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 .
Remarks
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 07/10/2026.
Claim(s) 1-28 is/are pending in the application.
Independent claim(s) 1, 13, 20 was/were amended.
Dependent claim(s) 2-12 was/were amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's argument(s), regarding the amended portion(s) as recited in independent claim 1 (and similarly in independent claim(s) 13, 20), filed 07/10/2026, have/has been fully considered and is/are persuasive. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made, adding/using Jotwani, Wiggeshoff to be relied upon for the aforementioned amended portion(s). To note, applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-8, 13-14, 17-21, 26-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jotwani (US 2021/0097731 A1) in view of Wiggeshoff (US 2021/0406575 A1).
In regards to claim 1, Jotwani teaches a computer-implemented method for facilitating room design from an image of a physical space (e.g. [0040],Figs.1B: referring now to Fig.1B, in some implementations, the electronic device 102 and/or the controller 104 may present a computer-generated reality (CGR) environment 120 that represents the physical environment 108; in some implementations, the CGR environment 120 includes a virtual environment that is a simulated replacement of the physical environment 108; see also [0037],Fig.1A: as illustrated in Fig.1A, the electronic device 102 and/or the controller 104 obtains (e.g. receives, retrieves, and/or detects) environmental data corresponding to a physical environment 108; for example, the environmental data may include an image or a video captured by an image sensor 110, such as a camera); Examiner’s note: shows that an image of the physical space is used to facilitate room design by way of adding virtual objects into the physical space) the method being performed by one or more processors programmed with computer instructions (e.g. [0067]: the method 400 is performed by a processor executing code stored in a non-transitory computer-readable medium (e.g. a memory)) which, when executed, cause the one or more processors to perform the steps of:
determining dimensions of the physical space from a physical object depicted in a two dimensional image of the physical space (e.g. [0065]: In some implementations, the dimension determiner 330 determines a physical dimension of the physical environment based on the known dimension of the known physical article; see also [0060]: In some implementations, an object analyzer 320 identifies a known physical article in the physical environment based on one or more of the image 304), wherein determining the dimensions of the physical space from the physical object comprises:
identifying at least one physical object in the two dimensional image that has a known dimension (e.g. as above, [0060]: In some implementations, an object analyzer 320 identifies a known physical article in the physical environment based on one or more of the image 304; see also [0063]: in some implementations, a dimension determiner 330 receives the object identifier 322 and determines a known dimension of the known physical article),
retrieving from an object database at least one known dimension value associated with the physical object (e.g. [0062] for example, in some implementations, the object analyzer 320 determines the object identifier 322 based on information received from a database 324 (e.g. a local database); for example, the database 324 may store a product specification for a physical article (e.g. a chair) corresponding to the known physical article (e.g. of the same model of the known physical article); as above, [0063] in some implementations, a dimension determiner 330 receives the object identifier 322 and determines a known dimension of the known physical article), and
using the known dimension value as a scale reference to determine the dimensions of the physical space (e.g. as above, [0065]: in some implementations, the dimension determiner 330 determines a physical dimension of the physical environment based on the known dimension of the known physical article); and
generating a three dimensional virtual space that corresponds with dimensions of the physical space depicted in the two dimensional image (e.g. [0066]: in some implementations, an environment generator 340 generates a CGR environment that represents (e.g. models) the physical environment; in some implementations, the CGR environment is a computer-generated model of the physical environment; the CGR environment may be output as part of a CGR content item 342, which may also include one or more CGR objects; in some implementations, the CGR environment has a virtual dimension, e.g. a number of pixels; the virtual dimension is a function of the physical dimension of the physical environment) comprising at least a virtual object with dimensions that correspond to dimensions of the physical object based on the determined dimensions of the physical space depicted in the two dimensional image (e.g. as above, [0066]: the CGR environment may be output as part of a CGR content item 342, which may also include one or more CGR objects; in some implementations, the CGR environment has a virtual dimension, e.g. a number of pixels; the virtual dimension is a function of the physical dimension of the physical environment),
but does not explicitly teach the method,
wherein the virtual object is generated by retrieving three-dimensional model information from an object database based on identification of the physical object in the two dimensional image.
