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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s foreign priority claim, for U.S. Application No. 18/989,796, based on a foreign application filed on 12/26/2023.
Status of Claims
Claims 1–15 are pending in the application. Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9, 12-15 are rejected.
Claims 3, 8, 10, 11 are objected to.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 8, 10, 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim(s), but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim(s) and any intervening claim(s).
Overview of Grounds of Rejection
Ground of Rejection
Claim(s)
Statute(s)
Reference(s)
Ground 1
1, 14, 15
§ 103
Chen et al. and Nourai et al.
Ground 2
2
§ 103
Chen et al., Nourai et al., and Chu et al.
Ground 3
4, 10, 11 13
§ 103
Chen et al., Nourai et al., and Lebeck et al.
Ground 4
5, 7, 8
§ 103
Chen et al., Nourai et al., and Ruth et al.
Ground 5
6
§ 103
Chen et al., Nourai et al., Ruth et al., and Miller et al.
Ground 6
9
§ 103
Chen et al., Nourai et al., Lebeck et al., and Miller et al.
Ground 7
12
§ 103
Chen et al., Nourai et al., and Miller et al.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 of this title, 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.
(Please see the cited paragraphs, sections, pages, or surrounding text in the references for the paraphrased content.)
Ground of Rejection 1
Claims 1, 14, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US20170053447A1) in view of Nourai et al. (US20200357185A1).
As per Claim 1, Chen teaches the following portion of Claim 1, which recites:
“An information processing system comprising a first information processing apparatus that stores information of a first object, and a second information processing apparatus that stores information of a second object different from the first object, wherein”
Chen et al. teaches an AR device including “processing apparatus 3, memory 5 and interfaces 7a, 7b” and a separate “user device (‘companion device’) 32.” Chen further teaches that “An augmentation is defined by rendering data in the form of an augmentation data object stored in the memory 5,” and that the companion device creates a separate “augmentation data object ‘RA’.” Thus, Chen’s AR device corresponds to the claimed first information processing apparatus storing information of a first object, and Chen’s companion device corresponds to the claimed second information processing apparatus storing information of a different second object. Chen et al., ¶¶ [0031]-[0036], [0049], [0055].
Chen teaches the following portion of Claim 1, which recites: “the first information processing apparatus performs first generating processing to generate a first image including a rendering of the first object, based on position-orientation information of a first body and information of the first object,”
Chen et al. teaches that “The rendering module 42 controls the light engine(s) 17 to generate a stereoscopic image” and that the image is formed by “rendering at least one virtual display element (‘augmentation’).” Chen further teaches that a device tracking module outputs a “pose vector” including position and orientation, and that “The rendering module 42 adapts the augmentations based on the tracking.” Thus, Chen teaches generating a first image including a rendering of the first object based on the AR device/user-body pose and the augmentation data object. Chen et al., ¶¶ [0034]-[0037], [0046]-[0047].
Chen teaches the following portion of Claim 1, which recites: “the second information processing apparatus performs second generating processing to generate a second image including a rendering of the second object, based on the position-orientation information of the first body and information of the second object, and”
Chen et al. teaches that the companion client “renders any augmentations created by the far-end user 30” and displays them “overlaid on the real-world image.” Chen also teaches that “The pose vector of the device as generated by the tracking module 50 is also communicated to the companion device 32 … for use by the companion device in displaying the AR user’s world.” Thus, Chen teaches the second apparatus generating a second image including a rendering of the second object based on the same AR-device pose vector and the second object’s augmentation data. Chen et al., ¶¶ [0059]-[0060].
Chen alone does not explicitly teach all the limitation(s) of the claim. However, when combined with Nourai, they collectively teach all of the limitation(s).
Chen and Nourai teach the following portion of Claim 1, which recites: “the first information processing apparatus further performs first compositing processing to generate an image that is a composite of the first image and the second image.”
