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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed 07/20/2026 which has
been entered and made of record. Claims 1, 4, 7, 14, 17, and 20 have been amended. No
claim has been cancelled or newly added. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification, Claims and Drawings have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed March 18th, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument (due to applicant’s arguments directed to newly amend limitation(s) which is addressed by new prior art presented in this Office Action).
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.
Claims 1, 14 and 20 recites the limitation "…the appearance of content…" in each respective last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This is because it is unclear what “the appearance” here is referring to since there is no previous mention of appearance. Additionally, claims 4 and 17 further add to this lack of clarity by now reciting “an appearance of content” in each respective second to last line. This recitation of “an appearance” is unclear whether it is the same as the aforementioned appearance in each parent claim or a newer instance of an appearance.
Claims 2-13 and 15-19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) since they depend on a claim that is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Note. Most likely these claims depend on some dependent claim or are missing elements.
In order to fix this issue, dependency should be reviewed and any first instance of an element
should be made clear that it’s a first instance and should be referred to as “a” or “an” instead of
“the”, and if multiple instances exist, further instances should be further distinguished for example by saying “first”, “second”, and/or “third” etc.
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) 1, 5-6, 11, 13-14, 18-19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zavesky et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0209003), hereinafter referenced as Zavesky in view of Bare et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0347854), hereinafter referenced as Bare and Jutan et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0343590), hereinafter referenced as Jutan.
Regarding claim 1, Zavesky teaches A method comprising: at a device having at least one processor: (abstract teaches "method performed by a processing system including at least one processor"); obtaining environment parameter data associated with a video content item, (paragraph 41 teaches "identify a dynamic parameter of the background for the scene of video content"); identifying/obtaining dynamic parameter for scene shows environment parameter data and this is associated with video content item (background of video content); wherein the environmental parameter data is obtained from a source, (paragraph 40 teaches "Once the desired background is identified, the processing system may retrieve an image (e.g., a two-dimensional image) of the desired background, for instance by querying a database or other data sources." and paragraph 60 teaches "processing system may save the scene of video content...so that the user may access the scene of video content" ); since video content is stored and the aforementioned dynamic parameter is identified for the video content, the dynamic/environmental parameter is obtained from the storage/source, also, background queried from database shows environmental parameter data is obtained from source since the dynamic parameter above is of the background; wherein the source stores the environment parameter data for access to control presentation of playback environments during multiple playback instances of the video content item (paragraph 60 teaches "the processing system may also store the scene of video content, or elements of the scene of video content, such as three-dimensional models of objects appearing in the scene of video content, settings for lighting or environmental effects, and the like, to a repository that is accessible by multiple users. The repository may allow users to view scenes of video content created by other users as well as to reuse elements of those videos scenes of video content (e.g., three-dimensional models of objects, lighting and environmental effects, etc.) in the creation of new scenes of video content"); this shows storing dynamic/environment parameters and users can view/playback the scenes of video content created as well as reuse elements such as lighting in creation of new scenes (shows control presentation of playback environments) which would be during multiple playback instances since multiple/plural users exist; determining environment lighting effects corresponding to a plurality of time segments of the video content item, (paragraph 59 teaches "capture of the video footage may include insertion of data into the video footage to aid in post-production processing of the video footage...may embed a fiducial...into one or more frames of the video footage, where the fiducial is encoded with information regarding the addition of special effects or other post-production effects into the video footage. For instance, the fiducial may specify what types of effects to add, when to add the effects (e.g., which frames or time stamps)"); since effects as described above include lighting, the fiducial specifying when to add effects at which time stamps shows determination of environment lighting effects corresponding to time stamps/segments (plural) of the video content item; the environment lighting effects determined based on the environment parameter data (paragraph 41 teaches "the dynamic parameter may also include any special effects to be applied to the scene, such as lighting effects (e.g., glare, blur, etc.)"); since dynamic/environment parameter data includes lighting effects (of environment), the lighting effects determined are based on the dynamic/environment parameter data; and presenting the video content item in a viewing environment, (paragraph 66 teaches "examples of the present disclosure may be integrated with projection systems to place visuals of objects and/or actors in a scene or primary camera action zone." and paragraph 69 teaches "one or more steps of the method 200 may include a storing, displaying and/or outputting step as required for a particular application"); this shows video content item would be presented which must be done in a viewing environment as one of ordinary skill in the art would understand; wherein the viewing environment is modified based on the environment lighting effects in synchronization with presentation of the plurality of time segments of the video content item (paragraph 64 teaches "enable the creation and continuous augmentation of a library of shareable, sellable, or reusable content, including background environments, three-dimensional models of objects, lighting and environmental effects, and the like, where this content can be used and/or modified in the production of any type of video content"); augmentation of lighting effects and content being modified in production of video content shows the viewing environment also modified due to lighting changed (meaning portions of projection above in the viewing environment would appear dimmer or brighter) and this lighting is in synchronization with presentation of plurality of time segments due to the fiducials adding special effects like lighting to specific time stamps as cited above in paragraph 59 of Zavesky.
