DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
3. The amended Specification and Abstract was received in January 5, 2026 and entered.
Response to Amendment
4. The amendment filed January 5, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 3-20 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification and Claims have overcome each and every objection.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant's arguments filed January 5, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
6. Applicant argues that the avatar of Velez et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0165013 A1), hereinafter referred to as Velez, cannot be the "object" claimed in the limitations since the avatar is a virtual representation of a user. The Applicant further argues that Velez is not related to a three-dimensional (3D) scene and that the "object" in the claim is "a virtual object used at least for constructing the three-dimensional scene."
Examiner replies that Velez does teach a 3D scene. For example, Paragraph 14 teaches that the methods taught in Velez can be used in a 3D call with 3D models. A 3D call with 3D models teaches a 3D scene. Velez also teaches in Figure 9 and Paragraph 24 an artificial reality environment which is a 3D scene.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., an object being “a virtual object used at least for constructing the three-dimensional scene”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Thus, the avatar can be the object since an avatar or 3D model is a thing or object present in the three-dimensional scene.
Furthermore, causing an avatar to present a fist bump modifies the 3D model or avatar present in the 3D scene to show a fist bump.
Aside from modifying the avatar model, Velez also teaches in Paragraph 78 and Figure 11 teaches a first user conducting an object operation of adding a like to an object 1102. This modifies the object 1102, which is not the avatar, to have a like attached to it.
The Applicant is advised to further define the ‘object’ referenced in the claims.
7. Applicant argues that Falchuk et al. (WIPO International Publication No. 2018/057921 A1), hereinafter referred to as Falchuk, has a companion avatar which is used for determining to teleport the user associated with the avatar. The stand in avatar of Falchuk is a substitute of the companion avatar and is used for monitoring the occurrence of the VR-world event to which it is subscribed. The Applicant argues this does not teach modifying an object in the 3D scene, or adding an object into the 3D scene.
Examiner replies that Falchuk is not used to teach modifying an object in the three-dimensional scene or adding an object into the three-dimensional scene and prompt information that is used to notify at least one of: an operation content of the object operation, or the three-dimensional scene. Velez is used to teach those limitations as explained above and seen in the rejection mapping below.
8. Applicant argues that Falchuk aims to realize a "users attention is transferred to a different digital experience". Teleport as taught in Falchuk is determined and initiated by companion avatar based on external VR world event unrelated to current VR-world event rather than being triggered in response to a predetermined operation based on prompt information for the 3D scene. Argues Falchuk teaches that user is teleported from one VR world to another different VR world rather than the second user is transferred to the 3D scene where the first user is located.
Examiner replies that Velez teaches that a like added to an object can be sent as a notification to the second user as taught in Paragraph 78 and Figure 11 and 12. This is the prompt information for the 3D scene sent to the second user. Velez combined with Falchuk then teaches that when a notification, or prompt information, is received, the user is transferred back to the virtual world where the notification is received from. Falchuk teaching the teleportation of a user from one virtual world to another still teaches transferring a user to the 3D scene and displaying the 3D scene as claimed in claim 1. Claim 1 does not include the limitation that the 3D scene where the second user is transported to has to be the 3D scene where the first user is located. However, Falchuk Paragraph 78 is used to reject claim 7 which teaches transporting the second user to the first user and the detailed rejection can be seen below.
Furthermore, Claim 1 does not prevent the virtual world or three-dimensional scenes to be the same scene as where the second user initially is located. Thus, transporting a user from one virtual reality world to another as taught by Falchuk still teaches the claim 1 limitations.
In addition, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., "a predetermined operation for the prompt information performed by the second user") are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claim limitation in claim 1 only requires “a predetermined operation of the second user” which can be interpreted as any predetermined operation including or involving the second user. The limitation does not require the second user itself to perform the predetermined operation.
9. Conclusion: The rejections set in the previous Office Action are shown to have been proper, and the claims are rejected below. Therefore, the present Office Action is made final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
11. Claim(s) 1, 4-7, 9-10, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Velez et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0165013 A1), hereinafter referred to as Velez, in view of Falchuk et al. (WIPO International Publication No. 2018/057921 A1), hereinafter referred to as Falchuk.
