DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-24 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. 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
3. The IDS’s filed 9/27/2024 and 1/28/2026 are considered.
Priority
4. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 18099300, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 18099300, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for the recited “…the representation has a different form than the content within the user interface of the first content application”, as recited in claims 1-24.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
5. Claims 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In regard to claims 1-8, claim 1 recites “…the representation has a different form than the content within the user interface of the first content application”. The specification is silent with respect to this subject matter. Paragraph 0033 of the specification defines forms of input and forms of indicators but there is no suggestion these forms are with respect to the claimed ‘representation’. Further, paragraphs 0043 and 0044 discuss that a copy of the content is displayed in XR environment what appears to contradict that it has a different form. Accordingly, claims 1-8 contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In regard to claims 9-16, claims 9-16 recite similar subject matter as claims 1-8 and are rejected for similar reasons.
In regard to claims 17-24, claims 17-24 recite similar subject matter as claims 1-8 and are rejected for similar reasons.
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.
6. Claims 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In regard to claims 1-8, claim 1 recites “…the representation has a different form than the content within the user interface of the first content application”. The written description fails to disclose this subject matter (see above 112(a) rejection). As the written description fails to disclose this subject matter and the term “form” has a number of ‘plain meanings’, it is unclear and therefore indefinite as to what is considered a “different form” as recited in the claim. Accordingly, claims 1-8 are 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.
In regard to claims 9-16, claims 9-16 recite similar subject matter as claims 1-8 and are rejected for similar reasons.
In regard to claims 17-24, claims 17-24 recite similar subject matter as claims 1-8 and are rejected for similar reasons.
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.
7. Claims 1-24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8, 14, and 17-32 of U.S. Patent No. 12130998 B1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each of claims 1-24 are anticipated by claims -8, 14, and 17-32 of U.S. Patent No. 12130998 B1.
In regard to claim 1,
Claim 1 of Instant Application
U.S. Patent No. 12130998 B1
A method comprising:
Claim 1: A method comprising:
at a processor of a device:
Claim 1: at a processor of a device:
providing a user interface of a first content application within an extended reality (XR) environment, wherein the first content application is one of multiple content applications that are individually executable to provide user interfaces at three-dimensional (3D) positions within the XR environment;
Claim 1: providing a user interface of a first content application within an extended reality (XR) environment, wherein the first content application is one of multiple content applications that are individually executable to provide user interfaces at three-dimensional (3D) positions within the XR environment;
receiving input to select and move content from within the user interface of the first content application to a 3D position separate from the user interface of the first content application within the XR environment;
Claim 1: receiving input to select and move content from within the user interface of the first content application to a 3D position separate from the user interface of the first content application within the XR environment
determining a persistence attribute of the content in the XR environment, wherein the persistence attribute specifies how long the content will persist in the XR environment;
Claim 1: determining a persistence attribute of the content in the XR environment based on a context, wherein the persistence attribute specifies how long the content will persist in the XR environment based on a condition and the context is determined based on the 3D position within the XR environment;
and providing a view of the XR environment comprising a representation of the content at the 3D position, wherein the representation persists within the XR environment based on the persistence attribute and the representation has a different form than the content within the user interface of the first content application
Claim 1: and providing a view of the XR environment comprising a representation of the content at the 3D position, wherein the representation persists within the XR environment based on the persistence attribute.
Claim 14: wherein the representation of the content at the 3D position within the XR environment has a different form than the content within the user interface of the first content application
In regard to claims 2-8, claims 2-8 of U.S. Patent No. 12130998 B1 are substantially identical to claims 2-8 and therefore anticipate claims 2-8.
