DETAILED ACTION
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 filed May 6, 2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(1), which requires the following: (1) a list of all patents, publications, applications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office; (2) U.S. patents and U.S. patent application publications listed in a section separately from citations of other documents; (3) the application number of the application in which the information disclosure statement is being submitted on each page of the list; (4) a column that provides a blank space next to each document to be considered, for the examiner’s initials; and (5) a heading that clearly indicates that the list is an information disclosure statement. The information disclosure statement has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
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 1-9, 11-18 and 20-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9, 11-14 and 16-21 of U.S. Patent No. 11,836,826 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each is directed to a client device providing selection of an augmented reality content generator corresponding to a 3D object representing a destination that is displayed with a communicatively coupled client device.
It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention at the time the invention was made to conclude that the invention defined in the claims at issue would have been an obvious variation of the invention defined in a claim in the patent because the patent provides display and selection of a particular user from the plurality of users as an indication of the particular user to participate in a shared augmented reality viewing experience provided by the selected augmented reality content generator.
The following table shows the claims of the current application being examined and the conflicting claims of Patent 11,836,826 B2.
Application 19/200,095 Patent 11,836,826 B2
1
1, 2, 4
2, 3
2, 3
4-9
5-9, 11
11
12, 13
12-18, 20
13-14, 16-20, 21
The following table shows an example of the corresponding conflicting claims of the current applicant and Patent 11,836,826 B2.
Application 19/200,095 Patent 11,836,826 B2 (claim 1)
A method, comprising: causing display, by a messaging client application executing on a processor at a client device, at least one augmented reality content item generated by a first augmented reality content generator, the at least one augmented reality content item comprising a 3D scene based at least in part on a particular geolocation different than a current geolocation of the client device
causing display, by the messaging client application at the client device, of a graphical interface comprising a plurality of selectable graphical items, each selectable graphical item corresponding to a respective augmented reality content generator of the set of augmented reality content generators
receiving, by the messaging client application at the client device, a selection of a first selectable graphical item from the plurality of selectable graphical items, the first selectable graphical item comprising a first augmented reality content generator corresponding to a particular geolocation, the particular geolocation being different than a current geolocation of the client device;
after receiving the selection, causing display, by the messaging client application at the client device, a plurality of graphical items corresponding to a plurality of users, each graphical item comprising a name of a particular user from the plurality of users as an indication of the particular user to participate in a shared augmented reality viewing experience provided by the first selectable graphical item corresponding to an augmented reality content generator that has been selected; causing display, by the messaging client application at the client device, at least one augmented reality content item generated by the first augmented reality content generator, the at least one augmented reality content item comprising the 3D scene based at least in part on the particular geolocation different than the current geolocation of the client device;
causing display, by a second messaging client application at a second client device, the at least one augmented reality content item generated by the first augmented reality content generator, the at least one augmented reality content item comprising the 3D scene based at least in part on the particular geolocation, the second client device comprising a particular processor executing the second messaging client application, the second client device being communicatively coupled to the client device over a network
causing display, by a second messaging client application at a second client device, the at least one augmented reality content item generated by the first augmented reality content generator, the at least one augmented reality content item comprising the 3D scene based at least in part on the particular geolocation.
causing display, by the messaging client application at the client device, of a graphical interface comprising a plurality of selectable graphical items, each selectable graphical item corresponding to a respective augmented reality content generator of a set of augmented reality content generators
Application 19/200,095 (claim 1) Patent 11,836,826 B2 (claim 4)
causing display of respective 3D objects in a particular arrangement, each 3D object corresponding to one of the plurality of selectable graphical items, wherein the respective 3D objects are displayed in a current scene captured by a camera of the client device
causing display of respective 3D objects in a particular arrangement, each 3D object corresponding to one of the plurality of selectable graphical items, wherein the respective 3D objects are displayed in a current scene captured by a camera of the client device.
Application 19/200,095 (claim 1) Patent 11,836,826 B2 (claim 2)
receiving a touch input via a touch screen of the client device; and in response to receiving the touch input, causing navigation through the 3D scene
receiving a touch input via a touch screen of the client device; and in response to receiving the touch input, causing navigation through the 3D scene
*Bold type indicates differences in the claim.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, 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.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "13D object" in lines 2 and 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "13D space" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "13D object" in lines 2 and 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "13D space" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 10-12 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jesper Sandberg, US 2012/0001939 A1 and further in view David Holder et al., WO 2021/076754 A1.
