graph according to the information “The retrieved data may include, for example, privacy levels associated with different virtual objects, the relationship between virtual objects and physical objects, the user's preferences, the user's past behavior, and more. As described above, virtual content determination module 315 may use the data stored in database 380 to determine the virtual content” (Berliner, ¶ [0104]) where the data retrieved is processed based on its content, and the data received is not limited by its type or implementation.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of using object lists to sort items by categories and using those object lists to produce a scene graph and scene description taught by Wang, with the teachings of Berliner to include nodes that are linked with the information of whether an item or object is physical or virtual. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to have two distinct lists which contain the objects in the augmented reality scene, the lists would then be comprised of a data structure or type that signifies the object’s status as virtual or physical.
In regards to claim 13, claim 9 is substantially similar to claim 13 hence the rejection analysis for claim 9 is also applied to claim 13 which recites [a] device comprising a memory associated with a processor “combinations of hardware circuits and software, such as (as applicable): (i) a combination of analog and/or digital hardware circuit(s) with software/firmware and (ii) any portions of hardware processor(s) with software (including digital signal processor(s)), software, and memory(ies) that work together to cause an apparatus, such as a mobile phone or server, to perform various functions” (You, ¶ [0290]) configured for:
obtaining, from a data stream, a scene description of an extended reality scene (You, ¶ [0009]);
decoding, from the scene description (You, ¶ [0066]), a scene graph linking nodes and comprising information indicating which nodes correspond to objects of a real environment of the extended reality scene and which nodes correspond to virtual objects of the extended reality scene (Berliner, ¶ [0083] & [0210]); and
processing the nodes of the scene graph according to the information (Berliner, ¶ [0210]).
In regard to claims 12 & 16, You in view of Berliner teach [t]he method of claim 9, wherein each node of the scene graph comprises information indicating whether the node corresponds to an object of the real environment or to a virtual object “the specific physical object may be from a list or menu including the plurality of physical objects” (Berliner, ¶ [0207]) where a list of physical objects is read as a first list and the process is able “to assign labels to respective physical objects of the plurality of physical objects, and may generate a list or menu including the labels identifying respective physical objects” (Berliner, ¶ [0207]) where each item in the list, or node, is labeled as physical, and the same method is performed for virtual objects as a second list (Berliner, ¶ [0210]).
In regards to claim 13, claim 9 is substantially similar to claim 13 hence the rejection analysis for claim 9 is also applied to claim 13 which recites [t]he device of claim 13, wherein each node of the scene graph comprises information indicating whether the node corresponds to an object of the real environment or to a virtual object (Berliner, ¶ [0207 & [0210]).
Claims 10-11 & 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over You in view of Berliner and further in view of Fan.
In regard to claims 10 & 14, You in view of Berliner teach [t]he method of claim 9, wherein the information is an array of indices of the nodes corresponding to objects of the real environment stored at a scene level “the specific physical object may be from a list or menu including the plurality of physical objects” (Berliner, ¶ [0207]) where a list of physical objects is read as a first list and the process is able “to assign labels to respective physical objects of the plurality of physical objects, and may generate a list or menu including the labels identifying respective physical objects” (Berliner, ¶ [0207]) the list of physical objects is “… in a digital format and/or in an analog format. In one embodiment, the input device may store the input received from the user in a memory device accessible by a processing device, and the processing device may access the stored data for analysis” (Berliner, ¶ [0079]) where the information is stored. The location and manner in which the data is stored is not limited (Berliner, ¶ [0083]).
You in view of Berliner fail to teach of an array of indices.
Fan teaches of an array of indices “an intersected object list (e.g., in the form of an array) I may be generated, to identify the set of objects intersected by the first and/or second rays” (Fan, ¶ [0085]) where an object list specifically in the form of an array holds the object information.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of using nodes corresponding to physical objects stored in a specific manner taught by Berliner with the method of storing the objects as an array of indices taught by Fan. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to have two distinct lists that are stored as arrays of indices with the object information.
In regards to claim 14, claim 10 is substantially similar to claim 14 hence the rejection analysis for claim 10 is also applied to claim 14 which recites [t]he device of claim 13, wherein the information is an array of indices of the nodes corresponding to objects of the real environment stored at a scene level (Berliner, ¶ [0079], [0083], [0207]) & (Fan, ¶ [0085]).
In regard to claims 11 & 15, You in view of Berliner teach [t]he method of claim 9, wherein the information is an array of indices of the nodes corresponding to virtual objects stored at a scene level “the selection of the specific virtual object may be from a list or menu including the plurality of virtual objects” (Berliner, ¶ [0210]) the list of virtual objects is “… in a digital format and/or in an analog format. In one embodiment, the input device may store the input received from the user in a memory device accessible by a processing device, and the processing device may access the stored data for analysis” (Berliner, ¶ [0079]) where the information is stored. The location and manner in which the data is stored is not limited (Berliner, ¶ [0083]).
You in view of Berliner fail to teach of an array of indices.
Fan teaches of an array of indices “an intersected object list (e.g., in the form of an array) I may be generated, to identify the set of objects intersected by the first and/or second rays” (Fan, ¶ [0085]) where an object list specifically in the form of an array holds the object information.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of using nodes corresponding to virtual objects stored in a specific manner taught by Berliner with the method of storing the objects as an array of indices taught by Fan. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to have two distinct lists that are stored as arrays of indices with the object information.
In regards to claim 15, claim 11 is substantially similar to claim 15 hence the rejection analysis for claim 11 is also applied to claim 15 which recites [t]he device of claim 13, wherein the information is an array of indices of the nodes corresponding to virtual objects stored at a scene level (Berliner, ¶ [0079], [0083], [0207]) & (Fan, ¶ [0085]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. KESHAVARZI MOHAMMAD Et. Al. (Pat. Pub. WO-2021263018-A1) teaches the use of a feature extraction method using a scene graph for virtual objects (abstract).
Scott Petill Et. Al. (Pat. Pub. US-20210012113-A1) teaches of storing physical and virtual objects in a database and tagging objects for augmented reality (abstract).
Laura Schechter Et. Al. (Pat. Pub. US-20180349568-A1) teaches a computing system for determining augmented reality objects and querying said objects (abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAIDEN ALEXANDER USSERY whose telephone number is (571)272-1192. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday* 7:30AM - 5PM.
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, Tammy Goddard can be reached at (571) 272-7773. 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.
/C.A.U./Examiner, Art Unit 2611
/TAMMY GODDARD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Prosecution Insights