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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/27/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/20/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 3-4: “perform comprising” should read “perform operations comprising.” Appropriate correction is required.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sipolins (US 20190355175 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sipolins teaches a computer-implemented method for rendering a portal, the method comprising:
maintaining, in memory of an extended reality device, one or more portal size parameters that are defined by an application using an application programming interface and each indicate a limitation on a size of an application portal of the application when the application portal is presented by the extended reality device (par. 0022: “In response to the request to transition to a new scene, the portal module 130 may generate a portal 132, where the portal 132 may be a virtual object that can be displayed to overlay at least one portions of a scene being currently displayed on the virtual reality display device 111. In some examples, the portal module 130 may generate more than one portal, depending on a desired implementation of the system 100. Generation of the portal 132 may include defining a set of portal boundaries, where the portal boundaries may define a shape and a size of the portal 132.”);
rendering, by the extended reality device, the application portal with a current portal size (par. 0023: “In some examples, the shape and the dimensions of the portal boundaries may be based on the application 115. For example, the portal module 130 may generate a first portal of a first shape and a first size for a first virtual reality game, and may generate a second portal of a second shape and a second size for a second virtual reality game.”);
detecting, by the extended reality device, a request to change the current portal size of the application portal to a requested portal size (par. 0023: “In some examples, the user 101 may request the portal 132 to be of a particular size.”);
determining whether the requested portal size satisfies each of the one or more portal size parameters (par. 0024: “The portal module 130 may send the dimensions of the portal boundaries to the processor 120. The processor 120 may render the scene 152 based on the dimensions of the portal boundaries in order to shape and size the scene 152 to fit within the portal boundaries.”); and
selectively updating the size of the portal or determining to skip updating the size of the portal using a result of the determination whether the requested portal size satisfies each of the one or more portal size parameters (par. 0030: “The portal module 130 may apply the portal instructions 124 on the information to determine a new position and/or orientation of the portal 132 displayed by the virtual reality display device 111.”).
Regarding claim 2, Sipolins teaches the method of claim 1, comprising:
receiving, from the application and using the application programming interface, a request to create the application portal that includes data identifying the one or more portal size parameters (par. 0023, as above in claim 1 rejection); and
in response to receiving the request to create the application portal that includes the data identifying the one or more portal size parameters, storing, in memory, the one or more portal size parameters (par. 0022, as above in claim 1 rejection).
Regarding claim 3, Sipolins teaches the method of claim 1, comprising:
receiving, from a second application, a second request to create a second application portal (par. 0023, as above in claim 1 rejection);
determining, for a portal size parameter type, whether the second request to create the second application portal includes a corresponding portal size parameter and to skip using a default portal size parameter for the portal size parameter type (par. 0023, as above in claim 1 rejection);
in response to determining that the second request to create the second application portal does not include the corresponding portal size parameter, controlling a second size of the second application portal using the default portal size parameter for the portal size parameter type (par. 0023, as above in claim 1 rejection).
Regarding claim 4, Sipolins teaches the method of claim 1, comprising:
receiving, from a second application, a second request to create a second application portal that includes a portal size parameter that has a portal size parameter type (par. 0023, as above in claim 1 rejection);
determining, for the portal size parameter type, whether the extended reality device has a user defined portal size parameter and to skip use of the portal size parameter from the second request for presentation of the second application portal (par. 0023, as above in claim 1 rejection); and
selectively using the user defined portal size parameter or the portal size parameter from the second request for presentation of the second application portal using a result of the determination whether the extended reality device has a user defined portal size parameter and to skip use of the portal size parameter from the second request for presentation of the second application portal (par. 0023, as above in claim 1 rejection).
Regarding claim 5, Sipolins teaches the method of claim 1, wherein:
maintaining the one or more portal size parameters comprises maintaining a plurality of portal size parameters that includes, for each of two or more different application experiences, at least one corresponding portal size parameter, the method comprising:
detecting, using the application programming interface, an experience change in the application (par. 0036: “In another example, the portal instructions 124 may include a plane script that may be executed to detect collisions, to switch dimensions of scenes, and to ensure rendering of the correct dimensions of a scene within the portal 132. The plane script may also provide a trigger to determine a distance between the eyes of the user 101 to the portal, and to determine a time to switch between dimensions of the virtual environment.”); and
selecting, from the plurality of portal size parameters and using data for the experience change, one or more corresponding portal size parameters for the experience change (par. 0023, as above in claim 1 rejection).
Regarding claim 6, Sipolins teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more portal size parameters comprise at least one of a minimum portal size, a maximum portal size, or an initial portal size (par. 0023: “In some examples, the shape and the dimensions of the portal boundaries may be defined in the portal instructions 124.”).
Regarding claim 7, Sipolins teaches the method of claim 1, comprising:
receiving, from the application and using the application programming interface, a request to create the application portal that includes data identifying the one or more portal size parameters (par. 0023, as above in claim 6 rejection); and
in response to receiving the request to create the application portal that includes the data identifying the one or more portal size parameters, storing, in memory, the one or more portal size parameters (par. 0023, as above in claim 1 rejection).
Regarding claim 8, Sipolins teaches the method of claim 7, wherein the one or more portal size parameters comprise an initial portal size, the method comprising:
in response to receiving the request to create the application portal that includes the initial portal size, rendering, by the extended reality device, the application portal at the initial portal size that was included in the request to create the application portal (par. 0024: “The processor 120 may render the scene 152 based on the dimensions of the portal boundaries in order to shape and size the scene 152 to fit within the portal boundaries.”).
