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 § 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 1-3 and 5-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kahan et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0237192), referred herein as Kahan, in view of Dasher et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0251787), referred herein as Dasher.
Regarding claim 1, Kahan teaches a method comprising: at an electronic device having a processor (figs 6B and 7, electronic device 608; paragraph 126, lines 1-5; paragraph 163, lines 5-10):
presenting a view of a three-dimensional (3D) environment, wherein one or more user interface elements are positioned at 3D positions based on a 3D coordinate system associated with the 3D environment (figs 6B and 7; paragraph 145, lines 1-8; paragraph 163, lines 5-10; paragraph 165; paragraph 169, lines 1-4 and 10-16; a view of a 3D environment is presented with one or more user interface elements at 3D positions associated with the 3D environment);
obtaining first data associated with the one or more user interface elements, the first data identifying information of at least a portion of a user interface element of the one or more user interface elements (paragraph 158, lines 1-9 and 14-37; paragraph 167, the last 7 lines; paragraph 185, the last 10 lines; data is obtained that is associated with the user interface elements and identify at least a portion of an interface element, such as the document viewers);
determining an interface for display proximate to the user interface element, the interface comprising one or more controls for controlling functionality of the user interface element, wherein the interface is determined based on a viewpoint position of the view and the first data (figs 6B and 7; paragraph 145, lines 4-11; paragraph 146, lines 1-10; paragraph 162, lines 1-13; paragraph 164, the last 9 lines; paragraph 170, the last 13 lines; an interface is determined, such as the menu controls, that is displayed proximate to the user interface elements and comprises one or more controls for controlling the user interface element, based on a viewpoint position and the data); and
updating the view of the 3D environment to include the interface positioned proximate to the user interface element (figs 6B and 7; paragraph 164, the last 9 lines; paragraph 165; paragraph 167, the last 7 lines; paragraph 172, the last 9 lines; the view of the 3D environment is updated to include the interface).
Kahan teaches identifying types user interface elements (paragraph 199; paragraph 214, lines 1-15), but does not explicitly teach determining the interface proximate to the interface element based on the data identifying the type.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Dasher teaches a method comprising presenting a 3D extended reality environment at an electronic device having a processor, wherein user interface elements are positioned at 3D positions in the environment, and determining an interface for display proximate to the user interface elements, the interface comprising controls for controlling functionality of the user interface elements (figs 1, 6, and 7; paragraphs 55 and 56; paragraphs 89 and 92; paragraph 94, lines 1-8), and further comprising obtaining data identifying a type of at least a portion of a user interface element, and determining the interface proximate to the interface element based on the data identifying the type (figs 1 and 4-7; paragraphs 81 and 83; paragraphs 87 and 88; paragraphs 90 and 91; paragraph 93).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the type-based interface of Dasher with the interface of Kahan because this helps provide more relevant interface options based on where the user is positioned, or what the user is interested in or focused upon, thereby improving the user interface interaction (see, for example, Dasher, paragraphs 8 and 10)
Regarding claim 2, Kahan in view of Dasher teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more controls enable control of one or more portions of the user interface element (Kahan, paragraph 164, the last 4 lines; paragraph 165; paragraph 167, the last 7 lines; paragraph 170, the last 13 lines; Dasher, figs 5-7; paragraphs 89 and 92; paragraph 94, lines 1-8 and 19-37; the motivation to combine is similar to that discussed in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 3, Kahan in view of Dasher teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the interface is anchored to a surface of the user interface element (Kahan, figs 6B and 7; paragraph 153; paragraph 162, lines 1-13; paragraph 163, lines 5-10; Dasher, figs 1 and 6; paragraph 76; paragraph 88; paragraphs 92 and 11; the motivation to combine is similar to that discussed in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 5, Kahan in view of Dasher teaches the method of claim 1, wherein: the at least a portion of the user interface element comprises stereoscopic image pairs comprising left eye content corresponding to a left eye viewpoint and right eye content corresponding to a right eye viewpoint; the type of the at least a portion of the user interface element is a stereoscopic image type; and the interface is determined based on the stereoscopic image type (Kahan, figs 6B and 7; paragraph 64, lines 1-16; paragraph 153; paragraphs 155 and 157; paragraph 158, lines 1-9; paragraph 165; Dasher, figs 6 and 7; paragraph 93, lines 1-19; paragraph 94, lines 1-8 and 17-32; the motivation to combine is similar to that discussed in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 6, Kahan in view of Dasher teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: determining one or more attributes associated with the user interface element, wherein determining the interface comprises determining one or more attributes associated with the interface based on the determined one or more attributes associated with the user interface element (Kahan, figs 6B and 7; paragraph 145, lines 4-11; paragraph 146, lines 1-10; paragraph 162, lines 1-13; paragraph 164, the last 9 lines; paragraph 170, the last 13 lines; paragraph 214, lines 1-15; the motivation to combine is similar to that discussed in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 7, Kahan in view of Dasher teaches the method of claim 1, wherein obtaining the first data associated with the one or more user interface elements comprises: determining a type of content associated with each user interface element of the one or more user interface elements; and determining a category for each user interface element based on the determined type of content associated with each user interface element, wherein the interface is determined based on the determined category for the first data (Kahan, paragraph 144, lines 1-25; paragraph 199; paragraph 214, lines 1-15; paragraph 215; Dasher, paragraphs 87 and 89; paragraphs 90 and 93; the motivation to combine is similar to that discussed in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 8, Kahan in view of Dasher teaches the method of claim 7, wherein determining the type of content associated with each user interface element is based on using a machine learning classifier model to identify one or more types of content associated with each user interface element and segment the one or more types of content to an associated category (Kahan, paragraph 128; paragraph 208, the last 25 lines; paragraph 226; Dasher, paragraph 66; paragraph 108; the motivation to combine is similar to that discussed in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 9, Kahan in view of Dasher teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: removing the interface from the view of the 3D environment in response to determining that the user interface element comprises control elements that satisfy one or more criterion (Kahan, paragraph 158, the last 13 lines; paragraph 193, the last 13 lines; paragraph 221; Dasher, paragraph 77; paragraph 178; the motivation to combine is similar to that discussed in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 10, Kahan in view of Dasher teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving data corresponding to user activity associated with the one or more controls of the interface; and updating the user interface element based on the user activity (Kahan, paragraph 183, the last 20 lines; paragraph 185, the last 10 lines; paragraph 309; Dasher, paragraphs 77 and 80; paragraph 88; the motivation to combine is similar to that discussed in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 11, Kahan in view of Dasher teaches the method of claim 10, wherein the data corresponding to the user activity is obtained via one or more sensors on the electronic device (Kahan, paragraph 64; Dasher, paragraph 103; the motivation to combine is similar to that discussed in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 12, Kahan in view of Dasher teaches the method of claim 10, wherein the data corresponding to the user activity comprises gaze data comprising a stream of gaze vectors corresponding to gaze directions over time during use of the electronic device (Kahan, paragraph 152, lines 1-21; Dasher, paragraph 53; paragraph 103; the motivation to combine is similar to that discussed in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 13, Kahan in view of Dasher teaches the method of claim 10, wherein the data corresponding to the user activity comprises hands data comprising a hand pose skeleton of multiple joints for each of multiple instants in time during use of the electronic device (Kahan, paragraph 74, the last 6 lines; paragraph 87; paragraph 183, the last 20 lines; Dasher, paragraph 60; paragraph 84; the motivation to combine is similar to that discussed in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 14, Kahan in view of Dasher teaches the method of claim 10, wherein the data corresponding to the user activity comprises hands data and gaze data (Kahan, paragraph 74, the last 6 lines; paragraph 87; paragraph 152, lines 1-21; paragraph 183, the last 20 lines; Dasher, paragraphs 53 and 60; paragraphs 84 and 103; the motivation to combine is similar to that discussed in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 15, Kahan in view of Dasher teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the 3D environment is an extended reality (XR) environment (Kahan, paragraphs 165 and 167; Dasher, paragraph 52; the motivation to combine is similar to that discussed in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 16, Kahan in view of Dasher teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the electronic device is a head-mounted device (HMD) (Kahan, paragraph 148, lines 1-7; Dasher, paragraph 52, lines 1-9; the motivation to combine is similar to that discussed in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 17, the limitations of this claim substantially correspond to the limitations of claim 1 (except for the medium, processors, and instructions, which are taught by Kahan, paragraph 138, lines 1-4); thus they are rejected on similar grounds.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, the limitations of these claims substantially correspond to the limitations of claims 2 and 3, respectively; thus they are rejected on similar grounds as their corresponding claims.
