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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed 3/27/26 (on or after mailing of the first action on the merits and before mailing of a final action) with the Rule 17(p) fee has been considered.
NPL citations 1 and 3 have been considered, as being Notices of Allowance for copending application 18/894,997. These Notice of Allowances prompted consideration of non-statutory double-patenting.
No Art Rejection for claims 19-22
A prior art search was performed for dependent claims 19-22. The closest prior art does not teach each and all the claim limitations of claims 19 and 20 per the following analysis.
Regarding claim 19, the closest prior art includes Kim et al. (WO 2025/159543. Examiner will map to US 20250245938 A1 as US equivalent document for English translation purposes) and Yu et al. (US 20190304166 A1).
Kim figure 10 teaches a virtual environment with a first virtual horizon. Kim [0108-0113] teaches the placement of virtual objects within the virtual environment can be dependent upon the environment real objects.
Yu teaches a first virtual environment and a second virtual environment (Fig. 1, step 110 and fig. 12 teaching a virtual environment and an alternate virtual environment).
Kim and Yu however do not detail all the limitations of claim 19, wherein:
in accordance with a determination that the virtual environment is a first virtual environment, wherein the first virtual environment includes a first horizon, a spatial arrangement of the first horizon is selected based on an angle of elevation at which the representation of the first content item is displayed in the three-dimensional environment in response to detecting the first input; and
in accordance with a determination that the virtual environment is a second virtual environment, different from the first virtual environment, wherein the second virtual environment includes a second horizon, a spatial arrangement of the second horizon is independent of the angle of elevation at which the representation of the first content item is displayed in the three-dimensional environment in response to detecting the first input.
Regarding claim 20, the closest related art is Kim and Loberg (US 20140022243 A1).
Kim teaches a virtual or augmented reality environment in which virtual objects or GUI windows can be anchored or shifted at different angles including first – third angles of elevation. Kim does not detail a visual effect as disclosed by the claim.
Loberg [0038] teaches a three dimensional rendering software which is capable of providing, “different visual effects of different angles for the design elements throughout the three-dimensional view.” Kim and Loberg however do not detail all the limitations of claim 20 including,
in response to detecting the first input:
in accordance with the determination that the respective input elevation is the first angle of elevation, displaying, via the one or more display generation components, a visual effect corresponding to the representation of the first content item on a surface associated with the virtual environment; and
in accordance with the determination that the respective input elevation is the second angle of elevation or the third angle of elevation, forgoing display of the visual effect corresponding to the representation of the first content item on a surface associated with the virtual environment.
Claims 21-22 are dependent upon claim 20.
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 1-29 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 8-9, 12-14, 16-18 and 20, 23-24, 26-27, 29-31, 34-35 and 40-41 of copending Application No. 18/894,997 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed subject matter has similar meanings per the current application specification. Examiner provides a chart below showing side by side comparison of claims 1 and 3 of the 997’ application to claim 1 of the current application. This analysis is identical when applied to claims 18 and 20 of the 997’ which disclose a computer system as compared to claim 28 of the current application also disclosing a computer system. This analysis is identical when applied to claims 19 and 34 of the 997’ application which disclose a non-transitory computer readable medium as compared to a non-transitory computer readable medium in claim 29 of the current application.
The 997’ application discloses a “recentering input” in its respective independent claims 1, 18, and 19, while the current application discloses a “first input.” The current application teaches at specification [0042, 0067, 0595] a recentering input thereby allowing for the current application claimed, “first input” to correspond to the 997’, “recentering input.”
