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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Regarding objections.
Applicant argues:
The specification is objected to for the title not being descriptive. The title is hereby amended in a manner believed to obviate the objection to the specification.
Examiner replies that:
Withdrawn.
Regarding 35 USC § 112.
Applicant argues:
Without conceding the propriety of the rejection, the claims are amended in a manner believed to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
Claims 4 and 17 are canceled, thereby rendering the rejection of claims 4 and 17 moot.
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the rejections of claims 6, 8, 9, and 12- 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) be withdrawn.
Examiner replies that:
Withdrawn.
Regarding 35 USC § 102/103.
Applicant argues:
Amended independent claim 1 recites, in part: An information processing apparatus comprising one or more memories storing instructions and one or more processors that execute the instructions to:
generate a virtual viewpoint image of a virtual space from a changeable virtual viewpoint, wherein the virtual viewpoint image includes the first object and the second object, wherein the first object is displayed in the virtual viewpoint image in a first display mode in accordance with the appearance information of the content data of the first digital content at a position indicated by the position information of the content data of the first digital content, and the second object is displayed in the virtual viewpoint image in a second display mode at a position indicated by the position information of the content data of the second digital content, wherein the first display mode differs from the second display mode. (Emphasis added.) As discussed below, Lyren fails to teach or suggest every feature of amended independent claim 1. Lyren relates to "tokenizing digital assets with restrictions on a blockchain." (Lyren, Title.)
Lyren discloses: For example, the user takes pictures (shown as Pic-1, Pic-2, and Pic-3) and videos (shown as Vid-1, Vid-2, and Vid-3). The display 910 displays these pictures and videos 960. If the user desires to spatialize and/or tokenize one or more of these pictures and videos 960, he or she can issue a command to the electronic device to do so. For example, the user selects a picture or video and activates the option spatialize 940 to spatialize the selected picture or video and/or activates the option tokenize 950 to tokenize the selected picture or video. (Lyren, para. [0175].) Lyren further discloses:
Consider an example of a tokenized digital asset (e.g., an NFT) on the blockchain that stores the one or more restrictions. The digital asset is a video that plays sound, and the restriction restricts how non-owners of the NFT hear the sound and/or view the video. As one example, the restriction restricts playing the video with sound to the non-owners of the NFT for a limited amount of time that is less than time to play a full version of the video with sound. For instance, the video plays for a full duration of sixty seconds, but an electronic device only plays a portion of the vide that lasts for a limited time less than the time to play the full version (e.g., play for 10 seconds, 20 seconds, 30 seconds, 40 seconds, or 50 seconds). As another example, the restriction restricts a number of times the non- owners of the NFT are able to view the video with sound (e.g., a display of the electronic device limits viewing the video to one time, two times, three times, four times, or a limited number of times). The blockchain and/or smart contract store these restrictions.
(Lyren, para. [0052].) However, nowhere does Lyren teach or suggest the above-noted features of amended independent claim 1. In particular, Lyren does not disclose generating a virtual viewpoint image of a virtual space from a changeable virtual viewpoint, where both the first object (rights owned) and the second object (rights not owned) are included in the same image at their respective positions, but in different display modes, such that the first object and the second object are displayed in the virtual viewpoint image at a position indicated by the position information of the content and a user can see the spatial relationships of the objects even when the user does not have a right to the second object. Lyren merely discloses providing restricted versions of a single tokenized digital asset and controlling how that digital asset is presented to non-owners. Lyren does not teach or suggest placing both a first object and a second object into a common virtual space and rendering them simultaneously from a changeable virtual viewpoint. Nor does Lyren teach or suggest displaying the first object and the second object at positions indicated by the respective position information of their content data, while using different display modes for the first object and the second object, as recited in amended claim 1. Lyren therefore fails to teach or suggest the above-noted features of amended independent claim 1.
Miller is not relied on to cure nor does it cure the deficiencies of Lyren with respect to the above-noted features of amended independent claim 1.
