DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 3, 6 – 11, 13, and 16 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claims 1, 11, and 20: the recitations “between the first device, a hand joint holding the second device” (at Lines 6 – 7 of Claim 1, Lines 9 – 10 of Claim 11, and Lines 8 – 9 of Claim 20) are not clear because there is not a clear link between the first device and another entity for transformation. For purposes of examination and to expedite prosecution, the Examiner will consider the recitation - - between the first device and a hand joint holding the second device - - in place of the above recitations and recommends that the Applicant amend claims 1, 11, and 20 with the above consideration to overcome the instant rejections. Note that Claims 3, 6 – 10, 13, and 16 – 19 fall rejected with Claims 1 and 11 due to at least dependency.
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, 3, 6 – 11, 13, and 16 – 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,314,485 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims of the instant application are obvious over claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,314,485 B2.
Regarding Claim 1 of the instant application, Claim 1 of U.S. 12,314,485 B2 discloses “A method” (Claim 1, Column 35, Line 57), “comprising: accessing [ ] first pose data of the first device” (Claim 1, Column 35, Line 58), “having a first coordinate system” (Claim 1, Column 35, Lines 63 – 64), “receiving [ ] second pose data of the second device” (Claim 1, Column 35, Line 59), “having a second coordinate system” (Claim 1, Column 35, Lines 64 – 65), “identifying a first coordinate transformation between the first device [and] a hand joint holding the second device” (Claim 1, Column 36, Lines 15 – 18”, “identifying a second coordinate transformation between the hand joint holding the second device and the second device” (Claim 1, Column 36, Lines 10 – 13), “and aligning the first coordinate system with the second coordinate system based on the first pose data, the second pose data, the first coordinate transformation, and the second coordinate transformation” (Claim 1, Column 35, Line 63 through Column 36, Line 18 (Notice that the alignment is based on the hand-tracking data, where the hand tracking data further comprises the first and second coordinate transformations.)). In addition, Claim 1 of U.S. 12,314485 B2 fails to explicitly disclose accessing “at a first device” and receiving “from a second device”. However, one havening ordinary skill in the art would want to access primary data directly from a device and receive primary data directly from a device to reduce data channel errors.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide accessing “at a first device” and receiving “from a second device” because one having ordinary skill in the art would want to reduce data channel errors.
Regarding Claim 3 of the instant application, Claim 1 of U.S. 12,314,485 B2 disclose/teaches everything claimed as applied above (See Claim 1 of the instant application). In addition, Claim 1 of U.S. 12,314,485 B2 discloses “further comprising: capturing, using a first camera of the first device, an image of one or more fingers of a hand of a second user” (Claim 1, Column 36, Lines 4 – 6), “holding the second device” (Claim 1, Column 35, Lines 66 – 67), “and identifying, using a hand-tracking recognition process, a position of the hand joint based on the image of the one or more fingers of the hand of the second user” (Claim 1, Column 36, Lines 7 – 9), “holding the second device” (Claim 1, Column 35, Lines 66 – 67).
Regarding Claim 6 of the instant application, Claim 2 of U.S. 12,314,485 B2 discloses/teaches everything claimed as applied above (See Claim 1 of the instant application). In addition, Claim 6 of U.S. 12,314,485 B2 discloses “mapping, at the first device, the first coordinate system to the second coordinate system by aligning the first coordinate system with the second coordinate system” (Claim 2, Column 26, Lines 20 – 22), “and displaying content in a display of the first device based on the mapping” (Claim 2, Column 36, Lines 23 – 24).
Regarding Claim 7 of the instant application, Claim 4 of U.S. 12,314,485 B2 discloses/teaches everything claimed as applied above (See Claim 1 of the instant application). In addition, Claim 4 of U.S. 12,314,485 B2 discloses “wherein the first device comprises a first camera that is aimed at the second device and a hand of a user holding the second device” (Claim 4, Column 36, Lines 35 – 38), “wherein the second device comprises a second camera that is aimed at the first device” (Claim 4, Column 36, Lines 39 – 40), “the second device being within a field of view of the first camera of the first device” (Claim 4, Column 36, Lines 35 – 38 (Notice the if the first camera is aimed at the second device, by connection of being aimed at, the second device is in the field of view of the first camera.)).