Chen et al. teaches remote/local AR content flow, including that the AR system “receives rendering data from the remote device” and that the rendering data may be transmitted to the AR device, with the “rendering data … for use in rendering a virtual object at the AR device.” Chen also teaches direct transmission of the rendering data from the remote device to the AR device. Chen et al., ¶¶ [0007]-[0008].
Chen does not directly teach all details of first-apparatus compositing of first and second generated images. Nourai et al. supplies this feature. Nourai teaches that compositing software receives outputs from multiple sources and that “the various warped virtual content can be read from the buffer(s) and composited/combined.” Nourai further teaches that the “compositing unit 294 composites the warped second virtual content 612′ and the composited first virtual content 610′ to form the composited virtual content.” Nourai also teaches that single-pass compositing “reduces the processor burden and the time required to composite the virtual content to form output content for display.” Nourai et al., ¶¶ [0032]-[0042], [0070]-[0071].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to configure Chen’s first information processing apparatus to apply Nourai’s known multi-source compositing technique to combine the locally generated first image with the remotely generated second image/rendering output received from the second apparatus, thereby generating “an image that is a composite of the first image and the second image.”
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Chen et al.’s AR communication system with Nourai et al.’s multi-source virtual-content compositing technique to allow AR content generated from different devices or sources to be aligned to a common display frame and combined into a single output image for display. Chen teaches remote/local AR content exchange, including receiving rendering data from a remote device for rendering a virtual object at an AR device, while Nourai teaches warping and compositing virtual content from multiple sources into output content for display. The combination would have predictably improved Chen’s system by providing a known compositing architecture for combining local and remote AR content, handling overlapping content using depth testing, and efficiently producing a single display-ready composite image in a mixed-reality environment.
PNG
media_image1.png
13
460
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 14 does not include any additional limitations that would significantly distinguish it from claim 1. Therefore, it is likewise rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of the same references and for the same reasons set forth above.
PNG
media_image1.png
13
460
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 15 does not include any additional limitations that would significantly distinguish it from claim 1. Therefore, it is likewise rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of the same references and for the same reasons set forth above.
PNG
media_image1.png
13
460
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ground of Rejection 2
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Chen et al. in view of Nourai et al., and further in view of Chu et al. (US20160219325A1).
As per Claim 2, Chen alone does not explicitly teach all the limitation(s) of the claim. However, when combined with Chu and Nourai, they collectively teach all of the limitation(s).
Chu teaches the following portion of Claim 2, which recites: “The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein in the first generating processing, a first depth image representing depth information corresponding to each pixel of the first image is further generated,”
Chu et al. teaches rendering a scene to a rendering surface with a corresponding depth map, where “Each depth map 51 contains depth values representing distances … to each pixel … in each rendered rendering surface.” Thus, Chu teaches generating a depth image/depth map corresponding to the rendered first image. Chu et al., ¶ [0043].
Chu teaches the following portion of Claim 2, which recites: “in the second generating processing, a second depth image representing depth information corresponding to each pixel of the second image is further generated,”
Chu et al. further teaches that each rendering instance “renders its own future scene … to a rendering surface and creates a corresponding depth map of the future scene.” Thus, applying Chu to the second generated image teaches generating a second depth image/depth map corresponding to the second image. Chu et al., ¶ [0044].
Nourai teaches the following portion of Claim 2, which recites: “in the first compositing processing, an image that is a composite of the first image and the second image is generated, based on the first depth image and the second depth image.”
Nourai et al. teaches compositing first and second virtual content using depth information. Nourai states that compositing includes “depth testing” by “determining a first depth,” “determining a second depth,” and “comparing the first and second depths.” Nourai further teaches that, when pixels collide, the compositor “compares the depth information of the conflicting pixels” and writes the closer pixel to the output content. This teaches generating the composite image based on the depth information of the first and second images, as supplied by the depth maps taught by Chu. Nourai et al., ¶¶ [0013], [0070]-[0071].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply Chu’s per-rendered-image depth maps to the Chen/Nourai AR compositing system so that Nourai’s compositor could resolve overlap between first and second rendered images using depth comparison. The combination would have predictably improved multi-source AR compositing by enabling proper occlusion/depth ordering of overlapping virtual content in the final composite image.
