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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 31, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
3. The amendment filed March 31, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed March 31, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
5. Applicant argues that Rodrigues et al. (U.S. Patent Application No. 2022/0319134 A1), hereinafter referred to as Rodrigues, fails to explicitly disclose the “same animated spatial effect with two different emitting locations, depending on whether first or second criteria are met”.
Examiner replies that Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but 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.
Instead, Liu et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0044128 A1), hereinafter referred to as Liu, is used to teach the same animated spatial effect with two different emitting locations as rejected below.
6. Applicant argues that the mapping for claims 2 and 4 fail to consider the differences between the visual effects taught by Morris et al. (U.S. Patent Application No. 2022/0086203 A1), hereinafter referred to as Morris, and the spatial effects taught by Rodrigues and therefore fails to support the conclusion of obviousness. The Applicant further argues that the previous office action also fails to establish the relevance of avatar spatial positions at the periphery to presentation of spatial effects of Rodrigues and to the criteria and corresponding emitting locations required by amended claim 1.
Examiner replies that Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but 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.
Instead, Liu in view of Harvey et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6784901 B1) is used to teach the spatial effects for a criterion where the user of the second electronic device is displayed and another criteria where the user of the second electronic device is not displayed.
7. Conclusion: The rejections set in the previous Office Action are shown to have been proper, and the claims are rejected below.
Claim Objections
8. Claim 12 objected to because of the following informalities: Line 8, "the second emitting location" should be "the first emitting location" to match the. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. 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) 1-11 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0044128 A1), hereinafter referred to as Liu, in view of Harvey et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6784901 B1), hereinafter referred to as Harvey.
12. Regarding claim 1, Liu teaches a method comprising: at a first electronic device in communication with a display (Paragraph 43 teaches a first electronic device 8 with a see-through display device): presenting, using the display, a three-dimensional environment (Paragraph 1 teaches a near-eye display that presents a real world environment that can overlay virtual objects in the user’s field of view. The real world environment being displayed with virtual objects teaches a three-dimensional environment presented);
receiving, from a second electronic device, a communication associated with presenting a first animated spatial effect (Paragraph 97 teaches the display device system 8, or first electronic device, receiving a voicemail from a social networking friend, Sally who “is also a registered user and is wearing her display device system”. Sally’s display device system teaches a second electronic device that sends a communication to the first electronic device. The voicemail is taught to be displayed as a virtual object; Paragraph 98 teaches “reference object data sets 474 may be used … also to select appearance characteristics of virtual objects” and Paragraph 99 teaches the reference object data set can include data records that “identify animation effects available for the type of object”. Thus, this teaches the virtual object sent to a user can be a first animated spatial effect; Paragraph 34 and Figures 13A-C also teach a communication sent to a user with a first animated spatial effect);
and in response to receiving the communication: in accordance with a determination that one or more first criteria are satisfied, presenting the first animated spatial effect within the three-dimensional environment with one or more first visual attributes, the one or more first visual attributes including a first emitting location of the first animated spatial effect and in accordance with a determination that one or more second criteria are satisfied, presenting the first animated spatial effect within the three-dimensional environment with one or more second visual attributes, different from the one or more first visual attributes, the one or more second visual attributes including a second emitting location of the first animated spatial effect, different from the first emitting location (Paragraph 3 teaches a virtual object is connected with an anchor real world object for display; Paragraph 40 teaches that “the type of virtual object selected to represent the content or its position in the user field of view may change due to the social context”. The social context teaches a criteria to be satisfied and different social contexts teach a first and second criteria that can be satisfied. The change in position based on the criteria satisfied teaches a first and second emitting location which will be different between each other; Paragraph 142 teaches social context settings like work, home, with friends, and church exist which can teach a first and second criteria; Figure 10 and Paragraph 167 teach a position criteria determined based on a social context setting. Paragraph 168 specifically teaches “In step 732, an anchor position with respect to a real environment of the user which satisfies position criteria is determined”. The position criteria based on a social context setting teaches a first and second criteria for different social context settings. Step 732 which selects an anchor position teaches determining a position for the virtual object to be emitted from that satisfies the first or second criteria for different social contexts. The anchor position teaches a first and second emitting location, and thus also the first or second visual attribute, of the first animated spatial effect),
However, Liu is not relied upon for the below claim language: wherein the one or more first criteria include a criterion that is satisfied when a representation of a user of the second electronic device is displayed in the three-dimensional environment and the one or more second criteria include a criterion that is satisfied when a representation of a user of the second electronic device is not displayed in the three-dimensional environment.