However, Wiggeshoff teaches a method,
wherein the virtual object is generated by retrieving three-dimensional model information from an object database based on identification of the physical object in the two dimensional image (e.g. [0057]: with continued reference to Fig.2, at operation 208, a 3D model of the real world object 200 is obtained; in some implementations, the 3D model is obtained from a library of predefined 3D models; for example, based on the identification of the object type/name, and possibly one or more identified features of the object, then a corresponding predefined 3D model is retrieved from the library; then at operation 210, any relevant features identified from the scan of the real world object are applied to the 3D model, such as defining any configurable aspects or dimensions of the 3D model, defining the colors/appearance of surfaces, etc.; at operation 212, after the features are applied to the 3D model, then a virtual object corresponding to the real world object 200 is generated and stored as an asset for deployment in a virtual environment, such as a virtual environment of a simulation or video game; Examiner’s note: where the library storing 3D model corresponds to the object database).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings/combination of Jotwani to generate a virtual object, in the same conventional manner as taught by Wiggeshoff as both deal with physical object recognition and augmented reality display. The motivation to combine the two would be that it would help the augmented reality system find/size relevant 3D models to display as virtual content, e.g. to find/size relevant virtual objects that correspond to real physical objects detected in the scene.
In regards to system claim 13 and product claim 20, claim(s) 13, 20 recite(s) limitations that is/are similar in scope to the limitations recited in claim 1. Therefore, claim(s) 13, 20 is/are subject to rejections under the same rationale as applied hereinabove for claim 1.
In regards to claim 2, the combination of Jotwani and Wiggeshoff teaches a method, wherein the one or more processors are programmed with computer instructions to determine dimensions of the physical space from an object depicted in a two dimensional image of the physical space comprise further program instructions, when executed, cause the one or more processors to perform the steps of:
detecting planes of the physical space depicted in the two dimensional image using image analysis (e.g. Jotwani as above, [0065]: the dimension determiner 330 determines a physical dimension of the physical environment based on the known dimension of the known physical article; Examiner’s note: paragraph [0065] and corresponding Fig.1B refers to detecting wall and desk planes, where Fig.1B shows a dimension 122; Fig.1A also shows dimension 116 detected along another wall plane and dimension 114 detected along the vertical planes of an object 112; as such, this shows the detection of planes);
determining dimensions of the object depicted in the two dimensional image (e.g. Jotwani as above, [0065]: the dimension determiner 330 determines a physical dimension of the physical environment based on the known dimension of the known physical article; [0060]: in some implementations, an object analyzer 320 identifies a known physical article in the physical environment based on one or more of the image 304; [0063]: in some implementations, a dimension determiner 330 receives the object identifier 322 and determines a known dimension of the known physical article; Examiner’s note: as discussed previously, paragraph [0065] shows the determination of dimensions of a desk located along the wall plane); and
determining the dimensions of the physical space based on the determined dimensions of the object depicted in the two dimensional image (e.g. Jotwani as above, [0065]: in some implementations, the dimension determiner 330 determines a physical dimension of the physical environment based on the known dimension of the known physical article).
In regards to system claim 14, claim(s) 14 recite(s) limitations that is/are similar in scope to the limitations recited in claim 2. Therefore, claim(s) 14 is/are subject to rejections under the same rationale as applied hereinabove for claim 2.
In regards to claim 5, the combination of Jotwani and Wiggeshoff teaches a method, wherein the one or more processors are programmed with computer instructions to determine dimensions of the object depicted in the two dimensional image using image analysis comprise further program instructions, when executed, cause the one or more processors to perform the steps of:
identifying one known dimension of the object depicted in the two dimensional image (e.g. Jotwani as above, [0065]: in some implementations, the dimension determiner 330 determines a physical dimension of the physical environment based on the known dimension of the known physical article; Examiner’s note: shows use of image analysis techniques to determine the dimensions of both a desk object and wall object located in the 2D image (photograph of the physical scene)).
