DETAILED ACTION
Preliminary Remarks
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
This application is a continuation of 17/893,696 filed 08/23/2022 now U.S. Patent 12,236,512
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 08/18/25 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97(a) because it lacks the appropriate size fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(v). It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. It is important that the abstract not exceed 150 words in length since the space provided for the abstract on the computer tape used by the printer is limited. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc.
The abstract comprises the phrase, “Systems and methods are provided…” (line 1) which can be implied and therefore should be omitted.
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, 6-7, 10 and 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishimoto (U.S. Publication 2022/0030197) and Hutten et al. (U.S. Publication 2021/0118231).
In reference to claim 1,Ishimoto discloses a method (see paragraph 3 wherein Ishimoto discloses a computer-implemented method directed to mixed reality teleconferencing across multiple locations.) comprising:
establishing, by one or more processors of a first augmented reality (AR) device, a voice communication session between a plurality of users including a first user of the first AR device (see paragraphs 17, 21, 31-32, 35, 89-91 and Figures 1-3 and 9 wherein Ishimoto discloses the invention performed via a computing system which comprises one or more processing units, a memory for storing an instruction set, input/output devices and a display as well as other elements. Ishimoto discloses the computing system generating the mixed reality teleconference for a multitude of attendees. Ishimoto discloses attendees using computing devices to view three-dimensional graphical representations of other attendees in the form of avatars. Ishimoto also discloses the computing devices (e.g. “attendee devices” in Ishimoto) in the form of HMD or head-mounted displays that allow for the mixing and display of computer generated images with real-world imagery. Ishimoto discloses allowing a first attendee using a first attendee device to access a website where they can enter information to request that a server initiate a mixed reality teleconference. Note, it is clear that the “teleconference” of Ishimoto at least inherently comprises “voice communication” especially since Ishimoto further discloses the computing devices to comprise input devices such as microphones.);
displaying, by the first AR device, an avatar representing a second user of the plurality of users (see paragraphs 28, 31-32, 89-91 and Figures 2 and 5 wherein Ishimoto discloses the attendee devices in the form of HMD or head-mounted displays that allow for the mixing and display of computer generated images with real-world imagery. Ishimoto discloses allowing for attendees to interact with one another using interaction data that can include data describing an avatar of a first attendee being visible on a second attendee device’s display.);
displaying, by the first AR device, a graphical region over a real-world environment, wherein the avatar is displayed relative the graphical region; and
animating the avatar representing the second user based on movement information received from a second AR device of the second user (see paragraphs 26-30, 33, 57-58 and Figure 6 wherein Ishimoto explicitly discloses during the mixed reality teleconference, detecting motion of an attendee, determining a position of the attendee’s corresponding avatar and updating a model to reflect such movement of the attendee which the Examiner interprets functionally equivalent to Applicant’s “animating” feature.).
Although Ishimoto does disclose displaying avatars representing the multitude of teleconference attendees on a display of, for example an HMD device which explicitly shows computer generate and real-world imagery, while further disclosing receiving inputs corresponding to movements of the attendees and updating of the avatar teleconference display positioning, Ishimoto does not explicitly disclose allowing the attendee to display a graphical region over a real-world environment. Hutten et al. discloses apparatus, systems and methods in which a user experiencing a first augmented reality environment can view and tunnel into a second user’s augmented reality environment (see paragraph 6). Hutten et al. explicitly discloses allowing a user to input a selection of a location on their screen for which any recognized real-world objects within the multi-dimensional region are replaced with augmented reality assets of tunneling user (see paragraph 58 and Figure 5). Hutten et al. explicitly provides an example wherein a coffee mug is replaced with an overlaid beer mug or an augmented reality asset of a select multi-dimensional region (see paragraphs 58-59 and Figure 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to implement the augmented reality display region selection and modification techniques of Hutten et al. with the mixed reality teleconferencing techniques of Ishimoto in order to create greater customizations in interactivity between users/attendees of mixed or augmented reality environments (see paragraphs 10 & 61 of Hutten et al.) by allowing for certain objects/regions to be manipulating while prohibiting other objects/regions.
