DETAILED ACTION
This is a Non-Final Office Action responsive to the Request for Continued Examination filed 28 July 2025. The instant application is a broadening reissue of US Application 16/676,810 (US Patent 11,216,152 B2 to Alexander, hereinafter “the ‘152 patent”, published 4 January 2022).
The instant response includes pending claims 1-27, 29-35, and 37-43. Prior claims 28, 36, and 44 have been cancelled. Previously presented claims 1, 11, 16, 21, 29, and 37 have been amended. Claims 1, 11, 16, 21, 29, and 37 are independent claims.
Claims 1-27, 29-35, and 37-43 are rejected herein.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after 16 March 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Reissue
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceed-ing in which US Patent 11,216,152 B2 is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, 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 mate-rial to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue appli-cation.
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.
Applicant is notified that any subsequent amendment to the specification and/or claims must comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b).
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 28 July 2025 has been considered by the Examiner.
Response to Arguments
The 28 April 2025 Final Office Action objected to claims 21-43 for failure to comply with the manner of making amendments in reissue applications set forth in 37 CFR 1.173. The instant submission appears to be in accordance with such requirements, and as such the objection is withdrawn.
Claims 1-43 were rejected under 35 USC 251 and 35 USC 112(a) based on the inclusion of new matter to independent claims 1, 11, 16, 21, 29, and 37 that was not supported by the specification of the ‘152 Patent. The instant amendment to claims 1, 11, 16, 21, 29, and 37 appears to provide correction for such, and as a result the prior rejection of claims 1-43 under 35 USC 251 and 35 USC 112(a) is withdrawn.
Applicant’s further arguments regarding the prior rejections of the claims under 35 USC 103 are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 11, 14, 16, 19, 21, 26, 27, 29, 34, 35, 37, 42, and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamilton, II et al. (US Publication 2009/0300639 A1, hereinafter Hamilton ‘639) in view of Robertson et al. (US Patent 7,119,819 B1, hereinafter Robertson), further in view of Van Wie at al. (US Publication 2009/0254843 A1, hereinafter Van Wie).
Regarding claim 1, Hamilton ‘639 discloses A computer-implemented method comprising:
providing, by a computing system, a shared three-dimensional computing environment associated with a virtual reality interface, wherein content items provided in the shared three-dimensional computing environment are accessible to a plurality of users (Hamilton ‘639 discloses a “simulated environment accessed by multiple users through an online interface”, at [0002]. Such environments may be shared spaces allowing many users to participate at once ([0003]), and “immersive 3D environments”, at [0004]. Hamilton ‘639 further discloses that the virtual universe allows for interaction is resources such as “files, images, programs, business documents, etc., during a virtual universe session”, at [0012]);
in response to a first interaction within the virtual reality interface to open a personal space associated with a first user, providing, by the computing system, the personal space within the shared three-dimensional computing environment (Hamilton ‘639 discloses that a user’s avatar within the virtual universe may have an inventory from which items may be selected, at [0026]. Such inventory is accessed through an invocation system that allows a user to “initiate the resource access process within the virtual universe”, at [0026]. At [0031], Hamilton ‘639 states that a rendering of a file may be “dragged by an avatar from a disk drive rendering into the avatar’s inventory”. Hamilton ‘639 contemplates various methods for resource management, including a “virtual knapsack” in which a user may place and/or remove items, at [0036]); and
in response to a second interaction within the virtual reality interface, moving, by the computing system, a first content item of the content items in the shared three-dimensional computing environment to the personal space, wherein the first content item in the personal space is accessible to the first user (Hamilton ‘639 at [0036] discloses that a user’s avatar may acquire resources and have them placed into an inventory, and that a user may be prompted “for locations in the virtual universe 18 to locate the new resources”. At [0024], Hamilton ‘639 discloses that “resources 34 from the client computer 36 can be transported via the user’s avatar from the client computer into the virtual universe 18 (and vice versa)”).