Regarding claim 9, Sipolins teaches the method of claim 7, comprising:
determining, for a portal size parameter type, whether the request to create the application portal includes a corresponding portal size parameter and to skip using a default portal size parameter for the portal size parameter type (par. 0022, as above in claim 1 rejection); and
in response to determining that the request to create the application portal includes the corresponding portal size parameter, storing, in memory, the corresponding portal size parameter and determining to skip using the default portal size parameter for the portal size parameter type (par. 0018: “The memory 122 may be configured to selectively store instructions executable by the processor 120 and the portal module 130. For example, in one embodiment, the memory 122 may store a set of portal instructions 124, where the portal instructions 124 may include instructions, such as executable code, related to graphics processing algorithms, motion detection techniques, matrix transformations, gesture recognition algorithms, and/or other algorithms related to virtual reality and/or augmented reality applications.”).
Regarding claim 10, Sipolins teaches one or more computer storage media encoded with instructions of an application for rendering a portal (par. 0025: “In an example, the portal instructions 124 may include scripts that may be executed by the portal module 130.”) that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
obtaining, from a second application, first information defining a request to create an application portal for the second application and that includes data identifying one or more portal size parameters (par. 0025: “The portal instructions 124 may further include scripts to instruct cameras within the virtual environment to render only layers and/or dimensions specified by the user 101 and/or the portal instructions 124. For example, virtual objects of the first scene 151 may be tagged with an identification of a first layer (or the first scene 151), and virtual objects of the second scene 152 may be tagged with an identification of a second layer (or the second scene 152).”); and
in response to obtaining the first information defining the request to create the application portal and that includes the data identifying the one or more portal size parameters, providing, to an operating system, the first information that includes the data identifying the one or more portal size parameters for use controlling the size of the application portal (par. 0025, as above).
Claim 11 is substantially similar to claim 8, except that it depends from claim 10 instead of claim 7. As such, it is rejected on a similar basis to claim 8.
Claim 12 is substantially similar to claim 9, except that it depends from claim 10 instead of claim 7. As such, it is rejected on a similar basis to claim 9.
Claim 13 is substantially similar to claim 3, except that it depends from claim 10 instead of claim 1. As such, it is rejected on a similar basis to claim 3.
Claim 14 is substantially similar to claim 6, except that it depends from claim 10 instead of claim 1. As such, it is rejected on a similar basis to claim 6.
Regarding claim 15, Sipolins teaches an extended reality device for rendering a portal comprising one or more processors and one or more storage devices on which are stored instructions that are operable, when executed by the one or more processors, to cause the one or more processors to perform comprising:
providing, by the extended reality device to an application and using an application programming interface, access to a current portal size parameter for an application portal for the application that is currently rendered by the extended reality device (par. 022, as above in claim 1 rejection);
receiving, from the application and using the application programming interface, a request to change a presentation parameter for the application portal that is based on the current portal size parameter for the application portal (par. 022, as above in claim 1 rejection); and
in response to receiving the request to change the presentation parameter for the application portal that is based on the current portal size parameter for the application portal, causing presentation of the application portal with the changed presentation parameter (par. 022, as above in claim 1 rejection).
Regarding claim 16, Sipolins teaches the extended reality device of claim 15, comprising:
detecting a change from a previous portal size to a new portal size (par. 0036: “The portal camera position 205 relative to the room 202 remains unchanged during the translation of the portal position in room 201 in order to maintain the field of view 220 shown within the portal 132. Further, at each time where the portal position is translated, the processor 120 may render a new image frame on the virtual reality display device 111 to display a larger version of portal 132 and a larger version of scene 152 to imitate the portal 132 and the scene 152 moving towards the eyes of the user 101.”); and
updating the current portal size parameter in response to detecting the change from the previous portal size to the new portal size (par. 0036, as above),
wherein receiving the request to change the presentation parameter for the application portal is based on updating the current portal size from the previous portal size to the new portal size (par. 0036, as above).
Regarding claim 17, Sipolins teaches the extended reality device of claim 16, wherein updating the current portal size parameter comprises updating, in a shared memory accessible by the application and an operating system of the extended reality device, the current portal size parameter (par. 0030, as above in claim 1 rejection).
Regarding claim 18, Sipolins teaches the extended reality device of claim 15, wherein the request to change the presentation parameter for the application portal comprises at least one of a request to change audio for the application portal, a request to change a display of one or more user interface elements included in the application portal, a request to change a color for an interface element included in the application portal, a request to a change in brightness for an interface element included in the application portal, or a request to change a rendering task for the application portal (par. 0019: “In some examples, the virtual reality console 110 may include additional components, such as graphics processing units, sensors, network cards, audio processing components, and/or other components that may facilitate execution of an application 115, where the application 115 may be a virtual reality application.”).
Regarding claim 19, Sipolins teaches the extended reality device of claim 15, wherein providing, to the application and using the application programming interface, access to the current portal size parameter comprises maintaining, in a shared memory accessible by the application and an operating system of the extended reality device, the current portal size parameter (par. 0018: “The memory 122 may be configured to selectively store instructions executable by the processor 120 and the portal module 130. For example, in one embodiment, the memory 122 may store a set of portal instructions 124, where the portal instructions 124 may include instructions, such as executable code, related to graphics processing algorithms, motion detection techniques, matrix transformations, gesture recognition algorithms, and/or other algorithms related to virtual reality and/or augmented reality applications.”).
Regarding claim 20, Sipolins teaches the extended reality device of claim 19, wherein receiving the request to change the presentation parameter for the application portal comprises receiving, from the application using the application programming interface, a message that includes the request to change the presentation parameter for the application portal (par. 0023, as above in claim 1 rejection).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN A BARHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-4338. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8:30am-5pm 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 at (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.
/RYAN ALLEN BARHAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2613
/XIAO M WU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2613
Prosecution Insights