12. Regarding claim 1, Velez teaches a method for interaction, comprising: in response to an object operation of a first user for a three-dimensional scene, sending prompt information to a second user, wherein the object operation is used to modify an object in the three-dimensional scene or add an object into the three-dimensional scene, and the prompt information is used to notify at least one of: an operation content of the object operation or the three-dimensional scene (Paragraph 51 and Figure 1 teach a first user sending an excited sentiment which results in the avatar showing a ‘fist-bump’. This excited sentiment can be considered an object operation of a first user that modifies an object or avatar in the three-dimensional scene to do a fist-bump. The first avatar sending this excited sentiment which shows a fist-bump to the second user can be considered the prompt information sent to a second user. It notifies the second user of the excited sentiment object operation which has an operation content of the first user’s emotion of being excited; Paragraph 78 and Figure 11 teaches a first user conducting an object operation of adding a like to an object 1102. This modifies the object 1102 to have a like attached to it. Then, a second user in Figure 12 is able to see the like gesture shown through marker 1204. The display of the like gesture through marker 1204 can be considered both the object operation from the first user and the prompt information sent to the second user. The display of the like gesture notifies the second user that the first user likes the object which can be considered the operation content of the object operation),
However, Velez fails to teach the method wherein the method further comprises: in response to a predetermined operation of the second user for the prompt information, transferring the second user to the three-dimensional scene and displaying the three-dimensional scene.
Falchuk teaches the method wherein the method further comprises: in response to a predetermined operation of the second user for the prompt information, transferring the second user to the three-dimensional scene and displaying the three-dimensional scene (Paragraphs 90-91 and Figure 7A-B teach JIM’s avatar receiving a notification or question from ‘STEVE’. ‘JIM’ can be considered the second user which is then transferred back to the VR world of view 710 through a predetermined operation. Paragraph 91 teaches that the companion avatar 704 associated with the second user proactively determines to teleport ‘JIM’ back to the VR world of view 710. That proactive action can be considered a predetermined operation. The user being transferred back to the VR world of view 710 can be considered also displaying the three-dimensional scene; Paragraph 97 teaches teleporting a user from VW3 back to VW1 when an event or notification is received).
Velez and Falchuk are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of virtual communication. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method for interaction taught by Velez with the transferring of the second user taught by Falchuk in order to improve situational awareness in virtual environments that the user might not currently be in (Falchuk Paragraph 8).
13. Regarding claim 4, Velez in view of Falchuk teaches the limitations of claim 1. Velez further teaches wherein the three-dimensional scene corresponds to at least two copies (Paragraph 78 teaches the virtual object 1102 and 1202 in Figures 11 and 12 respectively are copies of each other. Thus, the three-dimensional scene corresponds to at least two copies), and the in response to the object operation of the first user for the three-dimensional scene, sending prompt information to the second user comprises: in response to the object operation of the first user in a first copy, sending the prompt information to the second user, wherein the first copy is one of the at least two copies of the three-dimensional scene (Paragraph 78 and Figure 11 teaches a first user conducts an object operation by adding a like gesture 1104 to the object 1102. The object 1102 in Figure 11 can be considered the first copy. This is then shown to the second user in Figure 12 through the icon 1204. The display of the like gesture through the icon 1204 can be considered the prompt information sent to the second user. Figure 12 can also be considered to show the second copy);
However, Velez fails to teach the method wherein in response to the predetermined operation of the second user for the prompt information, transferring the second user to the three-dimensional scene comprises: in response to the predetermined operation of the second user for the prompt information, and in response to determining that the first user is located in the first copy, transferring the second user to the first copy.