Hamilton ‘639 fails to explicitly disclose
wherein each of the content items comprises a panel-shaped flat or curved user interface rendered in the three-dimensional computing environment, wherein one or more of the panel-shaped user interface comprise one or more user interface controls, and wherein a location or orientation of the one or more panel-shaped user interfaces is movable within the three-dimensional computing environment based on user input gestures of the user.
Hamilton ‘639 does disclose at [0024] that “[v]irtually any type of resource 34 associated with the client computer 36 can be accessed via this process. Illustrated resources 34 include, but are not limited to, disk drives, CD-ROMs, DVDs, network mounted drives, files, directories, services, media, documents, Web pages, objects, programs, email, etc.”. At [0041], Hamilton ‘639 discloses that selected resources may be opened and manipulated.
Robertson discloses systems and methods for displaying content in a three-dimensional environment, similar to that disclosed by Hamilton ‘639. Furthermore, Robertson discloses wherein the three-dimensional environment includes two-dimensional (“panel-shaped”) windows for displaying relevant content, at col. 2, lines 30-32. Such windows may be used to display executing applications or documents selected by the user, at col. 25, line 65 through col. 26, line 2. Robertson further discloses “button icons” for performing functions associated with a window, such as relocating or reorienting windows on the display, including moving windows, reordering windows in a stack, and closing related windows, at col. 21, lines 9-58. The button icons may be “attached” to a window at col. 22, lines 11-23. A user may further manipulate windows using cursor and mouse techniques, such as selection and dragging, at col. 17, lines 43-52.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the virtual universe for accessing content items of Hamilton ‘639 to include the two-dimensional windows and associated manipulation techniques of Robertson. Such a modification amounts to a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Hamilton ‘639 and Robertson fail to explicitly disclose
wherein at least one of the panel-shaped user interfaces displays media provided via a corresponding application and the displayed media is concurrently viewable by multiple of the plurality of users via the shared three-dimensional computing environment.
Van Wie discloses a shared virtual communication environment wherein selected media may be displayed to a plurality of users, similar to Hamilton ‘639 and Robertson. Furthermore, Van Wie discloses wherein at least one of the panel-shaped user interfaces displays media provided via a corresponding application and the displayed media is concurrently viewable by multiple of the plurality of users via the shared three-dimensional computing environment (Van Wie discloses shared spaces within a virtual environment where media of interest may be concurrently viewable by a plurality of users. See [0245]-[0248], in which photos of interest are being viewed by a user named “Karen” and “five other communicants” in a three-dimensional virtual room titled “Flickr Italy Room”. It can be seen in Fig. 19 that photo 192 is in the shape of a panel. Van Wie further illustrates at [0294] and Figs. 28-29 that a user may select a document (“media”) for display on a user interface view screen viewable by a plurality of users, and that the selected document may be rendered through an application program separate from the virtual environment software, for example Microsoft Excel).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the virtual environment of Hamilton ‘639 and Robertson to include the concurrently-viewable media provided via a shared three-dimensional computing environment.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination for the advantage of providing an interactive virtual reality communication system that enables users “in remote locations to communicate over multiple real-time channels and to interact with each other by manipulating their respective avatars in three-dimensional virtual spaces”. See Van Wie, [0006]. It is noted that Hamilton ‘639 provides for virtual universes such as its own to be spaces for “structured and unstructured virtual collaboration” that may “provide a wide open arena for creative and new communication methods and mechanisms”, at [0010].
Independent claims 11 and 16 recite limitations analogous in scope to those of independent claim 1, and as such are rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 4, Hamilton ‘639, Robertson, and Van Wie disclose The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
sharing, by the computing system, the first content item with a second user who is not a member of the plurality of users (Hamilton ‘639 discloses that selected resources may be manipulated, including transferred via email, at [0041]. Common email program functionality would allow for the selected content item to be delivered to a user’s intended recipient, who may or may not be a member of the plurality of users in the virtual universe).