However, Zavesky fails to explicitly teach environment parameter data.
However, Bare explicitly teaches environment parameter data (Bare, paragraph 71 teaches “provide environmental parameter data in real time or near real time”). Bare is considered to be analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of using augmented reality alongside environment parameter data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zavesky's invention with the environment parameter techniques of Bare to construct graphical or textual AR environment information (Bare, paragraph 71). This would ensure a more visually engaging display for the user.
However, the combination of Zavesky and Bare fails to teach wherein the video content item is presented at a 3D position within a 3D environment and the environment lighting effects alter the appearance of content in the view outside of the video content item.
However, Jutan teaches wherein the video content item is presented at a 3D position within a 3D environment (Jutan, paragraph 121 teaches “the content production system may ray cast from the projector camera position through the reticle's 3D position to get the targeted geometry in the 3D virtual scene”); this shows content (video content item from above combination) being presented at 3D position within 3D environment/scene; and the environment lighting effects alter the appearance of content in the view outside of the video content item (Jutan, paragraph 104 teaches “The global view can also include lighting effects produced from displays outside the frustum of the taking camera 112. Depending on the size of frustum 318”, paragraph 124 teaches “Virtual Stage Lights (also known as light cards) can emulate physical lights but with much greater flexibility and responsiveness. The virtual stage lights can be controlled through a graphical user interface (GUI) on a tablet computer. For example, the GUI can allow an operator to set up a new light, adjust the location, adjust the size and shape of the light, and adjust various lighting properties (e.g., brightness, color, temperature, etc.)” and paragraph 125 teaches “the virtual stage lights can emulate a net which can be a half-light card and a half black flag. This can control the amount of light on the performance area. The virtual stage lights are not just for illumination but can also be used to control reflections. The virtual stage lights can be used to create interesting and unusual reflections on a ship or on a character”); emulating physical light means physical light would be altering the view around/outside the video content item because it would be making it brighter than what it originally is and lighting effects produced from displays outside the frustum of the taking camera shows lighting effects can be produced outside of the viewing portion, which would light up the surrounding physical environment which would be "altering" the appearance of the view outside of the video content area. Jutan is considered to be analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of 3D environments and lighting effects altering appearance of content. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Zavesky and Bare with the lighting effects techniques of Jutan to ensure immersive content (e.g., virtual reality content, mixed reality content, augmented reality content, and the like) can be leveraged as part of a content production system used by users (e.g., artists, engineers, technicians, directors, and other individuals involved in content production) in order to generate content (e.g., movies, television programming, online or streaming videos, and the like). To configure such a content production system, the lighting and color provided by displays surrounding the performance area can be advantageously calibrated and adjusted so that the performers, physical items in the performance area, and virtual items shown on the screen can have a selected lighting and color (Jutan, paragraph 70). This would lead to increased user engagement and satisfaction rates.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Zavesky, Bare and Jutan teaches wherein the environment parameter data comprises data for synchronizing the environment lighting effects with the plurality of time segments (Zavesky, paragraph 59 teaches "capture of the video footage may include insertion of data into the video footage to aid in post-production processing of the video footage...may embed a fiducial...into one or more frames of the video footage, where the fiducial is encoded with information regarding the addition of special effects or other post-production effects into the video footage. For instance, the fiducial may specify what types of effects to add, when to add the effects (e.g., which frames or time stamps)"); fiducial here act as data for synchronizing effects (inclusive of lighting effect) with time segments/stamps.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Zavesky, Bare and Jutan teaches wherein the environment lighting effects comprise tint, dimming, or glow effects applied to at least a portion of the viewing environment (Zavesky paragraph 55 teaches "As an example, if the user moves in front of a portion of the three-dimensional simulation of the background for the scene of video content that is lit brightly, the user may appear to be washed out; thus, the processing system may determine that the lighting in at least that portion of the three-dimensional simulation of the background for the scene of video content should be dimmed"); this shows dimming (as environment lighting effect) of video content which is applied to the viewing environment as described above.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Zavesky, Bare and Jutan teaches wherein the environment parameter data is generated based on input provided by a creator or editor of the video content item (Zavesky, paragraph 41 teaches "In one example, the dynamic parameter may be identified in accordance with a signal from the user"); dynamic parameter identified shows environment parameter data is generated and signal from user shows this is based on input provided by creator.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Zavesky, Bare and Jutan teaches wherein the video content item is presented in the viewing environment on a head-mounted device (HMD) (Zavesky, paragraph 31 teaches "the user endpoint devices 112 and 114 may comprise...wearable computing devices (e.g., smart glasses, virtual reality (VR) headsets or other types of head mounted displays,"); this shows video content would be presented in HMD.