PNG
media_image1.png
13
460
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ground of Rejection 3
Claims 4, 10, 11, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Chen et al. and Nourai et al., and further in view of Lebeck et al. (US20170162177A1).
As per Claim 4, Chen alone does not explicitly teach all the limitation(s) of the claim. However, when combined with Nourai and Lebeck, they collectively teach all of the limitation(s).
Lebeck teaches the following portion of Claim 4, which recites:
“The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein in the second generating processing, the second image is not generated in a first case where a specific condition having been preset is satisfied,”
Lebeck teaches preset output policies having “a conditional predicate, boolean expression, or other factor that determines when the policy has been violated” and actions to take when violated. Lebeck further teaches that policy mechanisms may “remove them, deny their creation or presentation entirely,” and gives an example where a mail notification “was prevented from being presented in response to determining that the vehicle was in motion.” Thus, when the preset condition/policy is satisfied, the second virtual-object image is not generated/presented. Lebeck et al., ¶¶ [0034], [0046], [0051].
Lebeck teaches the following portion of Claim 4, which recites: “in the second generating processing, the second image is generated in a second case where the specific condition is not satisfied.”
Lebeck teaches the converse case: the system evaluates a request using policies and, “in response to determining that no policies are violated, presenting the virtual object.” Thus, when the preset condition is not satisfied, the virtual object image is generated/presented. Lebeck et al., ¶ [0009].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply Lebeck’s preset AR output-policy control to the Chen/Nourai multi-source AR rendering system so that generation/presentation of remote virtual content could be selectively allowed or denied based on safety, privacy, or context conditions, with the predictable result of preventing unwanted AR output when a preset condition is met and permitting normal generation when it is not.
PNG
media_image1.png
13
460
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As per Claim 10, Chen alone does not explicitly teach all the limitation(s) of the claim. However, when combined with Nourai and Lebeck, they collectively teach all of the limitation(s).
Lebeck teaches Claim 10, which recites: “The information processing system according to claim 4, wherein the specific condition is a condition that a relationship between a position-orientation of the first body and a position-orientation of the second object is in a specific relationship.”
Lebeck teaches preset AR output policies based on relationships between the user/viewpoint and virtual objects. Lebeck discloses that virtual objects have “at least a location” and may include “a size, a 3D model or shape, a texture” and that output policies may use “relationships between virtual objects and other virtual or real-world objects.” Lebeck gives “DistanceFromUser( )” as an example and states that a policy condition may be formed as “if DistanceFromUser( )<10 meters.” Lebeck further teaches that violated policies may “remove them, deny their creation or presentation entirely.” Lebeck et al., ¶¶ [0044], [0049], [0051].
Thus, Lebeck teaches that the preset condition may be a specific spatial relationship, such as distance from the user/body pose to the virtual object position, satisfying the claimed relationship between the position-orientation of the first body and the position-orientation of the second object.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use Lebeck’s relationship-based AR output policy in the Chen/Nourai system so that generation or presentation of the second virtual object could be controlled based on the object’s spatial relationship to the user’s body/head pose, with the predictable result of preventing inappropriate or intrusive AR output when the preset relationship condition is met.
PNG
media_image1.png
13
460
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As per Claim 11, Chen alone does not explicitly teach all the limitation(s) of the claim. However, when combined with Nourai and Lebeck, they collectively teach all of the limitation(s).
Lebeck teaches the following portion of Claim 11, which recites:
“The information processing system according to claim 4, wherein the first object is a three-dimensional object,”
Lebeck et al. teaches that AR applications create virtual objects having “at least a location and one or more of a size, a 3D model or shape, a texture” for presentation by the AR system. Thus, Lebeck teaches the first object as a three-dimensional object. Lebeck et al., ¶ [0044].
Lebeck teaches the following portion of Claim 11, which recites: “in the first case, in the first generating processing, the first image is generated making a shape of the first object less presumable, than in the second case.”