Regarding Claim 8 of the instant application, Claim 3 of U.S. 12,314,485 B2 discloses/teaches everything claimed as applied above (See Claim 1 of the instant application). In addition, Claim 4 of U.S. 12,314,485 B2 discloses “wherein the first device comprises a first 6 degree-of- freedom tracker configured to identify the first pose data at a time t” (Claim 3, Column 36, Lines 25 – 27), “wherein the second device comprises a second 6 degree-of-freedom tracker configured to identify the second pose data at the time t, wherein the second device is configured to wirelessly transmit the second pose data at the time t to the first device” (Claim 3, Column 36, Lines 28 – 33).
Regarding Claim 9 of the instant application, Claim 7 of U.S. 12,314,485 B2 discloses/teaches everything claimed as applied above (See Claim 1 of the instant application). In addition, Claim 7 of U.S. 12,314,485 B2 discloses “further comprising: detecting an initiation of a session of an augmented reality application at the first device” (Claim 7, Column 36, Lines 49 – 51), “in response to detecting the initiation of the session, calibrating the first device by aligning the first coordinate system of the first device with the second coordinate system of the second device for a predefined number of image frames generated with the first device” (Claim 7, Column 36, Lines 52 – 57), “and displaying content in a display of the first device based on an alignment of the first coordinate system with the second coordinate system” (Column 7, Column 36, Lines 58 – 60).
Regarding Claim 10 of the instant application, Claim 8 of U.S. 12,314,485 B2 discloses/teaches everything claimed as applied above (See Claim 1 of the instant application). In addition, Claim 8 of U.S. 12,314,485 B2 discloses “further comprises determining a relative pose between the first device and the second device by: identifying a first reference coordinate frame based on the first pose data” (Claim 8, Column 36, Lines 61 – 65), “identifying a second reference coordinate frame based on the second pose data” (Claim 8, Column 36, Lines 66 – 67), “forming a world reference coordinate system based on the first reference coordinate frame and the second reference coordinate frame” (Claim 8, Column 37, Lines 1 – 3). In addition, Claim 8 of U.S. 12,314,485 B2 fails to explicitly disclose “sharing the world reference coordinate system with the first device and the second device”. However, one having ordinary skill in the art would want spatial consistency across devices in a global or world context.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “sharing the world reference coordinate system with the first device and the second device” because one having ordinary skill in the art would want spatial consistency across devices in a global or world context.
Regarding Claim 11 of the instant application, Claim 9 of U.S. 12,314,485 B2 discloses a server, instead of first device that performs the operations of Claim 11 of the instant application (Claim 9, Column 37, Lines 4 – 34 (Please refer back to the limitation matching in Claim 1 of the instant application and notice said matchings between Claim 11 of the instant application and Claim 9 of U.S. 12,314,485 B2). In addition, one having ordinary skill in the art would want to utilize a first device in a system to carryout functionality in view of downed server or network interruption.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a first device to perform the operations of an outboard server because one having ordinary skill in the art would want to carryout functionality in view of downed server or network interruption.
Regarding Claim 13 of the instant application, Claim 9 of U.S. 12,314,485 B2 disclose/teaches everything claimed as applied above (See Claim 11 of the instant application). In addition, Claim 9 of U.S. 12,314,485 B2 discloses “capturing, using a first camera of the first device, an image of one or more fingers of a hand of a second user” (Claim 9, Column 37, Lines 21 – 23), “holding the second device” (Claim 9, Column 37, Line 11), “and identifying, using a hand-tracking recognition process, a position of the hand joint based on the image of the one or more fingers of the hand of the second user” (Claim 9, Column 37, Lines 14 - 26), “holding the second device” (Claim 9, Column 37, Line 11).