Claims 14 and 19 recite limitations analogous in scope to those of claim 4, and as a result are rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 21, Hamilton ‘639 discloses A computer-implemented method comprising:
Presenting a user interface to a user of a plurality of users, wherein the user interface includes a view of a three-dimensional computing environment, wherein the three-dimensional computing environment comprises a virtual-reality interface including a shared space that is viewable by the plurality of users (Hamilton ‘639 discloses a “simulated environment accessed by multiple users through an online interface”, at [0002]. Such environments may be shared spaces allowing many users to participate at once ([0003]), and “immersive 3D environments”, at [0004]. Hamilton ‘639 further discloses that the virtual universe allows for interaction is resources such as “files, images, programs, business documents, etc., during a virtual universe session”, at [0012]);
presenting, by the computing system, within the three-dimensional computing environment, a personal space associated with the user to the user, wherein the personal space comprises one or more content items visible only to the user (Hamilton ‘639 discloses that a user’s avatar within the virtual universe may have an inventory from which items may be selected, at [0026]. Such inventory is accessed through an invocation system that allows a user to “initiate the resource access process within the virtual universe”, at [0026]. At [0031], Hamilton ‘639 states that a rendering of a file may be “dragged by an avatar from a disk drive rendering into the avatar’s inventory”. At [0024], Hamilton ‘639 discloses a resource access system allowing a user’s avatar to interact with resources from the user’s client computer. At least the disk drive rendering of [0026] constitutes a personal space including client-side resources only visible to the user of the client computer); and
moving, by the computing system, a first content item of the one or more content items from the personal space to the shared space, wherein the moving the first content item from the personal space to the shared space causes the first content item to be viewable by the plurality of users (Hamilton ‘639 at [0031] discusses making resources available to the virtual universe upon removal from an avatar’s inventory. At [0038], a user may grant permission for other users or avatars to view or interact with any of their rendered resources).
Hamilton ‘639 fails to explicitly disclose
wherein each of the content items comprises a panel-shaped flat or curved user interface rendered in the three-dimensional computing environment, wherein one or more of the panel-shaped user interfaces comprise one or more user interface controls, and wherein a location or orientation of the one or more panel-shaped user interfaces is movable within the three-dimensional computing environment based on user input gestures of the user.
Hamilton ‘639 does disclose at [0024] that “[v]irtually any type of resource 34 associated with the client computer 36 can be accessed via this process. Illustrated resources 34 include, but are not limited to, disk drives, CD-ROMs, DVDs, network mounted drives, files, directories, services, media, documents, Web pages, objects, programs, email, etc.”. At [0041], Hamilton ‘639 discloses that selected resources may be opened and manipulated.
Robertson discloses systems and methods for displaying content in a three-dimensional environment, similar to that disclosed by Hamilton ‘639. Furthermore, Robertson discloses wherein the three-dimensional environment includes two-dimensional (“panel-shaped”) windows for displaying relevant content, at col. 2, lines 30-32. Such windows may be used to display executing applications or documents selected by the user, at col. 25, line 65 through col. 26, line 2. Robertson further discloses “button icons” for performing functions associated with a window, such as relocating or reorienting windows on the display, including moving windows, reordering windows in a stack, and closing related windows, at col. 21, lines 9-58. The button icons may be “attached” to a window at col. 22, lines 11-23. A user may further manipulate windows using cursor and mouse techniques, such as selection and dragging, at col. 17, lines 43-52.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the virtual universe for accessing content items of Hamilton ‘639 to include the two-dimensional windows and associated manipulation techniques of Robertson. Such a modification amounts to a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Hamilton ‘639 and Robertson fail to explicitly disclose
wherein the first content item displays media via a corresponding application and, wherein the first content item is located in the shared space the displayed media is concurrently viewable by multiple of the plurality of users.