In regard to claim 9,
Claim 9 of Instant Application
U.S. Patent No. 12130998 B1
A system comprising:
Claim 17: A system comprising:
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium;
Claim 17: a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium;
and one or more processors coupled to the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, wherein the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprises program instructions that, when executed on the one or more processors, cause the system to perform operations comprising:
Claim 17: and one or more processors coupled to the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, wherein the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprises program instructions that, when executed on the one or more processors, cause the system to perform operations comprising:
providing a user interface of a first content application within an extended reality (XR) environment, wherein the first content application is one of multiple content applications that are individually executable to provide user interfaces at three-dimensional (3D) positions within the XR environment;
Claim 17: providing a user interface of a first content application within an extended reality (XR) environment, wherein the first content application is one of multiple content applications that are individually executable to provide user interfaces at three-dimensional (3D) positions within the XR environment;
receiving input to select and move content from within the user interface of the first content application to a 3D position separate from the user interface of the first content application within the XR environment;
Claim 17: receiving input to select and move content from within the user interface of the first content application to a 3D position separate from the user interface of the first content application within the XR environment;
determining a persistence attribute of the content in the XR environment, wherein the persistence attribute specifies how long the content will persist in the XR environment;
Claim 17: determining a persistence attribute of the content in the XR environment based on a context, wherein the persistence attribute specifies how long the content will persist in the XR environment based on a condition and the context is determined based on the 3D position within the XR environment;
and providing a view of the XR environment comprising a representation of the content at the 3D position, wherein the representation persists within the XR environment based on the persistence attribute and the representation has a different form than the content within the user interface of the first content application.
Claim 17: and providing a view of the XR environment comprising a representation of the content at the 3D position, wherein the representation persists within the XR environment based on the persistence attribute.
Claim 14: wherein the representation of the content at the 3D position within the XR environment has a different form than the content within the user interface of the first content application
In regard to claims 10-16, claims 18-24 of U.S. Patent No. 12130998 B1 are substantially identical to claims 10-16 and therefore anticipate claims 10-16.
In regard to claim 17,
Claim 17 of Instant Application
U.S. Patent No. 12130998 B1
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing program instructions executable via one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
Claim 25: A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing program instructions executable via one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
providing a user interface of a first content application within an extended reality (XR) environment, wherein the first content application is one of multiple content applications that are individually executable to provide user interfaces at three-dimensional (3D) positions within the XR environment;
Claim 25: providing a user interface of a first content application within an extended reality (XR) environment, wherein the first content application is one of multiple content applications that are individually executable to provide user interfaces at three-dimensional (3D) positions within the XR environment;
receiving input to select and move content from within the user interface of the first content application to a 3D position separate from the user interface of the first content application within the XR environment;
Claim 25: receiving input to select and move content from within the user interface of the first content application to a 3D position separate from the user interface of the first content application within the XR environment;
determining a persistence attribute of the content in the XR environment, wherein the persistence attribute specifies how long the content will persist in the XR environment;
Claim 25: determining a persistence attribute of the content in the XR environment based on a context, wherein the persistence attribute specifies how long the content will persist in the XR environment based on a condition and the context is determined based on the 3D position within the XR environment;
and providing a view of the XR environment comprising a representation of the content at the 3D position, wherein the representation persists within the XR environment based on the persistence attribute and the representation has a different form than the content within the user interface of the first content application.
Claim 25: and providing a view of the XR environment comprising a representation of the content at the 3D position, wherein the representation persists within the XR environment based on the persistence attribute.
Claim 14: wherein the representation of the content at the 3D position within the XR environment has a different form than the content within the user interface of the first content application
In regard to claims 18-24, claims 26-32 of U.S. Patent No. 12130998 B1 are substantially identical to claims 18-24 and therefore anticipate claims 18-24.
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.
