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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 9 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 9 and 19 recites, “the second instance of augmented media including at least a potion of the second image”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 8, 10-11, 13-15, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shors et al (US 20190377330 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Shors discloses a computer-implemented method (Shors [0028], “methods”) comprising:
generating spatially aware media by:
identifying three-dimensional (3D) spatial features of a real-world space based on a 3D scan of the real-world space captured by a user device (Shors [0052], “performing the 3D scanning an administrator could segment the scanning volume into regions”; [0053], “identify fixed environment features (a 3D scan of the real-world space captured by an administrator/user device)”); and
obtaining an image of the real-world space captured by the user device (Shors [0040], “capture scan data”);
storing the spatially aware media for later retrieval by the user device (Shors [0028], “storing and accessing spatial and other forms of information for augmented reality overlays”);
subsequently, receiving an instruction to retrieve the spatially aware media and augment it with a virtual 3D model (Shors [0030], “the scan data can comprise spatial information that can later be accessed or queried to also return various associated information to the augmented reality (“AR”) user”);
generating augmented media comprising at least a portion of the image of the real-world space overlaid with a render of the virtual 3D model defined relative to the 3D spatial features of the real-world space (Shors [0039], “retrieve the appropriate scan data from the scan library … for AR overlay 40 (generating augmented media comprising at least a portion of the image of the real-world space overlaid with a render of the virtual 3D model)”; [0069], “an augmented reality view, spatially anchored to the as-built environment (the virtual 3D model defined relative to the 3D spatial features of the real-world space)”); and
outputting the generated augmented media for display on the user device (Shors [0052], “the user interface provides the user that ability to define the corresponding fixed 130A and variable 130B regions of the rendered environment.”).
Shors does not expressly disclose
Subsequently after the user device has left the real-world space that was scanned
However Shors suggests
Subsequently after the user device has left the real-world space that was scanned (Shors [0059], “after performing the initial scan, subsequent (at a later moment in time) images can be spatially linked to specific locations”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to save and retrieve data at another time after an initial scan was saved previously. This would enable effective reuse of augmented information.
Regarding claim 3, Shors discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising obtaining results of a search query and obtaining the virtual 3D model based on the results of the search query (Shors [0066], “constructing a query within an environment … user looks for or interacts with when interacting with scans or the system—out in the field, live AR”).
Regarding claim 4, Shors discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising determining a recommended position for the virtual 3D model relative to the 3D spatial features of the real-world space (Shors [0043], “he device 30 may utilize the location data alone or in conjunction with one or more tags 12 to retrieve and align the AR overlay within the environment.”).
Regarding claim 5, The computer-implemented method of claim 4, wherein the recommended position is based on at least one of the image or the virtual 3D model (Shors [0043], “the device 30 may utilize the location data alone or in conjunction with one or more tags 12 to retrieve and align the AR overlay within the environment.”).
Regarding claim 8, Shors discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the image of the real-world space has a mapping to the 3D scan of the real-world space, and wherein the method further comprises identifying, in the image of the real-world space, at least one of the 3D spatial features of the real-world space based on the mapping (Shors [0039], “AR interface … feature-based mapping and the recognition of one or more tags 12”).
Regarding claim 10, Shors discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1 wherein the virtual 3D model corresponds to a product (Shors [0052], “various pieces of equipment (product), (hereinafter “variable regions”) such as the wheel 13B shown in FIG. 4”).
Claim 11 recites a system which corresponds to the function performed by the method of claim 1. As such, the mapping and rejection of claim 1 above is considered applicable to the system of claim 11.
Additionally, Shors discloses
A system comprising: at least one processor; and a memory storing processor-executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor (Shors [0029]).
Claim 13 recites a system which corresponds to the function performed by the method of claim 3. As such, the mapping and rejection of claim 3 above is considered applicable to the system of claim 13.
Claim 14 recites a system which corresponds to the function performed by the method of claim 4. As such, the mapping and rejection of claim 4 above is considered applicable to the system of claim 14.
Claim 15 recites a system which corresponds to the function performed by the method of claim 5. As such, the mapping and rejection of claim 5 above is considered applicable to the system of claim 15.
Claim 18 recites a system which corresponds to the function performed by the method of claim 8. As such, the mapping and rejection of claim 8 above is considered applicable to the system of claim 18.
