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 continuation of application no. 18/058,175 now U.S. Patent 12,322,052 which claims the benefit of 63/402,604 filed 08/31/2022.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed terminology of a, “machine-readable medium” as recited in claim 20 can be interested as a transitory type-medium. The specification of the instant application does clearly suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art that, by an explicit definition of the term, such a “machine-readable medium” could be one of signals, or other forms of propagation and transmission media (see at least paragraph 184 of Applicant’s specification where such language is used to define the term and no language is present to differentiate statutory vs. non-statutory “types” of media) which fail to be an appropriate manufacture under 35 U.S.C. 101 in the context of computer-related inventions and therefore requires this rejection.
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lynch et al. (U.S. Publication 2022/0189075) and Pekelny et al. (U.S. Publication 2020/0026922).
In reference to claim 1, Lynch et al. discloses a method (see paragraphs 17, 52-53, 55-57 and Figures 1-2 wherein Lynch et al. discloses the invention using augmented reality (AR) techniques to allow a user to prepare a database of features, information and locations that can be stored and accessed electronically and displayed for a user on a screen combining real world views with computer-generated images and information. Lynch et al. discloses the invention architecture made up of at least an AR viewer and an AR editor with the AR viewer comprising various display devices such as wearable glasses/headset and both viewer and editor comprising at least a user interface, memory and a processor.), comprising:
accessing, by at least one hardware processor, a volumetric content item that comprises a virtual volumetric representation of an object (see paragraphs 28, 55-57, 88, 91, 92 and Figures 1, 2, 16 wherein Lynch et al. discloses the AR editor comprising at least a user interface, memory and a processor. Lynch et al. discloses the AR editor allowing for creation of AR elements that can be stored in a database and later sent to a display to create a composite image of a user’s real world view. Lynch et al. further discloses the composite image being supplemented with relevant catalogued information in the form of overlaid AR volumes. Lynch et al. discloses the AR editor comprising a graphical user interface that allows a user to input a location of AR 3D volume representing the features and points of interest within a 3D scanned representation of an associated space and gives explicit examples of generating a 3D volume of a furniture item by adjusting a depicted 3D volume of a cylinder as per Figure 16. Note, it is clear that the “items” for selection and manipulation via the “3D volumes” in Lynch et al. are functionally equivalent to Applicant’s “volumetric content items” with “a virtual volumetric representation of an object” respectively.);
identifying a real-world person in a real-world environment in a visual field of a display device; and
causing presentation, by the display device, of the volumetric content item overlaid on the real-world environment, the presentation of the volumetric content item comprising displaying an interaction between the real-world person and the overlaid volumetric content item (see paragraphs (see paragraphs 52-53, 57-58, 91 and Figure 16 wherein Lynch et al. discloses obtaining the items and 3D AR volumes for display and further discloses the user generating the items in alternate views wherein again, a composite image is created of the real-world view with overlaid AR volumes. Lynch et al. discloses the invention architecture made up of at least an AR viewer and an AR editor with the AR viewer comprising various display devices such as wearable glasses/headset and both viewer and editor comprising at least a user interface, memory and a processor. Lynch et al. explicitly discloses allowing for a user to select a GUI button named, “add volume” whereupon the software may provide visible on the displayed image a generic geometric shape or other 3D volume of 3D furniture item which the user may then manipulated through the interface in order to adjust the dimensions and other attributes thereof. Lynch et al. further explicitly discloses the 3D volume being depicted transparently overlaid onto the associated feature in the composite image.).
