DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Received 04/16/2026
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-20 has/have been amended.
Claim(s) 4 has/have been cancelled.
The 35 USC § 112(f) interpretation of claim(s) 1-18 have been withdrawn in view of the amendments received on 04/16/2026.
The 35 U.S.C § 103 rejection to claim(s) 1-3 and 5-20 have been fully considered in view of the amendments received on 04/16/2026 and are fully addressed in the prior art rejection below.
Response to Arguments
Received 04/16/2026
Regarding independent claim(s) 1, 19, and 20:
Applicant’s arguments (Remarks, Page 12: ¶ 2, Page 15: ¶ 2-4, Page 16: ¶ 2 to Page 17: ¶ 1), filed 04/16/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Wherein, the subject matter of the viewpoint is indicated as being more limiting in the manner as argued by Applicant. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn, necessitated by Applicant's amendments. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Boyd et al. (US PGPUB No. 20220070129 A1) in view of Mattingly et al. (US PGPUB No. 20170041658 A1).
Applicant’s arguments (Remarks, Page 17: ¶ 3), filed 04/16/2023, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive due claim 19's and claim 20's similarity to claim 1. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn, necessitated by Applicant's amendments. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the prior art as mentioned above.
Regarding dependent claim(s) 2-3 and 5-18:
Applicant’s arguments (Remarks, Page 17: ¶ 2), filed 04/16/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 2-3 and 5-18 under 35 U.S.C § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive due the dependency upon claims 1, 19, and 20 respectively. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn, necessitated by Applicant's amendments. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the prior art as mentioned above.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 6, 10-12, 16, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyd et al., US PGPUB No. 20220070129 A1, hereinafter Boyd, and further in view of Mattingly et al., US PGPUB No. 20170041658 A1, hereinafter Mattingly.
Regarding claim 1, Boyd discloses an information processing device (Boyd; an information processing device (i.e. messaging system, client-server devices) [¶ 0025-0027], as illustrated within Fig. 1; moreover, system architecture [¶ 0035], as illustrated within Fig. 2, in relation with a processing environment [¶ 0122, ¶ 0136, and ¶ 0142-0143], as illustrated within Fig. 12-14) comprising:
circuitry including a processor that is configured to acquire information regarding a relationship between a contributor of a content and a viewer of the content (Boyd; information processing device (i.e. messaging system) [as addressed above] comprises circuitry including a processor [¶ 0122-0123] that is configured to acquire information regarding a relationship between a contributor of a content and a viewer of the content [¶ 0103-0104]; wherein, entity table indicating types of connections between users [¶ 0030 and ¶ 0039-0040]; additionally, processing components associated with performance [¶ 0142-0143 and ¶ 0147]);
set a viewpoint of a virtual commentator from among different viewpoints that are depending on the content (Boyd; information processing device (i.e. messaging system) [as addressed above] comprises set(ting) a viewpoint of a virtual commentator from among different viewpoints that are depending on the content [¶ 0106 and ¶ 0110-0111]; moreover, content dependency [¶ 0103, ¶ 0105-0106, and ¶ 0108], different viewpoints [¶ 0111-0113], and having established social relationships [¶ 0020]); and
generate a comment on the content by the virtual commentator based on the information regarding the relationship and the viewpoint that was set (Boyd; information processing device (i.e. messaging system) [as addressed above] comprises (a configuration to) generate a comment on the content by the virtual commentator (i.e. profile icon/avatar entity) [¶ 0103 and ¶ 0106] based on the information regarding the relationship and the viewpoint that was set [¶ 0111-0113], as illustrated within Figs. 10-11; wherein, Figs. 7-8 illustrates, a profile icon entity (corresponding to a virtual commentator) in relation with comment on content; moreover, a profile is represented via an avatar as well as entity groups [¶ 0052-0053]).
Boyd fails to disclose generate a comment on the content to be uttered.