Harvey teaches wherein the one or more first criteria include a criterion that is satisfied when a representation of a user of the second electronic device is displayed in the three-dimensional environment (Column 21 line 64 – Column 22 line 17 and Figures 18A-F teach avatars 1808 and 1806 which are both displayed in the three-dimensional environment and teach representation of users of a second electronic device. This teaches a first criteria where the user of the second device is displayed in the three-dimensional environment. In this case, the message emitting location appears at the bottom of the viewport as seen through 1810 and 1812 in Figure 18F; Column 24 lines 43-49 teach the “textured message can be accompanied by an additional animation component”. This teaches the textured message can be an animated spatial effect) and the one or more second criteria include a criterion that is satisfied when a representation of a user of the second electronic device is not displayed in the three-dimensional environment (Column 19 lines 37-Column 20 line 4 teaches if the “digital representation of the sender is outside the field of view of the recipient’s 3D viewport … render the textured message from the start point to the end point along a curved path that curves outward into the field of vision of the recipient's 3D viewport and back to arrive at the viewport itself”. It further teaches that if the sender is to the left, the message will appear from the left-hand side and if on the right, then the message will appear on the right-hand side. This teaches a second criteria satisfied which places the animated spatial effect at a second emitting location, the curved path, when the representation of a user of the second electronic device is not displayed in the three-dimensional environment; Column 24 lines 43-49 teach the “textured message can be accompanied by an additional animation component”. This teaches the textured message can be an animated spatial effect).
Liu and Harvey are considered analogous to the claimed invention as because both are in the same field of displaying received spatial effects in a three-dimensional 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 of presenting spatial effects taught by Liu with the displaying an effect based on the location of another user taught by Harvey in order to enhance communication by allowing the recipient to ascertain the location of the sender (Harvey Column 2 lines 48-58).
13. Regarding claim 2, Liu in view of Harvey teaches the limitations of claim 1. However, Liu is not relied upon for the below claim language: the first emitting location is based on a location of the representation of the user of the second electronic device in the three-dimensional environment.
Harvey teaches the first emitting location is based on a location of the representation of the user of the second electronic device in the three-dimensional environment (Column 21 line 64 – Column 22 line 17 and Figures 18A-F teach “the textured message 1812 … starting at the location of the Avatar 1808 and terminating at the location of the recipient’s Avatar to land at the bottom of the recipient viewport 1802”. This teaches a first emitting location that is based on a location of the sender Avatar which is the location of the representation of the user of the second electronic device in the three-dimensional environment).
Liu and Harvey are considered analogous to the claimed invention as because both are in the same field of displaying received spatial effects in a three-dimensional 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 of presenting spatial effects taught by Liu with the displaying an effect based on the location of another user taught by Harvey in order to enhance communication by allowing the recipient to ascertain the location of the sender (Harvey Column 2 lines 48-58).
14. Regarding claim 3, Liu in view of Harvey teaches the limitations of claim 2. However, Liu is not relied upon for the below claim language: wherein the first emitting location is within a threshold distance of the representation of the user of the second electronic device.