Falchuk teaches the method wherein in response to the predetermined operation of the second user for the prompt information, transferring the second user to the three-dimensional scene comprises: in response to the predetermined operation of the second user for the prompt information, and in response to determining that the first user is located in the first copy, transferring the second user to the first copy (Paragraph 78 teaches a second user receives a response from a first user. The response can be considered the prompt information and the second user can be transferred to the location of the first user. Collecting the location of the first user indicates determining that the first user is located in the first copy or location of a 3D space. The second user can then accept to be led to the first user’s location which can be considered a predetermined operation of the second user; Paragraph 81-82 teaches users can be in different digital experiences of a three-dimensional scene. These digital experiences can be considered different copies of a three-dimensional scene under broadest reasonable interpretation since the Applicant has not defined what the copy is in the claim. The second user can be in another digital experience or copy and when they transfer to where the first user is, that can be considered going to the first copy; Paragraphs 90-91 and Figure 7A-B teach JIM’s avatar receiving a notification or question from ‘STEVE’. ‘JIM’ can be considered the second user which is then transferred back to the VR world of view 710 through a predetermined operation. Paragraph 91 teaches that the companion avatar 704 associated with the second user proactively determines to teleport ‘JIM’ back to the VR world of view 710. That proactive action can be considered a predetermined operation. The user being transferred back to the VR world of view 710 can be considered also displaying the three-dimensional scene; Paragraph 97 teaches teleporting a user from VW3 back to VW1 when an event or notification is received).
Velez and Falchuk are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of virtual communication. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method for interaction taught by Velez with the transferring of the second user taught by Falchuk in order to improve situational awareness in virtual environments that the user might not currently be in (Falchuk Paragraph 8).
14. Regarding claim 5, Velez in view of Falchuk teaches the limitations of claim 4. However, Velez fails to teach the method wherein the prompt information is displayed in a second copy where the second user is located, and the second copy is one of at least two copies of the three-dimensional scene, the second copy being different from the first copy; wherein the transferring the second user to the first copy comprises: transferring the second user from the second copy to the first copy.
Falchuk teaches the method wherein the prompt information is displayed in a second copy where the second user is located, and the second copy is one of at least two copies of the three-dimensional scene, the second copy being different from the first copy; wherein the transferring the second user to the first copy comprises: transferring the second user from the second copy to the first copy (Paragraph 88 teaches a notification or prompt information is displayed through marker 716 in Figure 7 to the second user 712 in Figure 7B. This prompt information shows up in the second copy which is the virtual world the second user is currently in as shown in Figure 7B. Paragraph 90-91 and 97 teach transferring the second user to the first copy or first virtual world (VW1) after receiving the notification).
Velez and Falchuk are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of virtual communication. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method for interaction taught by Velez with the transferring of the second user taught by Falchuk in order to improve situational awareness in virtual environments that the user might not currently be in (Falchuk Paragraph 8).
15. Regarding claim 6, Velez in view of Falchuk teaches the limitations of claim 4. However, Velez fails to teach the method wherein the prompt information is displayed in another scene where the second user is located; wherein the transferring the second user to the first copy comprises: transferring the second user from the other scene to the first copy.
Falchuk teaches the method wherein the prompt information is displayed in another scene where the second user is located; wherein the transferring the second user to the first copy comprises: transferring the second user from the other scene to the first copy (Paragraph 88 and Figure 7B teach a notification 716, which can be considered part of the prompt information, that shows up in the second copy that the second user is currently located in. The second copy as shown in Figure 7B is different from the first copy shown in Figure 7A; Paragraphs 90-91, 93, and 97 teach transferring the second user to the first copy after receiving the notification. Paragraph 93 and 97 teach the user can determine to return attention to the first virtual world (VW) or first copy).
Velez and Falchuk are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of virtual communication. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method for interaction taught by Velez with the transferring of the second user taught by Falchuk in order to improve situational awareness in virtual environments that the user might not currently be in (Falchuk Paragraph 8).
16. Regarding claim 7, Velez in view of Falchuk teaches the limitations of claim 1. However, Velez fails to teach the method wherein the transferring the second user to the three-dimensional scene comprises: transferring the second user to a target location in the three-dimensional scene;
wherein the target location comprises any of: an initial position of a user in the three-dimensional scene, a position corresponding to the object operation, and a position corresponding to the first user.