However, Mattingly teaches to generate a comment on the content to be uttered by the virtual commentator based on the information regarding the relationship and the viewpoint that was set (Mattingly; generating a comment on the content to be uttered by the virtual commentator based on the information regarding the relationship and the viewpoint that was set [¶ 0041 and ¶ 0043], as illustrated within Fig. 2; additionally, multiparty chat experience [¶ 0031 and ¶ 0037-0038] associated with avatar integrated shared media nomination and watching experience (e.g. party mode) [¶ 0073-0075]; additionally, pop-up notifications [¶ 0098]).
Boyd and Mattingly are considered to be analogous art because both pertain to generating and/or managing data in relation with providing media data to a user, wherein one or more computerized units are utilized in order to produce a media sharing experience.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Boyd, to incorporate to generate a comment on the content to be uttered by the virtual commentator based on the information regarding the relationship and the viewpoint that was set (as taught by Mattingly), in order to provide an improved social experience for users separated by physical locations (Mattingly; [¶ 0006-0008]).
Regarding claim 2, Boyd in view of Mattingly further discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the information regarding the relationship includes at least one of a degree of intimacy between the contributor and the viewer (Boyd; the information regarding the relationship [as addressed within the parent claim(s)] includes (at least one of) a degree of intimacy (i.e. affinity) between the contributor and the viewer [¶ 0111-0113]; moreover, the status of a friend or close-friend also corresponds to a degree of intimacy [¶ 0018 and ¶ 0020]; wherein, a connection between profiles indicates a type of connection [¶ 0030 and ¶ 0039-0040]), a relationship between the contributor and the viewer in the content (Boyd; includes (at least one of) a relationship (i.e. indicated a friendship connection) between the contributor and the viewer in the content [¶ 0099 and ¶ 0103]; even further, identifying relationship affinity (e.g. friends, close friends) [¶ 0111-0113]; wherein, a profile is able to indicate a connection type [¶ 0030 and ¶ 0039-0040]), or history information of the viewer for at least one content previously contributed by the contributor.
Regarding claim 3, Boyd in view of Mattingly further discloses the information processing device according to claim 2, wherein the circuitry is further configured to generate the comment based on a viewpoint comment list in which at least one candidate for the comment by the virtual commentator for each of the different viewpoints is listed (the circuitry [as addressed within the parent claim(s)] is further configured to generate the comment based on a viewpoint comment list in which at least one candidate for the comment by the virtual commentator (i.e. profile icon/avatar entity) for each of the different viewpoints is listed [¶ 0111-0113 and ¶ 0119-0120], as illustrated within Figs. 10-11; moreover, title or caption [id.] wherein, Figs. 7-8 illustrates, one type of comment list based on a viewpoint; and wherein, Figs. 10-11 illustrates, another type of comment list based on several viewpoints).
Mattingly further teaches the comment to be uttered (Mattingly; the comment to be uttered [as addressed within the parent claim(s)]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Boyd as modified by Mattingly, to incorporate the comment to be uttered (as taught by Mattingly), in order to provide an improved social experience for users separated by physical locations (Mattingly; [¶ 0006-0008]).
Regarding claim 5, Boyd in view of Mattingly further discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is further configured to set a target of the comment by the virtual commentator (Boyd; the circuitry [as addressed within the parent claim(s)] is further configured to set a target of the comment [¶ 0030, ¶ 0049, and ¶ 0086] by the virtual commentator (i.e. profile icon/avatar entity) [¶ 0101, ¶ 0105, and ¶ 0116]; wherein, a target is provided via the content (e.g. content creator); additionally, activating a private message [¶ 0109-0110 and ¶ 0117-0118]), and generate the comment according to the target of the comment (Boyd; generate the comment according to the target of the comment [¶ 0103-0105], as illustrated within Fig. 7).
Mattingly further teaches the comment to be uttered (Mattingly; the comment to be uttered [as addressed within the parent claim(s)]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Boyd as modified by Mattingly, to incorporate the comment to be uttered (as taught by Mattingly), in order to provide an improved social experience for users separated by physical locations (Mattingly; [¶ 0006-0008]).
