DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-20 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 11/08/2024-6/11/2026 are considered except for the crossed out NPL references on the IDS’s dated 11/08/2024 and 3/16/2025 as these documents are in a foreign language and do not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information.
The information disclosure statements filed 11/08/2024 and 3/16/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Claim Objections
4. Claims 5, 7, 12, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 5 line 3 “the threshold distance of a location” appears as though it should recite “the threshold distance of the location” in order to properly refer back to previously recited “a threshold distance of a location”.
In claim 7 line 6, “furhter” should recite “further”.
Claim 12 and 18 recite similar subject matter as claim 5 and are objected to for similar reasons.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
5. Claims 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the recited computer-readable storage medium is not defined in the specification or recited in such a way to avoid an interpretation that includes transitory signals. The claims can be amended to recite “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium…” to overcome this rejection.
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.
6. Claim 3 is 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the first virtual object that was positioned relative to the portion of the users body". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Accordingly, the claim is 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
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 1-8 and 10-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-8, and 11-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12164741 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each of claims 1-8 and 10-20 are anticipated by claims 1, 3-8, and 11-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12164741 B2.
In regard to claim 1:
Claim 1
U.S. Patent No. 12164741 B2
A method for utilizing a snap point in an artificial reality environment, the method comprising:
Claim 1: A method for activating a snap point in an artificial reality environment, the method comprising:
detecting that a criteria associated with a snap point is satisfied by determining: that a user is within a threshold distance of a location defined for the snap point, and that the user is engaged in a specified activity, the specified activity determined based on: an association established between the specified activity and a first object, or known functions of the first object,
Claim 1: detecting that criteria associated with a snap point are satisfied by determining: that a user is within a threshold distance of a location, defined for the snap point, for at least a threshold amount of time, and that the user is engaged in a specified activity based on an interaction, by the user, with a first virtual object in the artificial reality environment, wherein the specified activity, engaged in by the user, is determined based on: A) an association, established by the user, between the specified activity and the first virtual object, or B) known functions of the first virtual object,
wherein the snap point was previously defined in relation to a physical location
Claim 1: wherein the snap point was previously defined in response to a user selecting the location for the first virtual object,
and in response to the criteria associated with the snap point being satisfied, performing one or both of: world-locking, relative to the location of the snap point, a first virtual object that, at the time of the detecting, was not world-locked relative to the location of the snap point; or activating a second virtual object previously associated with the snap point
Claim 1: and in response to each of the criteria associated with the snap point being satisfied, performing one or both of: world-locking, relative to the location of the snap point, the first virtual object that, at the time of the detecting, was positioned relative to the portion of the user's body; and/or activating the second virtual object previously associated with the snap point.
In regard to claim 2, claim 2 is anticipated by claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12164741 B2.
In regard to claim 3, claim 3 is anticipated by claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12164741 B2.
In regard to claim 4, claim 4 is anticipated by claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12164741 B2.
In regard to claim 5, claim 5 is anticipated by claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12164741 B2.
In regard to claim 6, claim 6 is anticipated by claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12164741 B2.
In regard to claim 7, claim 7 is anticipated by claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12164741 B2.