18894997
Current application
1. (Original) A method comprising:
1. (Original) A method comprising:
at a computer system in communication with one or more display generation components and one or more input devices:
at a computer system in communication with one or more display generation components and one or more input devices:
while displaying, via the one or more display generation components, a first virtual content item in a three-dimensional environment, detecting, via the one or more input devices, a recentering input; And
while a three-dimensional environment is visible via the one or more display generation components, detecting, via the one or more input devices, a first input corresponding to a request to display a representation of a first content item docked in the three-dimensional environment, wherein the first input includes a respective input elevation relative to a frame of reference;
in response to detecting the recentering input, shifting the first virtual content item in the three-dimensional environment so that it is closer to a center of a viewport of a user of the computer system, including:
And in response to detecting the first input:
in accordance with a determination that a viewpoint of the user of the computer system has a first viewpoint elevation angle relative to a frame of reference, displaying, via the one or more display generation components, the first virtual content item at a first content elevation angle relative to the frame of reference; and
in accordance with a determination that the respective input elevation is a first angle of elevation within a first range of angles of elevation, displaying, via the one or more display generation components, the representation of the first content item at a first position in the three-dimensional environment, wherein the first position corresponds to a first placement elevation, and the first position and the first placement elevation are used for a plurality of different input elevations that are in the first range of angles of elevation;
in accordance with a determination that the viewpoint of the user of the computer system has a second viewpoint elevation angle relative to the frame of reference, different from the first viewpoint elevation angle, displaying, via the one or more display generation components, the first virtual content item at a second content elevation angle relative to the frame of reference, different from the first content elevation angle.
in accordance with a determination that the respective input elevation is a second angle of elevation that is outside of the first range of angles of elevation, displaying, via the one or more display generation components, the representation of the first content item at a second position, different from the first position, wherein the second position has a corresponding second angle of elevation, different from the first angle of elevation;
3. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 1, wherein the first viewpoint elevation angle and the second viewpoint elevation angle are outside a threshold range of viewpoint elevation angles, and wherein the method further comprises:
in response to detecting the recentering input, shifting the first virtual content item in the three-dimensional environment so that it is closer to the center of the viewport of the user, including:
in accordance with a determination that the viewpoint of the user of the computer system has a third viewpoint elevation angle relative to a frame of reference, and in accordance with a determination that the third viewpoint elevation angle is within the threshold range of viewpoint angles, displaying, via the one or more display generation components, the first virtual content item at a third content elevation angle relative to the frame of reference, different from the first content elevation angle and the second content elevation angle.
And
in accordance with a determination that the respective input elevation is a third angle of elevation that is outside of the first range of angles of elevation, displaying, via the one or more display generation components, the representation of the first content item at a third position, different from the first position and different from the second position, wherein the third position has a corresponding third angle of elevation, different from the first angle of elevation and different from the second angle of elevation.
Claims 2-27 of the current rejection are rejected as dependent upon claim 1 of the current application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8, 11-18, 23, 26, 28 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (WO 2025/159543. Examiner will map to US 20250245938 A1 as US equivalent document for English translation purposes. Examiner notes the foreign priority dates of this WO document qualify the art as a 102(a)(2) reference. Specifically see cited foreign priority document KR20250117234A which includes the same figures as the corresponding WO 543’ and US 938’ publications cited).