In reference to claim 2, Ishimoto and Hutten et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as applied to claim 1 above. Hutten et al. further explicitly discloses an augmented reality asset being a telephone and when an identifier “telephone” word is recognized, the asset can be retrieved (see for example paragraphs 49-50).
In reference to claim 6, Ishimoto and Hutten et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as applied to claim 1 above. Ishimoto further discloses an example of positioning avatars at different sides of a table of the teleconference regardless of actual positioning of the attendees (see paragraph 27) which the Examiner interprets functionally equivalent to “anchor(ing)” the avatars. Ishimoto explicitly discloses during the mixed reality teleconference, detecting motion of an attendee, determining a position of the attendee’s corresponding avatar and updating a model to reflect such movement of the attendee (see paragraphs 26-30, 33, 57-58 and Figure 6). Ishimoto further discloses the determined positioning of the attendee to include angle and x, y, z direction of which is reflected by the display of the attendee’s avatar (see paragraphs 28-29). Ishimoto does not explicitly disclose allowing the attendee to choose the display position for the avatar of attendees on their HMD display via receiving of an actual user input. Hutten et al. discloses apparatus, systems and methods in which a user experiencing a first augmented reality environment can view and tunnel into a second user’s augmented reality environment (see paragraph 6). Hutten et al. explicitly discloses allowing a user to input a selection of a location on their screen for which any recognized real-world objects within the multi-dimensional region are replaced with augmented reality assets of tunneling user (see paragraph 58 and Figure 5). Hutten et al. explicitly provides an example wherein a coffee mug is replaced with an overlaid beer mug or an augmented reality asset of a selected multi-dimensional region (see paragraphs 58-59 and Figure 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to implement the augmented reality display region selection and modification techniques of Hutten et al. with the mixed reality teleconferencing techniques of Ishimoto in order to create greater customizations in interactivity between users/attendees of mixed or augmented reality environments (see paragraphs 10 & 61 of Hutten et al.) by allowing for certain objects/regions to be manipulating while prohibiting other objects/regions.
In reference to claim 7, Ishimoto and Hutten et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as applied to claim 1 above. Ishimoto explicitly discloses during the mixed reality teleconference, detecting motion of an attendee, determining a position of the attendee’s corresponding avatar and updating a model to reflect such movement of the attendee (see paragraphs 26-30, 33, 57-58 and Figure 6). Ishimoto discloses the determined positioning of the attendee to include angle and x, y, z direction of which is reflected by the display of the attendee’s avatar (see paragraphs 28-29).
In reference to claim 10, Ishimoto and Hutten et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as applied to claim 1 above. Ishimoto further explicitly discloses the attendee devices to comprise sensors for supplying data to spatial units to generate 3D teleconference data, the sensors including a gyroscope (see paragraphs 32 and 34). Ishimoto also discloses the HMD detecting a user’s location and orientation using a head-tracking sensor (see paragraph 42).
In reference to claims 13 and 18, Ishimoto and Hutten et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as applied to claim 1 above. Ishimoto explicitly discloses the attendee devices to comprise sensors for supplying data to spatial units to generate 3D teleconference data, the sensors including a body and leg sensors to detect body and leg movements (see paragraphs 32, 34 and 42). Ishimoto further explicitly discloses such detected movements being mapped to and inputted into an avatar model (see paragraph 42). Lastly, Ishimoto discloses the attendee devices to comprise sensors for supplying data to spatial units to generate 3D teleconference data, the sensors including a camera (see paragraphs 32 and 34) of which the Examiner interprets functionally equivalent to an “external vision system.” Although Ishimoto does disclose displaying avatars representing the attendees, neither Ishimoto nor Hutten et al. explicitly disclose displaying a whole body avatar according to the detected body/leg movements and/or whether camera vision is available. Since Ishimoto already discloses detecting body/leg movements, inputting such movements into the avatar and displaying an avatar of the attendee, the aspect of whether to display a head vs. an entire whole body avatar is an obvious variant thereof. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to display a whole body avatar of an attendee using the detected and avatar-modeled data. Motivation to perform such a modification would be to create a more customized and visually appealing teleconferencing environment. Even further, it would have been obvious to only use that data which is available to represent the avatar model in Ishimoto thereby allowing for the decision to represent avatars using head vs. body graphical information, for example, to be made.