Thus, in view of the above, Lyren and Miller, whether considered alone or in any permissible combination, fail to teach or reasonably suggest every element of independent claim
Examiner replies that:
Applicant has amended the claims to change the scope since the previous action. The amendment(s) necessitate new ground(s) of rejection and are rejected in detail under the § 102/103 headings below.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, 13-14, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Dettinger U.S. Patent/PG Publication 20110066860.
Regarding claim 1:
(Currently Amended) An information processing apparatus comprising one or more memories storing instructions and one or more processors that execute the instructions to: (Dettinger [0019] As shown, each client computer 110 includes a central processing unit (CPU) 102 (also referred to as a "processor", herein), which obtains instructions and data via a bus 104 from client memory 107 and client storage 104. CPU 102 is a programmable logic device that performs all the instruction, logic, and mathematical processing in a computer. Client storage 104 stores application programs and data for use by client computer 110. Client storage 104 includes hard-disk drives, flash memory devices, optical media and the like. It should be understood that programs may be transferred in whole or in part to a random access memory (RAM) not shown, which is also interconnected through the bus 104, then executed by the CPU 102 from the RAM. Client computer 110 is operably connected to the network 115, such as through a network adapter 118, for example. Client memory 107 includes an operating system (OS) 106, a client application 108, and a communication application 109 such as email, instant messenger, or the like.)
obtain content data of a first digital content related to a first object to which a user has a right, and content data of a second digital content related to a second object to which the user does not have a right, (Dettinger [0016] One way that avatars may interact in a virtual world is by recording other avatars. As in the real world, some users may wish to limit or control the use and distribution of recorded images of their avatars. According to a sample embodiment of the present invention, a user can create a watermark for his/her avatar to embed security preferences for images of the avatar and control use of the images.)
wherein the content data of the first digital content and the second digital content includes appearance information and position information of the first object and the second object that change with time and that are generated based on a plurality of images of a subject captured by a plurality of capturing apparatuses (Dettinger [0015] A virtual world is a simulated environment in which users may be represented by avatars. An avatar may be used to "travel" through locations of the virtual world, such as virtual streets, buildings, rooms, etc. While in a given location, an avatar may also be used to interact with objects or other avatars present therein. For example, an avatar may be able to approach another avatar, and may interact with the other avatar by communicating, performing financial transactions, and the like. Thus, multiple users, although in different physical locations, may be present in the same virtual location, and may interact therein by using their respective avatars.).
verify whether the user has rights to the first digital content and the second digital content (Dettinger [0036] FIG. 3 is a flow diagram of a method of protecting an avatar or aspects thereof using an embedded security watermark 132 according to a sample embodiment of the present invention. A second avatar records an avatar with a watermark in a virtual world (step 310). The watermark engine 134 determines whether or not the avatar doing the recording meets the security preference (step 315).).
and generate a virtual viewpoint image of a virtual space from a changeable virtual viewpoint, wherein the virtual viewpoint image includes the first object and the second object, (Dettinger [0020] . Such actions may include exploring virtual locations, interacting with other avatars, and interacting with virtual objects. Further, the client application 109 may be configured to generate and display a visual representation of the user within the immersive environment, generally referred to as an avatar. The avatar of the user is generally visible to other users in the virtual world, and the user may view avatars representing the other users. ) wherein showing the first object is displayed in the virtual viewpoint image in a first display mode in accordance with the appearance information of the content data of the first digital content at a position indicated by the position information of the content data of the first digital content, and the second object is displayed in the virtual viewpoint image in a second display mode at a position indicated by the position information of the content data of the second digital content, wherein [[a]] the first display mode of the first object differs from [[a]] the second display mode of the second object (Dettinger [0036] That is the watermark engine 134 compares the recording avatar to a security preference list to determine whether or not the recording avatar is authorized to access the avatar without alteration. If the recording avatar meets the security preference (Y-branch), then the recording avatar is allowed to record the watermarked avatar without alterations to the watermarked avatar's appearance (step 320). If the recording avatar does not meet the security preference (N-branch), then the watermark engine 134 alters the appearance of the watermarked avatar according to the alteration method previously defined in the watermark (step 330), and embeds the previously defined contact information (step 340).).