8. Claim(s) 1-7, 9-15, and 17-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ravasz et al. (US 10990240 B1) and further in view of Fuchs (US 2021/0308568 A1) and Gribetz et al. (US 2017/0236320 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Ravasz discloses a method comprising: at a processor of a device:
providing a user interface of a first content application within an extended reality (XR) environment, wherein the first content application is one of multiple content applications that are individually executable to provide user interfaces at three-dimensional (3D) positions within the XR environment (Fig. 5A element 524A, Column 6 lines 5-8, Column 8 lines 43-48, Column 16 lines 21-27, Column 16 lines 36-37, Column 22 lines 61-63, and Column 23 lines 23-24: container displayed in an artificial reality environment rendering 3D artificial reality content, where the container displays application content such as an application window with different elements inside the window, and the application content is from one of multiple content applications that are individually executable to provide user interfaces (e.g. media streaming application, file folder (file browser application)));
receiving input to select and move content from within the user interface of the first content application to a 3D position separate from the user interface of the first content application within the XR environment (Figs. 5A and 5B and Column 23 lines 25-45: selection and moving of application content item to location outside of container);
and providing a view of the XR environment comprising a representation of the content at the 3D position (Fig. 5C and Column 23 lines 46-56: application content item is displayed in artificial reality environment at released position).
While Ravasz teaches providing a view of the XR environment comprising a representation of the content at the 3D position, they fail to show the determining a persistence attribute of the content in the XR environment, wherein the persistence attribute specifies how long the content will persist in the XR environment and providing a view of the XR environment comprising a representation of the content at the 3D position, wherein the representation persists within the XR environment based on the persistence attribute, as recited in the claims. Fuchs teaches an artificial reality system similar to that of Ravasz. In addition, Fuchs further teaches
determining a persistence attribute of content, wherein the persistence attribute specifies how long the content will persist in an XR environment, wherein a representation of the content persists within the XR environment based on the persistence attribute (Paragraphs 0053-0055: objects can have property of persistence which provides how long the object will persist).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Ravasz and Fuchs before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the providing a view of the XR environment comprising a representation of the content at the 3D position taught by Ravasz to include the determining a persistence attribute of content, wherein the persistence attribute specifies how long the content will persist in an XR environment, wherein a representation of the content persists within the XR environment based on the persistence attribute of Fuchs, in order to obtain determining a persistence attribute of the content in the XR environment, wherein the persistence attribute specifies how long the content will persist in the XR environment; and providing a view of the XR environment comprising a representation of the content at the 3D position, wherein the representation persists within the XR environment based on the persistence attribute. It would have been advantageous for one to utilize such a combination as improving performance by reducing system overhead, as suggested by Fuchs (Paragraph 0097).
While Ravasz teaches providing a view of the XR environment comprising a representation of the content at the 3D position, they fail to show the representation has a different form than the content within the user interface of the first content application, as recited in the claims. Gribetz teaches an artificial reality system similar to that of Ravasz. In addition, Gribetz further teaches
representation of content has a different form than the content within the user interface of a first content application (Figs. 5 and 7, Paragraph 0049, Paragraph 0052 lines 1-5, Paragraph 0057 lines 1-6, Paragraph 0058 lines 1-4, Paragraph 0061, Paragraph 0074 lines 1-4, and Paragraph 0078 lines 1-8: element is displayed as low-fidelity within an application user interface and displayed as high-fidelity outside of the application user interface).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Ravasz, Fuchs, and Gribetz before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the providing a view of the XR environment comprising a representation of the content at the 3D position taught by Ravasz to include the representation of content has a different form than the content within the user interface of a first content application of Gribetz, in order to obtain the representation has a different form than the content within the user interface of the first content application. It would have been advantageous for one to utilize such a combination as providing users with an additional layer of exploration of the low-fidelity virtual element before requesting the high-fidelity virtual element, for example, which may incur a higher data cost, expense, processing power, and storage constraints and the like, would have been obtained, as suggested by Gribetz (Paragraph 0048).
In regard to claim 2, Fuchs further discloses wherein the persistence attribute is determined based on: whether a position of the content is associated with a surface. (Paragraph 0054, Paragraph 0057 lines 6-12, and Paragraph 0189: persistence based on being associated with frames of reference including a surface). Accordingly, the combination further teaches wherein the persistence attribute is determined based on: the 3D position of the content in the XR environment; whether the 3D position of the content in the XR environment is associated with a surface; whether the content is anchored to a second content application in the XR environment, the second content application different than the first content application; or a type of the content. It would have been advantageous for one to utilize such a combination as improving performance by reducing system overhead, as suggested by Fuchs (Paragraph 0097).
