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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the present application, with claims 1, 19 and 20 being independent.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 31 October 2024, 07 April 2025, 25 November 2025, and 09 April 2026 have considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 2-18 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.
With respect to claim 2, given the plain and ordinary meaning of the claimed limitations when afforded their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the corresponding disclosure, the scope of the claimed limitation is unclear. For instance, as currently drafted, it is unclear as to how claim 2 fits in with claim 1. Claim 2 calls for assigning a physical space to encompass each identified physical surface and assigning a physical avatar space. Claim 1 recites that each physical avatar space corresponds to a physical space comprising a physical surface for receiving a single user in the real-world environment. Is the identified physical surface of claim 2 the physical surface of claim 1? Is the physical space of claim 2 the same as the physical space of claim 1? Are they different? The examiner respectfully requests the applicant clarify the scope of the claimed limitation.
With respect to claim 3, given the plain and ordinary meaning of the claimed limitations when afforded their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the corresponding disclosure, the scope of the claimed limitation is unclear. For instance, as currently drafted, it is unclear as to how claim 3 fits in with claim 1. Claim 3 sets forth determining if a physical space in the real-world environment is assigned to or occupied by a user; determining if a physical avatar space corresponding to the physical space is assigned to or occupied by a virtual avatar in the augmented reality environment; and when the physical space is not...and the physical avatar space is not..., designating the physical avatar space as an available physical avatar space. Claim 1 recites that each physical avatar space corresponds to a physical space comprising a physical surface for receiving a single user in the real-world environment; comparing the number of virtual avatars requiring an avatar space....and assigning a different available physical avatar space to each virtual avatar. Are the physical space and physical avatar space of claim 3 the same as those defined in claim 1? Are they different? How is determined that a user is assigned to a physical space? The examiner respectfully requests the applicant clarify the scope of the claimed limitation.
With respect to claim 4, given the plain and ordinary meaning of the claimed limitations when afforded their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the corresponding disclosure, the scope of the claimed limitation is unclear. For instance, as currently drafted, it is unclear as to what constitutes the “space beyond the physical surface that would be occupied by a user when the user is received on the physical surface”. What is the space beyond the physical surface?
With respect to claim 5, given the plain and ordinary meaning of the claimed limitations when afforded their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the corresponding disclosure, the scope of the claimed limitation is unclear. For instance, as currently drafted, it is unclear as to how claim 5 fits within claim 1. Claim 5 sets forth determining if a physical space in the real-world environment is occupied by a user. Claim 1 recites that each physical avatar space corresponds to a physical space comprising a physical surface for receiving a single user in the real-world environment. Is the physical space of claim 5 the same as the physical space of claim 1? Is it different? Is the physical space being determined a specific physical space, is it similar to determining which physical space in the real-world environment is occupied by the user of is the first step merely a check to see if a user is in the environment and if so, then the assignment step is executed? As currently drafted, it appears the assignment step is executed irrespective as to if a user is detected. The examiner respectfully requests the applicant clarify the scope of the claimed limitation.
With respect to claim 6, given the plain and ordinary meaning of the claimed limitations when afforded their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the corresponding disclosure, the scope of the claimed limitation is unclear. For instance, as currently drafted, it is unclear as to what is meant by the last limitation. How does each virtual avatar view the environment with a unique perspective view? In addition, virtual reality environment does not appear to have been previously defined in the claim tree. The examiner respectfully requests the applicant clarify the scope of the claimed limitation.
With respect to claim 7, given the plain and ordinary meaning of the claimed limitations when afforded their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the corresponding disclosure, the scope of the claimed limitation is unclear. For instance, as currently drafted, it is not immediately clear as to what is meant by determining a number of augmented avatar spaces within the augmented reality environment, wherein each augmented avatar space is sized to receive a single virtual avatar and corresponds to a physical space within the real-world environment that does not include a physical surface suitable for receiving a user. What constitutes a physical surface suitable for receiving a user and how does each AR space correspond to a physical space that does not include a surface suitable for receiving user? The term suitable is a relative term. In addition, how does the terms defined with respect to claim 1 fit with those redefined in claim 7 (such as a physical space)? What is an augmented avatar space and how is it different than a physical avatar space? It is also unclear as to how the surface is created in each augmented avatar space for receiving the virtual avatar? Is the avatar placed on the created surface? The examiner respectfully requests the applicant clarify the scope of the claimed limitation.
