DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-7, and 10-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamilton, II et al. (US 2011/0055726) in view of Mitchell et al. (US 2016/0117868).
Regarding claim 1, Hamilton teaches/suggests: A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer-readable instructions thereon which, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to perform a method (Hamilton Fig. 8: memory 106 and processor 104), the method comprising:
acquiring object data including display information of an object displayed in a virtual space and a script for executing processing in the virtual space (Hamilton [0036] “the virtual content of VU 12 may be defined in terms of a virtual reality modeling language, wherein the definition of the virtual content comprises programming data necessary for executing the objects, texts, and scripts within virtual universe 12 … metadata is added to the definition that explicitly states how an object, or class of objects is to be displayed to the user” [0025] “virtual content information, which is information about the objects, texts, and scripts of the virtual content renderable in the virtual universe”);
acquiring a determination result as to whether to execute the script included in the object data (Hamilton [0038] “To prevent a potential overload situation due to complex and resource demanding virtual content being rendered in the virtual universe, alternative representation tool 53 of the present invention may deny the request for certain textures/scripts”); and
restricting execution of the script according to the determination result (Hamilton [0038] “alternative representation tool 53 of the present invention may deny the request for certain textures/scripts”).
Hamilton does not teach/suggest:
acquiring one or more object attribute values related to the object data;
the determination result being a result of determination performed by using the one or more object attribute values;
Mitchell, however, teaches/suggests:
acquiring one or more object attribute values related to the object data (Mitchell [0059] “each of the custom script(s) 174 can be associated with an enable or disable flag that indicates whether the telematics application 172 should execute a corresponding one of the custom script(s) 174”);
the determination result being a result of determination performed by using the one or more object attribute values (Mitchell [0059] “The execution of the custom script(s) 174 in the telematics application 172 can be controllable such that the one or more of the custom script(s) 174 can be enabled or disabled … each of the custom script(s) 174 can be associated with an enable or disable flag that indicates whether the telematics application 172 should execute a corresponding one of the custom script(s) 174”);
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the substitution of one known element (whether to run a script due to its enable/disable flag in Mitchell) for another (whether to run a script due to a potential overload situation in Hamilton) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because such substitutions would have yielded predictable results, namely to control the script execution.
Regarding claim 4, Hamilton as modified by Mitchell teaches/suggests: The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 1, wherein the one or more object attribute values include a virtual space attribute value that is an attribute value set in the virtual space (Hamilton [0025] “virtual content information, which is information about the objects, texts, and scripts of the virtual content renderable in the virtual universe”). The virtual content information meet the virtual space attribute value.
Regarding claim 5, Hamilton as modified by Mitchell teaches/suggests: The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 1, wherein the one or more object attribute values include a dynamic attribute value that dynamically changes (Hamilton [0024]-[0025] “A motion controls component 44 enables the user's avatar(s) to make movements through the virtual universe … virtual content information, which is information about the objects, texts, and scripts of the virtual content renderable in the virtual universe”). The virtual content information of dynamic objects meet the dynamic attribute value.
Regarding claim 6, Hamilton as modified by Mitchell teaches/suggests: The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 1, wherein the one or more object attribute values include a static attribute value that does not dynamically change (Hamilton [0024]-[0025] “A motion controls component 44 enables the user's avatar(s) to make movements through the virtual universe … virtual content information, which is information about the objects, texts, and scripts of the virtual content renderable in the virtual universe”). The virtual content information of static objects meet the static attribute value.
Regarding claim 7, Hamilton as modified by Mitchell teaches/suggests: The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 1, further comprising:
performing restriction processing for not executing the script in a case where the determination result is information indicating that the script is not executed, wherein the restriction processing includes processing for not executing a part of processing among a plurality of processing included in the script (Hamilton [0038] “alternative representation tool 53 of the present invention may deny the request for certain textures/scripts” Mitchell [0059] “The execution of the custom script(s) 174 in the telematics application 172 can be controllable such that the one or more of the custom script(s) 174 can be enabled or disabled” [To not execute a whole script is to not execute part of the script.]).
The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 10, Hamilton as modified by Mitchell teaches/suggests: The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 1, further comprising:
determining whether to display the object by using the display information; and outputting the object by using the display information only in response to a determination to display the object (Hamilton [0037] “Each of objects 90, 91, 92 may be associated with one or more texts/scripts that affect rendering in some fashion during a session in the virtual universe” [The limitation “only in response to” is an inherent and/or implicit feature of the rendering.]).
Regarding claim 11, Hamilton as modified by Mitchell teaches/suggests: The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 1, further comprising:
determining whether to perform processing related to arrangement of the object; and arranging the object only in response to a determination to perform processing related to arrangement of the object (Hamilton [0037] “Each of objects 90, 91, 92 may be associated with one or more texts/scripts that affect rendering in some fashion during a session in the virtual universe” [The limitation “only in response to” is an inherent and/or implicit feature of the rendering.]).