Lebeck et al. teaches preset output policies for AR virtual objects and that, when a policy is violated, the system may alter the virtual object to reduce intrusiveness, including making objects “smaller” or “more transparent.” Lebeck also teaches that objects obscuring recognized real-world objects have their “opacity” reduced. Thus, in the first case where the preset policy condition is satisfied, the first image is generated with the first object in a less shape-revealing form, such as reduced opacity or reduced size, than in the second case where the policy condition is not satisfied. Lebeck et al., ¶¶ [0031], [0046], [0051].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply Lebeck’s preset AR output-policy control to the Chen/Nourai system so that a three-dimensional virtual object could be rendered in a less intrusive, less shape-discernible form when a preset condition is met, while allowing normal rendering when the condition is not met. The combination would have predictably improved AR safety and visibility management.
PNG
media_image1.png
13
460
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As per Claim 13, Chen alone does not explicitly teach all the limitation(s) of the claim. However, when combined with Nourai and Lebeck, they collectively teach all of the limitation(s).
Lebeck teaches the following portion of Claim 13, which recites:
“The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the first information processing apparatus does not store information of the second object, and the second information processing apparatus does not store information of the first object.”
Lebeck teaches an AR system in which a first untrusted application presents a first virtual object and a second untrusted application presents a second virtual object, where “the first untrusted application and the second untrusted application are executed in different isolated processes.” Lebeck also teaches that applications create their own virtual objects and provide them to the output policy engine for management and presentation. Thus, it would have been obvious to maintain the first-object information in the first isolated process/apparatus and the second-object information in the second isolated process/apparatus, without storing the other object’s information in the opposite apparatus. Lebeck et al., ¶¶ [0011], [0044].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply Lebeck’s isolated-process AR application architecture to the Chen/Nourai multi-source AR compositing system to preserve separation between independently generated virtual objects, reduce unauthorized cross-access between applications/devices, and allow the compositor/platform to combine outputs without requiring each source to store the other source’s object information.
PNG
media_image1.png
13
460
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ground of Rejection 4
Claims 5, 7, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Chen et al. and Nourai et al., and further in view of Ruth et al. (US20200364915A1).
As per Claim 5, Chen alone does not explicitly teach all the limitation(s) of the claim. However, when combined with Nourai and Ruth, they collectively teach all of the limitation(s).
Ruth teaches the following portion of Claim 5, which recites: “The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the second object is a three-dimensional object,”
Ruth teaches a virtual object having a “location and a mesh for the object,” and further teaches sharing aspects such as “a size and/or shape associated with the virtual object.” Thus, Ruth teaches the second object as a three-dimensional virtual object. Ruth et al., ¶¶ [0007], [0062].
Ruth teaches the following portion of Claim 5, which recites: “in a first case where a specific condition having been preset is satisfied, in the second generating processing, the second image is generated making a shape of the second object less presumable, than in a second case where the specific condition is not satisfied.”
Ruth teaches determining whether the receiving AR system has permission to display the private virtual object. If permission exists, the system presents the private virtual object. If permission does not exist, the system presents a “placeholder object format” that “conceals the private aspects” of the object, such as “a cloud, a box, a sphere, or another type of virtual object of a generic shape.” Ruth further explains that the placeholder cloud is of approximate size but “does not disclose any other information about the first virtual object.” Thus, when the preset permission/privacy condition is satisfied, the generated image uses a generic/placeholder shape, making the actual shape of the second object less presumable than when the condition is not satisfied and the actual object is presented. Ruth et al., ¶¶ [0063]-[0068].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply Ruth’s permission-based placeholder-object technique to the Chen/Nourai multi-user AR system to protect private or restricted virtual-object details while still providing a visual cue of the object’s presence, with the predictable result of displaying a less shape-revealing representation when a preset permission/privacy condition is met.
PNG
media_image1.png
13
460
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As per Claim 7, Chen alone does not explicitly teach all the limitation(s) of the claim. However, when combined with Nourai and Ruth, they collectively teach all of the limitation(s).