In reference to claim 14, Ishimoto and Hutten et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as applied to claim 13 above. Ishimoto explicitly discloses the attendee devices to comprise sensors for supplying data to spatial units to generate 3D teleconference data, the sensors including a body and leg sensors to detect body and leg movements (see paragraphs 32, 34 and 42). Ishimoto further explicitly discloses such detected movements being mapped to and inputted into an avatar model (see paragraph 42).
In reference to claim 15, Ishimoto and Hutten et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as applied to claim 13 above. Ishimoto further explicitly discloses the attendee devices to comprise sensors for supplying data to spatial units to generate 3D teleconference data, the sensors including a camera (see paragraphs 32 and 34) of which the Examiner interprets functionally equivalent to an “external vision system.”
In reference to claims 16 and 17, Ishimoto and Hutten et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as applied to claim 15 above. Ishimoto discloses the attendee devices in the form of HMD or head-mounted displays that allow for the mixing and display of computer generated images with real-world imagery (see paragraphs 18 and 31). Ishimoto further explicitly discloses the attendee devices to comprise sensors for supplying data to spatial units to generate 3D teleconference data, the sensors including a camera (see paragraphs 32 and 34) of which the Examiner interprets functionally equivalent to an “external vision system.” Ishimoto further discloses the sensors including hand-tracking sensors detecting hands and associated movements while using machine learning and neural networks for example, for recognizing handwriting in the teleconference (see paragraphs 24-25 and 42) of which the Examiner interprets as the teleconference therefore comprising a “messaging” (writing, text, etc.) input aspect.
In reference to claim 19, claim 19 is similar in scope to claim 1 and is therefore rejected under like rationale. In addition to the rationale as applied in the above rejection of claim 1, claim 19 further recites, “A system comprising: a storage device of an eyewear device comprising a first augmented reality (AR) device; and at least one processor configured to perform operations…” Ishimoto discloses the invention performed via a computing system which comprises one or more processing units, a memory for storing an instruction set, input/output devices and a display as well as other elements (see at least paragraphs 89-91 and Figure 9). Ishimoto also discloses the computing devices (e.g. “attendee devices” in Ishimoto) in the form of HMD or head-mounted displays that allow for the mixing and display of computer generated images with real-world imagery (see paragraphs 31-32). Hutten et al. discloses the invention performed via computer devices such as desktop or laptop computers, tablets, phablets, smartphones, video game consoles, etc. (see paragraphs 39-40 and Figure 1).
In reference to claim 20, claim 20 is similar in scope to claim 1 and is therefore rejected under like rationale. In addition to the rationale as applied in the above rejection of claim 1, claim 20 further recites, “A non-transitory machine-readable storage medium comprising instructions that, when executed by one or more processor of a machine, cause the machine to perform operations…” Ishimoto further discloses the invention capable of taking the form of a computer program product, the product including a computer readable storage medium having computer readable program instructions for causing a processor to carry out aspects of the invention (see paragraphs 104-105). Hutten et al. discloses the invention performed via computer devices such as desktop or laptop computers, tablets, phablets, smartphones, video game consoles, etc. (see paragraphs 39-40 and Figure 1) of which the Examiner interprets at least inherently comprises some sort of “storage” for storing “instructions/code/software/programs” for execution by some sort of “processing unit.”
