DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
This Office Action is in reply to Applicant’s original application filed 22 October 2024 and Applicant’s response filed 11 June 2026 (“June 2026 Response”).
Claims 1–20 are currently pending.
Claims 1–5, 12–13, 16, and 20 have been examined.
Claims 6–11, 14–15, and 17–19 have been withdrawn, as noted below.
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 on 11 June 2026 has been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1–17 and 20, filed in the June 2026 Response, is acknowledged.
Claims 18–19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the June 2026 Response.
Election of Species
Applicant’s election with traverse of species A1, B1, and C2 in the June 2026 Response is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “the Restriction Requirement does not adequately identify which pending claims correspond to which allegedly distinct species.” June 2026 Response at p. 12. This is not found persuasive because it is Applicant’s burden to indicate claims readable on an elected species. Since Applicant has done so, the argument is moot. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 6–11, 14–15, and 17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction requirement in the June 2026 Response.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 USC § 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1–5, 12–13, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 USC § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lim et al. (US 2024/0314179; “Lim”), which incorporates by reference US Application No. 18/068,918 (“‘918 Application”).
As per claim 1, Lim discloses:
An apparatus for wireless communication at a first device (Fig. 1; ¶¶ [0029]–[0035]), comprising:
one or more memories (¶ [0035]); and
one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories (¶ [0035]), configured to cause the first device (e.g., “XR device” of ¶ [0064]) to:
perform an initial setup process between the first device and a second device, wherein the initial setup process indicates that the first device and the second device are to share perception information associated with an extended reality application (¶¶ [0026], [0064]–[0066], [0072]–[0073]; see also [0088]–[0091]);
transmit, to at least one of the second device or a server that communicates with the first device and the second device, one or more first perception information inputs associated with the first device (¶ [0067] teaches that the XR device uploads spatial anchors to the platform computing system because some anchors cannot be retained locally; see also [0053], [0092]); and
receive, from at least one of the second device or the server, one or more perception information outputs, wherein the one or more perception information outputs include combined perception information that is based at least in part on the one or more first perception information inputs and on one or more second perception information inputs associated with the second device (first, any general purpose computer is capable of performing this “receive” function, and thus is sufficient structure to read on this claim limitation; e.g., Lim’s processor(s) and memory(s) are at least capable of performing this “receive” function; second ¶ [0067] teaches that the XR device uploads spatial anchors to the platform computing system because some anchors cannot be retained locally; ¶ [0066] teaches that spatial anchors can be persistent across different sessions of an XR experience; ¶¶ [0073], [0092] teach that another XR device can upload spatial anchors that are merged with preexisting anchors, i.e., anchors from the XR device that could not retain them locally; ¶ [0068] teaches that the XR device receives preexisting spatial anchors from the platform computing system, which would include previously uploaded spatial anchors (that could not be retained locally) and spatial anchors previously uploaded from the at least one other XR device; see also ‘918 Application at ¶¶ [0049]–[0050] and [0057]–[0059]).
As per claim 20, this claim contains language similar to claim 1 as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, and for reasons similar to those discussed above, claim 20 is also rejected under 35 USC § 102 as anticipated by Lim.
As per claim 2, Lim discloses:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the first device to interact with the extended reality application using the one or more perception information outputs (e.g., ¶¶ [0076]–[0077]).
As per claim 3, Lim discloses:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the perception information includes environment information that indicates one or more characteristics of an environment associated with the first device and the second device, object information that indicates one or more objects located in the environment, lighting information that indicates one or more lighting characteristics of the environment, positioning information that indicates a positioning characteristic of at least one of the first device or the second device, or user information that indicates at least one of a characteristic of a user of the first device or a characteristic of a user of the second device (e.g., ¶¶ [0053], [0066]).
As per claim 4, Lim discloses:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the first device to: receive, from a perception component associated with the server, a request for visual positioning system (VPS) session information associated with a VPS session between the first device and the second device; transmit, to the perception component, a VPS session identifier associated with the VPS session; and receive, from the perception component, a sharing indication that indicates for the first device to share perception information with the second device, wherein the one or more processors, to cause the first device to transmit the one or more first perception information inputs, are configured to cause the first device to transmit the one or more first perception information inputs to the perception component in accordance with the sharing indication (¶¶ [0051]–[0054], [0071]; note also, any general purpose computer is capable of performing this “cause […] to receive” and “cause […] to transmit” functions, and thus is sufficient structure to read on this claim limitation; e.g., Lim’s processor(s) and memory(s) are at least capable of performing this “cause […] to receive” and “cause […] to transmit” functions).
As per claim 5, Lim discloses:
The apparatus of claim 4, wherein the one or more processors, to cause the first device to transmit the one or more first perception information inputs to the perception component, are configured to cause the first device to transmit the one or more first perception information inputs to the perception component in accordance with a characteristic of the first device and a characteristic of the second device being aligned with a coordinate system of the VPS session (¶¶ [0051]–[0054], [0071]; note also, any general purpose computer is capable of performing this “cause […] to transmit” function, and thus is sufficient structure to read on this claim limitation; e.g., Lim’s processor(s) and memory(s) are at least capable of performing this “cause […] to transmit” function).
As per claim 12, Lim discloses:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the first device to receive, from the server or the second device, one or more instructions associated with sharing the perception information between the first device and the second device, wherein transmitting the one or more first perception information inputs comprises transmitting the one or more first perception information inputs in accordance with the one or more instructions (e.g. ¶¶ [0095]–[0097]; note also, any general purpose computer is capable of performing this “cause […] to receive” function, and thus is sufficient structure to read on this claim limitation; e.g., Lim’s processor(s) and memory(s) are at least capable of performing this “cause […] to receive” function).
As per claim 13, Lim discloses:
The apparatus of claim 12, wherein the one or more instructions include timing information for transmitting the perception information, configuration information for transmitting the perception information, or one or more key performance indicators associated with the one or more first perception information inputs (e.g. ¶¶ [0095]–[0097]).
As per claim 16, Lim discloses:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the first device to receive, from the server or the second device, a request for one or more key performance indicators associated with sharing the perception information (e.g. ¶¶ [0095]–[0097]; note also, any general purpose computer is capable of performing this “cause […] to receive” function, and thus is sufficient structure to read on this claim limitation; e.g., Lim’s processor(s) and memory(s) are at least capable of performing this “cause […] to receive” function).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB C. COPPOLA whose telephone number is (571)270-3922. The examiner can normally be reached during normal business hours.
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, Andrew J. Fischer can be reached at (571) 272-6779. 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.
/JACOB C. COPPOLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Prosecution Insights