Regarding claims 1, 28 and 29, Kim teaches a computer system and non-transitory computer readable storage medium or memory storing one or more programs (Figs. 1-2, [0032], memory 130/220), the one or more programs comprising instructions, which when executed by one or more processors (Figs. 1-2, [0030], processor 120/230) of a computer system (Abstract, [0005, 0029-0030], teaches a wearable device 200 comprising at least one processor, comprising processing circuitry, and a memory storing instructions executed by the at least one processor) that is in communication with one or more input devices and one or more display generation components ([0030], “the processor 120 may store a command or data received from another component (e.g., the sensor module 176 or the communication module 190).” Sensor 176 corresponds to the one or more input devices. Note the limitation below which states the first input includes a input elevation thereby suggesting the input device is an angle or elevation sensor. Fig. 2, [0054, 0057], wearable device 200 may include a display 210), cause the computer system to perform a method comprising:
at the computer system in communication with one or more display generation components and the one or more input devices (Fig. 1, [0029, 0050], See electronic device 101 which includes a display module 160 and a sensor module 176. [0051-0054], Fig. 2 teaches the wearable device 200 which includes a display 210 corresponds to electronic device 101 and its display 160. [0038, 0065, 0077, 0085], teaches the wearable device 200 has a sensor 176 for determining a position or angle of the wearable device. Sensor 176 corresponds to the input device. Note the claim limitation below which states the first input includes a input elevation thereby suggesting the input device is an angle or elevation sensor):
while a three-dimensional environment is visible via the one or more display generation components (Fig. 2, [0054, 0057], wearable device 200 may include a display 210 which displays virtual content thereby implementing a virtual or augmented reality (AR) environment), detecting, via the one or more input devices, a first input corresponding to a request to display a representation of a first content item (Figs. 11A and 11B show a “first content 69a.” [0058], See description of “content” which includes virtual content such as a task window or a pop-up. Fig 10 shows a task window. [0077, 0085, 0184], teaches the position or angle sensor provides a signal that can be used as a first input for determining how and at what position first content is displayed) docked in the three-dimensional environment (Figs. 10-11 show content such as task windows which are docked in an augmented or virtual environment), wherein the first input includes a respective input elevation relative to a frame of reference (Figs. 11A-C show inputs that are input elevation. [0077] teaches a sensor which measures angles or input elevations. The bottom right of fig. 11B shows an XYZ coordinate axis frame of reference from which angles or input elevations are respectively measured. [0184] teaches the sensor provides a signal that can be used as input for determining how data such as first content 69a is displayed); and
in response to detecting the first input:
in accordance with a determination that the respective input elevation is a first angle of elevation within a first range of angles of elevation, displaying, via the one or more display generation components, the representation of the first content item at a first position in the three-dimensional environment, wherein the first position corresponds to a first placement elevation, and the first position and the first placement elevation are used for a plurality of different input elevations that are in the first range of angles of elevations (See [0118] and fig. 11B left figure wherein the user is looking ahead and the range of angles or input elevations is within the triangle of the user’s view. First content 69a is displayed straight ahead at a first position within that triangle. Fig. 11B shows a plurality of input angles of elevation); and
in accordance with a determination that the respective input elevation is a second angle of elevation that is outside of the first range of angles of elevation, displaying, via the one or more display generation components, the representation of the first content item at a second position, different from the first position, wherein the second position has a corresponding second angle of elevation, different from the first angle of elevation (See [0118] and fig. 11B, center figure noting the user’s head angle of elevation is different than that of the left figure and first content 69a is displayed at a second higher position and a second angle (relative to the XY plane) that are different than the first position); and
in accordance with a determination that the respective input elevation is a third angle of elevation that is outside of the first range of angles of elevation, displaying, via the one or more display generation components, the representation of the first content item at a third position, different from the first position and different from the second position, wherein the third position has a corresponding third angle of elevation, different from the first angle of elevation and different from the second angle of elevation (See [0118] and fig. 11B, right figure noting the user’s head angle of elevation is different than that of the left and center fig. 11B pictures and first content 69a is displayed at a third position different than the first position and second positions and the first content is at a third angle different than the first and second angles shown in left and center fig. 11B pictures).
Regarding claim 2, Kim teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first range of angles of elevation is measured relative to a plane that is perpendicular to a direction of gravity (Fig. 11B, noting the angles are measured against the XYZ axis shown in the figure and the z axis is perpendicular to a direction of gravity relative to the user shown in the figure).