Regarding claim 6, Boyd in view of Mattingly further discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is further configured to generate the comment according to a genre to which the content belongs (Boyd; the circuitry [as addressed within the parent claim(s)] is further configured to generate the comment according to an implicit genre (given each media content item, e.g. topic/item of focus) to which the content belongs [¶ 0111-0113 and ¶ 0119-0120], as illustrated within Figs. 10-11).
Regarding claim 10, Boyd in view of Mattingly further discloses the information processing device according to claim1, wherein the circuitry is further configured to generate a comment by each of two or more virtual commentators (Boyd; the circuitry [as addressed within the parent claim(s)] is further configured to generate a comment by each of two or more virtual commentators (i.e. profile icon/avatar entity) [¶ 0105-0106 and ¶ 0111-0113], as illustrated within Figs. 7-8 and Figs. 10-11; wherein, Figs. 7-8 and Figs. 10-11 illustrates, a GUI that indicates commentators (e.g. summary)).
Mattingly further teaches generate a comment to be uttered (Mattingly; the comment to be uttered [as addressed within the parent claim(s)]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Boyd as modified by Mattingly, to incorporate generate a comment to be uttered (as taught by Mattingly), in order to provide an improved social experience for users separated by physical locations (Mattingly; [¶ 0006-0008]).
Regarding claim 11, Boyd in view of Mattingly further discloses the information processing device according to claim 10, wherein the circuitry is further configured to generate the comment in such a way that a second virtual commentator of the two or more virtual commentators after a first virtual commentator of the two or more virtual commentators is completed (Boyd; the circuitry [as addressed within the parent claim(s)] is further configured to generate the comment in such a way that (interpreted as “so that”) a 2nd virtual commentator (i.e. profile icon/avatar entity) of the two or more virtual commentators (i.e. profile icon/avatar entity) makes comment after comment of a 1st virtual commentator (i.e. profile icon/avatar entity) of the two or more virtual commentators (i.e. profile icon/avatar entity) is completed [¶ 0108-0109], as illustrated within Fig. 8; additionally, prior order based on relationship [¶ 0111]).
Mattingly further teaches to generate the comment in such a way that a second virtual commentator of the two or more virtual commentators makes utterance after utterance of a first virtual commentator of the two or more virtual commentators is completed (Mattingly; to generate the comment in such a way that (interpreted as “so that”) a 2nd virtual commentator of the two or more virtual commentators makes utterance after utterance of a 1st virtual commentator of the two or more virtual commentators is completed [¶ 0043], as illustrated within Fig. 2; wherein, scrollable chat implies an order [id.]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Boyd as modified by Mattingly, to incorporate to generate the comment in such a way that a second virtual commentator of the two or more virtual commentators makes utterance after utterance of a first virtual commentator of the two or more virtual commentators is completed (as taught by Mattingly), in order to provide an improved social experience for users separated by physical locations (Mattingly; [¶ 0006-0008]).
Regarding claim 12, Boyd in view of Mattingly further discloses the information processing device according to claim 10, wherein the circuitry is further configured to generate the comment by one of the two or more virtual commentators to the other one of the two or more virtual commentators (Boyd; the circuitry [as addressed within the parent claim(s)] is further configured to generate the comment by one of the two or more virtual commentators to the other one of the two or more virtual commentators [¶ 0020 and ¶ 0117]).
Mattingly further teaches to generate the comment to be uttered by one of the two or more virtual commentators to the other one of the two or more virtual commentators (Mattingly; to generate the comment to be uttered by one of the two or more virtual commentators to the other one of the two or more virtual commentators [¶ 0040, ¶ 0043, and 0045], as illustrated within Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Boyd as modified by Mattingly, to incorporate to generate the comment to be uttered by one of the two or more virtual commentators to the other one of the two or more virtual commentators (as taught by Mattingly), in order to provide an improved social experience for users separated by physical locations (Mattingly; [¶ 0006-0008]).
Regarding claim 16, Boyd in view of Mattingly further discloses the information processing device according to claim 15, the circuitry (Boyd; the circuitry [as addressed within the parent claim(s)]).
