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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-19 are pending in the application, with claims 1, 11, and 19 being independent.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03 January 2025 has been considered by the examiner.
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 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,941,750.
Current Application (19/008785)
US Patent 11,941,750
1. A method comprising:
identifying, by a processor, a first surface in a first view of a camera feed from a customer device;
obtaining, by the processor, a three-dimensional model of a product that corresponds to the first surface, the correspondence of the product to the surface being based at least in part on a type of the first surface;
providing, by the processor, an augmented media containing an overlay of a first augmented reality representation of the three-dimensional model of the product in the first view; and
responsive to the processor identifying a second surface in a second view of the camera feed from the customer device, revising, by the processor, the augmented media to contain a second augmented reality representation of the three-dimensional model of the product on the second surface in the second view.
1. A method comprising:
identifying, by a processor, a first surface in a first view of a camera feed from a customer device;
obtaining, by the processor, a three-dimensional model of a product that corresponds to the first surface, the correspondence of the product to the surface being based at least in part on a type of the first surface;
providing, by the processor, an augmented media containing an overlay of a first augmented reality representation of the three-dimensional model of the product in the first view; and
responsive to the processor identifying a second surface in a second view of the camera feed from the customer device while displaying the first augmented reality representation of the three-dimensional model of the product, automatically revising, by the processor, the augmented media to contain a second augmented reality representation of the three-dimensional model of the product suitable to fit on the second surface in the second view.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because independent claim 1 in the current application is an obvious variant of the claim 1 in U.S. Patent No. 11,941,750. The other minor differences between claim 1 in the allowed US Patent and claim 1 in the current application do not appear to change the scope of the claimed invention.
Similar mapping can be applied to claims 2-19 in the current application and claims 2-20 of the allowed US Patent
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-19 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12,236,522. This is a statutory double patenting rejection. Claims 1-19 in the present application appear to be the same claims that were previously allowed in US Patent 12,236,522.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US PG Publication 2020/0258144 to Chaturvedi et al. teaches “Surfaces in the physical environment are obtained by marking areas representing surfaces in the representation (e.g., table tops). The representations, including the planes, the surfaces, and the edges may be stitched or associated together to create the curated environment. The curated environment includes a three dimensional (3D) model of planes and surfaces that are available in a physical environment and may be associated to the captured images at the time of capture or at a later time. Thereafter, items may be anchored to the 3D model to one or more of the planes and/or the surfaces so that, when an augmented reality (AR) view is generated for including items in the images, the AR view shows the items as if they are anchored to the representation of the physical environment by overlaying the 3D model with the item on to the images. Image anchor points define the location and/or direction from where each representation was captured and may be used to generate the planes and surfaces, but may also be used to allow a user to traverse through the curated environment by selecting one of the image anchor points when displayed in the AR view. Selection of an image anchor point changes a displayed view in the curated environment to an associated representation that was captured from the selected anchor point”, see for instance, paragraph 23.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J COBB whose telephone number is (571)270-3875. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 11am - 7pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alicia Harrington can be reached at 571-272-2330. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL J COBB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2615
Prosecution Insights