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 .
The Office acknowledges the amendment dated 15 June 2026, in which:
Claims 1-23 are currently pending.
Claims 1, 13, 14, 20 and 21 are amended.
Claims 22-23 are newly added.
Response to Arguments/Amendments/Remarks
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 20, 21 and 22 have been fully considered, but are unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that Agarawala fails to disclose “positioning based on identifying one or more objects of one or more particular types in the physical environment and positioning the user interfaces relative to the one or more objects of the one or more particular types,” as added to independent claims 1, 20 and 21, and further fails to teach identifying one or more particular objects as recited in dependent claims 22-23.
In response, the examiner respectfully points out that Agarawala explicitly discloses identifying physical objects by type as well particular physical objects, and positioning user interfaces relative to those objects. Agarawala, at Para. [0137], teaches performing room scans and depth analysis to identify specific types of physical objects in the environment. Para. [0027] further teaches identifying object types including “walls, ceilings, floors, screens, table tops, etc.” See also, Para. [0089], identifying tables, bookshelves, ledges. Agarawala, at Para. [0124], [0089], teaches placing, anchoring and displaying user interfaces relative to these identified object types. Additionally, Agarawala, at Para. [0120] – [0121] and [0032], discloses identifying and positioning user interfaces relative to specific individual physical objects within the user’s scanned physical environment. Because Agarawala expressly teaches identifying physical objects by type (e.g., chairs, tables, doors) as well as identifying particular physical objects (e.g., a specific door or table) and positioning user interfaces relative to them, the added limitations of independent claims 1, 20 and 21 as well as newly added dependent claims 22-23 are fully met by the prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 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 1-8 and 10-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Agarawala (US 2021/0064218).
With respect to Claim 1 (Currently Amended), Agarawala teaches a method, comprising:
at a head mounted device (HMD) having a processor (Agarawala: Para. [0012]):
determining to configure a three-dimensional (3D) extended reality (XR) environment using a workspace that stores information based on a prior activity associated with the workspace, the workspace identifying states of one or more applications associated with the prior activity and 3D spatial positioning information for user interfaces of the one or more applications during the prior activity (Agarawala: Para. [0017], [0138], the user may save this session, this saved session constitutes a workspace based on prior activity; Para. [0105], session persistence that enable users to store/retrieve meeting or session contents and state information); and
in accordance with determining to configure the XR environment using the workspace:
positioning the user interfaces of the one or more applications in the XR environment based on the 3D spatial positioning information (Agarawala: Para. [0027] – [0029]; Fig. 3), wherein the positioning is based on identifying one or more objects of one or more particular types in the physical environment (Agarawala: Para. [0027], [0137], depth scans for determining placement/images of physical object types, such as, chairs, tables, floor, ceiling, furniture, etc.) and positioning the user interfaces relative to the one or more objects of the one or more particular types (Agarawala: Para. [0089], [0124], anchoring and positioning user interface display elements relative to table tops, bookshelves, ledges, or wall meshes); and
restoring the one or more applications to the states of the or more applications associated with the prior activity (Agarawala: Para. [0055], [0105], session persistence enable users to store/retrieve state information including actions by various users and data changes made; Para. [0118], a resume function where an application may resume from a previous state with a similar physical arrangement).
With respect to Claim 22 (New), Agarawala teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the positioning is based on identifying one or more particular objects (Agarawala: Para. [0089], [0124], identifying a specific laptop or object mesh in the room and positioning UI elements relative to it).
With respect to Claim 23 (New), Agarawala teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the positioning occurs without user intervention (Agarawala: Para. [0016] – [0018], automatically scanning physical structures, mapping the room, and arranging data in corresponding positions upon loading a workspace).
With respect to Claim 2, Agarawala teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the workspace further stores application sizing information for the one or more applications based on sizes of the one or more applications associated with the prior activity, wherein the applications are sized in the XR environment in accordance with the application sizing information (Agarawala: Para. [0047]).
With respect to Claim 3, Agarawala teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the workspace further stores environment information for the one or more applications based on a virtual 3D environment associated with the prior activity, wherein the XR environment is configured with at least partial immersion of the one or more applications within the virtual 3D environment in accordance with the environment information (Agarawala: Para. [0029], [0152]).
With respect to Claim 4, Agarawala teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the workspace further stores audio information comprising a volume level or identifies playback audio, wherein the audio information is based on the prior activity, wherein the XR environment is configured to present audio based on the audio information (Agarawala: Para. [0103]).
With respect to Claim 5, Agarawala teaches the method of claim 4, wherein the audio information identifies 3D positions of spatial audio sources, wherein the XR environment is configured to present the audio based on the 3D positions of the spatial audio sources (Agarawala: Para. [0061], [0088]).