Mattingly further teaches to adjust a display position of the animation in the content according to the viewpoint of the virtual commentator (Mattingly; to adjust a display position of the animation in the content [¶ 0105-0108] according to the viewpoint of the virtual commentator [¶ 0085-0096]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Boyd as modified by Mattingly, to incorporate to adjust a display position of the animation in the content according to the viewpoint of the virtual commentator (as taught by Mattingly), in order to provide an improved social experience for users separated by physical locations (Mattingly; [¶ 0006-0008]).
Regarding claim 19, the rejection of claim 19 is addressed within the rejection of claim 1, due to the similarities claim 19 and claim 1 share, therefore refer to the rejection of claim 1 regarding the rejection of claim 19. Although, claim 19 and claim 1 may not be identical, they are considerably comparable or substantially equivalent given their overlapping subject matter. Thus, it is reasonable to reject claim 19 based on the teachings and rational in relation with the prior art within the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, the rejection of claim 20 is addressed within the rejection of claim 1, due to the similarities claim 20 and claim 1 share, therefore refer to the rejection of claim 1 regarding the rejection of claim 20. Although, claim 20 and claim 1 may not be identical, they are considerably comparable or substantially equivalent given their overlapping subject matter. However, the subject matter/limitations not addressed by claim 1 is/are addressed below.
Boyd discloses an information processing system in which a first user terminal, an information processing device, and a second user terminal are connected via a predetermined network (Boyd; an information processing system (i.e. messaging system, client-server devices) in which a 1st user terminal, a 2nd user terminal, and an information processing device are connected via a predetermined network [¶ 0025-0028], as illustrated within Fig. 1; wherein, an information processing device corresponding to a server [id.]; additionally, one or more terminals and/or devices further corresponds to a system [¶ 0035], as illustrated within Fig. 2, in relation with processing configuration(s) [¶ 0122-0123, ¶ 0136, and ¶ 0142-0143], as illustrated within Fig. 12-14); and
acquire information regarding a relationship between a contributor who contributes a content from the first user terminal to the information processing device and a viewer who views the content via the second user terminal (Body; (to) acquire information regarding a relationship between a contributor who contributes a content [¶ 0102-0104] from the 1st user terminal to the information processing device and a viewer who views the content via the 2nd user terminal [¶ 0025-0028]; additionally, entity table indicating types of connections between users [¶ 0030 and ¶ 0039-0040]).
(further refer to the rejection of claim 1)
Claim(s) 7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyd in view of Mattingly as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of Barajas Gonzalez et al., US PGPUB No. 20180048615 A1, hereinafter Barajas-Gonzalez.
Regarding claim 7, Boyd in view of Mattingly further discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is further configured to prioritize the comment that was generated based on the information regarding the relationship (Boyd; the circuitry [as addressed within the parent claim(s)] is further configured to prioritize (and/or score) the comment that was generated based on the information regarding the relationship [¶ 0103 and ¶ 0111-0112]).
Boyd as modified by Mattingly fails to disclose to correct the comment.
However, Barajas-Gonzalez teaches to correct the comment that was generated based on the information regarding preferences (Barajas-Gonzalez; to correct the comment that was generated based on the information regarding preferences [¶ 0070 and ¶ 0085-0086]).
Boyd in view of Mattingly and Barajas-Gonzalez are considered to be analogous art because they pertain to generating and/or managing data in relation with providing media data to a user, wherein one or more computerized units are utilized in order to produce a media sharing experience.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Boyd as modified by Mattingly, to incorporate to correct the comment that was generated based on the information regarding preferences (as taught by Barajas-Gonzalez), in order to provide a more social and dynamic environment for users within a virtual environment (Barajas-Gonzalez; [¶ 0015-0016]).
Regarding claim 17, Boyd in view of Mattingly further discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, the circuitry (Boyd; the circuitry [as addressed within parent claim(s)]).
Boyd as modified by Mattingly fails to disclose to acquire line-of-sight information of the contributor or the viewer, and generate the comment based on the line-of-sight information.
