DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-33 are currently pending in the application. Claims 1-14 are original claims to patent US 12,045,931 B2 and claims 15-33 are newly added claims.
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 .
Reissue Applications
For reissue applications filed before September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the law and rules in effect on September 15, 2012. Where specifically designated, these are “pre-AIA ” provisions.
For reissue applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the current provisions.
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceeding in which Patent No. 12,045,931 is or was involved. These proceedings would include any trial before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, interferences, reissues, reexaminations, supplemental examinations, and litigation.
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue application.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a region of interest (ROI) selector” in claim 8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
According to the 3-prong analysis for 35 U.S.C. 112(f)/6th paragraph (see MPEP 2181) of the above listed claim limitations(s): (A) the term “selector” is a generic placeholder for performing the claimed function (a substitute for “means”); (B) the term “selector” is modified by functional language using a linking phrase, “configured to” (a substitute for “for”); and (C) the term “selector” is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function (“region of interest” is a label and offers no structure; and “receive user input for setting a ROI” is a function and offers no structure).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-10, 12-14, and 15-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2022/0084279 A1 to Lindmeier et al. (herein Lindmeier).
Claim 1
Lindmeier discloses a method for selective magnification in a three-dimensional (3D) rendering system (Lindmeier: [0548]-[0550], [0567]-[0568], figures 17A-18K; figures 1-6), the method comprising:
displaying, by an electronic device, a first view comprising at least one real world object and at least one virtual object (Lindmeier: [0549]-[0550], images of the real world physical environment, including objects; [0551], for example a table real object, and a cylinder virtual object; figure 17A, element 1704 shows a first view);
receiving, by the electronic device, a user input for selecting at least one object from among the at least one real world object and the at least one virtual object comprised in the first view (Lindmeier: [0553], figure 17A, selecting a cylinder for manipulation, including a magnifying);
setting, by the electronic device, a region of interest (ROI) comprising the selected at least one object based on the received user input (Lindmeier: [0553], figure 17A, a cylinder for manipulation in region 1714, including a magnifying);
displaying, by the electronic device, a magnified view of the ROI by overlaying the magnified view over the first view as a second view, while displaying the first view (Lindmeier: figure 17A, magnified view 1714 overlayed on view 1704);
receiving, by the electronic device, a user interaction on the second view (Lindmeier: figure 17B; [0556]); and
generating, by the electronic device, interaction on the first view corresponding to the user interaction received on the second view (Lindmeier: figure 17B; [0556]).
Claim 2
Lindmeier discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the 3D rendering system includes at least one from among an extended reality system, an augmented reality system, and a mixed reality system (Lindmeier: [0038], CGR; [0041]; [0042]-[0047]).
Claim 3
Lindmeier discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the user input comprises at least one from among a touch input, a gesture, a voice input, and any type of multi-modality interaction with combination of more than one interaction modality (Lindmeier: figures 4-6A, 17B; [0555]-[0556]).
Claim 5
Lindmeier discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the setting of the ROI further comprises: determining, by the electronic device, a context comprising an object in focus in the first view; and setting, by the electronic device, the ROI from the first view based on the context (Lindmeier: [0034], [0327], [0344], set object by copy, duplicate or replacing).
Claim 6
Lindmeier discloses the method as claimed in claim 5, wherein the displaying of the magnified view of the ROI further comprises: identifying, by the electronic device, a position where the second view is to be overlaid on the first view; determining, by the electronic device, a size of the second view to overlay on the first view; and overlaying, by the electronic device, the second view on the first view based on the identified position and the determined size (Lindmeier: [0554], resize/move view 1714).
Claim 7
Lindmeier discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the user interaction comprises at least one from among a touch interaction, a gesture-based interaction, a voice interaction, and any type of multi-modality interaction with combination of more than one interaction modality (Lindmeier: figures 4-6A, 17B; [0555]-[0556]).
Claims 8-10, and 12-14
The limitations of claims 8-10, and 12-14 correspond to the limitations of claims 1-3, and 5-7 and as such are rejected in a corresponding manner. Further, Lindmeier shows a display (Lindmeier: figures 1-6), a region of interest selector (Lindmeier: figures 2, 4-6B), a memory (Lindmeier: figures 2-3; [0054]), and a processor (Lindmeier: figures 1-6; [0053]).
Claim 15
Lindmeier discloses a method performed by an electronic device (Lindmeier: [0548]-[0549], [0567]-[0568], figures 17A-18K; figures 1-6), the method comprising:
obtaining, through at least one camera of the electronic device, an image of at least one real-world object by capturing the at least one real-world object included in a real-world space (Lindmeier: [0550], captures images of the real world physical environment, including objects; [0549], using sensors facing outward to capture the physical environment, for example cameras; [0551], for example a table real object);
displaying, on a display of the electronic device, a first view by overlaying at least one virtual object over the at least one real-world object in the obtained image (Lindmeier: figure 17A, 1704 shows a first view; [0551], for example a cylinder virtual object);
determining, by the electronic device, based on a user input, an area including a portion of the at least one virtual object from among an entire area of the first view (Lindmeier: figure 17A, [0553], user input shown by gestures and gazes, determination shown by calculations and display of area based on user input to magnify/manipulate an area/object, e.g. the virtual cylinder object);
the portion (Lindmeier: [0553], figure 17A, selecting from an area, all of view 1704, a cylinder for manipulation, including a magnifying; the entire virtual cylinder is shown as magnified, including a portion of it);
displaying, on the display of the electronic device, a second view by overlaying the determined area including the magnified portion (Lindmeier: figure 17A, magnified view 1714 overlayed on view 1704);
receiving a user input for the at least one virtual object in the second view (Lindmeier: figure 17B; [0556]); and
performing an interaction, based on the received user input, on the at least one virtual object in the second view (Lindmeier: figure 17B; [0556]).