Regarding claim 14, the system claim 14 recites similar limitations as method claim 1, and thus is rejected under similar rationale. In addition, Zavesky fig. 1 shows system 100, processor 302, and claim 19 recites “non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by a processing system including at least one processor, cause the processing system to perform operations”
Regarding claim 18, the system claim 18 recites similar limitations as method claim 5, and thus is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 19, the system claim 19 recites similar limitations as method claim 6, and thus is rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 20, the non-transitory computer-readable medium claim 20 recites similar limitations as method claim 1, and thus is rejected under similar rationale. In addition, Zavesky, claim 19 recites “non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by a processing system including at least one processor, cause the processing system to perform operations”
Claim(s) 2 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Zavesky, Bare and Jutan as applied to claim 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Morioka et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0103898), hereinafter referenced as Morioka.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Zavesky, Bare and Jutan teaches wherein the source is a file containing the video content item, (Zavesky, paragraph 23 teaches "The set of data for a given user may include, for example, pointers (e.g., uniform resource locators, file locations, etc.) to scenes of video content created by or accessible to the given user, pointers to background scenes provided"); file location to video content shows source is a file containing the video content item.
However, the combination of Zavesky, Bare and Jutan fails to teach wherein the file comprises a video track, an audio track, and an environment parameter track.
However, Morioka teaches wherein the file comprises a video track, an audio track, and an environment parameter track (Morioka, abstract teaches "recording content data (Sav) containing video, audio, or data onto an information recording medium (214), in combination with first metadata (Di, Dm) containing a parameter representing scene information" and paragraph 12 teaches "metadata generated by numerous triggers, such as camerawork patterns, recorded audio"); the metadata with parameter representing scene information shows environment parameter track alongside metadata for video and audio indicating video track and audio track all of which is consistent with definition of track in applicant's disclosure paragraph 4 which states "(e.g., effects stored as a track/metadata of the content itself or effects stored in a separate lookup table)". Morioka is considered to be analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of metadata for environment/scene parameter alongside video and audio tracks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Zavesky, Bare and Jutan with the environment parameter, audio and video track/metadata techniques of Morioka to achieve efficient classification and search of an increasing amount of content (Morioka, paragraph 177). This would be done by the effective use of metadata.
Regarding claim 15, the system claim 15 recites similar limitations as method claim 2, and thus is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 3 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Zavesky, Bare and Jutan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ha (U.S. Patent No. 10,726,631), hereinafter referenced as Ha.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Zavesky, Bare and Jutan teaches wherein the source is a database, (Zavesky, paragraph 40 teaches "Once the desired background is identified, the processing system may retrieve an image (e.g., a two-dimensional image) of the desired background, for instance by querying a database or other data sources."); background queried from database shows environmental parameter data is obtained from source/database since the dynamic parameter above is of the background.
However, the combination of Zavesky, Bare and Jutan fails to teach wherein the environment parameter data associated with the video content item is obtained by obtaining one or more records from the database using a unique identifier associated with the video content item.