However, Barajas-Gonzalez teaches to acquire line-of-sight information of the contributor or the viewer (Barajas-Gonzalez; to acquire line-of-sight (i.e. eye tracking) information of the contributor or the viewer [¶ 0071 and ¶ 0088]), and generate the comment based on the line-of-sight information (Barajas-Gonzalez; generate the comment based on the line-of-sight (i.e. eye tracking) information [¶ 0088]).
Boyd in view of Mattingly and Barajas-Gonzalez are considered to be analogous art because they pertain to generating and/or managing data in relation with providing media data to a user, wherein one or more computerized units are utilized in order to produce a media sharing experience.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Boyd as modified by Mattingly, to incorporate to acquire line-of-sight information of the contributor or the viewer (as taught by Barajas-Gonzalez), in order to provide a more social and dynamic environment for users within a virtual environment (Barajas-Gonzalez; [¶ 0015-0016]).
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyd in view of Mattingly as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of Watari et al., US PGPUB No. 20170136367 A1, hereinafter Watari.
Regarding claim 8, Boyd in view of Mattingly further discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is further configured to generate the comment for the event (Boyd; the circuitry [as addressed within the parent claim(s)] is further configured to generate the comment for the event (i.e. temporal position, point in a timeline) [¶ 0020 and ¶ 0102, and ¶ 0104]).
Boyd as modified by Mattingly further discloses to extract an event of the content.
However, Watari teaches to extract an event of the content (Watari; to extract an event of the content [¶ 0016 and ¶ 0018]; additionally, event detection [¶ 0072]), and generate the comment for the event (Watari; generate the comment for the event [¶ 0080-0081], as illustrated within Fig. 13; additionally, a comment may be displayed at the timing when a game character talks or performs a specific action in the game [¶ 0076], as illustrated with Fig. 12).
Boyd in view of Mattingly and Watari are considered to be analogous art because they pertain to generating and/or managing data in relation with providing media data to a user, wherein one or more computerized units are utilized in order to produce a visualization effect.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Boyd as modified by Mattingly, to incorporate to extract an event of the content, and generate the comment for the event (as taught by Watari), in order to provide an improved viewing environment for users in relation with consuming virtual content (Watari; [¶ 0002-0004]).
Regarding claim 9, Boyd in view of Mattingly and Watari further discloses the information processing device according to claim 8, wherein in a case where a time difference from a time at which a preceding event occurs to a time at which a next event occurs in the content is less than a predetermined time (Boyd; in a case where a time difference from a time at which a preceding event occurs to a time at which a next event occurs in the content is less than a predetermined time [¶ 0090-0092, ¶ 0102, and ¶ 0104]; moreover, ephemeral time [¶ 0036-0037 and ¶ 0089] and timeline markers [¶ 0101 and ¶ 0107-0108]), the circuitry is further configured to skip generation of a comment for the next event (Boyd; the circuitry [as addressed within the parent claim(s)] is further configured to skip generation of a comment for the next event [¶ 0102 and ¶ 0104]; wherein, an amount of time a message/comment is sent and/or received is determined [¶ 0090-0092]).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyd in view of Mattingly as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of Sharma et al., US Patent No. 10614294 B1, hereinafter Sharma.
Regarding claim 13, Boyd in view of Mattingly further disclose the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is further configured to generate the comment by each of virtual commentators whose number corresponds to the number of contributors (Boyd; the circuitry [as addressed within the parent claim(s)] is further configured to generate the comment by each of virtual commentators whose number corresponds to the number of contributors [¶ 0102-0103, ¶ 0111-0113, and ¶ 0119], as illustrated within Fig. 7 and Figs. 10-11; wherein, Figs. 7 and 10-11 illustrates, a summary that indicates a number of contributors; still further, Figs. 8 and 10 illustrates, a number of contributors corresponding to the number icons shown), and increase or decrease the number of the virtual commentators according to an increase or decrease in the number of contributors (Boyd; increase the number of the virtual commentators according to an increase in the number of contributors [¶ 0102-0103 and ¶ 0111-0113]; wherein, Fig. 7 and Figs. 10-11 illustrates, the plus symbol further indicating increments).