Harvey teaches wherein the first emitting location is within a threshold distance of the representation of the user of the second electronic device (Column 7 lines 34-42 teach that the textured messages in local chat can only be sent to “other Avatars who are within a given radius (e.g., 25 M in a virtual game world distance( from a user’s Avatar”. The textured messages are emitted and displayed in a three-dimensional environment as taught in the rejection of claim 1 and 2. If messages can only be sent within a given radius, then the emitting location of the message is also within a threshold of the user sending the message. Thus, this teaches the textured message emitted is within a threshold distance of the user of the second electronic device ).
Liu and Harvey are considered analogous to the claimed invention as because both are in the same field of displaying received spatial effects in a three-dimensional 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 of presenting spatial effects taught by Liu with the displaying an effect based on the location of another user taught by Harvey in order to enhance communication by allowing the recipient to ascertain the location of the sender (Harvey Column 2 lines 48-58).
15. Regarding claim 4, Liu in view of Harvey teaches the limitations of claim 1. Liu further teaches the method wherein the second emitting location corresponds to a notification region in the three-dimensional environment (Paragraph 176 and Figures 12A-C teach receiving virtual objects of messages in a work area of focus. The virtual objects teach animated spatial effects as disclosed in Paragraph 99 and the work area of focus can teach a notifications region under broadest reasonable interpretation. Figures 12A-C also teach that the sender is not displayed in the three-dimensional environment so the second criteria is satisfied).
16. Regarding claim 5, Liu in view of Harvey teaches the limitations of claim 1. Liu further teaches wherein the one or more first visual attributes comprise a first size of the first animated spatial effect (Paragraph 39 teaches the virtual object or animated spatial effect has a size; Paragraph 99 teaches the virtual object or animated spatial effect can have “size ranges 483”. This teaches the first visual attribute of the first animated spatial effect comprises a first size), and the one or more second visual attributes comprise a second size of the first animated spatial effect different than the first size (Paragraph 39 teaches “appearance characteristics of virtual objects like size, shape, and color are selected so the virtual objects blend or integrate with the real world view of the user”. This teaches the size of the first animated spatial effect can be a second size different from the first depending on the positioning of the virtual object or animated spatial effect to better match the real world view).
17. Regarding claim 6, Liu in view of Harvey teaches the limitations of claim 5. Liu further teaches selecting the first size of the first animated spatial effect based on the first emitting location (Paragraph 39 teaches “appearance characteristics of virtual objects like size, shape, and color are selected so the virtual objects blend or integrate with the real world view of the user”. This teaches the size of the first animated spatial effect depends on the first emitting location or position of the virtual object or animated spatial effect to better match the real world view).
18. Regarding claim 7, Liu in view of Harvey teaches the limitations of claim 1. Liu further teaches wherein the one or more first visual attributes comprise a first color attribute of the first animated spatial effect, and the one or more second visual attributes comprise a second color attribute of the first animated spatial effect different from the first color attribute (Paragraph 39 teaches “appearance characteristics of virtual objects like size, shape, and color are selected so the virtual objects blend or integrate with the real-world view of the user”. This teaches the color of the first animated spatial effect can be a first and second color attribute different from each other depending on the positioning of the virtual object or animated spatial effect to better match the real- world view).
