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 .
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.
Claims 1-8, 10-17, 19, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6, 14, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,198,427. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the pending claims are a variation of the patented claims. Claims 1-8, 10-17, 19, and 20 of the instant application are anticipated by patent claims 1, 6, 14, and 15, in that claims 1, 6, 14, and 15 of the patent contains all the limitations of claims 1-8, 10-17, 19, and 20 of the instant application. Claims 1-8, 10-17, 19, and 20 of the instant application therefore are not patently distinct from the earlier patent claims and as such are unpatentable for anticipatory-type double patenting.
Instant Application 18/977,510
U.S. Patent 12,198,427
1. A method of operating an extended reality system, the method comprising: obtaining information associated with a first set of virtual content, wherein the first set of virtual content is associated with a real-world environment of the extended reality system;
1. A computer-implement method comprising: obtaining input data of a user, wherein the input data includes a sequence of perceptions from an egocentric vision of the user;
[rendering virtual content in an extended reality environment displayed to the user based on the final format for the set of virtual content data]
predicting, based at least in part on the information, a second set of virtual content that has a first relevance to a user of the extended reality system at a particular time, wherein the second set of virtual content is a subset of the first set of virtual content;
determining a third set of virtual content that has a second relevance, different from the first relevance, to the user of the extended reality system at the particular time, wherein the third set of virtual content is a subset of the first set of virtual content, and the third set is distinct from the second set;
inferring, by rule-based artificial intelligence, machine learning based artificial intelligence, or a combination thereof, content that is of interest to the user based on features gathered from a user's attention in the input data; determining, by using the content that is of interest to the user, relevant virtual content data, based on a user's position being inside a nimbus of an object, and at least one from among semi-relevant virtual content data and non-relevant virtual content data, wherein the semi-relevant virtual content data is determined when the user's position is outside the nimbus of the object and a focus region of the user and a nimbus region of the object intersect, and wherein the non-relevant virtual content data is determined when the focus region of the user and the nimbus region of the object do not overlap;
identifying a set of virtual content data to include the relevant virtual content data and the at least one from among semi-relevant virtual content data
and non-relevant virtual content data;
displaying the second set of virtual content in a first format; and
determining modifications to be applied to the relevant virtual content data and the at least one from among the semi-relevant virtual content data and the non-relevant virtual content data based on relevancy of the virtual content data; applying the modifications to the relevant virtual content data and the at least one from among the semi-relevant virtual content data and the non-relevant virtual content data, to generate a final format for the set of virtual content data; and
displaying the third set of virtual content in a second format different from the first format.
rendering virtual content in an extended reality environment displayed to the user based on the final format for the set of virtual content data, wherein the virtual content rendered from the relevant virtual content data is more prominently displayed as compared to the virtual content rendered from the at least one from among the semi-relevant virtual content data and the non-relevant virtual content data.
The above table illustrates a comparative mapping between the limitations of claim 1 of the instant application and the limitations of claim 1 of U.S. Patent 12,198,427. The following is a complete listing of the correspondence between the claims of the instant application to U.S. Patent 12,198,427.
Claims of Instant Application
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
Claims of U.S. Patent 12,198,427
1
1
6
6
1
1
1
1
15
15
15, 1, 6
15, 1, 6
15
15
15
15
14
14
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,198,427 in view of Walker (US 2020/0327711 A1).
Claims 9 and 18 of the instant application are obvious over patent claims 1 and 15, respectively, in that claims 1 and 15 of the patent contains all the limitations of claims 9 and 18 of the instant application except for wherein the information comprises information obtained from online sources about one or more conditions existing at the particular time. Walker discloses generating augmented reality displays by processing online weather model data for a location of a user (Abstract). Walker’s technique of generation of augmented reality displays by processing online weather model data would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art to be applicable to the obtained information associated with virtual content for an extended reality system of the patent and the results would have been predictable in the obtaining of online weather model data associated with virtual content for an extended reality system. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 9 and 18 of the instant application therefore are not patently distinct from the earlier patent claims and as such are unpatentable for anticipatory-type double patenting.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Golard et al. (US 10,909,405 B1) in view of Tsoy et al. (US 2022/0327134 A1) and further in view of Forutanpour et al. (US 2023/0144091 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Golard discloses a method of operating an extended reality system, the method comprising: obtaining information associated with a first set of virtual content, wherein the first set of virtual content is associated with a real-world environment of the extended reality system; (Column 11, lines 49-64, determining user gaze at an object of interest to select content for display in an augmented reality (AR) device, column 17, lines 26-33, where various types of content is available for selection, column 14, line 14 – column 15, line 36) Golard does not clearly disclose predicting, based at least in part on the information, a second set of virtual content that has a first relevance to a user of the extended reality system at a particular time, wherein the second set of virtual content is a subset of the first set of virtual content; determining a third set of virtual content that has a second relevance, different from the first relevance, to the user of the extended reality system at the particular time, wherein the third set of virtual content is a subset of the first set of virtual content, and the third set is distinct from the second set. Tsoy discloses a ranking system to predict relevance scores for multiple different content elements based on user interaction with the content elements (Paragraph 0092) for determining which of the multiple different content elements are to be displayed (Paragraphs 0095 and 0098). Tsoy’s ranking system for predicting relevance scores for multiple different content elements based on user interaction with the content elements for determining which of the multiple different content elements are to be displayed would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art to be applicable to the content items that can be selected for display in an AR device of Golard and the results would have been predictable in a ranking system for predicting relevance scores for multiple different content items based on user interaction with content items for selection to be displayed in an AR device. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Golard in view of Tsoy does not clearly disclose displaying the second set of virtual content in a first format; and displaying the third set of virtual content in a second format different from the first format.