Claims depending thereon do not cure the noted deficiencies and are accordingly also rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that set forth with respect to claims from which they depend.
With respect to claim 8, given the plain and ordinary meaning of the claimed limitations when afforded their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the corresponding disclosure, the scope of the claimed limitation is unclear. For instance, as currently drafted, it is not immediately clear as to what constitutes a volume suitable for locating a virtual item or furniture comprising the surface for receiving a single avatar. How is the volume used to locate a virtual item or furniture? What makes the volume suitable, as suitable is a relative term. Does the comprising the surface go with the item, the furniture or both? The examiner respectfully requests the applicant clarify the scope of the claimed limitation.
With respect to claims 11 and 13, given the plain and ordinary meaning of the claimed limitations when afforded their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the corresponding disclosure, the scope of the claimed limitation is unclear. For instance, as currently drafted, it is not immediately clear as to how claims 11 and 13 fit within the claims from which they depend. For instance, the claims replace the AR environment with a VR environment, which comprises a virtual avatar space for each virtual avatar. Claim 1 for instance, each of the steps are performed with respect to AR. In addition, claims 11 and 13 do not require assigning avatars to the virtual avatar space and the relationship between the AR space and VR space is unclear. The examiner respectfully requests the applicant clarify the scope of the claimed limitation.
Claims depending thereon do not cure the noted deficiencies and are accordingly also rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that set forth with respect to claims from which they depend.
With respect to claim 15, given the plain and ordinary meaning of the claimed limitations when afforded their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the corresponding disclosure, the scope of the claimed limitation is unclear. For instance, as currently drafted, it is not immediately clear as to how the VR environment is based on the AR environment with an augmentation function applied. What constitutes an augmentation function? The examiner respectfully requests the applicant clarify the scope of the claimed limitation.
With respect to claim 17, given the plain and ordinary meaning of the claimed limitations when afforded their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the corresponding disclosure, the scope of the claimed limitation is unclear. For instance, as currently drafted, it is not immediately clear as to what is meant by wherein each virtual avatar assigned to a given avatar space views the augmented reality environment or the virtual reality environment with a unique perspective view, wherein each unique perspective view comprises only one of the plurality of the same physical object such that each virtual avatar views a unique scene relative to the virtual avatars position within the virtual reality environment. how the VR environment is based on the AR environment with an augmentation function applied. What constitutes an augmentation function? How does each virtual avatar view the environment with a unique perspective view? And how does that view comprise only one of the same plurality of same physical objects such that each virtual avatar views a unique scene relative to the virtual avatar’s position? Is applicant attempting to claim that each avatar has a field of view different from other virtual avatars since they habit different spaces (though as claimed, the avatars do not need to habit a different virtual space in the virtual environment)? Is unique scene, such that each virtual avatar is sent to its own virtual space? The examiner respectfully requests the applicant clarify the scope of the claimed limitation.
With respect to claim 18, given the plain and ordinary meaning of the claimed limitations when afforded their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the corresponding disclosure, the scope of the claimed limitation is unclear. For instance, as currently drafted, it is not immediately clear as to how the input data, which defines a real-world environment is “input video game data, such that the augmented reality environment is generated to facilitate a video game to be played” How does input video game data define a real-world environment or fit within the context of claim 1? The examiner respectfully requests the applicant clarify the scope of the claimed limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-6, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agarawala et al. (US PG Publication 2019/0310758) in view of Zimmerman et al. (US PG Publication 2022/0270316).