Regarding claim 12, Hamilton as modified by Mitchell teaches/suggests: The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 1, further comprising:
determining whether to execute the script included in the object data by using the one or more object attribute values and acquiring a determination result (Mitchell [0059] “The execution of the custom script(s) 174 in the telematics application 172 can be controllable such that the one or more of the custom script(s) 174 can be enabled or disabled … each of the custom script(s) 174 can be associated with an enable or disable flag that indicates whether the telematics application 172 should execute a corresponding one of the custom script(s) 174”).
The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 13, Hamilton as modified by Mitchell teaches/suggests: The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 1, further comprising:
acquiring the object data transmitted from a terminal apparatus used by a user (Hamilton [0020]-[0021] “users operating computers 20A-20C (hereinafter referred generally as 20) interact with VU 12 through a communications network 22 via virtual universe clients 24A-24C (hereinafter referred generally as 24) that reside in computers 20, respectively … One of the ways that users or administrators can interact with the virtual universe is to create virtual content for the virtual universe”).
Regarding claim 14, Hamilton as modified by Mitchell teaches/suggests: The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 1, further comprising:
outputting the object by using the display information included in the object data (Hamilton [0037] “Each of objects 90, 91, 92 may be associated with one or more texts/scripts that affect rendering in some fashion during a session in the virtual universe”); and
restricting processing of outputting the object according to the determination result (Hamilton [0038] “alternative representation tool 53 of the present invention may deny the request for certain textures/scripts” Mitchell [0059] “The execution of the custom script(s) 174 in the telematics application 172 can be controllable such that the one or more of the custom script(s) 174 can be enabled or disabled”).
The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 15, Hamilton as modified by Mitchell teaches/suggests: The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 1, further comprising:
outputting the object by using the display information included in the object data (Hamilton [0037] “Each of objects 90, 91, 92 may be associated with one or more texts/scripts that affect rendering in some fashion during a session in the virtual universe”); and
restricting at least one processing other than the processing of outputting the object according to the determination result (Hamilton [0038] “alternative representation tool 53 of the present invention may deny the request for certain textures/scripts” Mitchell [0059] “The execution of the custom script(s) 174 in the telematics application 172 can be controllable such that the one or more of the custom script(s) 174 can be enabled or disabled” [The at least one processing would have been well known for the scripts (Official Notice).]).
The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated herein.
Claim 16 recites limitation(s) similar in scope to those of claim 1, and is rejected for the same reason(s). Hamilton as modified by Mitchell further teaches/suggests:
outputting the object by using the display information included in the object data (Hamilton [0037] “Each of objects 90, 91, 92 may be associated with one or more texts/scripts that affect rendering in some fashion during a session in the virtual universe”).
Claim 17 recites limitation(s) similar in scope to those of claim 1, and is rejected for the same reason(s). Hamilton as modified by Mitchell further teaches/suggests processing circuitry (Hamilton Fig. 8: processor 104).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamilton, II et al. (US 2011/0055726) in view of Mitchell et al. (US 2016/0117868) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Godfrey et al. (US 2024/0045493).
Regarding claim 2, Hamilton as modified by Mitchell teaches/suggests a producer of the object data (Hamilton [0021] “One of the ways that users or administrators can interact with the virtual universe is to create virtual content for the virtual universe”). Hamilton and Mitchell are silent regarding: The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 1, wherein the one or more object attribute values include a producer attribute value that is an attribute value of a producer of the object data. Godfrey, however, teaches/suggests a producer attribute value that is an attribute value of a producer of the object data (Godfrey [0052] “Such a user-defined tag may for example, indicate … the identity of a creator of the virtual content asset”). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the virtual content information of Hamilton as modified by Mitchell to include the identity of the creator as taught/suggested by Godfrey to identify the creator of the virtual content.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamilton, II et al. (US 2011/0055726) in view of Mitchell et al. (US 2016/0117868) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee (US 2024/0378591).
Regarding claim 3, Hamilton and Mitchell are silent regarding: The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 1, wherein the one or more object attribute values include a disposal right holder attribute value that is an attribute value of a disposal right holder of the object data. Lee, however, teaches/suggests a disposal right holder of the object data (Lee [0026] “a required consent by the blockchain company 40 for the disposal of the asset by the asset right holder”). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the virtual content information of Hamilton as modified by Mitchell to include the disposal right holder as taught/suggested by Lee to identify the holder of the virtual content that has disposal right.
As such, Hamilton as modified by Mitchell and Lee teaches/suggests a disposal right holder attribute value that is an attribute value of a disposal right holder of the object data (Hamilton [0025] “virtual content information, which is information about the objects, texts, and scripts of the virtual content renderable in the virtual universe” Lee [0026] “a required consent by the blockchain company 40 for the disposal of the asset by the asset right holder”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The steps of “performing” in claim 8; and “acquiring” and “executing” in claim 9, taken as a whole, render the respective claims patentably distinct over the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2019/0089545 – restrict script execution
US 2023/0289223 – task scheduling in game engine
[Spronck 2006] – dynamic scripting
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANH-TUAN V NGUYEN whose telephone number is 571-270-7513. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9AM-5PM ET.
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, JASON CHAN can be reached on 571-272-3022. 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). 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.
/ANH-TUAN V NGUYEN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2619