Regarding claim 3, Kim teaches the method of claim 1, wherein:
in accordance with the determination that the respective input elevation is the first angle of elevation, the representation of the first content item has a first orientation in the three-dimensional environment (Fig. 11B, left picture, first content 69a has an orientation that is perpendicular to the XY plane. Examiner advises applicant amend this claim limitation to further define orientation as the current limitation allows for the BRI examiner applies in this mapping of orientation);
in accordance with the determination that the respective input elevation is the second angle of elevation, the representation of the first content item has a second orientation, different from the first orientation, in the three-dimensional environment (Fig. 11B, center picture shows first content 69a at a second angle in a second orientation that is a non-perpendicular angle respective to the XY axis plane shown in bottom right of fig. 11B, said second angle of first content 69a is a different orientation than the first content 69a in fig. 11 left picture); and
in accordance with the determination that the respective input elevation is the third angle of elevation, the representation of the first content item has a third orientation, different from the first orientation and the second orientation, in the three-dimensional environment (Fig. 11B, right picture shows first content 69a at a third angle in an orientation that is a different, non-perpendicular angle respective to the XY plane, third angle of first content 69a shown in right picture is a different orientation than first content shown in fig. 11B left and center pictures).
Regarding claim 4, Kim teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the first orientation, the second orientation, and the third orientation cause the representation of the first content item to be displayed at a fixed angle relative to a vector extending between a first portion of a user of the computer system and a first portion of the representation of the first content item (Fig. 11B and [0059-0060] show and teach the first content 69a in three different orientations wherein the first content 69a is fixed or locked at a fixed angle relative to a vector extending from the user’s body, such as their face, of the wearable device 200 to the first content 69a in the three different orientations. For example, fig. 11B show the first content 69a is always perpendicular to a vector extending from the user’s face to the first content 69a in each of the three shown orientations).
Regarding claim 5, Kim teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first input corresponds to a request to move the representation of the first content item in the three-dimensional environment relative to a viewpoint of a user of the computer system (Fig. 11B and [0059-0060, 0065] teach the lock attribute which corresponds to a request to move the first content 69a within the three-dimensional environment relative to a user locked viewpoint of the wearable system 200. Note, the specification has many other teachings of the lock attribute which correspond to this claim limitation, for example, figs. 9-10, [0105-0106, 0116-0121]).
Regarding claim 6, Kim teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first input corresponds to a request to update a spatial arrangement of one or more virtual objects in the three-dimensional environment relative to a viewpoint of a user of the computer system ((Fig. 11B and [0059-0060, 0065] teach the lock attribute which corresponds to a request to update a spatial arrangement of one or more virtual objects, such as first content 69a and second content 69b, in the three-dimensional environment relative to a viewpoint of a user of the computer system. Fig. 13 also shows updating a spatial arrangement of first content 69a and second content 69b, in the three-dimensional environment relative to a viewpoint of a user of the computer system. Note, the specification has many other teachings of the lock attribute which correspond to this claim limitation, for example, figs. 9-10, [0105-0106, 0116-0121]).
Regarding claim 7, Kim teaches the method of claim 6, wherein the first input includes interaction with a hardware element of the computer system ([0030], “the processor 120 may store a command or data received from another component (e.g., the sensor module 176 or the communication module 190).” Examiner notes the first input is a measurement by the sensor module which interacts with the processor wherein the processor is a hardware element of the computer system).
Regarding claim 8, Kim teaches a representation of the first content item is displayed at a location in the three-dimensional environment (Fig. 10, see GUI windows that are displayed) that does not correspond to a virtual environment displayed in the three-dimensional environment ([0098], “the wearable device 200 may determine the attribute of content, based on an attribute configured according to a user's selection.” [0103, 0106] "For example, a user may configure the bed 57 to have the environment-related attribute and configure the desk 59 to have the task-related attribute."); and
the first input corresponds to a request to display of the representation of the first content item at a location corresponding to the virtual environment in the three-dimensional environment (Fig. 10, user selects an item to be displayed in the virtual environment. [0103, 0106] "For example, a user may configure the bed 57 to have the environment-related attribute and configure the desk 59 to have the task-related attribute." ).