In regard to claim 8:
Claim 8
U.S. Patent No. 12164741 B2
A computer-readable storage medium storing instructions, for utilizing a snap point in an artificial reality environment, the instructions, when executed by a computing system, cause the computing system to:
Claim 8: A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by a computing system, cause the computing system to perform a process for activating a snap point in an artificial reality environment, the process comprising:
detect that a criteria associated with a snap point is satisfied by determining: that a user is within a threshold distance of a location defined for the snap point, and that the user is engaged in a specified activity, the specified activity determined based on: an association established between the specified activity and a first object, or known functions of the first object,
Claim 8: detecting that criteria associated with a snap point are satisfied by determining: that a user is within a threshold distance of a location, defined for the snap point, for at least a threshold amount of time, and that the user is engaged in a specified activity based on an interaction, by the user, with a first virtual object in the artificial reality environment, wherein the specified activity, engaged in by the user, is determined based on: A) an association, established by the user, between the specified activity and the first virtual object, or B) known functions of the first virtual object,
wherein the snap point was previously defined in relation to a physical location
Claim 8: wherein the snap point was previously defined in response to a user selecting the location for the first virtual object,
and in response to the criteria associated with the snap point being satisfied, perform one or both of: world-locking, relative to the location of the snap point, a first virtual object that, at the time of the detecting, was not world-locked relative to the location of the snap point; or activating a second virtual object previously associated with the snap point
Claim 8: and in response to each of the criteria associated with the snap point being satisfied, performing one or both of: world-locking, relative to the location of the snap point, the first virtual object that, at the time of the detecting, was positioned relative to the portion of the user's body; and/or activating the second virtual object previously associated with the snap point
In regard to claim 10, claim 10 is anticipated by claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12164741 B2.
In regard to claim 11, claim 11 is anticipated by claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12164741 B2.
In regard to claim 12, claim 12 is anticipated by claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12164741 B2.
In regard to claim 13, claim 13 is anticipated by claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12164741 B2.
In regard to claim 14, claim 14 is anticipated by claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12164741 B2.
In regard to claim 15,
Claim 15
U.S. Patent No. 12164741 B2
A computing system for utilizing a snap point in an artificial reality environment, the computing system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more memories storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing system to:
Claim 15: A computing system for activating a snap point in an artificial reality environment, the computing system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more memories storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing system to perform a process comprising:
detect that a criteria associated with a snap point is satisfied by determining: that a user is within a threshold distance of a location defined for the snap point, and that the user is engaged in a specified activity, the specified activity determined based on: an association established between the specified activity and a first object, or known functions of the first object,
Claim 15: detecting that criteria associated with a snap point are satisfied by determining: that a user is within a threshold distance of a location, defined for the snap point, for at least a threshold amount of time, and that the user is engaged in a specified activity based on an interaction, by the user, with a first virtual object in the artificial reality environment, wherein the specified activity, engaged in by the user, is determined based on: A) an association, established by the user, between the specified activity and the first virtual object, or B) known functions of the first virtual object,
wherein the snap point was previously defined in relation to a physical location
Claim 15: herein the snap point was previously defined in response to a user selecting the location for the first virtual object
and in response to the criteria associated with the snap point being satisfied, perform one or both of: world-locking, relative to the location of the snap point, a first virtual object that, at the time of the detecting, was not world-locked relative to the location of the snap point: or activating a second virtual object previously associated with the snap point
Claim 15: and in response to each of the criteria associated with the snap point being satisfied, performing one or both of: world-locking, relative to the location of the snap point, the first virtual object that, at the time of the detecting, was positioned relative to the portion of the user's body; and/or activating the second virtual object previously associated with the snap point.
In regard to claim 16, claim 16 is anticipated by claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12164741 B2.
In regard to claim 17, claim 17 is anticipated by claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12164741 B2.
In regard to claim 18, claim 18 is anticipated by claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12164741 B2.
In regard to claim 19, claim 19 is anticipated by claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12164741 B2.
In regard to claim 20, claim 20 is anticipated by claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12164741 B2.
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) 1-4, 6-11, 13-17, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott et al. (US 2016/0266386 A1) and further in view of Atlas et al. (US 10984242 B1).