In regards to system claim 17, claim(s) 17 recite(s) limitations that is/are similar in scope to the limitations recited in claim 5. Therefore, claim(s) 17 is/are subject to rejections under the same rationale as applied hereinabove for claim 5.
In regards to claim 6, the combination of Jotwani and Wiggeshoff teaches a method, wherein the one or more processors are programmed with computer instructions which, when executed, cause the one or more processors to further perform the steps of:
determining dimensions of other objects depicted in the two dimensional image based on the identified one known dimension of the object (e.g. Jotwani as above, [0065]: in some implementations, the dimension determiner 330 determines a physical dimension of the physical environment based on the known dimension of the known physical article; Examiner’s note: shows use of image analysis techniques to determine the dimensions of both a desk object and wall object located in the 2D image (photograph of the physical scene)).
In regards to system claim 18, claim(s) 18 recite(s) limitations that is/are similar in scope to the limitations recited in claim 6. Therefore, claim(s) 18 is/are subject to rejections under the same rationale as applied hereinabove for claim 6.
In regards to claim 7, the combination of Jotwani and Wiggeshoff teaches a method, wherein the one or more processors are programmed with computer instructions which, when executed, cause the one or more processors to further perform the steps of:
determining the dimensions of the physical space using relative dimensions of the determined dimensions of the other objects to the physical space (e.g. Jotwani, [0080]: in some implementations, as represented by block 430l, the physical dimension of the physical environment is determined based on the known dimension of the known physical article and a proportion of the known physical article to the physical environment; for example, the known physical article may be a desk located along a wall of an office, and the known dimension of the desk may be a width of two meters; if the proportion of the width of the desk to the wall is 1:2 (e.g. the desk occupies half of the wall along which the desk is located), the dimension determiner 330 may determine that the wall along which the desk is located is four meters long; Examiner’s note: shows use of relative dimensions).
In regards to system claim 19, claim(s) 19 recite(s) limitations that is/are similar in scope to the limitations recited in claim 7. Therefore, claim(s) 19 is/are subject to rejections under the same rationale as applied hereinabove for claim 7.
In regards to claim 8, the combination of Jotwani and Wiggeshoff teaches a method, wherein the one or more processors are programmed with computer instructions to generate a three dimensional virtual space based on the determined dimensions of the physical space depicted in the two dimensional image comprise further program instructions, when executed, cause the one or more processors to perform the steps of:
populating the three dimensional virtual space with one or more virtual objects that correspond to one or more objects in the physical space depicted in the two dimensional image, wherein the three dimensional virtual space has dimensions corresponding with the determined dimensions of the physical space, and wherein the one or more virtual objects have dimensions corresponding with dimensions of the at least one physical object in the physical space (e.g. Wiggeshoff, [0092],Fig.7B: at this later time, the lamp 706 is turned on, the box 708 includes a drawing on its side, and the plant 710 has grown; these real world objects continue to be associated to the corresponding virtual objects in the virtual environment 712; Examiner’s note: shows multiple virtual objects are populated in the virtual space that have dimensions corresponding to the dimensions of their corresponding physical objects).
In addition, the same rationale/motivation of claim 1 is used for claim 8.
In regards to claim 21, the combination of Jotwani and Wiggeshoff teaches a method, wherein the one or more processors are programmed with computer instructions which, when executed, cause the one or more processors to further:
size new virtual objects relative to the virtual object and the three dimensional virtual space (e.g. Wiggeshoff, [0071]: in some implementations, a deployed virtual object is resized based on a size comparison with other similar or related objects (e.g. sizing a car based on the sizes of other cars in the scene)).
In addition, the same rationale/motivation of claim 1 is used for claim 21.
In regards to claim 26, the combination of Jotwani and Wiggeshoff teaches a method, wherein the one or more processors are programmed with computer instructions which, when executed, cause the one or more processors to further:
enable customization of the three dimensional virtual space by allowing at least the virtual object to be removed, replaced, moved, or modified within the three dimensional virtual space (e.g. Jotwani, [0041]: in some implementations, the electronic device 102 and/or the controller 104 generate the CGR environment 120 by removing and/or adding items from the simulated replica of the physical environment 108 in which the electronic device 102 is located).