Regarding claim 11, Kim teaches wherein the respective input elevation is based on a vector extending between a first portion of a user of the computer system and a first portion of the representation of the first content item when the first input is detected (Figs. 11A1-B and [0059-0060] show and teach the first content wherein the first content 69a is fixed or locked at a fixed angle or input elevation relative to a vector extending from the user’s body, such as their face, of the wearable device 200 to the first content 69a. For example, fig. 11B show the first content 69a is always perpendicular to a vector extending from the user’s face to the first content 69a in each of the three shown orientations).
Regarding claim 12, Kim teaches wherein the respective input elevation is based on a viewing direction associated with a viewpoint of a user of the computer system when the first input is detected (Figs. 11A-B and [0059-0060] show and teach the first content wherein the first content 69a is fixed or locked at a fixed angle or input elevation based on the viewing direction of the user. For example, fig. 11B show the first content 69a is locked based on the user’s detected viewing direction).
Regarding claim 13, Kim teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the display of the representation of the first content item docked in the three-dimensional environment is bound by a maximum placement elevation in the three-dimensional environment ([0007, 0058, 0061], “generating a boundary, based on at least one of the number of contents and the usage environment; and displaying the content placed based on a shape of the boundary; wherein the boundary may be a virtual space which includes a specified area surrounding at least a part of a user or the wearable device.” Examiner notes this teaching of a boundary means there is a maximum placement elevation in the three-dimensional environment), the method further comprising:
in response to detecting the first input (Figs. 11-12):
in accordance with a determination that the respective input elevation is a fourth angle of elevation that is greater than an input elevation threshold, displaying, via the one or more display generation components, the representation of the first content item at a fourth position in the three-dimensional environment, wherein the fourth position corresponds to the maximum placement elevation (Fig. 11B teaches first-third angles of elevation. Fig. 12, [0133] teaches there are third and fourth angles when a user sits versus when a user stands which results in the content being displayed differently. This teaching along with the above teachings of a virtual space boundary upon which content is displayed means there are at least four angle of elevation ranges and a maximum placement elevation as the boundary has a finite area or region).
Regarding claim 14, Kim teaches the method of claim 1, wherein displaying the representation of the first content item docked in the three-dimensional environment includes displaying the representation of the first content item at a location within a virtual environment displayed in the three-dimensional environment (See figs. 10-11 which show a first content 69a, which can be a task window, is docked at a location within the augmented reality environment. Regarding the docking, see lock attribute disclosed in [0059-0060, 0116-0120]).
Regarding claim 15, Kim teaches the method of claim 14, wherein the location of the representation of the first content item is fixed within the virtual environment (See figs. 10-11 which show a first content 69a, which can be a task window, is fixed at a location within the augmented reality environment. See lock attribute disclosed in [0059-0060, 0116-0120]).
Regarding claim 16, Kim teaches the method of claim 14, wherein the virtual environment includes a visual horizon (Fig. 10 shows a visual horizon wherein trees sit on and fade into the visual horizon), and a spatial arrangement of the visual horizon is independent of an angle of elevation at which the representation of the first content item is displayed in the three-dimensional environment in response to detecting the first input (Figs. 10-11, [0059-0060, 0113], See environment lock and user lock wherein the first content can be displayed fixed to the environment or fixed to the user’s viewpoint. In the user lock mode, the visual horizon will be spatially arranged independently of the first content angle of elevation).
Regarding claim 17, Kim teaches the method of claim 16, wherein the visual horizon of the virtual environment is aligned to a plane parallel to a ground on which a user of the computer system is positioned (See fig. 10 which shows the visual horizon within an augmented reality environment and fig. 11 shows the user is standing such that the displayed visual horizon will be aligned parallel to a ground on which a user of the computer system is positioned).
Regarding claim 18, Kim teaches the method of claim 14, wherein the virtual environment includes a visual horizon (Fig. 10 shows a visual horizon lined with trees), and a spatial arrangement of the visual horizon is selected based on an angle of elevation at which the representation of the first content item is displayed in the three-dimensional environment in response to detecting the first input (Fig. 10, [0109-0113], “The wearable device 200 may display content by considering the recognized external environment.”).
