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 .
1. This action is responsive to communications: Preliminary Amendment, filed on 02/10/2025.
2. Claims 21-40 are pending in the case. Claims 21, 28 and 34 are independent claims. Claims 1-20 are cancelled. Claims 21-40 are newly added.
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.
Claims 21-40 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.
Claims 21, 28 and 34 recite:
“receive real-time sensor data…;
Based on identification of the real-world environment, obtain past sensor data of the real-world environment captured at a time point in the past”
It is unclear how past sensor is obtained, without storing the received sensor data. Applicant’s Specification (Para 67; Fig. 5) discloses by saving the information captured about these objects (mesh data and images) and integrating this data with the real-time stream of mesh data and images, a more complete scene may be available to user 119B than the real-time data alone can provide. Correction is required.
Claims 22-27, 29-33 and 35-40 are rejected based on dependency from a rejected base claim.
Claims 27, 33 and 40 recite: “receive a second image and second mesh data captured by a second camera”.
It is unclear where the second camera is located and how the data from the second camera is communicated as the camera is not represented in the base claim. Additionally, it is unclear whether the second camera corresponds to “one” of the one or more sensors in the real world environment (as recited in the base claim). Correction is required.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: perspective may change as user moves or looks around the real-world environment as disclosed by Applicant’s Specification (Para 39); perform feature-based tracking of an orientation of the AR device; these feature-based tracking techniques might be used to monitor changes in the orientation of the AR device for the purpose of monitoring an orientation of a user’s head as disclosed by Applicant’s Specification (Para 131, 132); a 3D-enabled headset (e.g. an AR/VR/MR headset) as disclosed by Applicant’s Specification (Para 8) that is associated with a virtual camera enabling a user to see their location on a floor-plan.
It is unclear, in claims 25, 31 and 38, how different views of a 3D representation are rendered on different displays, when a single rendering of the 3D representation on a single computing device occurs in the base claim. Applicant’s Specification (Fig. 4 & 6) discloses differing devices rendering differing views. Correction is required.
Claims 25-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: (claims 28 and 34) processing unit(s) or hardware coupled with sensors to generate mesh data as disclosed by Applicant’s Specification (Para 33) and display panels that display graphics as disclosed by Applicant’s Specification (Para 34); (claims 25, 31 and 38) the connectivity of a computing device and a worn 3D enabled device (e.g. second device) as disclosed by Applicant’s Specification (Fig. 6).
Claims 26-27, 29-33 and 35-40 are rejected based on dependency from a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 21-22, 24, 28, 30, 34-35 and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Giuliano Maciocci et al., US 2012/0249741 A1.
Independent claim 21, Maciocci discloses a computing device comprising:
one or more data processing units (i.e. multiple mobile devices, e.g. head mounted devices, for processing data – Para 67); and
a computer-readable medium having encoded thereon computer-executable instructions to cause the one or more data processing units to:
receive real time sensor data captured by one or more sensors located in a real-world environment (i.e. receive data from stereo camera – Fig. 19 “1902”), the real-time sensor data comprising an image of the real-world environment (i.e. an image of the environment is captured – Para 66) and mesh data derived from a depth scan of the real-world environment, the real-time sensor data captured from a first perspective (i.e. the sensor collects information, e.g. distance, depth, from the environment – Para 61 – to generate a 3D model of the area – Fig. 19);
receive input data indicating a user selected perspective of the real-world environment that is different from the first perspective (i.e. receive user gesture/orientation input from a number of mobile devices – Para 68);
identity the real-world environment base on location and size of object in the real-world environment that do not move as represented in the mesh data (i.e. determine location and size of object in a room to generation a map of a scene as captured via camera – Para 124); and
based on identification of the real-world environment, obtain past sensor data of the real-world environment captured at a time point in the past (i.e. the storage medium receives partial image data previously provided by a first device – Fig. 25A); and
combine the past sensor data with the real time sensor data to create a 3D representation of the real-world environment that contains more data than the real-time sensor data alone (i.e. the partial image data from the first device is stored to the scene – Fig. 25A);
render the 3D representation of the real-world environment in a user interface (UI) from the second perspective (i.e. present the surroundings to multiple user devices from the appropriate user perspective – Para 68).
Claim 22, Maciocci discloses the computing device of claim 21, wherein the one or more sensors comprise a surface reconstruction (SR) camera (i.e. scene sensor produces a 3D reconstruction of objects – Para 119) and a red, green, and blue (RGB) camera (Fig. 37).
Claim 24, Maciocci discloses the computing device of claim 21, wherein the objects in the real-world environment that do not move compromise at least one of walls or windows.
Independent claim 28, the claim is similar in scope to claim 21. Therefore, similar rationale as applied in the rejection of claim 21 applies herein.
Claim 30, the rationale as applied in the rejection of claim 24 applies herein.
Independent claim 34, the claim is similar in scope to claim 21. Therefore, similar rationale as applied in the rejection of claim 21 applies herein.
Claim 35, the rationale as applied in the rejection of claim 22 applies herein.
Claim 37, the rationale as applied in the rejection of claim 24 applies herein.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANTE HARRISON whose telephone number is (571)272-7659. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am to 5:00 pm EST.
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 on 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.
/CHANTE E HARRISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2615 1897612
Prosecution Insights