Mattingly further teaches generate the comment to be uttered (Mattingly; the comment to be uttered [as addressed within the parent claim(s)]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Boyd as modified by Mattingly, to incorporate generate the comment to be uttered (as taught by Mattingly), in order to provide an improved social experience for users separated by physical locations (Mattingly; [¶ 0006-0008]).
Boyd as modified by Mattingly fails to disclose to acquire the number of viewers who are currently viewing the content;
number corresponds to the number of viewers; and
an increase or decrease in the number of viewers.
However, Sharma teaches to acquire the number of viewers who are currently viewing the content (Sharma; to acquire the number of viewers who are currently viewing the content [Col. 9, lines 11-34 and lines 44-56]), generate information whose number corresponds to the number of viewers (Sharma; generate information whose number corresponds to the number of viewers [Col. 9, lines 11-34 and lines 44-56 and Col. 10, lines 9-30]; moreover, tracking viewers [id.]), and increase or decrease the number of the participants according to an increase or decrease in the number of viewers (Sharma; increase the number of the participants according to an increase in the number of viewers [Col. 10, lines 9-30 and Col. 14, lines 6-35]).
Boyd in view of Mattingly and Sharma are considered to be analogous art because they pertain to generating and/or managing data in relation with providing media data to a user, wherein one or more computerized units are utilized in order to produce a media sharing experience.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Boyd as modified by Mattingly, to incorporate to acquire the number of viewers who are currently viewing the content, generate information whose number corresponds to the number of viewers, and increase or decrease the number of the participants according to an increase or decrease in the number of viewers (as taught by Sharma), in order to provide an understanding of true viewership and interest of presented media (Sharma; [Col. 7, lines 12-43 and Col. 9, lines 11-34]).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyd in view of Mattingly as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of Harrison et al., US PGPUB No. 20080215975 A1, hereinafter Harrison.
Regarding claim 14, Boyd in view of Mattingly further discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is further configured to acquire a feedback from the viewer (Boyd; the circuitry [as addressed within the parent claim(s)] is further configured to acquire a feedback/input from the viewer [¶ 0103, ¶ 0105, and ¶ 0116]; moreover, message tagging [¶ 0084]), and generate the comment according to the feedback (Boyd; the circuitry [as addressed within the parent claim(s)] is further configured to generate the comment according to the feedback/input [¶ 0105 and ¶ 0116]).
Boyd as modified by Mattingly fails to explicitly disclose feedback.
However, Harrison teaches a feedback from the viewer (Harrison; a feedback from the viewer [¶ 0058-0060]; wherein, feedback corresponding to expressions, body language, and other information [¶ 0061 and ¶ 0063-0064]).
Boyd in view of Mattingly and Harrison are considered to be analogous art because they pertain to generating and/or managing data in relation with providing media data to a user, wherein one or more computerized units are utilized in order to produce a media sharing experience.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Boyd as modified by Mattingly, to incorporate a feedback from the viewer (as taught by Harrison), in order to provide realistic or natural interactions of users within a virtual environment (Harrison; [¶ 0003-0005, ¶ 0007, and ¶ 0032]).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyd in view of Mattingly as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of Morris et al., US PGPUB No. 20100070999 A1, hereinafter Morris.
Regarding claim 15, Boyd in view of Mattingly further discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, the circuitry (Boyd the circuitry [as addressed within the parent claim(s)]).