Although Lynch et al discloses in one embodiment, generating and displaying a 3D avatar of a human person with a corresponding icon in the 3D AR display of the invention (see paragraph 82 and Figure 12), Lynch et al. does not explicitly disclose identifying a real-world person in the real-world environment in the visual field of the display. Pekelny et al. discloses techniques for identifying and interacting with objects of interest in a physical environment while using a head-mounted display for immersion within a virtual environment (see paragraphs 1-2). Pekelny et al. discloses the invention implementing a VR device that solicits input from the user, identifies people or a person as objects of interest and provides alert information to the user overlaid on the virtual environment (see paragraph 38 and Figure 2). Pekelny et al. discloses multiple embodiments of the invention one of which details identifying a person in the physical environment and using stored rules to specify how virtual content is to be placed in the scene giving the example of a virtual hat placed on top of the person’s head (see paragraphs 38, 76, #102, 108 of Figure 1 and #204, 206 of Figure 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to implement the objects of interest (e.g. humans) and virtual content information augmentation techniques of Pekelny et al. with the augmented reality creation, editing and displaying techniques of Lynch et al. in order to improve the information handling and displaying techniques of head-mounted type devices in virtual/augmented environments by managing the effectives of alerts not displaying data associated with objects having little to no interest, such that distractions to the user are minimized (see at least paragraph 3 of Pekelny et al.).
In reference to claims 2 and 12, Lynch et al. and Pekelny et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as applied to claims 1 and 11 respectively. Lynch et al. discloses obtaining the items and 3D AR volumes for display and further discloses the user generating the items in alternate views wherein again, a composite image is created of the real-world view with overlaid AR volumes (see paragraphs 57-58). Lynch et al. explicitly discloses allowing for a user to select a GUI button named, “add volume” whereupon the software may provide visible on the displayed image a generic geometric shape or other 3D volume of 3D furniture item which the user may then manipulated through the interface in order to adjust the dimensions and other attributes thereof (see paragraph 91 and Figure 16). Lynch et al. further explicitly discloses the 3D volume then being depicted transparently overlaid onto the associated feature in the composite image (see paragraph 91 and Figure 16). Lynch et al. then discloses allowing for such modifications to be recorded in the database (see at least paragraphs 90, 92 and 96-98).
In reference to claims 3 and 13, Lynch et al. and Pekelny et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as applied to claims 2 and 12 respectively. Lynch et al. discloses allowing for user inputs to the system to be in the form of gestures (see at least paragraphs 24 and 90).
In reference to claims 4 and 14, Lynch et al. and Pekelny et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as applied to claims 1 and 11 respectively. Pekelny et al. discloses multiple embodiments of the invention one of which details identifying a person in the physical environment and using stored rules to specify how virtual content is to be placed in the scene giving the example of a virtual hat placed on top of the person’s head (see paragraphs 38, 76, #102, 108 of Figure 1 and #204, 206 of Figure 2). Since Pekelny et al. detects whether a person is in the physical environment as seen through the user’s HMD, the Examiner interprets that the person must at least inherently “move” into the physical environment thus, the overlaying of any such virtual content upon the person is “based on a detected movement of at least a part of the real-world person.”
In reference to claims 5-6 and 15-16, Lynch et al. and Pekelny et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as applied to claims 1 and 11 respectively. Lynch et al. explicitly discloses allowing for a user to select a GUI button named, “add volume” whereupon the software may provide visible on the displayed image a generic geometric shape or other 3D volume of 3D furniture item which the user may then manipulated through the interface in order to adjust the dimensions and other attributes thereof (see paragraph 91 and Figure 16). Lynch et al. further explicitly discloses the 3D volume then being depicted transparently overlaid onto the associated feature in the composite image (see paragraph 91 and Figure 16). Lynch et al. then discloses allowing for such modifications to be recorded in the database (see at least paragraphs 90, 92 and 96-98).
In reference to claim 7, Lynch et al. and Pekelny et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as applied to claim 1. Pekelny et al. discloses performing scene analysis in the overlaying of content process, the analysis explicitly using neural networks such as CNN, RNN, LSTM or other types of neural networks (see paragraphs 89, 91 and Figure 9) of which the Examiner interprets as functionally equivalent to utilizing Applicant’s “machine-learning model.”
