DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed “computer program product” and/or “computer-readable storage media” includes transitory signal.
Examiner suggest change “computer-readable storage media” to “non-transitory computer-readable storage media” or “computer-readable storage medium”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) 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 8 and 15 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 regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the one or more storage media" in line 4. It is unclear whether it is referring to the “one or more computer readable storage media” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the one or more storage media” in line 4. It is unclear whether it is referring to the “one or more computer readable storage media” in line 3.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) 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.
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), because the claim limitation 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 limitations are:
“program instructions to detect an available state …”,
“program instructions to generate behavior …”,
“program instructions to control the user avatar …”,
“program instructions to monitor the mixed-reality …”, and
“program instructions to notify …” in claims 8 and 15;
“program instructions to identify …” in claims 10 and 17;
“program instructions to identify contextual information …”,
“program instructions to generate avatar-to-behavior …”,
“program instructions to monitor a location …”,
“program instructions to select a behavior …”, and
“program instructions to execute …” in claims 11 and 18;
“program instructions to transfer …” in claims 12 and 19;
“program instructions to initiate …” in claims 13 and 20; and
“program instructions to select …” in claim 14.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they 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 these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Valdivia (US 10,931,941) in view of Miller (US 10,068,374).
Referring to claims 1, 8 and 15, Valdivia discloses a method comprising:
detecting an available state (1:54-56, user interact in virtual space) of a user (fig. 3A, user) participating in a mixed-reality environment (fig. 3A, through headset device 320);
generating behavior (fig. 27, such as virtual room browsing) for a user [avatar] (fig. 15, user as shown in virtual mirror 1510) representing the user in the mixed-reality environment;
controlling (50:12-61, such as initiating communication with contact item 2730) the user avatar to perform the generated behavior;
monitoring the mixed-reality environment to identify if a participant [avatar] (fig. 27, Lucy, Christopher, and contact items/other users 2730) is interacting with the user avatar; and
responsive to detecting an interaction between the participant [avatar] and the user [avatar], notifying the user of the detected interaction (figs. 30A/30B, incoming communication; 54:24-55:51).
Miller discloses a first user avatar (fig. 9A, user A 901/931) interacting (5:1-19, first user avatar interacts with second user avatar) with a second user avatar (fig. 9B, user B 922).
Valdivia and Miller are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor in virtual/augmented reality. Before the time of the filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, having the teaching of Valdivia and Miller before him or her to modify the virtual space of Valdivia to include the first and second user avatars interactions of Miller, thereafter virtual space users are interacted with avatars. The suggestion and/or motivation for doing so would be receive improved virtual and augmented reality experiences as suggested by Miller. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Valdivia with Miller to obtain the invention as specified in the instant application claims.
As to claims 2, 9 and 16, Valdivia discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the available state of the user comprises:
a state (fig. 30A, user wears virtual watch 3010 but in communication yet) where the user is logged into but not interacting with the mixed-reality environment, is in communication range of one or more devices, and
desires to be notified of the detected interactions (fig. 30A, receiving incoming call notification 3030).
As to claims 3, 10 and 17, Valdivia discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the detecting comprises:
identifying one or more devices (fig. 1, user devices connected to the social networking system 160) on a person of the user and within communication distance of the user.
As to claims 4, 11 and 18, Valdivia discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the generating comprises the steps of:
identifying contextual information (fig. 27, contact cards 2730 and avatars Lucy/Christophe) including one or more objects and one or more participant avatars associated with the mixed-reality environment;
generating avatar-to-behavior tuples (fig. 29A, avatars) comprising proximity mapping (fig. 29A, spherical content 2910) associated with the one or more identified objects and the one or more participant avatars;
monitoring a location (fig. 52, location in virtual space 5210) of the identified objects and participant avatars within the mixed-reality environment;
responsive to one or more identified objects or the one or more participant avatars satisfying at least one proximity mapping (fig. 52, within aerial view of virtual space 5220), selecting the behavior (fig. 53, virtual experience 5310; fig. 52, sending information 5230/5250) from an associated avatar-to-behavior tuple (fig. 52, first user/avatar in virtual space 5200); and
executing the selected behavior (fig. 53, virtual experience 5310).
As to claims 5, 12 and 19, Valdivia discloses the method of claim 4, wherein the generating comprises:
transferring a plurality of contextual information or one or more avatar-to-behavior tuples to one or more participant avatars (fig. 36C, avatars).
As to claims 6, 13 and 20, Valdivia discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the notifying comprises:
initiating a voice call (fig. 30A, calling 3030) between the user and a participant using a mobile device (fig. 30A, virtual watch 3010) on a person (fig. 27, Lucy, Christopher) of the user.
As to claims 7 and 14, Valdivia discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the notifying comprises
selecting a device (fig. 30A, virtual watch 3010) of one or more devices based on a proximity (fig. 30A, wear on user) to the user.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but they are not deemed to be persuasive.
Applicant argues that claim 15 is not directed to transitory signals from its definition in specification (p.9).
The specification defines the term “computer readable storage medium”, but not “computer readable storage media”. It is still unclear whether applicant is intended to use the two terms interchangeably.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 in THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filled 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 of the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to examiner Cheng-Yuan Tseng whose telephone number is (571)272-9772, and fax number is (571)273-9772. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 09:00 to 17:30 Eastern Time. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alicia Harrington can be reached on (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 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. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866)217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800)786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571)272-1000.
/CHENG YUAN TSENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2615
Prosecution Insights