Falchuk teaches the method wherein the transferring the second user to the three-dimensional scene comprises: transferring the second user to a target location in the three-dimensional scene;
wherein the target location comprises any of: (Paragraph 78 teaches transferring the second user to the location of the first user. Thus, the target location is the initial position of the first user in the three-dimensional scene. Applicant teaches that the target location comprises any of and not all so only one of the positions listed need to be taught. In this case, the position corresponding to the first user is taught).
Velez and Falchuk are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of virtual communication. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method for interaction taught by Velez with the transferring of the second user taught by Falchuk in order to improve situational awareness in virtual environments that the user might not currently be in (Falchuk Paragraph 8).
17. Regarding claim 9, Velez in view of Falchuk teaches the limitations of claim 1. However, Velez fails to teach the method wherein the method further comprises: in response to a reply operation of the second user for the prompt information, adding a reply content to the three-dimensional scene, or in response to the reply operation of the second user for the prompt information, sending the reply content to the first user.
Falchuk teaches the method further comprises: in response to a reply operation of the second user for the prompt information, adding a reply content to the three-dimensional scene, or in response to the reply operation of the second user for the prompt information, sending the reply content to the first user (Paragraph 90 teaches ‘JIM’ the second user receiving a notification or prompt information from a first user ‘STEVE’. Paragraph 92 teaches ‘JIM’ the second user can send a reply content to a first user like waving which would be visible to the avatars in that space).
Velez and Falchuk are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of virtual communication. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method for interaction taught by Velez with the reply operation taught by Falchuk in order to improve situational awareness in virtual environments that the user might not currently be in (Falchuk Paragraph 8).
18. Regarding claim 10, Velez in view of Falchuk teaches the limitations of claim 1. However, Velez fails to teach the method wherein the second user is a user associated with an object corresponding to an object operation of the first user, or the second user is a user associated with the three-dimensional scene.
Falchuk teaches the method wherein three-dimensional scene (Paragraphs 90-91 teach the second user is a user associated with the three-dimensional scene that the first user, ‘STEVE’ is in. Figure 7A teaches the second user’s avatar 702 is in the same scene as the first user’s avatar 706. Thus, the second user is associated with the three-dimensional scene. Only one of the limitations need to be taught since the Applicant uses ‘or’ in the claim language).
Velez and Falchuk are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of virtual communication. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method for interaction taught by Velez with the second user associated with a three-dimensional scene taught by Falchuk in order to improve situational awareness in virtual environments that the user might not currently be in (Falchuk Paragraph 8).
19. Regarding claim 19, claim 19 is the electronic device claim (Velez Paragraph 140 teaches an electronic device which can run the disclosed method. The electronic device has a processor; Paragraph 143 teaches processors executing program memory stored in a memory) of method claim 1 and is accordingly rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that which is set for with respect to claim 1.
20. Regarding claim 20, claim 20 is the non-transitory computer-readable medium claim (Velez Paragraph 143 teaches processors executing program memory stored in a memory) of method claim 1 and is accordingly rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that which is set for with respect to claim 1.
21. Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Velez et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0165013 A1), hereinafter referred to as Velez, in view of Falchuk et al. (WIPO International Publication No. 2018/057921 A1), hereinafter referred to as Falchuk, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ruth et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0364915 A1), hereinafter referred to as Ruth.
Regarding claim 3, Velez in view of Falchuk teaches the limitations of claim 1. However, Velez fails to teach the method wherein the three-dimensional scene corresponds to at least two copies, the method further comprises: after the first user performs the object operation in a current copy, performing a same operation as the object operation in at least one further copy corresponding to the three-dimensional scene.
Ruth teaches the method wherein the three-dimensional scene corresponds to at least two copies, the method further comprises: after the first user performs the object operation in a current copy, performing a same operation as the object operation in at least one further copy corresponding to the three-dimensional scene (Paragraph 85-86 teaches there are copies of AR content or a scene and is shared amongst users; Paragraph 87 teaches that updates made to an object will be synchronized to another copy of the space).
Velez, Falchuk, and Ruth are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of interactions with objects in an augmented reality or three-dimensional space. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method for interaction taught by Velez in view of Falchuk with the performing a same operation in another copy taught by Ruth in order to maintain a shared experience with the shared virtual objects (Ruth Paragraph 84).
22. Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Velez et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0165013 A1), hereinafter referred to as Velez, in view of Falchuk et al. (WIPO International Publication No. 2018/057921 A1), hereinafter referred to as Falchuk, as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Perez et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0308290 A1), hereinafter referred to as Perez.
Regarding claim 8, Velez in view of Falchuk teaches the limitations of claim 7. However, Velez fails to teach the method wherein the transferring the second user to the target location in the three-dimensional scene comprises: transferring the second user to the target location in the three-dimensional scene, and turning the second user towards an object corresponding to the object operation; or transferring the second user to the target location in the three-dimensional scene, and in response to determining that the first user is located in the three-dimensional scene, turning the second user towards the first user.
Falchuk teaches the method wherein the transferring the second user to the target location in the three-dimensional scene comprises: transferring the second user to the target location in the three-dimensional scene, (Paragraph 78 teaches teleporting the user to the location of the first user which can be considered the target location. The first user can also be considered an object corresponding to the object operation); or transferring the second user to the target location in the three-dimensional scene (Paragraph 78 teaches teleporting the user to the location of the first user which can be considered the target location),
Velez and Falchuk are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of virtual communication. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method for interaction taught by Velez with the transferring of the second user taught by Falchuk in order to improve situational awareness in virtual environments that the user might not currently be in (Falchuk Paragraph 8).
However, Velez and Falchuk fail to teach turning the second user towards an object corresponding to the object operation; or transferring the second user to the target location in the three-dimensional scene, and in response to determining that the first user is located in the three-dimensional scene, turning the second user towards the first user.
Perez teaches the method wherein the transferring the second user to the target location in the three-dimensional scene comprises: transferring the second user to the target location in the three-dimensional scene, and turning the second user towards an object (Paragraph 30 teaches teleporting the user to an optimal position and orientation to view the 3D object in the environment); (Applicant uses ‘or’ so this second limitation does not need to be taught because the combination of references teach the other limitation).
Velez, Falchuk, and Perez are considered analogous to the claimed invention because all are in the same field of object interaction in a virtual environment. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method for interaction taught by Velez in view of Falchuk with the turning the second user taught by Perez in order to allow a user to better view or interact with a 3D object regardless of their level of expertise with the system (Perez Paragraph 59).
23. Claim(s) 11-14 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Velez et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0165013 A1), hereinafter referred to as Velez, in view of Falchuk et al. (WIPO International Publication No. 2018/057921 A1), hereinafter referred to as Falchuk, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kohoda (Japanese Patent Application Publication No. 2011164844 A).
24. Regarding claim 11, Velez in view of Falchuk teaches the limitations of claim 1. However, Velez fails to teach the method comprising: in response to an object addition operation of the first user in the three-dimensional scene, obtaining an added object by the first user; the three-dimensional scene being created by the second user; and in response to an object placement operation of the first user in the three-dimensional scene, placing the added object at a target position determined by the first user in the three-dimensional scene.
Kohoda teaches the method comprising: in response to an object addition operation of the first user in the three-dimensional scene, obtaining an added object by the first user (Paragraph 80 teaches a user or first user can leave a note in the house of the second user UA2. The note can be considered the added object by the first user and is obtained); the three-dimensional scene being created by the second user (Paragraph 79 teaches a virtual space or user home space is set up for each user. This can be considered a space created by the second user by their existence); and in response to an object placement operation of the first user in the three-dimensional scene, placing the added object at a target position determined by the first user in the three-dimensional scene (Paragraph 107 teaches the first user chooses a location to leave the note in. Examples of target positions are given as the user’s house or room in the virtual space).
Velez, Falchuk, and Kohoda are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of virtual communication. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method for interaction taught by Velez in view of Falchuk with the object placement and addition taught by Kohoda in order to create an intuitive system of exchanging and manipulating messages (Kohoda Paragraph 6).
