DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is sent in response to Applicant's Response filed 01/02/2026 for 18499147. Claims 1, 5, 7-8, 10, 14, 16-17, 19, and 21-26 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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 present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/02/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been fully considered but are not persuasive in view of the newly cited Champion reference being applied in the new ground of rejection.
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., where a user "understand[s] the specific shape of the selected three-dimensional model corresponding to the selected two-dimensional thumbnail", "conduct[s] a three-dimensional preview in real time", "more conveniently know which specific three-dimensional model the selected two-dimensional thumbnail corresponds to"; and only loading the sub three-dimensional model when the user selects a certain model [pgs. 12:2-13:1]) 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).
Claims 10 and 19 recite limitations substantially similar to those recited in claim 1 and are rejected under similar rationale.
Dependent claims 5, 7-8, 14, 16-17, and 21-26 remain rejected based on their dependence from independent claims 1, 10, and 19.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: reference character step 103 [Specification, para 0067].
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because paragraph 0090 states "a selected three-dimensional model 302 may be displayed at a first end 3011 of a movable predefined three-dimensional object 301, and a model bounding box may be displayed around the periphery of the three-dimensional model" while Figure 3 appears to show a bounding box displayed around a three-dimensional model labeled with reference character 301 and an end 3011 of a movable predefined three-dimensional object with reference character 302.
Additionally, the drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the "displaying a display object corresponding to a selected two-dimensional thumbnail; wherein the display object is a sub three-dimensional model" (claims 1, 10, 19) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 7, 10, 14, 16, 19, 21, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Champion et al. (US 20180143757 A1).
As to claim 1, Champion discloses a display method, comprising:
displaying a two-dimensional thumbnail corresponding to a three-dimensional model on a human-computer interaction interface [Figs. 7A-7B, para 0122-0124, 0133-0135, display flat 3D object (read: two-dimensional thumbnail) referencing 3D object model on 2D webpage (read: human-computer interaction interface)]; and
in response to detecting a select operation on the two-dimensional thumbnail, displaying a display object corresponding to a selected two-dimensional thumbnail [Fig. 7B, para 0124-0125, 0133-0135, 0139-0140, display object pulled from flat 3D object (read: selected two-dimensional thumbnail) selected by user interface device];
wherein the display object is a sub three-dimensional model, wherein the sub three-dimensional model indicates a selected three-dimensional model [para 0133-0135, display pulled object as thumbnail (read: sub) of invoked 3D model],
wherein the selected three-dimensional model corresponds to the selected two-dimensional thumbnail [para 0133-0134, rendered 3D model invoked by selecting flat 3D object on 2D webpage],
wherein the human-computer interaction interface is displayed in a target virtual space [Figs. 7A-7C, para 0122-0126, display window including webpage in 3D workspace (read: target virtual space)],
wherein the target virtual space further displays a movable predefined three-dimensional object [Figs. 7B-7D, para 0124-0125, workspace displays beam (read: movable predefined three-dimensional object) manipulated by user input device],
wherein the movable predefined three-dimensional object is configured to move the selected three-dimensional model according to a move operation [Figs. 7B-7D, para 0124-0125, user input device manipulates beam to drag rendered 3D model], and
wherein the method further comprises: in response to detecting a select instruction for the selected two-dimensional thumbnail, displaying the selected three-dimensional model at a first end of the movable predefined three-dimensional object [Figs. 7B-7D, para 0124-0125, 0133-0134, 0139-0141, user input device drags rendered 3D model at end of beam after selecting flat 3D object].
As to claim 5, Champion discloses the method of claim 1, wherein: when the selected two-dimensional thumbnail is displayed, the selected two-dimensional thumbnail is parallel to the human-computer interaction interface [Fig. 7B, para 0124, 0133, selected 3D object displayed flat on (read: parallel) 2D website].
As to claim 7, Champion discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the selected two-dimensional thumbnail is coplanar with a center of a solid frame [Fig. 7B, para 0123-0124, 0133, selected 3D object displayed flat on (read: coplanar) 2D webpage displayed in window, note solid frame of window as shown in Figure 7B].
As to claim 10, Champion discloses an electronic device, comprising: one or more processors; and a memory, configured to store one or more programs, wherein, when the one or more programs are executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors [Fig. 4, para 0092, system includes processor executing program instructions stored on memory] to: perform limitations substantially similar to those recited in claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale.
As to claims 14, 16, and 24, Champion discloses the electronic device of claim 10 comprising limitations substantially similar to those recited in claims 5, 7, and 21, respectively, and are rejected under similar rationale.
As to claim 19, Champion discloses a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, with a computer program stored thereon, wherein when the computer program is executed by a processor, causes the processor [Fig. 4, para 0092, memory stores program instructions executed by system processor] to: perform limitations substantially similar to those recited in claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale.