19. Regarding claim 8, Liu in view of Harvey teaches the limitations of claim 1. Liu further teaches the method further comprising: in response to receiving the communication: in accordance with a determination that one or more third criteria are satisfied, presenting the first animated spatial effect within the three-dimensional environment with one or more third visual attributes, the one or more third visual attributes including a third emitting location of the first animated spatial effect, different from the first emitting location and different from the second emitting location; and in accordance with a determination that one or more fourth criteria are satisfied, presenting the first animated spatial effect within the three-dimensional environment with one or more fourth visual attributes, the one or more fourth attributes including a fourth emitting location of the first animated spatial effect, different from the third emitting location (Paragraph 3 teaches a virtual object is connected with an anchor real world object for display; Paragraph 144 teaches different personal contexts like sleepy and awake which teaches a third and fourth criteria that can change the third and fourth emitting location. For example, Paragraph 168 teaches the center position may be unavailable for strong emotions. This teaches the emitting location or position of the virtual object or animated spatial effect changes based on the personal context. Paragraph 168 specifically teaches “In step 732, an anchor position with respect to a real environment of the user which satisfies position criteria is determined”. The position criteria based on a personal context setting teaches a third and fourth criteria for different personal context settings. Step 732 which selects an anchor position teaches determining a position for the virtual object to be emitted from that satisfies the third or fourth criteria for different personal contexts. The anchor position teaches a third and fourth emitting location, and thus also the third and fourth visual attribute, of the first animated spatial effect),
wherein: the one or more third criteria include a criterion that is satisfied when a user immersion level is greater than a first immersion level; and the one or more fourth criteria include a criterion that is satisfied when the user immersion level is not greater than the first immersion level (Paragraph 69 teaches the third and fourth criteria could be a personal context which teaches an immersion level based on a “state of being”. For example, strong emotion teaches an immersion level greater than a not strong emotion and sleeping can teach an immersion level lower than that not strong emotion. The not strong emotion can be considered the first immersion level. The state of being teaches an immersion level under broadest reasonable interpretation).
20. Regarding claim 9, Liu in view of Harvey teaches the limitations of claim 1. Liu and Harvey are not relied upon for the below claim language: the method further comprising: in accordance with the determination that the one or more first criteria are satisfied, presenting the first animated spatial effect within the three-dimensional environment with one or more first audio attributes, and in accordance with the determination that the one or more second criteria are satisfied, presenting the first animated spatial effect within the three-dimensional environment with one or more second audio attributes, different from the one or more first audio attributes.
Harvey teaches the method further comprising: in accordance with the determination that the one or more first criteria are satisfied, presenting the first animated spatial effect within the three-dimensional environment with one or more first audio attributes, and in accordance with the determination that the one or more second criteria are satisfied, presenting the first animated spatial effect within the three-dimensional environment with one or more second audio attributes, different from the one or more first audio attributes (Column 25 lines 21-29 teach “the local chat display 112 can play the sound effect using well known 3D audio techniques that will create the impression that the sound effect originates from the location of the sender's Avatar in the 3D world.” This teaches that the first and second audio attributes for the textured message will be different to create different impressions since the textured message or animated spatial effect has an emitting location dependent on the sender’s location. If the avatar is far and out of view, then the 3D audio techniques will create that impression. If the avatar is close and to the front, it will create a sound effect to create the impression the avatar is to the front of the recipient. Thus, this teaches that a first criteria where an animated spatial effect has a first emitting location, as taught in the rejection for claim 1, will have a first audio attribute and that a second criteria where the animated spatial effect has a second emitting location, as taught in the rejection from claim 1, will have a second audio attribute).
Liu and Harvey are considered analogous to the claimed invention as because both are in the same field of displaying received spatial effects in a three-dimensional 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 of presenting spatial effects taught by Liu with the different audio attributes taught by Harvey in order to enhance communication by allowing the recipient to ascertain the location of the sender (Harvey Column 2 lines 48-58).
21. Regarding claim 10, Liu in view of Harvey teaches the limitations of claim 9. However, Liu is not relied upon for the below claim language: wherein: the one or more first audio attributes comprise a first audio emitting location and the one or more second audio attributes comprise a second audio emitting location different than the first audio emitting location.
Harvey teaches wherein: the one or more first audio attributes comprise a first audio emitting location and the one or more second audio attributes comprise a second audio emitting location different than the first audio emitting location (Column 25 lines 21-29 teach “the local chat display 112 can play the sound effect using well known 3D audio techniques that will create the impression that the sound effect originates from the location of the sender's Avatar in the 3D world.” This teaches a first audio emitting location and a second audio emitting location that are different from each other because the sound effect is supposed to have the impression of originating from the sender’s location. Thus, if the first and second criteria have different sender locations based on whether the sender is displayed or not displayed as taught in the rejection for claim 1, then the audio emitting locations are also different).