In regard to claim 1, Scott discloses a method for utilizing a snap point in an artificial reality environment, the method comprising:
detecting that a criteria associated with a snap point is satisfied by determining: that a user is within a location, defined for the snap point (Fig. 7 element 622, Fig. 9 elements 720 and 722, Paragraph 0002 lines 7-12, Paragraph 0077 lines 8-9, Paragraph 0082 lines 1-3, Paragraph 0089, Paragraph 0090, Paragraph 0095 lines 5-10, and Paragraph 0104 lines 1-10: determining that a user in a geographic location that is defined with respect to a rule for positioning content), and that the user is engaged in a specified activity, the specified activity determined based on: an association established between the specified activity and a first object, or known functions of the first object (Paragraph 0021, Paragraph 0066 lines 1-5, and Paragraph 0090: user is viewing virtual content while sitting on a couch), wherein the snap point was previously defined in relation to a physical location (Fig. 9 element 722, Paragraph 0020 lines 1-5, Paragraph 0079 lines 11-13, Paragraph 0089, and Paragraph 0090: user creates rules for pinning the virtual content for locations within the geographical area);
and in response to the criteria associated with the snap point being satisfied, performing one or both of: world-locking, relative to the location of the snap point, a first virtual object that, at the time of the detecting, was not world-locked relative to the location of the snap point; or activating a second virtual object previously associated with the snap point (Fig. 7 element 626, Fig. 9 elements 722 and 726, Fig. 15, Fig. 16, Paragraph 0003, Paragraph 0014 lines 5-10, Paragraph 0065, Paragraph 0077 lines 14-17, Paragraph 0089, Paragraph 0090, Paragraph 0095 lines 5-10, Paragraph 0103 lines 1-4, Paragraph 0104 lines 1-10, and Paragraph 0116: when the criteria is determined to be met, full virtual content of a specific type (e.g. activating virtual object previously associated) is displayed world-locked to the pinned location (e.g. world-locking, to the location of the snap point) defined by the user for the corresponding rule instead of body-locked).
While Scott teaches detecting that a criteria associated with a snap point is satisfied by determining: that a user is within a location defined for the snap point, they fail to show a user is within a threshold distance of a location defined for the snap point, as recited in the claims. Atlas teaches criteria including a user being within a location similar to that of Scott. In addition, Atlas further teaches
if a HMD is within a threshold distance of a target location, the artificial reality system may determine that the user has arrived at the target location (Column 20 lines 54-57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Scott and Atlas before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the detecting that a criteria associated with a snap point is satisfied by determining: that a user is within a location defined for the snap point taught by Scott to include the if a HMD is within a threshold distance of a target location, the artificial reality system may determine that the user has arrived at the target location of Huang, in order to obtain detecting that a criteria associated with a snap point is satisfied by determining: that a user is within a threshold distance of a location defined for the snap point. It would have been obvious for one to utilize such a combination as determining that a HMD has arrived at a destination location, as suggested by Atlas (Column 20 lines 50-53).
In regard to claim 2, Scott discloses wherein the first object is the first virtual object or the second virtual object (Paragraph 0021 and Paragraph 0090: virtual content).
In regard to claim 3, Scott discloses in response to the criteria associated with the snap point being satisfied, the performing the world-locking, relative to the location of the snap point, of the first virtual object that was positioned relative to the portion of the user's body (The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein in its entirety: when the criteria is determined to be met, full virtual content of a specific type (e.g. activating virtual object previously associated) is displayed world-locked to the pinned location (e.g. world-locking, to the location of the snap point) defined by the user for the corresponding rule instead of body-locked).
In regard to claim 4, Scott discloses in response to the criteria associated with the snap point being satisfied, the performing the activating of the second virtual object previously associated with the snap point (Paragraph 0116: switch to different content associated with rule).
In regard to claim 6, Scott discloses in response to the criteria associated with the snap point being satisfied, the performing the world-locking, relative to the location of the snap point, of the first virtual object; and wherein the method further comprises: detecting that the criteria associated with the snap point is no longer satisfied; and in response to the criteria associated with the snap point being no longer satisfied, positioning the first virtual object relative to a portion of the user's body (The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein in its entirety. Further, Paragraph 0099 lines 1-7, Paragraph 0100, and Paragraph 0103 lines 1-4: when user is no longer settled and relocates to new position or leaves area (e.g. criteria of rule no longer met), full version is deactivated and mobile version is provided body-locked).