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishimoto (U.S. Publication 2022/0030197), Hutten et al. (U.S. Publication 2021/0118231) and further in view of Katzer et al. (U.S. Patent 9,191,620).
In reference to claim 11, Ishimoto and Hutten et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as applied to claim 1 above. Ishimoto discloses the computing devices utilized in the teleconference to comprise input devices such as microphones (see at least paragraph 91 and Figure 9). Neither Ishimoto nor Hutten et al. explicitly disclose however updating lips of an avatar according to speech input. Katzer et al. discloses a communication device that promotes an augmented reality voice call (see column 1, lines 31-32). Katzer et al. discloses the device displaying an avatar of a party participating in the voice call and combining such with a graphical representation of a living environment (see column 2, lines 50-59). Katzer et al. discloses the invention supporting a lip synchronization of the avatar and the voice signal of the party such that the avatar is modified in accordance with any delay in signal (see column 7, lines 1-10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to implement the voice calling avatar-lip displaying techniques of Katzer et al. with the mixed reality teleconference displaying techniques of Ishimoto and Hutten et al. in order to create a more realistic mixed reality teleconference environment using multiple dimensions of data, including audio, to simulate a real-life conference.
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 and 3-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 and 12-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,236,512. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of claims 1-20, which are not explicitly recited in the combination of claims 1-10 and 12-19, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and/or would have been interpreted equivalent to those limitations recited in the Patent as seen to one of ordinary skill in the art.
In reference to claim 1, claim 1 of the instant application is anticipated by Patent claim 1 in that claim 1 of the Patent contains all the limitation of claim 1 of the instant application. Claim 1 of the instant application therefore is not patently distinct from the earlier patent claim and as such is unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting.
Claim 3 of the instant application can be found basically word-for-word in Patent claim 2.
Claim 4 of the instant application can be found basically word-for-word in lines 8-11 of Patent claim 1.
Claim 5 of the instant application can be found basically word-for-word in Patent claim 3.
Claim 6 of the instant application can be found basically word-for-word in Patent claim 4.
Claim 7 of the instant application can be found basically word-for-word in Patent claim 5.
Claim 8 of the instant application can be found basically word-for-word in Patent claim 6.
Claim 9 of the instant application can be found basically word-for-word in Patent claim 7.
Claim 10 of the instant application can be found basically word-for-word in Patent claim 8.
Claim 11 of the instant application can be found basically word-for-word in Patent claim 10.
Claim 12 of the instant application can be found basically word-for-word in Patent claim 9.
Claim 13 of the instant application can be found basically word-for-word in Patent claim 12.
Claim 14 of the instant application can be found basically word-for-word in Patent claim 13.
Claim 15 of the instant application can be found basically word-for-word in Patent claim 14.
Claim 16 of the instant application can be found basically word-for-word in Patent claim 15.
Claim 17 of the instant application can be found basically word-for-word in Patent claim 16.
Claim 18 of the instant application can be found basically word-for-word in Patent claim 17.
In reference to claim 19, claim 19 of the instant application is anticipated by Patent claim 18 in that claim 18 of the Patent contains all the limitation of claim 19 of the instant application. Claim 19 of the instant application therefore is not patently distinct from the earlier patent claim and as such is unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting.
In reference to claim 20, claim 20 of the instant application is anticipated by Patent claim 19 in that claim 19 of the Patent contains all the limitation of claim 20 of the instant application. Claim 20 of the instant application therefore is not patently distinct from the earlier patent claim and as such is unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Antonio Caschera whose telephone number is (571) 272-7781. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday between 6:30 AM and 2:30 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Said Broome, can be reached at (571) 272-2931.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Mail Stop ____________
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
or faxed to:
571-273-8300 (Central Fax)
See the listing of “Mail Stops” at http://www.uspto.gov/patents/mail.jsp and include the appropriate designation in the address above.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the Technology Center 2600 Customer Service Office whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600.
/Antonio A Caschera/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2612
6/23/26
Prosecution Insights