25. Regarding claim 12, Velez in view of Falchuk and Kohoda teaches the limitations of claim 11. However, Velez fails to teach the method wherein the three-dimensional scene corresponds to at least two copies; and in response to the object addition operation of the first user in the three-dimensional scene, obtaining the added object by the first user comprises: in response to the object addition operation of the first user in a first copy of the at least two copies, obtaining the added object by the first user, wherein the first copy is one of a plurality of copies corresponding to the three-dimensional scene in which the first user is located; and in response to the object placement operation of the first user in the three-dimensional scene, placing the added object at the target position determined by the first user in the three-dimensional scene comprises: in response to the object placement operation of the first user in the first copy, placing the added object at the target position determined by the first user in the first copy; wherein after the added object is placed at the target position in the first copy, the added object is created at the same position in a rest of the at least two copies corresponding to the three-dimensional scene.
Kohoda teaches the method wherein the three-dimensional scene corresponds to at least two copies; and in response to the object addition operation of the first user in the three-dimensional scene, obtaining the added object by the first user comprises: in response to the object addition operation of the first user in a first copy of the at least two copies, obtaining the added object by the first user, wherein the first copy is one of a plurality of copies corresponding to the three-dimensional scene in which the first user is located (Paragraph 80 teaches a user or first user can leave a note in the house of the second user UA2. The note can be considered the added object by the first user. Paragraph 12-14 and 83 teaches each user has their own user terminal. Paragraph 19 and Figures 10A and B teach that each user terminal displays the three-dimensional scene. Each display of the three-dimensional scene in each user’s terminal can be considered their own copy);
and in response to the object placement operation of the first user in the three-dimensional scene, placing the added object at the target position determined by the first user in the three-dimensional scene comprises: in response to the object placement operation of the first user in the first copy, placing the added object at the target position determined by the first user in the first copy (Paragraph 107 teaches the user can send the message at a location where the message is to be left. Thus, a target location is selected by the user in their copy or first copy; Paragraph 12-14 and 83 teaches each user has their own user terminal. Paragraph 19 and Figures 10A and B teach that each user terminal displays the three-dimensional scene. Each display of the three-dimensional scene in each user’s terminal can be considered their own copy);
wherein after the added object is placed at the target position in the first copy, the added object is created at the same position in a rest of the at least two copies corresponding to the three-dimensional scene (Paragraph 80-81 teach a note left behind by a first user can be viewed by another user like UA2. The user can retrieve the note and view it by going to the location where the note was left; Paragraph 83 teaches each user has their own user terminal. Each user terminal can be considered their own copy. Thus, since another user is able to view the note at the location it was placed, that means the note is created in the same position in each user’s copies).
Velez, Falchuk, and Kohoda are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of virtual communication. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method for interaction taught by Velez in view of Falchuk with the object placement and addition taught by Kohoda in order to create an intuitive system of exchanging and manipulating messages (Kohoda Paragraph 6).
26. Regarding claim 13, Velez in view of Falchuk and Kohoda teaches the limitations of claim 11. However, Velez fails to teach the method wherein in response to the object addition operation of the first user in the three-dimensional scene, obtaining the added object by the first user comprises: in response to the object addition operation of the first user in the three-dimensional scene, obtaining the added object by the first user and added content for the added object; and the method further comprises: after the added object placed at the target position is triggered, displaying the added content in the three-dimensional scene.
Kohoda teaches the method wherein in response to the object addition operation of the first user in the three-dimensional scene, obtaining the added object by the first user comprises: in response to the object addition operation of the first user in the three-dimensional scene, obtaining the added object by the first user and added content for the added object; and the method further comprises: after the added object placed at the target position is triggered, displaying the added content in the three-dimensional scene (Paragraph 80 teaches the note or added content is displayed in the scene as a memo or letter on a desk; Paragraph 107 teaches the first user which leaves a note chooses to leave a note in a location easy for the recipient to recognize. Examples of target positions are given as the user’s house or room in the virtual space).
Velez, Falchuk, and Kohoda are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of virtual communication. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method for interaction taught by Velez in view of Falchuk with the object placement and addition taught by Kohoda in order to create an intuitive system of exchanging and manipulating messages (Kohoda Paragraph 6).