Ruth teaches the following portion of Claim 7, which recites: “The information processing system according to claim 5, wherein the second object is not shaded in the second image generated in the first case.”
Ruth teaches the first restricted/privacy case where the system presents a “placeholder object format” that “conceals the private aspects” of the object, such as “a cloud, a box, a sphere, or another type of virtual object of a generic shape.” Ruth further teaches that the placeholder object is based only on shared aspects and “does not disclose any other information about the first virtual object.” Ruth et al., ¶¶ [0065]-[0068].
To the extent shading would reveal shape/detail of the original 3D object, it would have been obvious to omit shading from Ruth’s generic placeholder representation so that the object’s shape remains less presumable in the restricted first case.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to omit shading from Ruth’s placeholder object in the restricted/private display case to further conceal the private object’s shape and details while still providing a simple visual cue of object presence, with the predictable result of a less informative, non-shaded placeholder image.
PNG
media_image1.png
13
460
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As per Claim 8, Chen alone does not explicitly teach all the limitation(s) of the claim. However, when combined with Nourai and Ruth, they collectively teach all of the limitation(s).
Ruth teaches Claim 8, which recites: “The information processing system according to claim 5, wherein, in the first case, in the second generating processing, the second image is generated based on information resultant of modifying information of the second object.”
Ruth et al. teaches that, when the second augmented reality system lacks permission to display the private virtual object, the object protection engine “determines a placeholder object format for the private virtual object.” Ruth further teaches that the placeholder object format is “determined based on the aspects to be shared” and “conceals the private aspects of the private virtual object.” Ruth also teaches that the placeholder may be “a cloud, a box, a sphere, or another type of virtual object of a generic shape,” and that the placeholder shape may be “influenced by the size and/or shape of the private virtual object.” Ruth et al., ¶ [0065].
Accordingly, Ruth teaches generating the restricted first-case second image based on modified information of the second object, namely shared/placeholder information derived from the original object information while concealing private aspects, instead of using the full original second-object information.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply Ruth’s placeholder-object modification to the Chen/Nourai multi-user AR system to protect private object details while still providing a visual cue of object presence. The combination would have predictably resulted in a second image generated from modified second-object information in the restricted first case.
PNG
media_image1.png
13
460
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ground of Rejection 5
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Chen et al. and Nourai et al., further in view of Ruth et al. and Miller et al.
As per Claim 6, Chen alone does not explicitly teach all the limitation(s) of the claim. However, when combined with Nourai, Ruth, and Miller, they collectively teach all of the limitation(s).
Ruth and Miller teach the following portion of Claim 6, which recites:
“The information processing system according to claim 5, wherein the second image generated in the first case has a less total number of pixels than a total number of pixels in the second image generated in the second case.”
Ruth teaches the first case of restricted/private display by presenting a “placeholder object format” that “conceals the private aspects” of the object, such as “a cloud, a box, a sphere, or another type of virtual object of a generic shape,” instead of presenting the full private object. Ruth et al., ¶¶ [0063]-[0068].
Miller teaches reducing image/data quality and resolution depending on device/bandwidth conditions, including “reducing the size of the transmitted data to a low resolution quality” and processing at “320×240 resolution” versus “high definition resolution (1280×720), or greater.” Miller et al., ¶¶ [0085], [0095].
Thus, it would have been obvious to generate Ruth’s privacy-preserving placeholder/generic second image at a lower resolution, and therefore with fewer total pixels, than the full second-object image generated when the restriction is not present.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply Miller’s low-resolution rendering/transmission approach to Ruth’s placeholder-object privacy mode so that, when only a generic visual cue is needed, the system reduces bandwidth and processing load while still preserving the intended privacy function. The result would predictably be a lower-pixel placeholder image in the first case and a higher-pixel/full image in the second case.
PNG
media_image1.png
13
460
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ground of Rejection 6
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Chen et al. and Nourai et al., further in view of Lebeck et al. and Miller et al.