Mattingly further teaches to generate an animation of the virtual commentator (Mattingly; to generate an animation of the virtual commentator [¶ 0040-0041 and ¶ 0085]; moreover, each client may animate a certain avatar based on emotion information received for that avatar [¶ 0059 and ¶ 0106-0108]), incorporate at least one of text data or sound data corresponding to the comment into the content (Mattingly; (to) implicitly incorporate at least one of text data or sound data corresponding to the comment into the content (given the UI enables a combined rendering of avatar and content) [¶ 0041, ¶ 0043, and ¶ 0045], as illustrated within Fig. 2; moreover, rendering avatars and content together within a UI [¶ 0105 and ¶ 0117-0118], as illustrated within Figs. 5F-H), and superimpose the animation of the virtual commentator on the content (Mattingly; (to) implicitly superimpose the animation of the virtual commentator on the content (given the UI enables a combined rendering of avatar and content) [¶ 0040-0041]; moreover, rendering avatars and content together within a UI [¶ 0105-0109], as illustrated within Figs. 5F-H).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Boyd as modified by Mattingly, to incorporate to generate an animation of the virtual commentator, incorporate at least one of text data or sound data corresponding to the comment into the content, and superimpose the animation of the virtual commentator on the content (as taught by Mattingly), in order to provide an improved social experience for users separated by physical locations (Mattingly; [¶ 0006-0008]).
Boyd as modified by Mattingly fails to explicitly discloses superimposing on the content.
However, Morris teaches superimpose on the content (Morris; superimpose on the content (also corresponding with incorporated into content) [¶ 0038 and ¶ 0054], as illustrated within Fig. 5).
Boyd in view of Mattingly and Morris are considered to be analogous art because they pertain to generating and/or managing data in relation with providing media data to a user, wherein one or more computerized units are utilized in order to produce a media sharing experience.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Boyd as modified by Mattingly, to incorporate superimpose on the content (as taught by Morris), in order to provide a more social and dynamic environment for users within a virtual environment (Morris; [¶ 0002 and ¶ 0012]).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyd in view of Mattingly and Barajas-Gonzalez as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of Grzesiak, US PGPUB No. 20220413608 A1, hereinafter Grzesiak.
Regarding claim 18, Boyd in view of Mattingly and Barajas-Gonzalez further discloses the information processing device according to claim 17, the circuitry (Boyd; the circuitry [as addressed within the parent claim(s)]).
Barajas-Gonzalez further teaches the comment based on the line-of-sight information (Barajas-Gonzalez; the comment based on the line-of-sight information [as addressed within the parent claim(s)]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Boyd as modified by Mattingly and Barajas-Gonzalez, to incorporate the comment based on the line-of-sight information (as taught by Barajas-Gonzalez), in order to provide a more social and dynamic environment for users within a virtual environment (Barajas-Gonzalez; [¶ 0015-0016]).
Boyd as modified by Mattingly and Barajas-Gonzalez to adjust a display position of the text in the content based on the line-of-sight information
However, Grzesiak teaches to adjust a display position of the text in the content based on the line-of-sight information (Grzesiak; to adjust a display position of the text in the content based on the line-of-sight information [¶ 0113 and ¶ 0128]).
Boyd in view of Mattingly and Barajas-Gonzalez and Grzesiak are considered to be known methods to yield predictable results.
Since all the claimed elements would continue to operate in the same manner, specifically the eye tracking would still be utilized to indicate information of a user and/or based on a user (taught by Boyd in view of Mattingly and Barajas-Gonzalez) and the eye tracking would still provide information according to a user’s gaze (taught by Grzesiak). Therefore, the results would be predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the eye tacking and comment data of Boyd as modified by Mattingly and Barajas-Gonzalez with the positioning of text according to a gaze of Grzesiak as being no more "than the predictable use of prior-art elements according to their established functions."
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Zhang et al. (US PGPUB No. 20200334326 A1),
Ozertem et al. (US PGPUB No. 20200401666 A1),
Toebes et al. (US PGPUB No. 20090271417 A1),
Greenberger et al. (US PGPUB No. 20180039700 A1),
Silver (US PGPUB No. 20170034237 A1), and
Faulkner (US PGPUB No. 20180124359 A1).
Wherein comments are shared and distributed within a virtual environment.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to PTO-892, Notice of Reference Cited for a listing of analogous art.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Charles Lloyd Beard whose telephone number is (571)272-5735. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 AM - 5: 00 PM, alternate Fridays EST.
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, Tammy Goddard can be reached at (571) 272-7773. 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.
CHARLES LLOYD. BEARD
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2611
/CHARLES L BEARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Prosecution Insights