In regard to claim 3, Fuchs further discloses wherein the persistence attribute determines: a length of time that content will persist absent user interaction; or an event that will conclude persistence of content absent user interaction (Paragraph 0055: defined period of time or only on Wednesdays). Accordingly, the combination further teaches wherein the persistence attribute determines: a length of time that the content will persist in the XR environment absent user interaction; or an event that will conclude the persistence of the content in the XR environment absent user interaction. It would have been advantageous for one to utilize such a combination as improving performance by reducing system overhead, as suggested by Fuchs (Paragraph 0097).
In regard to claim 4, Ravasz discloses wherein the 3D position is: a fixed position with respect to a physical environment represented by the XR environment; or a non-fixed position anchored to a physical object or a virtual object of the XR environment (Fig. 5C and 46-56: positioned according to a particular location (e.g. fixed) in the physical environment).
In regard to claim 5, Ravasz discloses wherein the XR environment is provided by an operating system configured to individually execute the multiple content applications, wherein the multiple content applications are executed and use content items that are inaccessible to other applications from within a respective application (Column 14 line 34 – Column 15 line 9 and Column 16 lines 21-44, and Column 16 lines 41-43: operating system providing artificial reality application where content items are with associated with different applications for use of the content items, where a media streaming application access media streaming files which may be inaccessible to another application (e.g. a spreadsheet application for executing spreadsheet document files)).
In regard to claim 6, Ravasz discloses receiving a second input to select and move the content from the 3D position to a second user interface of a second content application within the XR environment; and providing the content for use via the second content application based on the second input (Column 18 lines 48-63: the content can be selected by a second selection gesture and moved to a second container).
In regard to claim 7, Ravasz discloses wherein the XR environment is a shared environment and the input to select and move the content shares the content with one more other users of the shared environment (Column 27-53: shared with HMD’s of other users).
In regard to claims 9-15, system claims 9-15 correspond generally to method claims 1-7, respectively, and recite similar features in system form, and therefore are rejected under the same rationale.
In regard to claims 17-23, medium claims 17-23 correspond generally to method claims 1-7, respectively, and recite similar features in medium form, and therefore are rejected under the same rationale.
9. Claim(s) 8, 16, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ravasz et al. (US 10990240 B1), Fuchs (US 2021/0308568 A1), Gribetz et al. (US 2017/0236320 A1), and further in view of Faaborg et al. (US 2017/0256096 A1).
In regard to claim 8, while Ravasz teaches receiving input to select and move content from within the user interface of the first content application to a 3D position separate from the user interface of the first content application within the XR environment, they fail to show the based on the input to select and move the content, providing an indication of available 3D positions within the XR environment for the content to be placed, as recited in the claims. Faaborg teaches a XR environment similar to that of Ravasz. In addition, Faaborg further teaches
providing indications of available positions with an XR environment for content to be placed (Fig. 1B and Paragraph 0021: drop targets are identified based on real world features of the ambient environment).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Ravasz, Fuchs, Gribetz, and Faaborg before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the receiving input to select and move content from within the user interface of the first content application to a 3D position separate from the user interface of the first content application within the XR environment taught by Ravasz to include the providing indications of available positions with an XR environment for content to be placed of Faaborg, in order to obtain the based on the input to select and move the content, providing an indication of available 3D positions within the XR environment for the content to be placed. It would have been advantageous for one to utilize such a combination as facilitating the placement of virtual objects would have been obtained, as suggested by Faaborg (Paragraph 0031).
In regard to claim 16, system claim 16 corresponds generally to method claim 8 and recites similar features in system form and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
In regard to claim 24, medium claim 24 corresponds generally to method claim 8 and recites similar features in medium form and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Stevens et al. (US 2022/0253195 A1), see at least the abstract.
Flexman et al. (US 2020/0363924 A1), see at least the abstract.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS S ULRICH whose telephone number is (571)270-1397. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4.
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, Fred Ehichioya can be reached at (571)272-4034. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
12. 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.
/Nicholas Ulrich/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2179
Prosecution Insights