Regarding claim 1, Agarawala teaches a computer-implemented method comprising: generating an augmented reality environment based on input data defining a real-world environment (see for instance, figures 41, 42, 61, and 63. A request to join the workspace from a user not physically located within the room is received, wherein the user is associated with an avatar, see for instance, paragraph 173. The AR cloud platform may combine the identified location of the users with the room scan and depth analysis information previously received to determine what empty or unoccupied spaces remain within the room, see for instance, paragraph 174. Each user may have an AR enabled device through with they are participating in the shared workspace, see for instance, paragraph 172. Figure 41 illustrates an example embodiment of the AR/VR system described herein, see for instance, paragraph 126. This functionality may also include spatial registration where the location of each user/attendee of an AR meeting is tracked through the room and relative to one another, see for instance, paragraph 137.);
determining a number of virtual avatars requiring an avatar space within the augmented reality environment (A request to join the workspace from a user not physically located within the room is received, wherein the user is associated with an avatar, see for instance, paragraph 173. The AR cloud platform may combine the identified location of the users with the room scan and depth analysis information previously received to determine what empty or unoccupied spaces remain within the room, see for instance, paragraph 174);
determining a number of physical avatar spaces that are available for occupation by a virtual avatar within the augmented reality environment, wherein each physical avatar space corresponds to a physical space comprising a physical surface for receiving a single user in the real-world environment (A request to join the workspace from a user not physically located within the room is received, wherein the user is associated with an avatar, see for instance, paragraph 173. The AR cloud platform may combine the identified location of the users with the room scan and depth analysis information previously received to determine what empty or unoccupied spaces remain within the room, see for instance, paragraph 174 and figs. 41 and 42);
comparing the number of virtual avatars requiring an avatar space within the augmented reality environment to the number of available physical avatar spaces (The AR cloud platform may combine the identified location of the users with the room scan and depth analysis information previously received to determine what empty or unoccupied spaces remain within the room, see for instance, paragraph 174 and figs. 41 and 42. “[A] representation occupying the unoccupied location is communicated to the one or more physically present user devices. For example, as shown in FIG. 17A, an avatar representing the remote user may appear in the (previously) unoccupied location. In an embodiment, the AR cloud platform (of FIG. 41) may track the location of each user. This user location tracking may enable the AR cloud platform to properly position new joining users, or prevent users from putting display elements in locations that may already be occupied by virtually or physically present users”, see for instance, paragraph 175); and
when the number of virtual avatars requiring an avatar space within the augmented reality environment is less than or equal to the number of available physical avatar spaces, assigning a different available physical avatar space to each virtual avatar (“a representation occupying the unoccupied location is communicated to the one or more physically present user devices. For example, as shown in FIG. 17A, an avatar representing the remote user may appear in the (previously) unoccupied location. In an embodiment, the AR cloud platform (of FIG. 41) may track the location of each user. This user location tracking may enable the AR cloud platform to properly position new joining users, or prevent users from putting display elements in locations that may already be occupied by virtually or physically present users”, see for instance, paragraph 175).
While Agarawala teaches the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed limitation, Zimmerman (US PG Publication 2022/0270316) is being brought in to specifically teach that the physical surface for receiving a single user in the real-environment.
In the same art of avatar placement, Zimmerman teaches that the wearable system can automatically identify an object with a horizontal surface suitable for sitting (e.g., a bed or a sofa) in Charlie's environment and can render Bob's avatar as sitting on the identified surface (rather than in mid-air), see for instance, paragraph 160. If there is no place in Charlie's environment that Bob's avatar can sit (e.g., all chairs have been occupied by either human or other avatars or there are no sit-table surfaces), the wearable system may instead render Bob's avatar as standing or render a virtual chair for the virtual avatar to sit in, see for instance, paragraph 160. The wearable system can accordingly reroute the avatar to circumvent the table or to stop prior to the table, see for instance, paragraph 161.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Agarawala and Zimmerman in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate augmented reality as taught by Zimmerman into Agarawala’s immersive environment, as having the avatar grounded to a physical surface such as described by Zimmerman was well known at the time of the effective filing date invention and would have yielded predictable results in combination with Agarawala.
The modification of Agarawala with Zimmerman would have explicitly allowed each physical avatar space corresponds to a physical space comprising a physical surface for receiving a single user in the real-world environment.
The motivation for combining Agarawala with Zimmerman would have been to improve the user experience, enhance functionality and one way to identify surfaces/positions for avatar placement.