Regarding claim 26, Kim teaches the method of claim 14, wherein:
in response to detecting the first input ([0060], “user’s selection.” [0112] teaches a user’s gaze is an input to determining where content will be displayed):
in accordance with the determination that the respective input elevation is the first angle of elevation, the representation of the first content item is displayed a first distance from a viewpoint of a user of the computer system in the virtual environment (See fig. 11A left picture which shows a first content at a first angle of elevation displayed at a first distance from a viewpoint of a user in the virtual environment); and
in accordance with the determination that the respective input elevation is the second angle of elevation or the third angle of elevation, the representation of the first content item is displayed the first distance from the viewpoint of the user in the virtual environment (See fig. 11A right picture which shows the first content at a second angle of elevation displayed at the first distance from a viewpoint of the user in the virtual environment. Note [0060-0061] which teaches a lock attribute that will locate content at a fixed distance from the user).
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (WO 2025/159543. Examiner will map to US 20250245938 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Kim teaches the method of claim 8, further comprising:
in response to detecting the first input (Figs. 9-11, [0098] teach a user selection. [0112] teaches a user’s gaze is an input to determining where content will be displayed):
in accordance with the determination that the respective input elevation is the first angle of elevation, displaying, via the one or more display generation components, a first animated transition of the representation of the first content item moving to the first position in the three-dimensional environment (Figs. 10-11 show an animated transition of the first content 69a such as a task window moving to a first position in the three dimensional environment. Furthermore, examiner notes this limitation, particularly the animated transition, is an Aesthetic Design Change. See MPEP 2144.04(I) and Nonfunctional descriptive material is MPEP 2111.05); and
in accordance with the determination that the respective input elevation is the second angle of elevation, displaying a second animated transition, different from the first animated transition, of the representation of the first content item moving to the second position in the three-dimensional environment (not invoked as the alternative determination in the above limitation regarding the first angle of elevation was mapped).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply aesthetic design changes to Kim based on legal precedent. MPEP 2144.04(I).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (WO 2025/159543. Examiner will map to US 20250245938 A1 as US equivalent document for English translation purposes) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chaudhri et al. (US 8046721 B2).
Regarding claim 10, Kim teaches displaying the representation of the first content item at the first position in the three-dimensional environment in accordance with the determination that the respective input elevation is the first angle of elevation in response to detecting the first input as disclosed in claim 1 rejection above which references Kim figures 10-11. Kim is not relied upon for teaching the second input as described in claim 10.
Chaudhri teaches detecting, via the one or more input devices, a second input corresponding to a request to move the representation of a first content item (Figs. 4-5, slide to unlock), wherein the second input includes a second respective input elevation (Examiner notes, this elevation can be zero or negative) relative to the frame of reference ; and
in response to detecting the second input:
reducing a visual prominence of the representation of the first content item at the first position in the environment (Figs. 4-5, Sliding the button away teaches the claimed reducing a visual prominence of the representation of the first content item at the first position); and
increasing the visual prominence of the representation of the first content item after conclusion of movement of the representation of the first content item to a respective position in the environment (Figs. 4-5, slide button to the unlock position teaches increasing the visual prominence of the representation of the first content item).
The combination of Kim with Chaudhri teaches the claimed three-dimensional environment.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Kim with Chaudhri such that a second input will reduce or increase a visual prominence of the representation of the first content item as this amounts to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143, rationale (A). In the current instance, the Kim and Chaudhri prior art include each element claimed as detailed above, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (WO 2025/159543. Examiner will map to US 20250245938 A1 as US equivalent document for English translation purposes) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Dessero et al. (US 20220326837 A1).