In regards to claim 27, the combination of Jotwani and Wiggeshoff teaches a method, wherein identifying the one known dimension of the object depicted in the two dimensional image comprises:
recognizing the object depicted in the two dimensional image (e.g. Jotwani as above, [0060] “In some implementations, an object analyzer 320 identifies a known physical article in the physical environment based on one or more of the image 304); and
retrieving the one known dimension from an object database keyed to a product identifier of the object (e.g Jotwani as above, [0062] for example, in some implementations, the object analyzer 320 determines the object identifier 322 based on information received from a database 324 (e.g. a local database); for example, the database 324 may store a product specification for a physical article (e.g. a chair) corresponding to the known physical article (e.g. of the same model of the known physical article); [0063] in some implementations, a dimension determiner 330 receives the object identifier 322 and determines a known dimension of the known physical article).
Claim(s) 3-4, 9-10, 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Jotwani and Wiggeshoff as applied to claims 2, 14 above, and further in view of Stekovic et al. (US 2021/0150805 A1).
In regards to claim 3, the combination of Jotwani and Wiggeshoff teaches the method of claim 2, but does not explicitly teach the method, wherein the one or more processors are programmed with computer instructions which, when executed, cause the one or more processors to further perform the steps of:
extending at least one detected plane of the physical space that corresponds with a wall that is occluded by the object.
However, Stekovic teaches a method, wherein the one or more processors are programmed with computer instructions which, when executed, cause the one or more processors to further perform the steps of:
extending at least one detected plane of the physical space that corresponds with a wall that is occluded by the object (e.g. [0069]: can infer the 3D planes of the layout from a monocular image with many objects occluding the layout structure, such as furniture in a room; Examiner’s note: this shows planes are extended beyond that of occluding objects).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings/combination of Jotwani and Wiggeshoff to detect planes, in the same conventional manner as taught by Stekovic as both deal with constructing/generating 3D scenes. The motivation to combine the two would be that it would allow detections of planes/surfaces using image analysis for use in constructing the 3D scene.
In regards to system claim 15, claim(s) 15 recite(s) limitations that is/are similar in scope to the limitations recited in claim 3. Therefore, claim(s) 15 is/are subject to rejections under the same rationale as applied hereinabove for claim 3.
In regards to claim 4, the combination of Jotwani, Wiggeshoff and Stekovic teaches a method, wherein the one or more processors are programmed with computer instructions which, when executed, cause the one or more processors to perform the steps of:
generating a corresponding image that depicts detected planes of the physical space (e.g. Stekovic, [0109],Fig.14: at block 1402, the process 1400 includes detecting the one or more planes using a machine learning model; [0120]: in some examples, the process 1400 includes generating an output image based on the 3D layout of the environment).
In addition, the same rationale/motivation of claim 3 is used for claim 4.
In regards to system claim 16, claim(s) 16 recite(s) limitations that is/are similar in scope to the limitations recited in claim 4. Therefore, claim(s) 16 is/are subject to rejections under the same rationale as applied hereinabove for claim 4.
In regards to claim 9, the combination of Jotwani and Wiggeshoff teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the one or more processors are programmed with computer instructions which, when executed, cause the one or more processors to further perform the steps of:
customizing a design of the generated three dimensional virtual space, wherein customizing a design of the three dimensional virtual space includes generating new virtual objects, customizing the new virtual objects, removing the new virtual objects, or replace the new virtual objects in the generated three dimensional virtual space (e.g. Jotwani, [0041]: in some implementations, the electronic device 102 and/or the controller 104 generate the CGR environment 120 by removing and/or adding items from the simulated replica of the physical environment 108 in which the electronic device 102 is located),
but does not explicitly teach the method, comprising computer program instructions, when executed, cause the one or more processors to:
provide a user interface to a user that is configured to enable user selection of one or more options that change depiction of the one or more virtual objects in the generated three dimensional virtual space.