Van Wie discloses a shared virtual communication environment wherein selected media may be displayed to a plurality of users, similar to Hamilton ‘639 and Robertson. Furthermore, Van Wie discloses wherein the first content item displays media via a corresponding application and, where the first content item is located in the shared space the displayed media is concurrently viewable by multiple of the plurality of users (Van Wie discloses shared spaces within a virtual environment where media of interest may be concurrently viewable by a plurality of users. See [0245]-[0248], in which photos of interest are being viewed by a user named “Karen” and “five other communicants” in a three-dimensional virtual room titled “Flickr Italy Room”. It can be seen in Fig. 19 that photo 192 is in the shape of a panel. Van Wie further illustrates at [0294] and Figs. 28-29 that a user may select a document (“media”) for display on a user interface view screen viewable by a plurality of users, and that the selected document may be rendered through an application program separate from the virtual environment software, for example Microsoft Excel).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the virtual environment of Hamilton ‘639 and Robertson to include the concurrently-viewable media provided via a shared three-dimensional computing environment.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination for the advantage of providing an interactive virtual reality communication system that enables users “in remote locations to communicate over multiple real-time channels and to interact with each other by manipulating their respective avatars in three-dimensional virtual spaces”. See Van Wie, [0006]. It is noted that Hamilton ‘639 provides for virtual universes such as its own to be spaces for “structured and unstructured virtual collaboration” that may “provide a wide open arena for creative and new communication methods and mechanisms”, at [0010].
Independent claims 29 and 37 recite limitations analogous in scope to those of independent claim 21, and as such are rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 26, Hamilton ‘639, Robertson, and Van Wie disclose The computer-implemented method of claim 21, further comprising:
copying a second content item from the shared space into the personal space (Hamilton ‘639 discloses that selected resources may be manipulated by a user, including copying such resource, at [0041]. Hamilton ‘639 further discloses that resources may be exported from the virtual world to the client computer (“personal space”), at [0042]).
Claims 34 and 42 recite limitations analogous in scope to those of independent claim 26, and as such are rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 27, Hamilton ‘639, Robertson, and Van Wie disclose The computer-implemented method of claim 21, wherein the three-dimensional computing environment comprises a plurality of content items visible to the user (Hamilton ‘639, Robertson, and Van Wie disclose three-dimensional computing environments including a plurality of content items visible to a user, as discussed supra).
Claims 35 and 43 recite limitations analogous in scope to those of independent claim 27, and as such are rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 2, 5, 8, 9, 12, 15, 17, 20, 22, 30, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamilton ‘639, Robertson, and Van Wie, further in view of Harvey et al. (US Patent 6,784,901 B1, hereinafter Harvey).
Regarding claim 2, Hamilton ‘639, Robertson, and Van Wie disclose The computer-implemented method of claim 1. Hamilton ‘639, Robertson, and Van Wie fail to explicitly disclose such further comprising:
providing, by the computing system, a personal space icon selectable to open the personal space within the virtual reality interface.
Harvey discloses systems and methods for allowing users to interact with a virtual reality space, similar to Hamilton ‘639, Robertson, and Van Wie. Harvey further discloses providing, by the computing system, a personal space icon selectable to open the personal space within the virtual reality interface (the dashboard of col. 9, lines 27-32 and Fig. 11 includes icons used to access commonly used interface objects such as toolbars and windows, including the commonly used items window of col. 9, lines 42-46).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the virtual spaces and inventories of Hamilton ‘639, Robertson, and Van Wie to include the personal space icon of Harvey. Such a modification amounts to a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claims 12 and 17 recite limitations analogous in scope to those of claim 2, and as such are rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 5, Hamilton ‘639, Robertson, Van Wie, and Harvey disclose The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
removing, by the computing system, the first content item in the shared three-dimensional computing environment (Harvey at col. 12, lines 17-21 discloses that objects in the 3D world may be moved from one place to another, picked up, and/or dropped. Items may be “carriable” and placed into the user’s item window/inventory, at col. 12, lines 8-11. An item that may be picked up when on the ground and placed into a user’s inventory, as described by Harvey, would necessarily be removed from the shared three-dimensional computing environment when placed into a user’s private inventory).
Claims 15 and 20 recite limitations analogous in scope to those of claim 5, and as such are rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 8, Hamilton ‘639, Robertson, Van Wie, and Harvey disclose The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the providing the shared three- dimensional computing environment comprises:
presenting the shared three-dimensional computing environment in a background of the virtual reality interface (as can be seen in Fig. 11 and disclosed at col. 7, lines 24-26 of Harvey, interface objects are overlaid onto the 3D viewport, such that the interface objects are represented in the foreground of the virtual reality interface and the 3D world is represented in the background).