Regarding Claim 16 of the instant application, Claim 10 of U.S. 12,314,485 B2 discloses/teaches everything claimed as applied above (See Claim 11 of the instant application). In addition, Claim 10 of U.S. 12,314,485 B2 discloses “mapping, at the first device, the first coordinate system to the second coordinate system by aligning the first coordinate system with the second coordinate system” (Claim 10, Column 37, Lines 37 – 39), “and displaying content in a display of the first device based on the mapping” (Claim 10, Column 37, Lines 40 - 41).
Regarding Claim 17 of the instant application, Claim 12 of U.S. 12,314,485 B2 discloses/teaches everything claimed as applied above (See Claim 11 of the instant application). In addition, Claim 12 of U.S. 12,314,485 B2 discloses “wherein the first device comprises a first camera that is aimed at the second device and a hand of a user holding the second device” (Claim 12, Column 37, Lines 51 – 54), “wherein the second device comprises a second camera that is aimed at the first device” (Claim 12, Column 38, Lines 1 - 2), “the second device being within a field of view of the first camera of the first device” (Claim 12, Column 37, Lines 51 - 53 (Notice the if the first camera is aimed at the second device, by connection of being aimed at, the second device is in the field of view of the first camera.)).
Regarding Claim 18 of the instant application, Claim 11 of U.S. 12,314,485 B2 discloses/teaches everything claimed as applied above (See Claim 11 of the instant application). In addition, Claim 11 of U.S. 12,314,485 B2 discloses “wherein the first device comprises a first 6 degree-of- freedom tracker configured to identify the first pose data at a time t” (Claim 11, Column 37, Lines 42 – 44), “wherein the second device comprises a second 6 degree-of-freedom tracker configured to identify the second pose data at the time t, wherein the second device is configured to wirelessly transmit the second pose data at the time t to the first device” (Claim 11, Column 37, Lines 45 - 50).
Regarding Claim 19 of the instant application, Claim 15 of U.S. 12,314,485 B2 discloses/teaches everything claimed as applied above (See Claim 11 of the instant application). In addition, Claim 15 of U.S. 12,314,485 B2 discloses “detecting an initiation of a session of an augmented reality application at the first device” (Claim 15, Column 38, Lines 13 - 14), “in response to detecting the initiation of the session, calibrating the first device by aligning the first coordinate system of the first device with the second coordinate system of the second device for a predefined number of image frames generated with the first device” (Claim 15, Column 38, Lines 15 - 20), “and displaying content in a display of the first device based on an alignment of the first coordinate system with the second coordinate system” (Column 15, Column 38, Lines 21 - 23).
Regarding Claim 20 of the instant application, Claim 16 of U.S. 12,314,485 B2 discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium with instruction executed on a server, instead of first device that performs the operations of Claim 20 of the instant application (Claim 16, Column 38, Lines 24 – 53 (Please refer back to the limitation matching in Claims 1 and 11 of the instant application and notice said matchings between Claim 20 of the instant application and Claim 16 of U.S. 12,314,485 B2). In addition, one having ordinary skill in the art would want to utilize a first device in a system to carryout functionality in view of downed server or network interruption.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a first device to perform the operations of an outboard server because one having ordinary skill in the art would want to carryout functionality in view of downed server or network interruption.
Response to Applicants Amendments and Arguments
Applicants amendments and arguments filed May 04, 2026 have been fully considered.
First, the amendments to each of Claims 1, 11, and 20 to clarify coordinate transformation change the claim interpretation set forth set forth in the Office Action mailed January 12, 2026 to distinct first and second transformations.
Second, the Examiner agrees that the amendments to each of Claims 1, 11, and 20 overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections of Claims 1 – 20 as set forth and made of record in the Office Action mailed January 12, 2026.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN M BUTCHER whose telephone number is (571)270-5575. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday from 6:30 AM to 3:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Ke Xiao, can be reached at (571) 272 - 7776. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/BRIAN M BUTCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2627 June 18, 2026
Prosecution Insights