However, Stekovic teaches a method, comprising:
providing a user interface to a user that is configured to enable user selection of one or more options that change depiction of the one or more virtual objects in the generated three dimensional virtual space (e.g. [0122]-[0123]: process 1400 includes receiving a user input to manipulate the three-dimensional model, and adjusting at least one of a pose, a location, and/or a property of the three-dimensional model in an output image based on the user input; property of the 3D model can include an appearance of the 3D model (e.g. texture, color, sheen, reflectance, among others)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the teachings/combination Jotwani and Wiggeshoff to change objects, in the same conventional manner as taught by Stekovic as both deal with constructing/generating 3D scenes. The motivation to combine the two would be that it would allow the user to change and modify the different characteristics of the virtual objects in the scene.
In regards to claim 10, the combination of Jotwani, Wiggeshoff and Stekovic teaches a method, wherein the one or more processors are programmed with computer instructions which, when executed, cause the one or more processors to further perform the step of:
sizing the new virtual objects relative to the one or more virtual objects already depicted in the three dimensional virtual space (e.g. Wiggeshoff, [0071]: in some implementations, a deployed virtual object is resized based on a size comparison with other similar or related objects (e.g. sizing a car based on the sizes of other cars in the scene)).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Jotwani and Wiggeshoff as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Khosravan et al. (US Pat. 11,783,385 B1).
In regards to claim 11, the combination of Jotwani and Wiggeshoff teaches the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach the method, wherein the one or more processors are programmed with computer instructions which, when executed, cause the one or more processors to further perform the steps of:
identifying a style of the physical space based on contextual information determined from the two dimensional image of the physical space, wherein the contextual information includes dimensions of the physical space, identification of the at least one physical object in the physical space, and dimensions of the at least one physical object objects in the physical space.
However, Khosravan teaches a method, comprising:
identifying a style of the physical space based on contextual information determined from the two dimensional image of the physical space, wherein the contextual information includes dimensions of the physical space, identification of the at least one physical object in the physical space, and dimensions of the at least one object in the physical space (e.g. c.11 L.13-54: to identify the architectural style of a home, the valuation computer system 100 can implement computer vision techniques to isolate interior property features/attributes and match them against templates of interior property features/attributes annotated with architectural styles; c.16 L.66-c.17 L.6,Fig,9: at block 904, process 900 identifies interior features of the image data, using a computer vision module; the interior features can include windows, doors, kitchen appliances, cabinetry, molding, and so on; in some implementations, process 900 further determines attributes (e.g. size, style, material, type, condition) of the identified interior features; the attributes can be associated with a room type of the interior features, such as a kitchen or a bathroom).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings/combination of Jotwani and Wiggeshoff to identify style, in the same conventional manner as taught by Khosravan as both deal with virtual scene representations. The motivation to combine the two would be that it would allow the user to determine a style of the scene based on features of the captured scene.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Jotwani, Wiggeshoff and Khosravan as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Beauchamp et al. (US 2023/0410436 A1).
In regards to claim 12, the combination of Jotwani, Wiggeshoff and Khosravan teaches the method of claim 11, but does not explicitly teach the method, wherein the one or more processors are programmed with computer instructions to identify a style of the physical space based on contextual information determined from the two dimensional image of the physical space comprise further program instructions, when executed, cause the one or more processors to further perform the steps of:
identifying product names of objects depicted in the physical space; and
determining determine a design style associated with the physical space based on the identified product names of the objects depicted in the physical space.
However, Beauchamp teaches a method, comprising:
identifying product names of objects depicted in the physical space (e.g. [0203]: the camera of the customer device may capture an image of a bathmat and the client app may apply an object recognition function on the image of the bathmat to identify/classify the type of object in the image is a bathmat or identify the brand of the bathmat); and
determining a design style associated with the physical space based on the identified product names of the objects depicted in the physical space (e.g. [0204]: by determining the objects or types of objects typically associated with the regions or types of regions, the region prediction engine may predict an appropriate region or type of region having attributes (e.g. types of objects, objects, spatial features) relevant to or routinely associated with the objects or types of objects and/or may infer the customer's desired region in which to preview the new object from ambiguous instructions; Examiner’s note: this shows that based on the identified objects, the type of region (style) may be predicted).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings/combination of Jotwani, Wiggeshoff and Khosravan to determine product names, in the same conventional manner as taught by Beauchamp as both deal with virtual scene representations. The motivation to combine the two would be that identification of product names/brands would help in determining a scene style.