Liu and Harvey are considered analogous to the claimed invention as because both are in the same field of displaying received spatial effects in a three-dimensional 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 of presenting spatial effects taught by Liu with the different audio attributes taught by Harvey in order to enhance communication by allowing the recipient to ascertain the location of the sender (Harvey Column 2 lines 48-58).
22. Regarding claim 11, Liu in view of Harvey teaches the limitations of claim 1. Liu further teaches wherein: presenting the three-dimensional environment comprises displaying a user interface for displaying content for viewing in the three-dimensional environment by a user of the first electronic device (Paragraph 2 teaches “a user interface with a virtual object appearing in context with a real environment view of a see through, augmented reality display device system”. The augmented reality display device system teaches an electronic device. This teaches a user interface displayed for displaying content in a three-dimensional environment for a user of the first electronic device);
and the method further comprising: in response to receiving the communication: in accordance with the determination that one or more third criteria are satisfied, presenting the first animated spatial effect within the three-dimensional environment with one or more third visual attributes, the one or more third visual attributes including a third emitting location of the first animated spatial effect, different from the first emitting location and different from the second emitting location (Paragraph 3 teaches a virtual object is connected with an anchor real world object for display; Paragraph 40 teaches that “the type of virtual object selected to represent the content or its position in the user field of view may change due to the social context”. The social context teaches a criteria to be satisfied. The change in position based on the social context teaches there can be a third emitting location for a third social context and can be different from another social context’s emitting location. Thus, this teaches a third emitting location different from the first and second emitting location. Paragraph 142 teaches social context settings like work, home, with friends, and church exist which can teach a first, second, and third criteria; Figure 10 and Paragraph 167 teach a position criteria determined based on a social context setting. Paragraph 168 specifically teaches “In step 732, an anchor position with respect to a real environment of the user which satisfies position criteria is determined”. Step 732 which selects an anchor position teaches determining a position for the virtual object to be emitted from that satisfies the third criteria for a third social context. The anchor position teaches a third emitting location, and thus also the third visual attribute, of the first animated spatial effect),
wherein: the one or more third criteria include a criterion that is satisfied when an attention of the user of the first electronic device is directed to the user interface for displaying the content for viewing within the three-dimensional environment and selecting the third emitting location is based on a location of the user interface for displaying the content for viewing in the three-dimensional environment (Paragraph 4 teaches the virtual objects come with a user interface; Paragraph 176 teaches a social context where a user is at work and has a “work area of focus”. This teaches a third criteria satisfied for a social context of working and when the user is focused on her work area of focus which is tracked through the eye. This teaches that the user’s attention is directed to the user interface, or work area of focus, for displaying content. The emitting location is chosen to be the work area of focus when content is received from work friends and colleagues).