As to claim 21, Champion discloses the method of claim 1,
wherein the display object comprises the selected two-dimensional thumbnail [para 0123, 0133-0135, display object copies flat 3D content], and
wherein displaying the display object corresponding to the selected two-dimensional thumbnail comprises: moving the selected two-dimensional thumbnail from an original position in a predefined manner [para 0123, 0133-0135, display object pulled (read: predefined manner) from original zone placement of 3D object flat on 2D webpage].
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 8, 17, 22-23, and 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Champion as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Owen et al. (US 20230350539 A1).
As to claim 8, Champion discloses the method of claim 1
wherein the selected three-dimensional model corresponds to a bounding box [para 0133-0134, selected 3D model includes bounding box], and
wherein the method further comprises: … a first shape information of the bounding box corresponding to the selected three-dimensional model … [para 0133-0134, selected 3D model includes dimensions of bounding box],
wherein the selected two-dimensional thumbnail corresponds to the selected three-dimensional model [para 0133-0134, selected flat 3D object on 2D webpage invokes rendered 3D model].
However, Champion does not specifically disclose wherein the method further comprises: based on a first shape information of the bounding box corresponding to the selected three-dimensional model, determining a second shape information of a solid frame.
Owen discloses wherein the method further comprises: based on a first shape information of the bounding box corresponding to the selected three-dimensional model, determining a second shape information of a solid frame [Figs. 7C-7D, para 0128-0129, 0158, 0170, generate effect (read: second shape information, note shadow forms solid frame as shown in Figures 7D) of shadow cast by rectangular prism (read: bounding box) of three-dimensional representation (read: selected three-dimensional model)].
Champion and Owen are analogous art to the claimed invention being from a similar field of endeavor of virtual reality user interface systems. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first shape information of the bounding box corresponding to the selected three-dimensional mode as disclosed by Champion with determining a second shape information of a solid frame based on first shape information of a bounding box as disclosed by Owen with a reasonable expectation of success.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Champion as described above to increase realism of a three-dimensional environment [Owen, para 0170].
As to claim 22, Champion discloses the method of claim 21, wherein moving the selected two-dimensional thumbnail from the original position in the predefined manner comprises:
moving the selected two-dimensional thumbnail from the original position along a direction … of the human-computer interaction interface [para 0123, 0133-0135, display object pulled from (read: direction) original zone placement of 3D object flat on 2D webpage].
However, Champion does not specifically disclose a direction indicated by a first normal vector, wherein the first normal vector is a normal vector of the human-computer interaction interface.
Owen discloses a direction indicated by a first normal vector, wherein the first normal vector is a normal vector of the human-computer interaction interface [Figs. 7A, 7C-7D, para 0110, 0127-0128, move content away from user interface at depth dimension orthogonal (read: normal vector) to user interface].
Champion and Owen are analogous art to the claimed invention being from a similar field of endeavor of virtual reality user interface systems. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify moving the selected two-dimensional thumbnail along a direction as disclosed by Champion with a direction indicated by a first normal vector of a human-computer interaction interface as disclosed by Owen with a reasonable expectation of success.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Champion as described above to reduce computation resources needed for displaying user interface objects [Owen, para 0166].
As to claim 23, Champion discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises:
displaying a solid frame at a display position of the selected two-dimensional thumbnail [Fig. 7B, para 0123-0124, 0133, flat 3D object on 2D webpage displayed in window, note solid frame of window as shown in Figure 7B]; and
displaying the display object corresponding to the selected two-dimensional thumbnail … [Fig. 7B, para 0124-0125, 0133-0135, 0139-0140, display object pulled from selected flat 3D object].
However, Champion does not specifically disclose displaying the display object corresponding to the selected two-dimensional thumbnail within the solid frame.
Owen discloses displaying the display object corresponding to the selected two-dimensional thumbnail within the solid frame [Figs. 7A, 7C-7D, para 0127-0128, 0158, display selected two-dimensional representation (read: thumbnail) within rectangular prism of three-dimensional representation].
Champion and Owen are analogous art to the claimed invention being from a similar field of endeavor of virtual reality user interface systems. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify displaying the display object as disclosed by Champion with displaying an object within a solid frame as disclosed by Owen with a reasonable expectation of success.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Champion as described above to reduce computation resources needed for displaying user interface objects and avoid obstruction of displayed content [Owen, para 0166].
As to claims 17, 25, and 26, Champion and Owen, combined at least for the reasons above, discloses the electronic device of claim 10 comprising limitations substantially similar to those recited in claims 8, 22, and 23, respectively, and are rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Champion et al. (US 20180144556 A1) generally discloses displaying human-computer interaction interfaces in target virtual spaces and 3D models represented by 2D objects.
Hori et al. (US 20220114367 A1) generally teaches transitioning two-dimensional menu icons to three-dimensional objects.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDA HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)272-5240. The examiner can normally be reached M-F between 9am-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, Adam Queler can be reached at (571) 272-4140. 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.
/LINDA HUYNH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Prosecution Insights