With respect to Claim 6, Agarawala teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the workspace further stores hardware accessory information based on the prior activity, wherein the XR environment is configured based on the hardware accessory information. (e.g., positioning UI relative to a physical keyboard, mouse, etc., overlaying a virtual keyboard on a real keyboard) (Agarawala: Para. [0108]).
With respect to Claim 7, Agarawala teaches the method of claim 1, wherein determining to configure the XR environment using the workspace is triggered based on a current context satisfying a workspace context trigger criterion (Agarawala: Para. [0018], [0104]).
With respect to Claim 8, Agarawala teaches the method of claim 7, wherein the workspace context trigger criterion requires that:
the HMD be in a particular geographic area;
the HMD be in a particular building or campus;
the HMD be in a particular room or type of room; or
the HMD be in a room that has one or more particular items (Agarawala: Para. [0018] – [0020]).
With respect to Claim 10, Agarawala teaches the method of claim 1, wherein determining to configure the XR environment using the workspace is triggered based on user input manually initiating use of the workspace (Agarawala: Para. [0301]).
With respect to Claim 11, Agarawala teaches the method of claim 1, wherein determining to configure the XR environment using the workspace is triggered based on determining that a type of focus has been initiated (Agarawala: Para. [0111]).
With respect to Claim 12, Agarawala teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the spatial positioning identifies 3D positions for one or more of the one or more applications relative to a position of the user (Agarawala: Para. [0019], [0055]).
With respect to Claim 13 (Currently Amended), Agarawala teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the spatial positioning identifies fixed 3D positions for one or more of the one or more applications relative an object or type of object (Agarawala: Para. [0019], [0138]).
With respect to Claim 14 (Currently Amended), Agarawala teaches the method of claim 1, wherein:
when a position of the user corresponds to a particular location, the spatial positioning identifies fixed 3D positions for one or more of the one or more applications relative an object or type of object; and
when the position of the user does not correspond to the particular location, the spatial positioning identifies 3D positions for one or more of the one or more applications relative to the position of the user (Agarawala: Para. [0019], [0055]).
With respect to Claim 15, Agarawala teaches the method of claim 1, wherein positioning the user interfaces of the one or more applications in the XR environment is further based on a scene understanding of a physical environment in which the HMD is operated, the scene understanding based on sensor data obtained via one more sensors on the HMD (Agarawala: Para. [0027], [0311] – [0313]).
With respect to Claim 16, Agarawala teaches the method of claim 1 further comprising:
determining to transition the XR environment using a second workspace that stores information based on a second prior activity associated with the second workspace, the second workspace identifying second states of one or more applications associated with the second prior activity and second 3D spatial positioning information for user interfaces of the one or more applications during the second prior activity; and
configuring the XR environment using the second workspace (Agarawala: Para. [0055] – [0057]; Fig. 10A-B).
With respect to Claim 17, Agarawala teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the prior activity is an initial creation of the workspace in which a user manually positions or changes the states of the one or more applications (Agarawala: Para. [0317]).
With respect to Claim 18, Agarawala teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the prior activity is a use of the workspace following a prior creation and storage of the workspace, wherein the workspace is changed based on a user manually positioning or changing the states of the one or more applications during the use (Agarawala: Para. [0317]).
With respect to Claim 19, Agarawala teaches the method of claim 1, wherein notifications are limited based on the workspace (Agarawala: Para. [0066]).
With respect to Claims 20-21 (System/CRM) (Currently Amended), Agarawala discloses a “system” (Agarawala: Claim 8) and “computer program product” (Agarawala: Claim 15) performing the method steps as cited above for the rejection of Claim 1.
35 U.S.C. §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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agarawala in view of Torok (US 2016/0132319).
With respect to Claim 9, Agarawala teaches the method of claim 7.
Agarawala fails to expressly disclose:
wherein the workspace context trigger criterion requires that a current time or day be within a particular time range or on one or more particular days.
However, Torok discloses:
wherein the workspace context trigger criterion requires that a current time or day be within a particular time range or on one or more particular days (Torok: Para. [0040], configuring and launching a specific application upon the occurrence of a timing event, such as a specific time of day).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method, as taught by Agarawala, to incorporate a timing event trigger, as taught by Torok, in order to reduce manual input and optimize system resource usage (Torok: Para. [0006] – [0007]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN EARLES whose telephone number is (571)272-4628. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday at 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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, William Boddie can be reached on 571-272-0666. 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.
/BRYAN EARLES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2625
Prosecution Insights