As per Claim 9, Chen alone does not explicitly teach all the limitation(s) of the claim. However, when combined with Nourai, Lebeck, and Miller, they collectively teach all of the limitation(s).
Miller and Lebeck teach the following portion of Claim 9, which recites:
“The information processing system according to claim 4, wherein the specific condition is a condition that a position-orientation of the first body is a specific position-orientation.”
Miller et al. teaches sensing user/body pose, including “a movement of the user, a location of the user, a direction of the user and an orientation of the user,” and calculating “a pose of the user” based on that sensed location/direction/orientation. Miller also teaches that the user’s “geospatial location” or mobile location relative to buildings may “trigger the transmission of data used to display the virtual character(s).” Thus, Miller teaches using a user/body position-orientation condition to control whether AR display data is provided/generated. Miller et al., ¶¶ [0017], [0117].
Lebeck further teaches preset policy conditions that may “deny their creation or presentation entirely,” supporting the Claim 4 concept that the second image is not generated/presented when the preset condition is met. Lebeck et al., ¶ [0051].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use Miller’s user-pose/location-triggered AR display control with Lebeck’s policy-based denial of AR content generation/presentation so that remote/second virtual content is generated only when the user’s body/head pose satisfies the intended display context, with predictable reduction of unnecessary or inappropriate AR output.
PNG
media_image1.png
13
460
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ground of Rejection 7
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Chen et al. and Nourai et al., further in view of Miller et al.
As per Claim 12, Chen alone does not explicitly teach all the limitation(s) of the claim. However, when combined with Nourai and Miller, they collectively teach all of the limitation(s).
Miller teaches the following portion of Claim 12, which recites: “The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the first object and the second object is a three-dimensional object representing a body disposed in a real space.”
Miller teaches that “local, physical objects (e.g., first user 901 and first object 902) may be scanned and rendered as virtual objects in the virtual world,” and that “The first user 901 may be scanned … by a motion capture system … and rendered in the virtual world … as a first rendered physical object 931.” Miller further teaches that the first user and object are “physical objects in the physical world,” and that another user may observe rendered physical objects “representing the first user 901 and first object 902.” Thus, Miller teaches a virtual/3D rendered object representing a real-space body, such as the first user’s body. Miller et al., ¶¶ [0115]-[0116].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply Miller’s scanned/rendered real-user body representation to the Chen/Nourai multi-user AR system so that a user’s real-space body could be represented as a virtual object in the shared AR/VR scene, with the predictable result of enabling remote or co-present users to view and interact with a rendered body representation.
PNG
media_image1.png
13
460
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and relied upon in this action is as follows:
Patent Literature:
Ruth et al. (US20200364915A1) — “Techniques for managing multi-user content in augmented reality applications.”
Chen et al. (US20170053447A1) — “Augmented Reality.”
Chu et al. (US20160219325A1) — “Predictive server-side rendering of scenes.”
Lebeck et al. (US20170162177A1) — “Methods and systems for providing presentation security for augmented reality applications.”
Miller et al. (US20140306866A1) — “System and method for augmented and virtual reality.”
Nourai et al. (US20200357185A1) — “Mixed reality system with multi-source virtual content compositing and method of generating virtual content using same.”
Non-Patent Literature (NPL):
(none)
Note: A PDF copy of each NPL reference is attached with this Office Action. URLs are included for applicant convenience. If a link becomes unavailable in the future, the citation information may be used to locate the reference or access archived versions via the Wayback Machine.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is listed as follows:
Patent Literature:
Molyneaux et al. (US20210142581A1) — “Method of occlusion rendering using raycast and live depth.”
Non-Patent Literature (NPL):
(none)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADEEL BASHIR whose telephone number is (571) 270-0440. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday.
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, Daniel Hajnik can be reached on (571) 276-7642. 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.
/ADEEL BASHIR/
Examiner, Art Unit 2616
/DANIEL F HAJNIK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2616
Prosecution Insights