Independent claim 1, Sandberg discloses a method, comprising:
causing display, by a messaging client application executing on a processor at a client device, at least one augmented reality content item generated by a first augmented reality content generator, the at least one augmented reality content item comprising a 3D scene based at least in part on a particular geolocation (i.e. display AR information – Para 69, 70; AR information is geotagged images and/or video – Para 69 – that correspond to displayed real world objects – Para 68);
causing display, by a second messaging client application at a second client device, the at least one augmented reality content item generated by the first augmented reality content generator, the at least one augmented reality content item comprising the 3D scene based at least in part on the particular geolocation, the second client device comprising a particular processor executing the second messaging client application, the second client device being communicatively coupled to the client device over a network (i.e. first and second mobile devices – Fig. 3 “10, 20” – communicate AR information and displayed environment in the camera view to one another – Para 45; the geo-coded information is provided in the camera view – Para 49);
causing display, by the messaging client application at the client device, of a graphical interface comprising a plurality of selectable graphical items, each selectable graphical item corresponding to a respective augmented reality content generator of a set of augmented reality content generators (i.e. mobile device – Fig. 3 – displays selectable AR information – Fig. 5 “5, 15, 19”; Para 73 – as icons – Para 69, 70, 72);
causing display of respective 3D objects in a particular arrangement, each 3D object corresponding to one of the plurality of selectable graphical items, wherein the respective 3D objects are displayed in a current scene captured by a camera of the client device (i.e. selected AR information is displayed on screen by itself – Para 77; AR information may be a panoramic image associated with a location – Para 61);
receiving a touch input via a touch screen of the client device (i.e. a device with user interface and touch screen – Para 53 – receiving touch input – Para 72); and
in response to receiving the touch input, causing navigation through the 3D scene (i.e. touch interaction of an information layer to active the AR information associated with the layer – Para 72, 73; the AR information is selectable – Para 77; navigate augmented object/content in a view of an environment - Para 51).
Sandberg suggests a 3D scene as Sandberg discloses a mixed reality environment that includes augmented reality (Para 4) displaying a panoramic image (Para 44) and enabling navigation of augmented content in the environment (Para 51).
It would have been obvious at the effective date of invention to include a 3D scene with the method of Sandberg because Sandberg teaches providing a mixed reality environment that enables selection of displayed AR information to provide display of additional information in a navigable camera view, which suggests a 3D scene and yields predictable results.
Sandberg fails to disclose the particular geolocation being different than a current geolocation of the client device and different than a second geolocation of the second client device.
Holder discloses the particular geolocation being different than a current geolocation of the client device and different than a second geolocation of the second client device (i.e. an AR scene, based on maps formed from tracking information, is provided to multiple users at differing positions in the same location that share AR content reloaded to the display during a AR experience session – Para 130).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention at the time the invention was made to combine Holder’s known method of the particular geolocation being different than a current geolocation of the client device with the method of Sandberg because storing tracked/historical device locations in association with AR content enables sharing presentation display of AR content of previous device locations with other users, which provides the advantage of increasing availability of different AR experience sessions with use of reloaded AR content.
Claim 2, Sandberg discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the particular geolocation is different than a second current geolocation of the second client device (i.e. a second device associated with a second location - Fig. 3 “10, 20” - views display of AR information, e.g. geotagged images and/or video, – Para 69 – that correspond to locations – Para 68, such as historical client device locations – Para 55 – of a first device), and further comprising: receiving a touch input via a touch screen of the client device (i.e. a device with user interface and touch screen – Para 53 – receiving touch input – Para 72); and in response to receiving the touch input, causing navigation through the 3D scene (i.e. touch interaction of an information layer to active the AR information associated with the layer – Para 72, 73; the AR information is selectable – Para 77; navigate augmented object/content in a view of an environment - Para 51).
Holder discloses the particular geolocation is different than a second current geolocation of the second client device (i.e. multiple users share reloaded AR content in different AR experience sessions – Para 130; Fig. 42).
Claim 10, Sandberg discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the 3D scene is populated with particular AR content items based on a particular destination that a user and other users included in a social graph has shown interest in (i.e. retrieve AR information for categories of information enabled/selected by a user – Para 70).
Independent claim 11, the claim is similar in scope to claim 1. Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 similarly applies herein.
Claim 12, the corresponding rationale as applied in the rejection of claim 2 applies herein.
Independent claim 20, the claim is similar in scope to claim 1. Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 similarly applies herein.
Claims 3-8 and 13-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jesper Sandberg, US 2019/0001939 A1 and in view David Holder et al., WO 2021/076754 A1 as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Jinha Lee et al., US 2019/0310757 A1.
Claim 3, Sandberg discloses touch input.