In reference to claims 8 and 17, Lynch et al. and Pekelny et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as applied to claims 1 and 11 respectively. Pekelny et al. discloses multiple embodiments of the invention one of which details identifying a person in the physical environment and using stored rules to specify how virtual content is to be placed in the scene giving the example of a virtual hat placed on top of the person’s head (see paragraphs 38, 76, #102, 108 of Figure 1 and #204, 206 of Figure 2). Since Pekelny et al. detects whether a person is in the physical environment as seen through the user’s HMD, the Examiner interprets that the person must at least inherently “move” into the physical environment thus, the overlaying of any such virtual content upon the person “appears to move between the real-world person and the user of the display device.”
In reference to claims 9-10 and 18-19, Lynch et al. and Pekelny et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as applied to claims 1 and 11 respectively. Pekelny et al. discloses multiple embodiments of the invention one of which details identifying a person in the physical environment and using stored rules to specify how virtual content is to be placed in the scene giving the example of a virtual hat, that doesn’t exist in that particular configuration in the real-world, placed on top of the person’s head (see paragraphs 38, 76, #102, 108 of Figure 1 and #204, 206 of Figure 2).
In reference to claim 11, claim 11 is similar in scope to claim 1 and is therefore rejected under like rationale. In addition to the rationale applied in the above rejection of claim 1, claim 11 further recites, “A system, comprising: one or more hardware processors; and at least one memory storing instructions that cause the one or more hardware processor to perform operations comprising…” Lynch et al. discloses the invention architecture made up of at least an AR viewer and an AR editor with the AR viewer comprising various display devices such as wearable glasses/headset and both viewer and editor comprising at least a user interface, memory and a processor (see at least paragraphs 52-53). Pekelny et al. discloses the invention performed by at least a computing device that includes one or more hardware processors and computer readable storage media that stores machine readable instructions for execution (see paragraphs 139-142 and Figure 16).
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 applied in the above rejection of claim 1, claim 20 further recites, “A machine-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a computer system, cause the computer system to perform operations…” Lynch et al. discloses the invention architecture made up of at least an AR viewer and an AR editor with the AR viewer comprising various display devices such as wearable glasses/headset and both viewer and editor comprising at least a user interface, memory and a processor, the memory storing information to provide the user interface and access the graphical user interface (see paragraphs 52-53, 56, 61 and 88). Pekelny et al. discloses the invention performed by at least a computing device that includes one or more hardware processors and computer readable storage media that stores machine readable instructions for execution (see paragraphs 139-142 and Figure 16).
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 11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7, 9 and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,322,052. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of claims 1 and 1, which are not explicitly recited in the combination of Patent claims 1, 7, 9 and 15, 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.
With reference to claim 1, claim 1 of the instant application defines an obvious variation of the invention claimed in U.S. Patent 12,322,052 via claims 1 and 7. Patent claims 1 and 7 teach all of the limitations of the broader instant application claim 1 in particular, Patent claim 1, lines 1-4, 9-14, 20-22 teach the majority of the limitations of instant application claim 1 with Patent claim 7, which depends directly from Patent claim 1, teaches the limitations of the “volumetric content” corresponding to a “virtual object” and the “real-world object” being a “person.” In other words, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 is generic to all that is recited in the combination of Patent claims 1 and 7. That is claim 1 is anticipated by the combination of Patent claims 1 and 7 and is therefore seen as unpatentable under this obviousness-type non-statutory double patenting rejection.
With reference to claim 11, claim 11 of the instant application defines an obvious variation of the invention claimed in U.S. Patent 12,322,052 via claims 9 and 15. Patent claims 9 and 15 teach all of the limitations of the broader instant application claim 11 in particular, Patent claim 9, lines 1-8, 16-18, 25-28 teach the majority of the limitations of instant application claim 11 with Patent claim 15, which depends directly from Patent claim 9, teaches the limitations of the “volumetric content” corresponding to a “virtual object” and the “real-world object” being a “person.” In other words, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 11 is generic to all that is recited in the combination of Patent claims 9 and 15. That is claim 11 is anticipated by the combination of Patent claims 9 and 15 and is therefore seen as unpatentable under this obviousness-type non-statutory double patenting rejection.
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
9/10/26
Prosecution Insights