Regarding claim 9, Hamilton ‘639, Robertson, Van Wie, and Harvey disclose The computer-implemented method of claim 8, further comprising:
presenting, by the computing system, the personal space in a foreground of the virtual reality interface (as can be seen in Fig. 11 and disclosed at col. 7, lines 24-26 of Harvey, interface objects are overlaid onto the 3D viewport, such that the interface objects are represented in the foreground of the virtual reality interface and the 3D world is represented in the background).
Regarding claim 22, Hamilton ‘639, Robertson, Van Wie, and Harvey disclose The computer-implemented method of claim 21, wherein the presenting the personal space comprises:
presenting the personal space in a foreground of the user interface, and
presenting the three-dimensional computing environment in a background of the user interface (as can be seen in Harvey at Fig. 11 and disclosed at col. 7, lines 24-26, interface objects are overlaid onto the 3D viewport, such that the interface objects are represented in the foreground of the virtual reality interface and the 3D world is represented in the background).
Claims 30 and 38 recite limitations analogous in scope to those of independent claim 22, and as such are rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 23, Hamilton ‘639, Robertson, Van Wie, and Harvey disclose The computer-implemented method of claim 21, further comprising:
receiving an indication of a notification for the user; and
presenting the notification in the personal space (Harvey at col. 22, lines 46-51 discloses the use of a graphical user interface “textured message” displayed on the interface overlay that notifies a user that a chat message has been received, in this example, from a user outside of the recipient’s viewpoint. See further Figs. 19A-19F).
Claims 31 and 39 recite limitations analogous in scope to those of independent claim 23, and as such are rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 24, Hamilton ‘639, Robertson, Van Wie, and Harvey disclose The computer-implemented method of claim 21, wherein the view of the three-dimensional computing environment is presented such that the user is allowed to rotate the view of the three-dimensional computing environment in three-hundred sixty degrees in any direction (Hamilton ‘639, Robertson, Van Wie, and Harvey disclose three-dimensional environments. Robertson discloses a virtual head or camera that is able to rotate independently of the direction a virtual body is facing, at col. 6, lines 52-60. Harvey discloses the use of a camera object whose position, orientation, and field of view determine the scene rendered in the 3D viewport, at col. 7, lines 26-30. Such virtual universes were and are extraordinarily well-known to allow free camera movement such that a user could satisfactorily explore and interact with the presented world).
Claims 32 and 40 recite limitations analogous in scope to those of independent claim 24, and as such are rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamilton ‘639, Robertson, and Van Wie in view of Hamilton, II et al. (US Patent 8,788,952 B2, hereinafter Hamilton ‘952).
Regarding claim 6, Hamilton ‘639, Robertson, and Van Wie disclose The computer-implemented method of claim 1. Hamilton ‘639, Robertson, and Van Wie fail to explicitly disclose, wherein a second content item of the content items in the shared three-dimensional computing environment is associated with metadata, the method further comprising:
preventing, by the computing system, movement of the second content item to the personal space based on the metadata.
Hamilton ‘952 discloses a 3D “virtual universe” similar to the 3D environments of Hamilton ‘639, Robertson, and Van Wie. Furthermore, Hamilton ‘952 discloses wherein a user may “own” an item in the shared space, and that item may have associated permissions restricting access to items by other users. See col. 10, lines 1-19. Such item-specific permissions are analogous to metadata. Hamilton ‘952 explicitly discloses maintaining metadata related to the items of the virtual universe at col. 9, lines 44-51.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the virtual world interface of Hamilton ‘639, Robertson, and Van Wie to include the item permission metadata as in Hamilton ‘952. Such a combination amounts to the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Regarding claim 7, Hamilton ‘639, Robertson, Van Wie, and Hamilton ‘952 disclose The computer-implemented method of claim 6, wherein the metadata is at least one of a location associated with posting of the second content item, a tag associated with the second content item, or comment information associated with the second content item (Hamilton ‘952 discloses item metadata, supra, allowing for the setting of item permissions in the virtual universe. A permission or prohibition of an item as in col. 10, lines 13-18 necessarily amounts to a “tag” associated with that item. Hamilton ‘952 further discusses restricting item interaction based on the location of an item, at col. 10, lines 19-26, limiting the distances an object can be moved).