Claim 20 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium which corresponds to the function performed by the method of claim 1. As such, the mapping and rejection of claim 1 above is considered applicable to the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 20.
Additionally, Shors discloses
A non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon computer-executable instructions that, when executed by a computer (Shors [0029]).
Claims 2, 6, 12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shors in view of Sonasath et al (US 20210019946 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Shors discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the user device is a first user device, and wherein the method further comprises outputting the augmented media for display on a second user device.
However, Sonasath discloses
the user device is a first user device, and wherein the method further comprises outputting the augmented media for display on a second user device (Sonasath [0008], “showing the first augmented reality scene on a display of the second device”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shors with Sonasath to share augmented reality information with another device. This would have been done to generate augmented reality data that would be useful to multiple users.
Regarding claim 6, Shors discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further but does not disclose comprising receiving an instruction to move the virtual 3D model to a new position, and in response, updating the augmented media to render the virtual 3D model at the new position.
However, Sonasath discloses
comprising receiving an instruction to move the virtual 3D model to a new position, and in response, updating the augmented media to render the virtual 3D model at the new position (Sonasath [0081], “After objects are placed in the scene, the electronic device 101 allows the user to move the virtual object to be closer to or further from the anchor point.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shors with Sonasath to provide a feature for relocating virtual objects. This would have allowed users to experience augmented environments in a dynamic fashion.
Claim 12 recites a system which corresponds to the function performed by the method of claim 2. As such, the mapping and rejection of claim 2 above is considered applicable to the system of claim 12.
Claim 16 recites a system which corresponds to the function performed by the method of claim 6. As such, the mapping and rejection of claim 6 above is considered applicable to the system of claim 16.
Claims 7, 9, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shors in view of Cho et al (US 8847953 B1)
Regarding claim 7, Shors discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein but does not disclose the virtual 3D model is a first virtual 3D model, and wherein the method further comprises obtaining a different second virtual 3D model and updating the augmented media to render the second virtual 3D model instead of the first virtual 3D model.
However, Cho discloses
the virtual 3D model is a first virtual 3D model, and wherein the method further comprises obtaining a different second virtual 3D model and updating the augmented media to render the second virtual 3D model instead of the first virtual 3D model (Cho col. 6, l. 21, “updating the first augmented reality image to the second augmented reality image”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shors with Cho to enable a feature to update an augmented reality object. This would enable users to customize augmented reality environments.
Regarding claim 9, Shors discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein:
the image captured by the user device is a first image of the real-world space from a first perspective (Shors [0039], “the user 1 orients a device 30 at the desired environment 14 or directs a head-mounted display 32 at the environment 14 or equipment 13. It is understood that although this appears to be a single action from the perspective of the user 1”);
generating the spatially aware media further comprises obtaining a second image of the real-world space from a second perspective (Shors [0059], “subsequent images can be spatially linked to specific locations within the environment. The user could be directed to take photos or further scans that match the perspective”);
the augmented media is a first instance of augmented media (Shors [0014], “viewing an augmented reality overlay on the environment”); and
but does not disclose the method further comprises generating and outputting for display on the user device a second instance of augmented media, the second instance of augmented media including at least a potion of the second image of the real-world space overlaid with a render of the virtual 3D model defined relative to the 3D spatial features of the real-world space.
However, Cho discloses
generating and outputting for display on the user device a second instance of augmented media, the second instance of augmented media including at least a potion of the second image of the real-world space overlaid with a render of the virtual 3D model defined relative to the 3D spatial features of the real-world space (Cho col. 6, l. 21, “updating the first augmented reality image to the second augmented reality image”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shors with Cho to enable a feature to update an augmented reality object. This would enable users to customize augmented reality environments.
Claim 17 recites a system which corresponds to the function performed by the method of claim 7. As such, the mapping and rejection of claim 7 above is considered applicable to the system of claim 17.
Claim 19 recites a system which corresponds to the function performed by the method of claim 9. As such, the mapping and rejection of claim 9 above is considered applicable to the system of claim 19.
Conclusion
See the notice of references cited (PTO-892) for prior art made of record, including art that is not relied upon but considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JITESH PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-3313. The examiner can normally be reached 8am - 5pm.
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, Said A. Broome can be reached at (571) 272-2931. 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.
/JITESH PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2612
Prosecution Insights