Forutanpour discloses virtual content with different priorities for extended reality (XR) display, including displayed, minimized, and hidden, where modifications can be made to the appearance of the virtual content for XR display according to the priorities (Paragraphs 0051-0052). Foruntanpour’s technique for providing virtual content for XR display with different priorities and applying modifications to the virtual content according to the priorities would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art to be applicable to the selection and display of ranked virtual content with an object of interest of Golard in view of Tsoy and the results would have been predictable in the XR display of selected ranked virtual content with an object of interest where the virtual content can have a modification to it based on an associated rank. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, Golard in view of Tsoy and further in view of Forutanpour discloses wherein the first relevance is greater than the second relevance (Tsoy, paragraph 0092, content items are ranked based on their relevance scores), and the first format is more prominent than the second format (Forutanpour, paragraphs 0051-0052, the virtual content can be displayed and modified based on priority related to their ranked relevance).
Regarding claim 4, Forutanpour discloses wherein the second format has a smaller scale than the first format (Paragraph 0051, the virtual content can shrink based on priority).
Regarding claim 5, Golard discloses wherein the information comprises gaze information associated with an eye gaze of the user (Column 11, lines 49-64, user gaze).
Regarding claim 8, Golard discloses wherein the information comprises a history of behavioral information of the user, and the history is used to infer an interest of the user in the first set of virtual content at the particular time (Column 11, lines 49-64, historical eye-tracking data for predicting user interest in a particular object).
Regarding claims 10 and 19, similar reasoning as discussed in claim 1 is applied. Furthermore, Golard discloses a processor and memory storing instructions (Column 18, lines 14-49).
Regarding claims 11 and 20, similar reasoning as discussed in claim 2 is applied.
Regarding claim 13, similar reasoning as discussed in claim 4 is applied.
Regarding claim 14, similar reasoning as discussed in claim 5 is applied.
Regarding claim 17, similar reasoning as discussed in claim 8 is applied.
Claim(s) 3 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Golard et al. (US 10,909,405 B1) in view of Tsoy et al. (US 2022/0327134 A1) in view of Forutanpour et al. (US 2023/0144091 A1) and further in view of Schneiter (US 2021/0405850 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Golard in view of Tsoy and further in view of Forutanpour discloses all limitations as discussed in claim 1. Golard in view of Tsoy and further in view of Forutanpour does not clearly disclose wherein the second format has a greater transparency than the first format. Schneiter discloses rendering relevant content as visible information and rendering irrelevant content with transparency (Paragraph 0150). Schneiter’s technique of rendering irrelevant content with transparency over visible relevant content would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art to be applicable to the rendering of ranked content items differently based on relevance scores of Golard in view of Tsoy and further in view of Forutanpour and the results would have been predictable in the rendering of ranked content with transparency based on ranked contents having relevance scores. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 12, similar reasoning as discussed in claim 3 is applied.
Claim(s) 9 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Golard et al. (US 10,909,405 B1) in view of Tsoy et al. (US 2022/0327134 A1) in view of Forutanpour et al. (US 2023/0144091 A1) and further in view of Walker (US 2020/0327711 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Golard in view of Tsoy and further in view of Forutanpour discloses all limitations as discussed in claim 1. Golard in view of Tsoy and further in view of Forutanpour does not clearly disclose wherein the information comprises information obtained from online sources about one or more conditions existing at the particular time. Walker discloses generating augmented reality displays by processing online weather model data for a location of a user (Abstract). Golard in view of Tsoy and further in view of Forutanpour discloses steps for generating and displaying images in extended reality based on gaze information which differed from the claimed process by the substitution of a step of obtaining information from online sources about one or more conditions existing at the particular time. Walker discloses the substituted step of obtaining online weather model data for a location of a user for generating augmented reality displays. As a result, both functions were known in the art to enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to generate augmented reality displays. Golard in view of Tsoy and further in view of Foruntanpour’s gaze information used to generate and display images in extended reality could have been substituted with Walker’s online weather model data for a location of a user and the results would have been predictable, resulting in generating and displaying images in extended reality based on online weather model data for a location of a user. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 18, similar reasoning as discussed in claim 9 is applied.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 7, 15, and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and all other rejections are resolved.
Regarding claim 6, the prior art does not clearly disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the information comprises an indication of a position of the user relative to a nimbus of a particular virtual object in the first set of virtual content, and the nimbus demarcates a space within which the user is aware of the particular virtual object.
Regarding claim 15, similar reasoning as discussed in claim 6 is applied.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tsai et al. (US 2023/0025641 A1) discloses ranking content sets based on relevance scores.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHI HOANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3417. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00.
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, JASON CHAN can be reached at (571)272-3022. 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.
/PHI HOANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2619
Prosecution Insights