In regard to claim 7, Scott discloses in response to the criteria associated with the snap point being satisfied, the performing the activating of the second virtual object previously associated with the snap point; and wherein the method further comprises: detecting that the criteria associated with the snap point is no longer satisfied; and in response to the criteria associated with the snap point no longer being satisfied, de-activating the second virtual object (The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein in its entirety. Further, Paragraph 0099 lines 1-7, Paragraph 0100, Paragraph 0103 lines 1-4, and Paragraph 0116: when user is no longer settled and relocates to new position or leaves area (e.g. criteria of rule no longer met), full version is deactivated and mobile version is provided body-locked).
In regard to claim 8, medium claim 8 corresponds generally to method claim 1 and recites similar features in medium form and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
In regard to claim 9, Scott discloses wherein the first object is a physical object (Paragraph 0090 lines 1-3: couch).
In regard to claim 10, Scott discloses in response to the criteria associated with the snap point being satisfied, perform the world-locking, relative to the location of the snap point, of the first virtual object (The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein in its entirety: when the criteria is determined to be met, full virtual content of a specific type (e.g. activating virtual object previously associated) is displayed world-locked to the pinned location (e.g. world-locking, to the location of the snap point) defined by the user for the corresponding rule).
In regard to claims 11, 13, and 14, medium claims 11, 13, and 14 correspond generally to method claims 4, 6, and 7, respectively, and recite similar features in medium form, and therefore are rejected under the same rationale.
In regard to claims 15, 16, 17, 19, and 20, system claims 15, 16, 17, 19, and 20 correspond generally to method claims 1, 3, 4, 6, and 7, respectively, and recite similar features in system form, and therefore are rejected under the same rationale.
9. Claim(s) 5, 12, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott et al. (US 2016/0266386 A1), Atlas et al. (US 10984242 B1), and further in view of Ebstyne et al. (US 2015/0317831 A1).
In regard to claim 5, while Scott and Atlas teaches the snap point is activated when the user is within the threshold distance of a location and Scott further teaches more than one rule may be created for a single geographic area so that the user can store rules covering different content viewing preferences for different locations within the geographic area (Paragraph 0091), they fail to show the multiple snap points and causing a plurality of third virtual objects, each associated with one of the multiple snap points, to be world-locked in relation to locations associated with the multiple snap points, wherein the world- locking of the plurality of third virtual objects includes arranging the plurality of third virtual objects so that they are not in collision one with another, as recited in the claims. Ebstyne teaches world-locked virtual objects similar to that of Scott. In addition, Ebstyne further teaches
world-locking plural virtual objects according to a location and a predefined layout for the location that defines plural pinned locations for the virtual objects that are not in collision one with another (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0017, Paragraph 0019, Paragraph 0020 lines 3-11, Paragraph 0025 lines 7-15, and Paragraph 0047 lines 7-9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Scott, Atlas, and Ebstyne before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the snap point is activated when the user is within the threshold distance of a location and more than one rule may be created for a single geographic area so that the user can store rules covering different content viewing preferences for different locations within the geographic area taught by Scott and Atlas to include the world-locking plural virtual objects according to a location and a predefined layout for the location that defines plural pinned locations for the virtual objects that are not in collision one with another of Ebstyne, in order to obtain wherein the snap point is one of multiple snap points activated when the user is within the threshold distance of a location; and wherein the method further includes causing a plurality of third virtual objects, each associated with one of the multiple snap points, to be world-locked in relation to locations associated with the multiple snap points, wherein the world- locking of the plurality of third virtual objects includes arranging the plurality of third virtual objects so that they are not in collision one with another. It would have been advantageous for one to utilize such a combination as providing a rich and immersive augmented reality experience with virtual objects in world-locked positions would have been obtained, as suggested by Ebstyne (Paragraph 0051 lines 1-3).
In regard to claim 12, medium claim 12 corresponds generally to method claim 5 and recites similar features in medium form and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
In regard to claim 18, system claim 18 corresponds generally to method claim 5 and recites similar features in system form and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
10. 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 on (571)272-4034. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
11. 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 2173
Prosecution Insights