However, Ha teaches wherein the environment parameter data associated with the video content item is obtained by obtaining one or more records from the database using a unique identifier associated with the video content item (Ha, claim 7 teaches "detecting a 3D matched virtual video from a database based on a unique identifier assigned to the additional recognition region by identifying the additional recognition region"); this shows records from database obtained using a unique identifier associated with video content item and when viewed in combination, each video content item would have dynamic/environment parameter data associated with it due to these parameters being for background of scene of video content (each of which would be unique). Ha is considered to be analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of using a unique identifier for obtaining database records. Ha Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Zavesky, Bare and Jutan with the unique identifier techniques of Ha to provide advantage that the amount of computations may be reduced (Ha, col. 18, line 1). This would be done by having a unique identifier so other indexing or other slower techniques aren't used to retrieve data.
Regarding claim 16, the system claim 16 recites similar limitations as method claim 3, and thus is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 4 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Zavesky, Bare and Jutan as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Luh et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0371109), hereinafter referenced as Luh.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Zavesky, Bare and Jutan teaches wherein presenting the video content item comprises presenting the video content item within a view of an extended reality (XR) environment, (Zavesky, paragraph 62 teaches "examples of the present disclosure may provide a “virtual” production set by which even users who possess little to no expertise in video production can produce professional quality scenes of video content by leveraging mixed reality with LEDs technology"); mixed reality is a type of XR this shows presenting the video content within a view of MR/XR environment.
However, the combination of Zavesky, Bare and Jutan fails to teach wherein the video content item is presented at a 3D position within the XR environment and the environment lighting effects alter an appearance of content in the view separate from the video content item.
However, Luh teaches wherein the video content item is presented at a 3D position within the XR environment and the environment lighting effects alter an appearance of content in the view separate from the video content item (Luh, paragraph 3 teaches "(AR) applications can provide interactive 3D experiences that combine images of the real-world with virtual objects, while virtual reality (VR) applications can provide an entirely self-contained 3D computer environment" and paragraph 48 teaches "output light can mix with light that passes through the display 258, allowing the output light to present virtual objects that appear as if they exist in the real world"); 3D computer environment shows the video content item would be presented at 3D position within XR environment and the light mix shows altering appearance of content in the HMD XR view separate from the video content item due to mixing of light. Luh is considered to be analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of pass-through headset and XR technology. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Zavesky, Bare and Jutan with the pass-through HMD techniques of Luh to improve compatibility, extensibility, processing efficiency, and other aspects of content rendering (Luh, paragraph 68). This would be done by adding versatility from the pass-through video.
Regarding claim 17, the system claim 17 recites similar limitations as method claim 4, and thus is rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Zavesky, Bare and Jutan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Weitzman et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0303904), hereinafter referenced as Weitzman.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Zavesky, Bare and Jutan teaches wherein the environment lighting effects comprise a light-spill effect outside of and around the video content item (Jutan, paragraph 298 teaches “color wheel and additional “V” can be used by the operator to dial back the intensity of the green or blue color if it is too intense of a green, for instance, and is resulting in too much bright green ‘light spill’ from the walls onto the actors”); this shows light-spill effect (as part of the environment lighting effects) and that it would be outside and around the video content item since the light spill results from the walls onto the actors.
However, the combination of Zavesky, Bare and Jutan fails to teach and the environment parameter data specifies attributes of the light-spill effects.