23. Regarding claim 16, Liu in view of Harvey teaches the limitations of claim 1. Liu further teaches the method further comprising: receiving, from a third electronic device, a communication associated with presenting a second animated spatial effect (Paragraph 176 teaches a first user Betty can receive content from work friends and colleagues. The work friends and colleagues teach there can be a user with a third electronic device that will send content or virtual objects. The content teaches a second animated spatial effect; Paragraph 98 teaches “reference object data sets 474 may be used … also to select appearance characteristics of virtual objects” and Paragraph 99 teaches the reference object data set can include data records that “identify animation effects available for the type of object”. Thus, this teaches the virtual object sent to a user can be a second animated spatial effect; Paragraph 34 and Figures 13A-C also teach a communication sent to a user with a second animated spatial effect);
and in response to receiving the communication associated with presenting the second animated spatial effect: in accordance with a determination that one or more third criteria are satisfied, presenting the second animated spatial effect within the three-dimensional environment with one or more third visual attributes and in accordance with a determination that one or more fourth criteria are satisfied, presenting the second animated spatial effect within the three-dimensional environment with one or more fourth visual attributes, different from the one or more third visual attributes (Paragraph 3 teaches a virtual object is connected with an anchor real world object for display; Paragraph 40 teaches that “the type of virtual object selected to represent the content or its position in the user field of view may change due to the social context”. The social context teaches a criteria to be satisfied. The change in position based on the social context teaches there can be a third and fourth emitting location for a third and fourth social context and they can be different from each other. Paragraph 142 teaches social context settings like work, home, with friends, and church exist which can teach a third and fourth criteria; Figure 10 and Paragraph 167 teach a position criteria determined based on a social context setting. Paragraph 168 specifically teaches “In step 732, an anchor position with respect to a real environment of the user which satisfies position criteria is determined”. Step 732 which selects an anchor position teaches determining a position for the virtual object to be emitted from that satisfies the third and fourth criteria for a third and fourth social context. The anchor position teaches a third and fourth emitting location, and thus also the third and fourth visual attribute, of the second animated spatial effect).
24. Regarding claim 17, claim 17 is the electronic device claim (Liu Paragraph 43 and Figure 1A teaches a system 8 which includes a head mounted display device 2 in communication with a processing unit. This teaches an electronic device) of method claim 1 and is accordingly rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that which is set for with respect to claim 1.
25. Regarding claim 18, claim 18 is the non-transitory computer readable storage medium claim (Liu Paragraph 3 teaches “one or more processor readable storage media having instructions encoded thereon which instructions cause one or more processors to execute a method”. This teaches the non-transitory computer readable storage medium) of method claim 1 and is accordingly rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that which is set for with respect to claim 1.
26. Regarding claim 19, Liu in view of Harvey teaches the limitations of claim 17. Claim 19 is similar in scope to claim 2. Therefore, similar rationale as applied in the rejection of claim 2 applies herein.
27. Regarding claim 20, Liu in view of Harvey teaches the limitations of claim 18. Claim 20 is similar in scope to claim 2. Therefore, similar rationale as applied in the rejection of claim 2 applies herein.
28. Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0044128 A1), hereinafter referred to as Liu, in view of Harvey et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6784901 B1), hereinafter referred to as Harvey, as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Morris et al. (U.S. Patent Application No. 2022/0086203 A1), hereinafter referred to as Morris.
Regarding claim 12, Liu in view of Harvey teaches the limitations of claim 11. However, Liu is not relied upon for the below claim language: the method wherein: presenting the three-dimensional environment comprises displaying the representation of the user of the second electronic device; and the one or more first criteria include a criterion that is satisfied when an attention of the user of the first electronic device is directed to the representation of the user of the second electronic device, the method further comprising: in accordance with the determination that the one or more first criteria are satisfied, selecting the second emitting location based on a location of the representation of the user of the second electronic device.
Morris teaches the method wherein: presenting the three-dimensional environment comprises displaying the representation of the user of the second electronic device (Paragraph 40 teaches users can look an avatar of another user which is a representation of a user on a second electronic device);
and the one or more first criteria include a criterion that is satisfied when an attention of the user of the first electronic device is directed to the representation of the user of the second electronic device, the method further comprising: in accordance with the determination that the one or more first criteria are satisfied, selecting the second emitting location based on a location of the representation of the user of the second electronic device (Paragraph 49 and Figure 1E teaches an avatar, which is the representation of a user, and a special effect 120 that has a first emitting location around the user’s avatar. This is based on the location of the representation of the user. It also teaches other users focusing their visual attention on the second user which can be considered the second criteria. The system also only presents the spatial animated effect to a user when the avatar is displayed in the user’s field of view which can be considered to have the user focusing their attention on another user, satisfying the second criteria; Paragraph 2 teaches each user is on their own computing device which indicates the avatar seen in Figure 1E is a user on a second electronic device; Paragraph 67 teaches users have a field of view which only displays some users).