Regarding claim 2, Agarawala in view of Zimmerman teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1 and further teach wherein the method further comprises: receiving an image of the real-world environment (see for instance, Agarawala, paragraphs 28, and 173, and Zimmerman paragraphs 156, 160, and 161);
processing the image to identify one or more physical surfaces (see for instance, Agarawala, paragraphs 28, and 173, and Zimmerman paragraphs 156, 160, and 161);
assigning a physical space to encompass each identified physical surface (see for instance, Agarawala, paragraphs 28, and 173-175, and Zimmerman paragraphs 156, 160, and 161); and
assigning a physical avatar space within the augmented reality environment to correspond to the physical space in the real-world environment (see for instance, Agarawala, paragraphs 28, and 173, and Zimmerman paragraphs 156, 160, and 161). The motivation to combine Agarawala and Zimmerman is the same as that which was set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Agarawala in view of Zimmerman teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1 and further teach wherein the step of determining the number of available physical avatar spaces further comprises:
determining if a physical space in the real-world environment is assigned to or occupied by a user (see for instance, Agarawala, paragraphs 28, and 173-175, and Zimmerman paragraphs 156, 160, and 161);
determining if a physical avatar space corresponding to the physical space is assigned to or occupied by a virtual avatar in the augmented reality environment (see for instance, Agarawala, paragraphs 28, and 173-175, and Zimmerman paragraphs 156, 160, and 161); and
when the physical space is not assigned to or occupied by a user, and the physical avatar space is not assigned to or occupied by a virtual avatar, designating the physical avatar space as an available physical avatar space (see for instance, Agarawala, paragraphs 28, and 173-175, and Zimmerman paragraphs 156, 160, and 161). The motivation to combine Agarawala and Zimmerman is the same as that which was set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Agarawala in view of Zimmerman teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1 and further teach wherein each physical surface is part of an item of furniture located within the real-world environment (see for instance, Agarawala, paragraphs 173-176, and Zimmerman paragraphs 156, 160, and 161); and wherein each physical space defines a volume that encompasses: the physical surface; all or part of a given item of furniture comprising the physical surface; and/or a space beyond the physical surface that would be occupied by a user when the user is received on the physical surface (see for instance, Agarawala, paragraphs 173-176, and Zimmerman paragraphs 156, 160, and 161). The motivation to combine Agarawala and Zimmerman is the same as that which was set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Agarawala in view of Zimmerman teach the computer implemented method of claim 1 and further teach wherein the method further comprises: determining if a physical space in the real-world environment is occupied by a user in the real-world environment (see for instance, Agarawala, paragraphs 171-176, and Zimmerman paragraphs 156, 160, and 161).; and assigning the user's virtual avatar to the physical avatar space in the augmented reality environment corresponding to the physical space occupied by the user in the real-world environment (see for instance, Agarawala, paragraphs 173-176, and Zimmerman paragraphs 44, 46, 155, 156, 160, and 161). The motivation to combine Agarawala and Zimmerman is the same as that which was set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Agarawala in view of Zimmerman teach the computer implemented method of claim 1 and further teach wherein: the method further comprises configuring or arranging each virtual avatar to sit or stand within the physical avatar space to which they have been assigned; and/or each virtual avatar assigned to a given avatar space views the augmented reality environment or the virtual reality environment with a unique perspective view (see for instance, Agarawala, paragraphs 173-176, and Zimmerman paragraphs 44, 46, 155, 156, 160, and 161). The motivation to combine Agarawala and Zimmerman is the same as that which was set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 18, Agarawala in view of Zimmerman teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1 and further teach wherein the input data comprises: an image or scan of the user's real-world physical environment, such that the augmented reality environment is generated to represent the user's physical environment; and/or input video game data, such that the augmented reality environment is generated to facilitate a video game to be played (see for instance, Agarawala, paragraphs 171-176, and Zimmerman paragraphs 44, 46, 155, 156, 160, and 161). The motivation to combine Agarawala and Zimmerman is the same as that which was set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claims 19 and 20, claim 19 is the device claim and claim 20 is the computer-readable medium claim of the method claim 1 and substantially similar limitations are rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that which was set forth in claim 1. In addition, Agarawala in view of Zimmerman teach a computing device comprising: a processor; and memory, the memory communicatively coupled to the processor, the memory comprising instructions operable, when executed by the processor, to cause the processor to perform different functions a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions which when executed in a computerized system comprising at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform different steps (see for instance, Agarawala, paragraphs 205-214 and fig. 44 and Zimmerman, paragraphs 64 and 281).
Allowable Subject Matter
Since no prior art is being applied to the claims 7-17 and based on the current scope of the claims, claims 7-17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J COBB whose telephone number is (571)270-3875. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 11am - 7pm ET.
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, Alicia Harrington can be reached at 571-272-2330. 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.
/MICHAEL J COBB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2615
Prosecution Insights