Claim(s) 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Jotwani and Wiggeshoff as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Besecker et al. (US 2019/0325643 A1).
In regards to claim 22, the combination of Jotwani and Wiggeshoff teaches the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach the method, wherein the one or more processors are programmed with computer instructions which, when executed, cause the one or more processors to further:
define a two dimensional profile of the virtual object and applying rules for offsetting style profiles from a face of the virtual object; and
dynamically resize the virtual object to fit a selected size within the three dimensional virtual space.
However, Besecker teaches a method, comprising:
defining a two dimensional profile of the virtual object and applying rules for offsetting style profiles from a face of the virtual object (e.g. [0072]: system 100 may be configured for cabinet doors by defining a 2D profile of the door and the rules for how to offset door and drawer style profiles from the face of a cabinet); and
dynamically resizing the virtual object to fit a selected size within the three dimensional virtual space (e.g. further in [0072]: system 100 may be configured to dynamically “stretch” the door parameters to fit one door to any cabinet size, instead of modeling every door shape and size).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the teachings/combination of Jotwani and Wiggeshoff to resize objects, in the same conventional manner as taught by Besecker as both deal with constructing/generating 3D scenes. The motivation to combine the two would be that it would allow the user to size virtual objects using rules provided by the profile of the object.
In regards to claim 23, the combination Jotwani, Wiggeshoff and Besecker teaches a method, wherein the one or more processors are programmed with computer instructions which, when executed, cause the one or more processors to further:
render an assembly comprising a plurality of virtual objects arranged according to a defined layout, wherein the assembly includes at least one virtual object mounted on another virtual object based on one or more rules or metadata specifying fit, location, and compatibility (e.g. Besecker, [0073]: system 100 may be configured to render “assemblies,” which are objects mounted on other objects and/or arranged into some kind of layout; system 100 can be configured with the ability to mount an object on another object using one or more rules and/or metadata that may define fit, location, and/or compatibility); and
enable editing of the assembly or specifying the assembly as being non-editable within the three dimensional virtual space (e.g. Besecker, further in [0073]: system 100 can be configured such that assemblies can also be editable or not editable).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the teachings/combination of Jotwani and Wiggeshoff to assemble objects, in the same conventional manner as taught by Besecker as both deal with constructing/generating 3D scenes. The motivation to combine the two would be that it would allow the user to group objects in a layout such that the objects are considered a single entity.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Jotwani and Wiggeshoff as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xu et al. (“Constraint-based Automatic Placement for Scene Composition”).
In regards to claim 24, the combination of Jotwani and Wiggeshoff teaches the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach the method, wherein the one or more processors are programmed with computer instructions which, when executed, cause the one or more processors to further:
determine compatibility and fit between two or more virtual objects placed within the three dimensional virtual space; and
automatically arrange the two or more virtual objects based on such compatibility and fit, such that respective virtual objects are positioned in the three dimensional virtual space according to allowable placement relationships, including supporting placement of one virtual object on or within another virtual object.
However, Xu teaches a method, comprising:
determining compatibility and fit between two or more virtual objects placed within the three dimensional virtual space (e.g. Section 3: CAPS can lay out large numbers of objects simultaneously; it exploits semantic information to aid in the placement; it permits objects to be placed randomly (within the limits of their placement constraints and pseudo-physical constraints); Section 3.2: set of constraints is associated with each object to define where the object may or may not be placed; Section 3.2.1: surface constraint indicates how the object is to be placed on the surface of another; proximity constraint indicates how close the object should be placed relative to another object; support constraint indicates whether the object can support others and whether it can be supported by others); and
automatically arranging the two or more virtual objects based on such compatibility and fit, such that respective virtual objects are positioned in the three dimensional virtual space according to allowable placement relationships, including supporting placement of one virtual object on or within another virtual object (e.g. as above, Section 3: CAPS can lay out large numbers of objects simultaneously; it exploits semantic information to aid in the placement; it permits objects to be placed randomly (within the limits of their placement constraints and pseudo-physical constraints)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings/combination of Jotwani and Wiggeshoff to place virtual objects, in the same conventional manner as taught by Xu as both deal with virtual scene representations. The motivation to combine the two would be that it would allow the placement of virtual objects into the scene based on constraints.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Jotwani and Wiggeshoff as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gonzalez Delgado et al. (US 2023/0379649 A1).