Regarding claim 20, the limitations of this claim substantially correspond to the limitations of claim 1 (except for the medium and instructions, which are taught by Kahan, paragraph 138, lines 1-4); thus they are rejected on similar grounds.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kahan, in view of Dasher, and further in view of Naik et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,284,753), referred herein as Naik.
Regarding claim 4, Kahan in view of Dasher teaches the method of claim 1, wherein: the at least a portion of the user interface element comprises an image; the type of the at least a portion of the user interface element is an image type; and the interface is determined based on the image type (Kahan, figs 6B and 7; paragraph 153; paragraphs 155 and 157; paragraph 158, lines 1-9; paragraph 165; Dasher, figs 6 and 7; paragraph 93, lines 1-19; paragraph 94, lines 1-8 and 17-32; the motivation to combine is similar to that discussed in the rejection of claim 1).
Kahan in view of Dasher teaches head-mounted XR devices, as shown above, but does not explicitly teach a panoramic image.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Naik teaches a method for presenting a view of a 3D environment at an electronic device having a processor, wherein user interface elements comprising an image, and interface controls, are positioned at 3D positions in the environment (column 3, lines 25-32; column 9, lines 16-29; column 11, lines 26-37; column 14, lines 7-25), wherein the image is a panoramic image (column 2, lines 56-60; column 3, lines 4-6; column 4, lines 35-56; column 5, lines 21-29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the panoramic images of Naik with the imaging of Kahan in view of Dasher because this helps provide a fully immersive experience for the user that may be seamlessly integrated into XR displays, while maintaining real-time performance (see, for example, Naik, column 5, lines 33-37; column 13, lines 36-46).
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Sanocki (U.S. Patent No. 10,551,993); Virtual reality content development environment.
Agarawala (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0313059); Augmented reality computing environments - collaborative workspaces.
Agarawala (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0310761); Augmented reality computing environments - workspace save and load.
Shirguppe (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0220097); Virtual mouse with tactile feedback provided via keyboard keys.
Rai (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0281107); Augmented reality media timeline management and interaction system and method.
Cartwright (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0370159); Augmented reality mood board.
Cartwright (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0371110); Augmented reality mood board manipulation.
Zhou (U.S. Patent No. 12,555,330); Emphasizing extended reality content based on user intent.
Dearie (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0331323); Systems, methods, and computer-readable media for 3D asset compiler.
Becker (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0086228); System and method for large asset deployment for extended reality devices.
Kim (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0046530); Method of controlling display module, and electronic device performing the method.
Sedouram (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0119423); Method for providing augmented reality content through display interface of computerized glasses, involves determining that field of view of computerized glasses worn by user with object based on sensor data, where sensor data is generated using sensors that are integral to glasses.
Edwards (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0182409); Systems and methods for delivering scalable supplemental content in extended reality.
Victor-Faichney (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0272764); User interface elements for facilitating direct-touch and indirect hand interactions with a user interface presented within an artificial-reality environment, and systems and methods of use thereof.
Kies (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0256052); Extended reality head-mounted apparatus for filtering and/or suggesting virtual content for user interactions with remote devices to output information associated with input option, has processor to output user guidance data via display, where input options associated with context information.
Sedouram (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0182061); Method for rendering augmented reality content at display interface of computerized glasses being worn by user based on post-processing of application content by processors, involves determining that physical object is present in field of view of glasses based on sensor data generated by sensors.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID T WELCH whose telephone number is (571)270-5364. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday, 8:30-5:30 EST, and alternate Fridays, 9:00-2:30 EST.
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, Xiao Wu can be reached on 571-272-7761. 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.
DAVID T. WELCH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2613
/DAVID T WELCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2613
Prosecution Insights