27. Regarding claim 14, Velez in view of Falchuk and Kohoda teaches the limitations of claim 13. Velez further teaches the method further comprising: in response to the position of a third user and the target position satisfying a predetermined position relation, triggering the added object to display the added content in the three-dimensional scene; or in response to the triggering of the third user for the added object, triggering the added object to display the added content in the three-dimensional scene (Paragraph 124-125 teaches when the recipient is within a threshold distance of the physical space where the message is located, a representation of the 3D message can be provided. The threshold distance can be considered to teach a predetermined position relation. The representation being provided is displaying the added content in the 3D scene. The third user can be considered a recipient under broadest reasonable interpretation).
28. Regarding claim 17, Velez in view of and Falchuk and Kohoda teaches the limitations of claim 11. However, Velez fails to teach the method further comprising sending added information to the second user; wherein the added information includes at least one of: the added object or added content for the added object; in response to the predefined operation of the second user for the added information, assigning the second user to the three-dimensional scene; and displaying the three-dimensional scene.
Kohoda teaches the method further comprising sending added information to the second user; wherein the added information includes at least one of: the added object or added content for the added object (Paragraph 107 teaches the first user which leaves a note chooses to leave a note in a user location easy for the recipient to recognize. The note, which is the added object, contains a message which is the added content and the added information which a second user can view.);
Velez, Falchuk, and Kohoda are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of virtual communication. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method for interaction taught by Velez in view of Falchuk with the object placement and addition taught by Kohoda in order to create an intuitive system of exchanging and manipulating messages (Kohoda Paragraph 6).
However, Velez and Kohoda fail to teach in response to the predefined operation of the second user for the added information, assigning the second user to the three-dimensional scene; and displaying the three-dimensional scene.
Falchuk teaches in response to the predefined operation of the second user for the added information, assigning the second user to the three-dimensional scene; and displaying the three-dimensional scene (Paragraphs 90-91 teach JIM’s avatar receives a notification or question from ‘STEVE’. ‘JIM’ can be considered the second user which is then transferred or teleported back to the VR world of view 710 through a predetermined operation. Paragraph 91 teaches that the companion avatar 704 associated with the second user proactively determines to teleport ‘JIM’ back. That proactive action can be considered a predetermined operation; Paragraph 97 teaches transferring the second user to the first virtual world (VW1) or three-dimensional scene after receiving the notification. The decision to transfer the user can be considered the predefined operation).
Velez, Kohoda, and Falchuk are considered analogous to the claimed invention because all are in the same field of virtual communication. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method for interaction taught by Velez in view of Kohoda and Falchuk with the assigning the second user to the three-dimensional scene taught by Falchuk in order to improve situational awareness in virtual environments that the user might not currently be in (Falchuk Paragraph 8).
29. Regarding claim 18, Velez in view of Falchuk and Kohoda teaches the limitations of claim 11. However, Velez fails to teach the method wherein before in response to the object addition operation of the first user in the three-dimensional scene, obtaining the added object by the first user, the method further comprises: in response to a target determination operation of the first user in the three-dimensional scene, obtaining a target selected by the first user; and in response to the object placement operation of the first user in the three-dimensional scene, placing the added object at the target position determined by the first user in the three-dimensional scene comprises: in response to the object placement operation of the first user in the three-dimensional scene, placing the added object at the target position in the selected target.
Kohoda teaches the method wherein before in response to the object addition operation of the first user in the three-dimensional scene, obtaining the added object by the first user, the method further comprises (Paragraph 109 teaches obtaining the added object by waiting for a user to input a message to be left as a note. The user inputting the message which will be used to create a note to be added can be considered obtaining the added object before it is actually added to the scene):
in response to a target determination operation of the first user in the three-dimensional scene, obtaining a target selected by the first user (Paragraph 107 teaches the user can send the message at a location where the message is to be left. Thus, a target is selected by the user. The selection of the target location to place the note teaches a target determination operation);
and in response to the object placement operation of the first user in the three-dimensional scene, placing the added object at the target position determined by the first user in the three-dimensional scene comprises: in response to the object placement operation of the first user in the three-dimensional scene, placing the added object at the target position in the selected target (Paragraph 80 teaches the message is left behind as a note in a specific location like the user’s house on a desk or drawer; Paragraph 107 teaches the user can send the message at a location where the message is to be left. Thus, after the position is selected or determined by the first user, it is placed in that location; Paragraph 109 teaches there is a “Put” button to leave the message as a note).