In regards to claim 25, the combination of Jotwani and Wiggeshoff teaches the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach the method, wherein the one or more processors are programmed with computer instructions which, when executed, cause the one or more processors to further:
enable assignment of one or more composition properties to virtual objects within the three dimensional virtual space, the composition properties including at least one of: animation of object parts to display internal components or demonstrate ranges of motion, generation of sounds associated with virtual objects, and control of lighting properties for virtual objects representing lights, lamps, or ceiling fans, the lighting properties comprising angle, spread, and intensity settings.
However, Gonzalez Delgado teaches a method, comprising:
enable assignment of one or more composition properties to virtual objects within the three dimensional virtual space, the composition properties including at least one of: animation of object parts to display internal components or demonstrate ranges of motion, generation of sounds associated with virtual objects, and control of lighting properties for virtual objects representing lights, lamps, or ceiling fans, the lighting properties comprising angle, spread, and intensity settings (e.g. [0087]: the user may then place the virtual object (Fig.6, 614) within the extended reality environment (Fig.6, 610); sound characteristics for the virtual object (Fig.6, 614) are assigned; for example, the sound characteristics for the virtual object (Fig.6, 614) may define how the virtual object (Fig.6, 614) is to generate sound within the extended reality environment (Fig.6, 610)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings/combination of Jotwani and Wiggeshoff to assign characteristics to virtual objects, in the same conventional manner as taught by Gonzalez Delgado as both deal with virtual environments. The motivation to combine the two would be that it would allow assignment of characteristics, such as sound, to virtual objects within the scene layout.
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Jotwani and Wiggeshoff as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bradley et al. (US 2021/0125398 A1).
In regards to claim 28, the combination of Jotwani and Wiggeshoff teaches the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach the method, wherein generating the three dimensional virtual space comprises:
generating respective three dimensional virtual subspaces from a plurality of two dimensional images of the physical space captured from respective viewpoints and joining the three dimensional virtual subspaces by aligning them based on corresponding instances of the physical object depicted in the two dimensional image appearing in the plurality of two dimensional images.
However, Bradley teaches a method, wherein generating the three dimensional virtual space comprises:
generating respective three dimensional virtual subspaces from a plurality of two dimensional images of the physical space captured from respective viewpoints and joining the three dimensional virtual subspaces by aligning them based on corresponding instances of the physical object depicted in the two dimensional image appearing in the plurality of two dimensional images (e.g. [0061]: In examples where at least two images are obtained at step S201, step S205 may involve determining for each pair of images, a corresponding fundamental matrix for that pair; The fundamental matrix for a respective image pair may then be used to map corresponding image points (corresponding to the same point in space, but from a different viewpoint) to a 3D space by performing a projective reconstruction; Examiner’s note: this shows that 3D data (subspace) is determined for each image, which is then combined/aligned based on corresponding points in space, which may include the detected objects).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings/combination of Jotwani and Wiggeshoff to align image spaces, in the same conventional manner as taught by Bradley as both deal with constructing/generating a 3D scene. The motivation to combine the two would be that it would allow the alignment of spaces determined from different images for to be included in the same 3D space.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JED-JUSTIN IMPERIAL whose telephone number is (571)270-5807. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9am - 6pm.
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 at (571) 272-7642. 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.
/JED-JUSTIN IMPERIAL/Examiner, Art Unit 2616
/DANIEL F HAJNIK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2616
