CTFR 18/948,216 CTFR 82501 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed 03/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Pitstick does not disclose “group virtual object” and/or the “handle interface element” because at best Pitstick describes a single virtual object. To this matter the examiner respectfully disagrees. Pitstick clearly discloses a plurality of virtual objects (plant, pillows, couch, table etc. figure 7). Further, Pitstick discloses an option to manipulate the virtual environment (handle interface 615 or 620, figure 6), meeting the claim language. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller , 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Applicant should note that Newell was simply brought in to teach a gesture interaction with the handle interface (paragraph 278 and 294). All other limitations are met by Pitstick as cited in the office action . Double Patenting 08-33 AIA 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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp. 08-36 Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-23 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,149,767. Claims 1-20 of the instant application are anticipated by patent claims 1-23 in that claims 1-23 of the patent contains all the limitations of claims 1-20 of the instant application. Claims 1-20 of the instant application therefore is not patently distinct from the earlier patent claim and as such is unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting. Instant Application 18/948,216 Patent No.: US 12,149,767 A method comprising: displaying a group virtual object that includes a first virtual object and a second virtual object in an augmented reality environment, the group virtual object being associated with a handle interface element for manipulating the group virtual object; detecting a user interaction with the handle interface element to cause the group virtual object to be manipulated, the user interaction being based on a first gesture performed in the augmented reality environment; and detecting a selection of at least one of the first virtual object or the second virtual object, the selection being based on a second gesture performed in the augmented reality environment using an indicator. Claims 2-19 are rejected similarly to claim 1. A method comprising: generating a group virtual object that includes a first virtual object and a second virtual object, the group virtual object being associated with a handle interface element for moving the group virtual object and including a selectable indicator associated with the first virtual object and the second virtual object; displaying the group virtual object along with the handle interface element and the selectable indicator in an immersive environment; wherein the additional media information element is interacted with by a gesture performed in the immersive environment. in response to detecting a selection of the selectable indicator, displaying a user interface for interacting with an additional media information element. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. US 11,297,366. Claims 1-20 of the instant application are anticipated by patent claims 1-19 in that claims 1-19 of the patent contains all the limitations of claims 1-20 of the instant application. Claims 1-20 of the instant application therefore is not patently distinct from the earlier patent claim and as such is unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. US 11,627,360. Claims 1-20 of the instant application are anticipated by patent claims 1-18 in that claims 1-18 of the patent contains all the limitations of claims 1-20 of the instant application. Claims 1-20 of the instant application therefore is not patently distinct from the earlier patent claim and as such is unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Pitstick et al., US 9,965,800 in view of Newell et al., US 2016/0330522 . Regarding claims 1, 13 and 17, Pitstick discloses a system, comprising: a memory; and a hardware processor that, when executing computer-executable instructions stored in the memory, is configured to: display a group virtual object that includes a first virtual object and a second virtual object in an augmented reality environment, the group virtual object being associated with a handle interface element for manipulating the group virtual object (figure 1-8, col. 10, lines 35-63); detect a user interaction with the handle interface element to cause the group virtual object to be manipulated (figure 1-8, col. 10, lines 35-63); and detect a selection of at least one of the first virtual object or the second virtual object, the selection being based on a second gesture performed in the augmented reality environment using an indicator (figure 1-8, col. 10, lines 35-63). Although, Pitstick teaches a gesture interaction with the virtual object (col. 20, lines 42-54), Pitstick is silent about a gesture interaction with the handle interface. In an analogous art, Newell discloses a gesture interaction with the handle interface (paragraph 278 and 294). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Pitstick’s system with the teachings of Newell. The motivation would have been to give the user a more intuitive and immersive interactions for the benefit of providing quality of service. Regarding claims 3, 14 and 18, Pitstick and Newell disclose the system of claim 13, wherein at least one of the first gesture or the second gesture includes a movement of a hand of a user (Newell paragraph 278 and 294). Regarding claims 4, 15 and 19, Pitstick and Newell disclose the system of claim 13, further comprising: triggering display of a playback interface associated with the at least one of the first virtual object or the second virtual object (Pitstick col. 13, line 55 to col. 14, line 20; Newell paragraph 339). Regarding claim 2, Pitstick and Newell disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the indicator is a user interface element for at least one of causing a review, modification, or interaction with the at least one of the first virtual object or the second virtual object (Pitstick col. 10, lines 35-63; Newell paragraph 278 and 294). Regarding claim 5, Pitstick and Newell disclose the method of claim 4, wherein the playback interface includes a control for navigating content associated with the at least one of the first virtual object or the second virtual object (Newell paragraph 339). Regarding claims 6, 16 and 20, Pitstick and Newell disclose the system of claim 15, wherein the playback interface is interacted with based on a third gesture performed in the augmented reality environment (Newell paragraph 278 and 294). Regarding claim 7, Pitstick and Newell disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the group virtual object includes an option to rearrange an order of or to remove at least one of the first virtual object or the second virtual object (Pitstick col. 10, lines 35-63; Newell paragraph 278 and 294). Regarding claim 8, Pitstick and Newell disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the group virtual object includes a plurality of content items adjacent to at least the first virtual object (Pitstick figures; Newell figures). Regarding claim 9, Pitstick and Newell disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the group virtual object includes a grid of virtual objects including at least one of the first virtual object or the second virtual object (Pitstick figures; Newell figures). Regarding claim 10, Pitstick and Newell disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the handle interface element is a three-dimensional handle element (Newell paragraph 278). Regarding claim 11, Pitstick and Newell disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the first virtual object includes a thumbnail representation (Newell paragraph 303 and 305). Regarding claim 12, Pitstick and Newell disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the augmented reality environment is a virtual reality environment generated in a head mounted display device (Newell paragraph 278). Conclusion 07-39 AIA THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Contact Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OSCHTA I MONTOYA whose telephone number is (571)270-1192. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8 am - 5 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nathan Flynn can be reached on 571-272-1915. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. OM Oschta Montoya Patent Examiner Art Unit 2421 /OSCHTA I MONTOYA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421 Application/Control Number: 18/948,216 Page 2 Art Unit: 2421 Application/Control Number: 18/948,216 Page 3 Art Unit: 2421 Application/Control Number: 18/948,216 Page 4 Art Unit: 2421 Application/Control Number: 18/948,216 Page 5 Art Unit: 2421 Application/Control Number: 18/948,216 Page 6 Art Unit: 2421 Application/Control Number: 18/948,216 Page 7 Art Unit: 2421 Application/Control Number: 18/948,216 Page 8 Art Unit: 2421 Application/Control Number: 18/948,216 Page 9 Art Unit: 2421
Prosecution Insights