Regarding claim 23, Kim teaches the method of claim 14, wherein:
in response to detecting the first input (Figs. 9-11, [0098] teach a user selection):
in accordance with the determination that the respective input elevation is the first angle of elevation, the virtual environment in the three-dimensional environment is associated with a first minimum available level of immersion (Figs. 9-11 and corresponding specification teach a virtual environment in which a user is able to provide input to the GUI interfaces such as by anchoring displayed content described at [0099]. See [0098], “the wearable device 200 may determine the attribute of content, based on an attribute configured according to a user's selection.” Figs 10-11 disclose the input elevation is a first angle of elevation. [0003] The user wearing an HMD teaches a first minimum level of immersion in a 3D virtual environment).
Kim is not relied upon for teaching in accordance with the determination that the respective input elevation is the second angle of elevation or the third angle of elevation, the virtual environment in the three-dimensional environment is associated with a second minimum available level of immersion, greater than the first minimum available level of immersion. Examiner notes, as this claim is currently written, this limitation does not have to be invoked. However, to advance prosecution, Examiner includes Dessero who teaches the limitation.
Dessero teaches in response to detecting the first user input (Fig. 10, [0254], “in response to detecting the user input (1032)”):
in accordance with the determination that the respective input elevation is the second angle of elevation or the third angle of elevation, the virtual environment in the three-dimensional environment is associated with a second minimum available level of immersion, greater than the first minimum available level of immersion (Fig. 10, [0254-0255], teaches multiple levels of immersion based on the field of view of the environment).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Kim with Dessero such that the virtual environment in the three-dimensional environment is associated with available levels of immersion as Dessero provides a computer system, method, and interface that improves interactions with environments that include at least some virtual elements by changing the immersion level of a virtual environment and/or spatial effect in a three-dimensional environment based on the geometry of the physical environment around the device (Dessero, [0004, 0008]).
Regarding claim 24, Kim figures 10-11 teach a determination that the respective input elevation is the first, second, or third angle of elevation as detailed in the claim 1 rejection above. Kim does not detail a respective level of immersion as detailed by claim 24.
Dessero teaches wherein when the first input is detected, the three-dimensional environment is displayed at a respective level of immersion ([0254-0255], “the electronic device displays (1034), via the display generation component, the three-dimensional environment with the respective spatial effect at a first respective level of immersion”), the method further comprising:
in response to detecting the first input:
in accordance with a determination that the respective input elevation is the first angle of elevation and that the respective level of immersion of the virtual environment is below the first minimum available level of immersion, displaying, via the one or more display generation components, the virtual environment with the first minimum available level of immersion in the three-dimensional environment ([0254-0255], “the three-dimensional environment with the respective spatial effect at a first respective level of immersion (e.g., if the user-defined setting for the maximum level of immersion is a first value (e.g., 180 degrees)”); and
in accordance with a determination that the respective input elevation is the second angle of elevation or the third angle of elevation and that the respective level of immersion of the virtual environment is below the second minimum available level of immersion, displaying the virtual environment with the second minimum available level of immersion in the three-dimensional environment ([0254-0255] teach the ability to raise or lower the level of immersion based on the field of view of the environment).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Kim with Dessero such that the virtual environment in the three-dimensional environment is associated with available levels of immersion as Dessero provides a computer system, method, and interface that improves interactions with environments that include at least some virtual elements by changing the immersion level of a virtual environment and/or spatial effect in a three-dimensional environment based on the geometry of the physical environment around the device (Dessero, [0004, 0008]).
Regarding claim 25, Kim teaches the method of claim 24, wherein the first input corresponds to a request to change a placement elevation of the representation of the first content item in the virtual environment (Figs. 9-11 teach the user has the ability to change a placement elevation of the task windows and task bar which correspond to a representation of the first content item in the virtual environment. [0098] teach a user selection. [0112] teaches a user’s gaze is an input to determining where content will be displayed).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (WO 2025/159543. Examiner will map to US 20250245938 A1 as US equivalent document for English translation purposes) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Yu et al. (US 20190304166 A1).
