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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Govindgari (US 20220066550 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Govindgari discloses an electronic device (computing device system 400) comprising:
memory (memory device 420, para. 0035) storing one or more computer programs; and
one or more processors (processor 410, and other processors, para. 0042) communicatively coupled to the memory (see figure 4), wherein the one or more computer programs include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to:
detect an object in an image received from an augmented reality (AR) device, obtain, based on an identifier of a user and a position of the user received from the AR device, an interaction history for an interaction between the user and the detected object to obtain information about the detected object (tailored advertisement delivery system 200 continuously captures the environment of the user and identifies the one or more objects in the environment of the user, para. 0076, advertisement delivery system 200 may use object detection networks like mobile-net for identifying the one or more objects, para. 0085, identify real-time emotions of the user 110, para. 0037), and
instruct, based on the obtained interaction history, the AR device to display a piece of content selected from among a plurality of pieces of content (the system transmits the compressed package to the user device. As shown in block 1125, the system causes the user device to decompress the compressed package. As shown in block 1130, the system displays the visual content in the environment of the user, para. 0099).
Regarding claim 2, Govindgari discloses the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the interaction between the user and the object comprises at least one or a combination of two or more of an action of the user gazing at the object or a predetermined portion of the object, an action of the user touching the object with a portion of a body of the user (interaction gestures to interact with the visual content. In some embodiments, where the mixed reality environment is an augmented reality environment, the
interaction gestures comprise at least one of hand gestures, eye gestures, facial expression, para. 0098), or an action of the user generating an input for requesting additional information about the object (system may identify that the user is interacting with the 3D visual content and may present a website link to the user. The user may click on the website link to view additional information associated with the visual content, para. 0106).
Claim 12, a method claim, is rejected for the same reason as claim 1.
Claim 13, a method claim, is rejected for the same reason as claim 2.
Claim 19, a one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media claim, is rejected for the same reason as claim 1.
Claim 20, a one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media claim, is rejected for the same reason as claim 2.
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, 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.
Claims 3-5 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Govindgari (US 20220066550 A1) in view of Smith et al. (US 20180232921 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Govindgari does not expressly disclose the electronic device of claim 2, wherein the one or more computer programs further include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to predict, based on the interaction between the object and the user in the obtained interaction history, a level of the interaction between the object and the user, and instruct the AR device to display a piece of content mapped to the predicted level among a plurality of pieces of content on the object mapped to a plurality of interaction levels.
Smith et al. teaches that user profile is generated from user interaction data that describes how user interaction occurs, para. 0019, user profile, for instance, may model the user interaction using machine learning, para. 0019, different amounts of user interaction supported by the virtual objects is modeled, para. 0052, performed by generating scores for each type of modeled interaction, amount of interaction, level of output, and output type defined by the user profile, para. 0057, different amounts of user interaction supported by the virtual objects is modeled, para. 0052, output using an indicated type of interaction, amount of interaction, level of output, output type, and so forth, para. 0058, select a virtual object from the plurality of virtual objects 112, at least in part, based on the modeled “how” of the user interaction with virtual object. In one example, this is performed by generating scores for each type of modeled interaction, amount of interaction, level of output, and output type defines by the user profile 120 as applied to the digital experience content 110 and corresponding virtual objects 112. In this way, the virtual object selection module 416 may select objects that are relevant to the digital experience content 110 and that exhibited characteristics that are consistent with the described “how” user interaction is to occur as indicated by the user profile 120, para. 0057).
Regarding claim 4, Smith et al. discloses the electronic device of claim 3, wherein the one or more computer programs further include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to
select a piece of content on the object, based on an interaction between the user and another object related to the object together with the interaction between the user and the object in the obtained interaction history (The data 712 along with the user profile 120 are used by the experience recommendation module 716 to select the second item of digital experience content 710, para. 0071 that is consistent with both the first item of digital experience content 714 and the modeled user interaction. Generate recommendations regarding digital experience content based on past user interaction with other digital experience content, para. 0068).
Regarding claim 5, Smith et al. discloses the electronic device of claim 4, wherein the one or more computer programs further include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to, with respect to the interaction between the user and the object in the obtained interaction history,
calculate an interaction score (generating scores for each type of modeled interaction, amount of interaction, level of output, and output type, para. 0057) for the object using a weight assigned to a level of the interaction between the user and the object (scores for each type of modeled interaction, amount of interaction, level of output, para. 0057) and select a piece of content on the object, based on the calculated interaction score ( the virtual object selection module 416 may select objects that are relevant to the digital experience content 110, para. 0057).
Claim 14, a method claim, is rejected for the same reason as claim 3.
Claim 15, a method claim, is rejected for the same reason as claim 4.
Claim 16, a method claim, is rejected for the same reason as claim 5.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-11, 17 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS J LETT whose telephone number is (571)272-7464. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-6 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, Tammy Goddard can be reached at (571) 272-7773. 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.
/THOMAS J LETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Prosecution Insights