Velez, Falchuk, and Kohoda are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of virtual communication. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method for interaction taught by Velez in view of Falchuk with the object placement and addition taught by Kohoda in order to create an intuitive system of exchanging and manipulating messages (Kohoda Paragraph 6).
30. Claim(s) 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Velez et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0165013 A1), hereinafter referred to as Velez, in view of Falchuk et al. (WIPO International Publication No. 2018/057921 A1), hereinafter referred to as Falchuk, and Kohoda (Japanese Patent Application Publication No. 2011164844 A), as applied to claim 11 and 12 above, and further in view of Sanz-Pastor et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0242131 A1), hereinafter referred to as Sanz-Pastor.
31. Regarding claim 15, Velez in view of Falchuk and Kohoda teaches the limitations of claim 11. However, Velez, Falchuk, and Kohoda fail to teach the method wherein the added object has corresponding added content; and the method further comprises: in response to a reply of a fourth user for the added content in the three-dimensional scene, performing at least one of the following: adding content replied by the fourth user to a predetermined position of the added content; or sending the replied content to the first user.
Sanz-Pastor teaches the method wherein the added object has corresponding added content; and the method further comprises: in response to a reply of a fourth user for the added content in the three-dimensional scene, performing at least one of the following: adding content replied by the fourth user to a predetermined position of the added content; or sending the replied content to the first user (Paragraph 31 teaches a user responding to a message received by adding information to the message at the same location for others to see. This can be considered the fourth user adding content to a predetermined position of the previously added content or message. Paragraph 41 also teaches the message can be sent to a given user which can be the first user; Paragraph 46 teaches the message can be replied to at the message’s original location which teaches a predetermined position).
Velez, Falchuk, Kohoda, and Sanz-Pastor are considered analogous to the claimed invention because all are in the same field of virtual communication. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method for interaction taught by Velez in view of Falchuk and Kohoda with the replies taught by Sanz-Pastor in order to allow flexible and immediate interactions for collaborative work in an augmented reality setting (Sanz-Pastor Paragraph 14).
32. Regarding claim 16, Velez in view of Falchuk and Kohoda teaches the limitations of claim 12. However, Velez, Falchuk, and Kohoda fail to teach the method wherein the added object has corresponding added content; and the method further comprises: in response to a reply of the fourth user for the added content in a second copy, performing at least one of: adding content replied by the fourth user to a predetermined position of the added content; wherein the second copy is one of a plurality of copies corresponding to the three-dimensional scene, and the second copy is different from the first copy; or sending the replied content to the first user.
Sanz-Pastor teaches the method wherein the added object has corresponding added content; and the method further comprises: in response to a reply of the fourth user for the added content in a second copy (Paragraph 29 teaches each user sees the environment on their own screen. This can be considered a copy of the environment for each user. Thus, the user can be viewing a second copy), performing at least one of:(Paragraph 31 teaches a user responding to a message received by adding information to the message. One of the options is that the user can place the message at a specific location or send it as a reply to the user who sent the message. The Applicant uses ‘or’ which means only one of the limitations are required to be taught. Sanz-Pastor teaches the “or” clause of ‘sending the replied content to the first user’).
Velez, Falchuk, Kohoda, and Sanz-Pastor are considered analogous to the claimed invention because all are in the same field of virtual communication. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method for interaction taught by Velez in view of Falchuk and Kohoda with the replies taught by Sanz-Pastor in order to allow flexible and immediate interactions for collaborative work in an augmented reality setting (Sanz-Pastor Paragraph 14).
Conclusion
33. 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.
34. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE Y AHN whose telephone number is (571)272-0672. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5pm.
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.
/CHRISTINE YERA AHN/Examiner, Art Unit 2615
/ALICIA M HARRINGTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2615