Claim 16
Lindmeier discloses the method of claim 15, wherein the magnifying comprises: increasing a size of the portion of the at least one virtual object or zooming-in the determined area (Lindmeier: figure 17B; [0553]-[0554], magnified view, resize).
Claim 17
Lindmeier discloses the method of claim 15, wherein the magnifying comprises:
receiving a user input for increasing a size of the portion of the at least one virtual object (Lindmeier: figure 17B; [0553], user input gesture for magnified view; [0554], magnified view, resize); and
increasing the size of the portion of the at least one virtual object or zooming in the determined area based on the received user input (Lindmeier: figure 17B; [0553], user input gesture for magnified view; [0554], magnified view, resize).
Claim 18
Lindmeier discloses the method of claim 15, wherein the area comprises a region of interest (ROI) selected by a user input (Lindmeier: figure 17A, the region of interest is what will become displayed in 1714).
Claim 19
Lindmeier discloses the method of claim 15, wherein a position of the area is at a central area of the first view (Lindmeier: [0553], figure 17A, from a predetermined area that is all of view 1704 and therefore central; also figure 19A, shows the predetermined area of target objects central to the view).
Claim 20
Lindmeier discloses the method of claim 18 further comprising: changing a position of the ROI based on a change of a view angle of a user by a movement of the user (Lindmeier: figures 17C and 17D show changing the view angle of the user and thus the position of the ROI).
Claim 21
Lindmeier discloses the method of claim 18 further comprising: based on a user input, displaying, through the display of the electronic device, a mark representing a border of the ROI on the first view (Lindmeier: figure 17A, border of 1714 displayed on first view 1704).
Claim 22
Lindmeier discloses the method of claim 15, wherein the performing of the interaction comprises performing an interaction on the virtual object in the first view corresponding to the user input received on the virtual object in the second view (Lindmeier: figure 17B).
Claim 23
Lindmeier discloses the method of claim 15 further comprising: rendering both of the virtual object and a surrounding three-dimensional (3D) environment of the real-world space included in the area in the second view (Lindmeier: figure 17B, table real object and cylinder virtual object included in second view 1714).
Claims 24-33
The limitations of claims 24-33 correspond to the limitations of claims 15-23 and as such are rejected in a corresponding manner. Further, Lindmeier shows a display (Lindmeier: figures 1-6), a user input interface (Lindmeier: figures 2, 4-6B), a memory (Lindmeier: figures 2-3; [0054]), and a processor (Lindmeier: figures 1-6; [0053]), and a non-transitory computer readable recording medium having stored there a computer program (Lindmeier: [0006]; [0055]; [0567]).
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) 4 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0084279 A1 to Lindmeier et al. (herein Lindmeier) in view of US 9,213,405 B2 to Perez et al. (herein Perez).
Claim 4
Lindmeier does not show the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the setting of the ROI further comprises: predicting, by the electronic device, a user intent to select the at least one object from the first view based on a user interaction history; and setting, by the electronic device, the ROI from the first view based on the user intent. Perez demonstrates that it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to identify/predict objects/regions of interest based on a user’s intent using user scheduling history (Perez: 25:44-63). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the selection and setting of regions to magnify found in Lindmeier with predicting a user’s intent based on history as suggested by the teachings of Perez. This implementation would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would have found: predicting intent would increase the quality of a “user-friendly” experience in the same manner as making distant objects more accessible, especially if there are multiple objects in the viewed distance (Lindmeier: [0552]-[0553]); both references are directed to using head mounted displays to interact with the environment; and the implementation of is an application of a known element and technique yielding a predictable result using an acceptable piece of prior art.
Claim 11
The limitations of claim 11 correspond to the limitations of claim 4 and as such are rejected in a corresponding manner.
Withdrawn Objections and Rejections
The following objections/rejections from the Office Action of 03/25/2026 are withdrawn in view of the Patent Owner Response of 06/25/2026: (1) claims 15-33 under 35 USC 251 for recapture of surrendered material (the amendment provides the previously missing subject matter).
Response to Arguments
Patent Owner's arguments filed 06/25/2026 (herein Response) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Response argues: (1) the amended limitations are not shown by the cited prior art, in particular Lindmeier does not show determining, by the electronic device, based on a user input, an area including a portion of the at least one virtual object from among an entire area of the first view (Response: page 18, top).
Lindmeier shows the amended limitations as discussed above in the modified rejection adapted for the amended limitations. Further, Lindmeier’s calculating an area based on the gestures and gazes input by the user shows the broadest reasonable interpretation of the broadly claimed “determining”. The use of the word “predetermined” in Lindmeier’s paragraph [0553] only signifies an algorithm defining the area that is then applied to the actual user input, i.e. the user input establishes a target and they system’s predetermined algorithm must then be calculated to “determine” the actual area to display for manipulation/magnification. Further, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “determining” reads upon the Response’s characterization of Lindmeier as merely “triggering” the system to apply a predetermined area around the gaze point. The actions of triggering and applying require the system of Lindmeier to determine what has been triggered and how to apply, e.g. calculations based on user input to generated the display. This analysis is applicable to claim 1 (and the other independent and dependent) for the same reasons. Therefore, the arguments presented by the Response is not persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Correspondence Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM H WOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-3736. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-3pm.
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, Alexander Kosowski can be reached at (571)272-3744. 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.
/William H. Wood/
Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3992
Conferees:
/RACHNA S DESAI/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3992
/ALEXANDER J KOSOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Prosecution Insights