Sandberg fails to disclose the method of claim 2, wherein the touch input comprises a swipe gesture (i.e. swipe gesture or other gesture modifies the visual display of AR items - Para 82, 129).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention at the time the invention was made to combine Lee’s swipe gesture with the method of Sandberg because each teaches manipulates display items via touch input, of which a swipe gesture is exemplary. Therefore, the combination yields predictable results.
Claim 4, Sandberg discloses display of the graphical interface comprising the plurality of selectable graphical items (Fig. 3, 5, 6).
Sandberg fails to disclose the method of claim 4, wherein the particular arrangement comprises a geometric arrangement where each 3D object is positioned at an equal distance in 3D space from at least one other 3D object, which Lee discloses (i.e. display AR elements, e.g. objects, in a grid pattern – Figs. 36E & 36G).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention at the time the invention was made to combine Lee’s known method wherein the particular arrangement comprises a geometric arrangement where each 3D object is positioned at an equal distance in 3D space from at least one other 3D object, with the method of Sandberg because each teaches an AR environment displaying items, where the arrangement of items provides improved visual organization (Lee, Para 66).
Claim 5, Sandberg discloses display of the graphical interface comprising the plurality of selectable graphical items (Fig. 3, 5, 6).
Sandberg fails to disclose the method of claim 4, wherein the particular arrangement comprises a geometric arrangement where each 3D object is positioned at different distances in 3D space from at least a first 3D object and a second 3D object, which Lee discloses (i.e. random display of AR elements, e.g. objects – Fig. 9).
Similar rationale as applied in the rejection of claim 4 applies herein.
Claim 6, Sandberg discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving movement data from the client device, the movement data indicating that the current scene captured by the camera has changed; and in response to receiving the movement data, rendering an updated view of the current scene based on the received movement data, the updated view of the current scene reflecting the changed current scene (i.e. track device orientation and update field of view based on device orientation - Para 56, 59), as does Lee (i.e. move displayed elements as indicated by user input and display the elements at new positions – Para 27).
Clam 7, Sandberg discloses the method of claim 6, further comprising: causing display of the respective 3D objects in the updated view of the current scene (i.e. update field of view based on device orientation - Para 56, 59), as does Lee (i.e. generate display of elements in position indicated by the user input indicating intent to move data – Para 25, 26).
Claim 8, Sandberg discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the second client device is associated with a different user (i.e. communication of multiple user devices - Fig. 3), as does Lee (i.e. first device – Fig. 2B “202” - and second device – Fig. 2B “206” – share visualization of display interactions - Para 23, 24).
Claims 13-18, the corresponding rationale as applied in the rejection of claims 3-8 apply herein.
Claims 9 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jesper Sandberg, US 2019/0001939 A1 and in view David Holder et al., WO 2021/076754 A1 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Earle Alexander, IV et al., US 2021/0097875 A1 (hereinafter, Alexander).
Claim 9, Sandberg discloses a multi user shared experience (Fig. 3; Para 45).
Holder discloses a multi user shared experience, where each user device localizes to the stored map location by translating the location to the frame of reference maintained by the user device, which enables control of the display rendering (Para 114).
Sandberg in view of Holder fails to disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving movement data from the second client device, the movement data indicating that the 3D scene based at least in part on the particular geolocation different than the current geolocation of the client device has changed; and in response to receiving the movement data, causing an updated view of the 3D scene to be rendered at the client device based on the received movement data from the second client device, which Alexander discloses (i.e. a telepresence session – Para 32 - of multiple users viewing a spatial location - Para 165- where each user device can move/change pose to control the display viewed by other users – Para 202; a user can move his head, body or eye to perceive any direction in space – Para 79; where movement is detected via sensors – Para 81).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention at the time the invention was made to combine Alexander’s receiving movement data from the second client device, the movement data indicating that the 3D scene based at least in part on the particular geolocation different than the current geolocation of the client device has changed; and in response to receiving the movement data, causing an updated view of the 3D scene to be rendered at the client device based on the received movement data from the second client device with the method of Sandberg in view of Holder because each provides a shared AR experience from a perspective view of a user device, which may be any user device participating in the shared experience to provide the advantage of an improved viewing experience allowing users to see the same content in different locations within a shared space (Alexander, Para 33).
Claim 19, the corresponding rationale as applied in the rejection of claim 9 applies herein.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANTE HARRISON whose telephone number is (571)272-7659. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am to 5:00 pm 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, Alicia Harrington can be reached at 571-272-2330. 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.
/CHANTE E HARRISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2615
Prosecution Insights