Claims 3, 13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamilton ‘639, Robertson, Van Wie, and Harvey in view of Holz et al. (US Patent 10,353,532 B1, hereinafter Holz)
Regarding claim 3, Hamilton ‘639, Robertson, Van Wie, and Harvey disclose The computer-implemented method of claim 2. Hamilton ‘639, Robertson, Van Wie, and Harvey fail to explicitly disclose wherein the personal space icon is provided on a virtual body part associated with the first user.
Holz discloses systems and methods for allowing a user to interact with three-dimensional virtual objects in simulated environments similar to Hamilton ‘639, Robertson, Van Wie, and Harvey (see Holz, col. 12, lines 1-13). Holz further discloses wherein the simulated environment includes a body part representation of a first user, and wherein the body part representation may include relevant icons and menus (see, for example, Figs. 8B-8C-1, and col. 36, lines 41-48).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the 3D virtual environment interface of Hamilton ‘639, Robertson, Van Wie, and Harvey to include the simulated body part representations and overlaid menus and icons as in Holz. Such a combination amounts to the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Claims 13 and 18 recite limitations analogous to those of claim 3, and as a result are rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamilton ‘639, Robertson, Van Wie, and Harvey in view of Abbey et al. (US Publication 2008/0059904 A1, hereinafter Abbey).
Regarding claim 10, Hamilton ‘639, Robertson, Van Wie, and Harvey disclose The computer-implemented method of claim 9. Hamilton ‘639, Robertson, Van Wie, and Harvey fail to explicitly disclose wherein the providing the shared three-dimensional computing environment comprises:
blurring the shared three-dimensional computing environment when the personal space is presented.
Hamilton ‘639, Robertson, Van Wie, and Harvey are shown supra to present a “personal space” to a user of a three-dimensional computing environment, for example an items window for displaying a user’s personal items, at col. 9, lines 42-46 and seen in Fig. 11 of Harvey.
Abbey discloses a graphical user interface allowing the selective display of windows in a computing environment, similar to Hamilton ‘639, Robertson, Van Wie, and Harvey. Furthermore, Abbey discloses wherein enhanced window focus may be achieved by blurring the background (i.e., desktop and background windows, analogous to the claimed “shared three-dimensional computing environment”) relative to the main window in focus. See [0034] and [0038].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the 3D virtual environment interface of Hamilton ‘639, Robertson, Van Wie, and Harvey to include the enhanced window focus of Abbey. Such a combination amounts to the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Claims 25, 33, and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamilton ‘639, Robertson and Van Wie, in view of Holz.
Regarding claim 25, Hamilton ‘639, Robertson, and Van Wie disclose The computer-implemented method of claim 21. Hamilton ‘639, Robertson, and Van Wie fail to explicitly disclose, wherein the presenting the personal space is performed in response to a user input captured by a camera.
Holz discloses systems and methods for allowing a user to interact with three-dimensional virtual objects in simulated environments similar to Hamilton ‘639, Robertson, and Van Wie (see Holz, col. 12, lines 1-13). Furthermore, Holz discloses wherein the simulated environment includes a sensory processing system for generating an immersive virtual and/or augmented environment, including the use of cameras to “capture still or motion pictures of the real world and to convert those images to a digital stream of information that can be manipulated by a computer”, at col. 26, lines 56-66. Motion capture using a motion detector and camera can be interpreted as user input, allowing a user to manipulate the computing environment, at col. 19, lines 58-65.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the 3D virtual environment interface of Hamilton ‘639, Robertson, and Van Wie to include the camera processing and gestural input of Holz. Such a combination amounts to the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Claims 33 and 41 recite limitations analogous in scope to those of claim 25, and as such are rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
Claims 1-27, 29-35, and 37-43 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL R ROSWELL whose telephone number is (571) 272-4055. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00.
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 J KOSOWSKI can be reached on (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.
/MICHAEL ROSWELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Conferees:
/ADAM L BASEHOAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992 /ALEXANDER J KOSOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992