However, Weitzman teaches wherein the environment lighting effects comprise light-spill effect… and the environment parameter data specifies attributes of the light-spill effects (Weitzman, paragraph 92 teaches "ray tracing AR system 500 retrieves a light attribute of the region of the second object and blends the light attribute of the region of the second object into a light attribute of the portion of the first object"); this is part of environment lighting effects, has blend of two region (light-spill) and the environment parameter data from above also encompasses attributes of the light-spill/blend since light attributes here are retrieved as part of the light-spill/blend effect. Weitzman is considered to be analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of light-spill effects and their attribute. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Zavesky, Bare and Jutan with the light-spill techniques of Weitzman to generate realistic reflections on real-world and/or virtual objects placed in a real-time video feed (Weitzman, paragraph 18). This would enhance user experience.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Zavesky, Bare, Jutan and Weitzman teaches wherein the environment parameter data specifies spatial display attribute of the light-spill effects relative to a position at which the video content item is displayed in a view (Weitzman, paragraph 106 teaches "The rays represent the direction and/or orientation of light that scatters and/or is reflected off of each pixel. In this way, the ray tracing module 514 can estimate how light bounces off one real-world or virtual object in relation to another real-world or virtual object"); orientation of light scattering and reflecting shows spatial display attribute of the light-spill/blend effects and this is for each pixel to see objects in relation to other objects meaning relative to a position at which video content item is displayed in a view. The same motivations used in claim 7 apply here in claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Zavesky, Bare, Jutan and Weitzman teaches wherein the environment parameter data specifies color, intensity, saturation, brightness, or opacity associated with the light- spill effects (Zavesky, paragraph 27 teaches "determine the appropriate color and/or brightness levels of individual LEDs of an LED wall (or pixels of a display device, such as a mobile phone screen) to produce the high contrast lighting effects, to add rain or fog, or the like." and paragraph 57 teaches "modifications to the color and/or brightness levels may result in the appearance that objects and/or effects have been added, removed, or modified."); since dynamic/environment parameter data includes special effects as described in paragraph 41 of Zavesky, and color and brightness acts as special effect, they would be specified in dynamic/environment parameter data, also, when viewed in combination, this would be associated with light-spill effect above.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Zavesky, Bare and Jutan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lukac et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0070666), hereinafter referenced as Lukac.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Zavesky, Bare, and Jutan fails to teach wherein the environment parameter data is obtained and used to present the video content item in real-time during streaming of the video content items, wherein the plurality of time segments are received sequentially and presented as each of the plurality of time segments is received.
However, Lukac teaches wherein the environment parameter data is obtained and used to present the video content item in real-time during streaming of the video content items, (Lukac, paragraph 28 teaches "Where the video input 100 is a real-time video stream"); the environment parameter data from above must first be obtained prior to being used and this shows the aforementioned presenting of video content from such would be by real-time streaming; wherein the plurality of time segments are received sequentially and presented as each of the plurality of time segments is received (Lukac, paragraph 28 teaches "outputs the translated video output 120 as a series of sequential image frames that can be displayed by a computing device"); each frame of video here acts as time segments and is displayed sequentially (after being received sequentially). Lukac is considered to be analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of sequential display of frames and real-time streaming. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Zavesky, Bare and Jutan with the sequential and real-time techniques of Lukac to ensure temporal stability without explicit guidance and better preserve style when the remaining video/image frames deviate from the original keyframe (Lukac, paragraph 23). This would be due to the sequencing.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Zavesky, Bare, Jutan and Weitzman as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Luh.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Zavesky, Bare, Jutan and Weitzman fails to teach where the light-spill effects are presented by controlling blend circuitry to generate an extended reality (XR) video by: blending pass-through video with the video content item; and modifying at least a portion of the pass-through video based on the environment parameter data.
However, Luh teaches where the light-spill effects are presented by controlling blend circuitry to generate an extended reality (XR) video by: blending pass-through video with the video content item (Luh, paragraph 85 teaches "Encoded material(s) 722 can indicate one or more…blend modes" and paragraph 48 teaches "Image data can be transmitted from the core processing component 254 via link 256 to HMD...output light can mix with light that passes through the display 258, allowing the output light to present virtual objects that appear as if they exist in the real world."); the HMD is for XR, mixing and blend modes indicate blending exists by blending pass-through video and video content for the light spill effects described above (when viewed in combination), and the core processing component acts as blend circuitry here; and modifying at least a portion of the pass-through video based on the environment parameter data (Luh, paragraph 34 teaches "can process and adjust or “augment” the images as they pass through the system, such as by adding virtual objects"); this shows pass-through video augmented/modified and this is based on environment parameter data since it is augmenting images as they are passing through whereas dynamic/environment parameter data from above is for special effects which are before augmenting thus this is coming in a step after (based on) the environment parameter data. The same motivations used in claim 4 apply here in claim 10.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAUMAN U AHMAD whose telephone number is (703)756-5306. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Kee Tung can be reached at (571) 272-7794. 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.
/N.U.A./Examiner, Art Unit 2611
/KEE M TUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Prosecution Insights