Regarding claim 27, Kim teaches the method further comprises:
in response to detecting the first input (Figs. 9-11, [0098] teach a user selection. [0112] teaches a user’s gaze is an input to determining where content will be displayed):
determining the respective input elevation is the second angle of elevation or the third angle of elevation and that the virtual environment is the first virtual environment, displaying, via the one or more display generation components, the representation of the first content item the first distance from the viewpoint of the user (Figs. 10-11 show a determination of input elevations within a virtual environment and displaying first content 69a at a first distance. [0060-0061] which teaches a lock attribute that will locate content at a fixed distance from the user).
Kim does not teach a first virtual environment and a second virtual environment as described by the remaining claim 27 limitations.
Yu teaches a method wherein:
in accordance with a determination that the virtual environment is a first virtual environment, the representation of the first content item is displayed a first distance from a viewpoint of a user of the computer system ([0041] teach a first virtual environment in which content is displayed at a first distance); and
in accordance with a determination that the virtual environment is a second virtual environment, different from the first virtual environment, the representation of the first content item is displayed a second distance from the viewpoint of the user that is different from the first distance from the viewpoint of the user ([0041], “ although the planar element may be a given distance from the user's viewpoint, elements within the alternate virtual environment may be rendered as being at greater distances from the user's viewpoint”).
The combination of Kim and Yu teaches the final limitation stating the method further comprises:
in response to detecting the first input:
in accordance with the determination that the respective input elevation is the second angle of elevation or the third angle of elevation and that the virtual environment is the second virtual environment, displaying the representation of the first content item the second distance from the viewpoint of the user.
Kim figures 10-11 teaches that content 69a can be viewed at a specific distance from the user’s viewpoint at second and third angles of elevation. Yu [0041] teaches in an alternate or second virtual environment in which content is displayed a second distance from the viewpoint of the user.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kim with Yu such that the respective input elevation is the second angle of elevation or the third angle of elevation and that the virtual environment is the second virtual environment, displaying the representation of the first content item the second distance from the viewpoint of the user as this amounts to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143, rationale (A). In the current instance, the Kim and Yu prior art include each element claimed as detailed above, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 27, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on p. 27, ¶2 of the remarks, “nowhere does Kim teach the respective input elevation is within or outside of, “a first range of angles of elevation.”
Examiner notes applicant’s interpretation of the claim language is narrower than what the claim language actually states or requires. For example, the claim does not state, “outside of a first range of angles of elevation.” Further, the claimed range of angles of elevation does not have numerical requirements. Per broadest reasonable interpretation and as the claim is currently written, Kim figures 11A-C illustrate the teachings of a plurality of ranges of angles of elevation which includes a first range of angles of elevation as well as the remaining claim limitations. Kim shows a first content 69a which is displayed at a first position within a first range of angles as shown in figures 11A-C.
Applicant argues on p. 27, ¶3 of the remarks that the remaining limitations are not disclosed per the arguments on p. 27, ¶2 regarding, “the respective input elevation is a second angle of elevation that is outside of the first range of angles of elevation…” and, “the respective input elevation is a third angle of elevation that outside of the first range of angles of elevation.”
As detailed in the rejection, these limitations are met and illustrated by Kim figures 11A-C. Applicant’s interpretation of the claim language is narrower than what the claim language actually states or requires. For example, the claimed second/third angle of elevation that is outside of the first range of angles of elevation does not have any numerical requirements. Therefore in light of broadest reasonable interpretation Kim figures 11A-11C and corresponding specification paragraphs cited teach the limitations as detailed in the rejection above.
Conclusion
Applicant's submission of an information disclosure statement under 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the timing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) on March 27, 2026 prompted the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 609.04(b). 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 NATHAN P BRITTINGHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-7865. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 10 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, Benjamin Lee can be reached at (571) 272-2963. 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.
/NATHAN P BRITTINGHAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2629
/BENJAMIN C LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2629
Prosecution Insights