Liu, Harvey, and Morris are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of displaying spatial effects in a computer generated 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 of presenting spatial effects taught by Liu in view of Harvey with detecting a user’s attention taught by Morris in order to improve communication between users on remote devices (Morris Paragraph 36-37).
29. Claim(s) 13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0044128 A1), hereinafter referred to as Liu, in view of Harvey et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6784901 B1), hereinafter referred to as Harvey, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cheung et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,406,896 B1), hereinafter referred to as Cheung.
30. Regarding claim 13, Liu in view of Harvey teaches the limitations of claim 1. However, Liu and Harvey are not relied upon for the below claim language: the method further comprising: in accordance with a determination that one or more third criteria are satisfied, suppressing presentation of the first animated spatial effect.
Cheung teaches the method further comprising: in accordance with a determination that one or more third criteria are satisfied, suppressing presentation of the first animated spatial effect (Column 11, Lines 16-33 teach turning off visual effects which will suppress the presentation of animated spatial effects. Activating the trigger to turn off the visual effects can be considered the third criteria).
Liu, Harvey, and Cheung are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of displaying spatial effects in a computer generated 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 of presenting spatial effects taught by Liu in view of Harvey with the suppression of animated spatial effects taught by Cheung in order to enhance communication like story telling in remote devices (Cheung Column 2 line 62 – Column 3 line 3).
31. Regarding claim 15, Liu in view of Harvey and Cheung teaches the limitations of claim 13. However, Liu and Harvey are not relied upon for the below claim language: the method wherein the one or more third criteria include a criterion that is satisfied when a first type of application is active.
Cheung teaches the method wherein the one or more third criteria include a criterion that is satisfied when a first type of application is active (Column 11, Lines 16-33 teach turning off visual effects which will suppress the presentation of animated spatial effects. This is done when the storyteller interface, which is a first type of application, is active.).
Liu, Harvey, and Cheung are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of displaying spatial effects in a computer generated 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 of presenting spatial effects taught by Liu in view of Harvey with the suppression of animated spatial effects taught by Cheung in order to enhance communication like story telling in remote devices (Cheung Column 2 line 62 – Column 3 line 3).
32. Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0044128 A1), hereinafter referred to as Liu, in view of Harvey et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6784901 B1), hereinafter referred to as Harvey, and Cheung et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,406,896 B1), hereinafter referred to as Cheung, as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Lemay et al. (U.S. Patent Application No. 2021/0286502 A1), hereinafter referred to as Lemay.
Regarding claim 14, Liu in view of Harvey and Cheung teaches the limitations of claim 13. However, Liu, Harvey, and Chung are not relied upon for the below claim language: the method wherein the one or more third criteria include a criterion that is satisfied when the first electronic device is operating in notification-suppression mode.
Lemay teaches the method wherein the one or more third criteria include a criterion that is satisfied when the first electronic device is operating in notification-suppression mode (Paragraph 140 teaches a do not disturb (DND) mode which stops and pauses presentation of notifications and alerts).
Liu, Harvey, Cheung, and Lemay are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of displaying spatial effects in a three-dimensional 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 of presenting spatial effects taught by Liu in view of Harvey and Cheung with the notification-suppression mode taught by Lemay in order to focus on a specific content or application (Lemay Paragraph 140).
Conclusion
33. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
- Murillo et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,743,215 B1) teaches displaying an effect in a 3D space and specifying how it is displayed like its size and location.
- Ahn et al. (U.S. Patent Application No. 2021/0319617 A1) teaches displaying users through avatars and displaying speech bubbles above the avatars.
- Berliner et al. (U.S. Patent Application No. 2024/0297919 A1) teaches displaying visual effects or content in an extended reality environment.
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 9-5pm.
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
Prosecution Insights