Regarding claim 2:
(Currently Amended) An information processing apparatus comprising one or more memories storing instructions and one or more processors that execute the instructions to: (Dettinger [0019] As shown, each client computer 110 includes a central processing unit (CPU) 102 (also referred to as a "processor", herein), which obtains instructions and data via a bus 104 from client memory 107 and client storage 104. CPU 102 is a programmable logic device that performs all the instruction, logic, and mathematical processing in a computer. Client storage 104 stores application programs and data for use by client computer 110. Client storage 104 includes hard-disk drives, flash memory devices, optical media and the like. It should be understood that programs may be transferred in whole or in part to a random access memory (RAM) not shown, which is also interconnected through the bus 104, then executed by the CPU 102 from the RAM. Client computer 110 is operably connected to the network 115, such as through a network adapter 118, for example. Client memory 107 includes an operating system (OS) 106, a client application 108, and a communication application 109 such as email, instant messenger, or the like.)
verify whether a user has a right to digital content (Dettinger [0036] FIG. 3 is a flow diagram of a method of protecting an avatar or aspects thereof using an embedded security watermark 132 according to a sample embodiment of the present invention. A second avatar records an avatar with a watermark in a virtual world (step 310). The watermark engine 134 determines whether or not the avatar doing the recording meets the security preference (step 315).).
transmit content data of the digital content to an image processing apparatus that generates a virtual viewpoint image of a virtual space from a changeable virtual viewpoint, wherein the content data includes appearance information and position information of an object that change with time and that are generated based on a plurality of images of a subject captured by a plurality of capturing apparatuses (Dettinger [0015] A virtual world is a simulated environment in which users may be represented by avatars. An avatar may be used to "travel" through locations of the virtual world, such as virtual streets, buildings, rooms, etc. While in a given location, an avatar may also be used to interact with objects or other avatars present therein. For example, an avatar may be able to approach another avatar, and may interact with the other avatar by communicating, performing financial transactions, and the like. Thus, multiple users, although in different physical locations, may be present in the same virtual location, and may interact therein by using their respective avatars.).
and transmit information indicating a display mode of [[an]] the object corresponding to the digital content to the image processing apparatus in accordance with whether the user has a right to the digital content, wherein the content data includes content data of a first digital content related to a first object to which a user has a right, and content data of a second digital content related to a second object to which the user does not have a right, (Dettinger [0016] One way that avatars may interact in a virtual world is by recording other avatars. As in the real world, some users may wish to limit or control the use and distribution of recorded images of their avatars. According to a sample embodiment of the present invention, a user can create a watermark for his/her avatar to embed security preferences for images of the avatar and control use of the images.)
wherein the first object is displayed in the virtual viewpoint image in a first display mode in accordance with the appearance information of the content data of the first digital content at a position indicated by the position information of the content data of the first digital content, and the second object is displayed in the virtual viewpoint image in a second display mode at a position indicated by the position information of the content data of the second digital content, wherein the first display mode differs from the second display mode (Dettinger [0020] . Such actions may include exploring virtual locations, interacting with other avatars, and interacting with virtual objects. Further, the client application 109 may be configured to generate and display a visual representation of the user within the immersive environment, generally referred to as an avatar. The avatar of the user is generally visible to other users in the virtual world, and the user may view avatars representing the other users. ) (Dettinger [0036] That is the watermark engine 134 compares the recording avatar to a security preference list to determine whether or not the recording avatar is authorized to access the avatar without alteration. If the recording avatar meets the security preference (Y-branch), then the recording avatar is allowed to record the watermarked avatar without alterations to the watermarked avatar's appearance (step 320). If the recording avatar does not meet the security preference (N-branch), then the watermark engine 134 alters the appearance of the watermarked avatar according to the alteration method previously defined in the watermark (step 330), and embeds the previously defined contact information (step 340).).
Regarding claim 3:
(Original) The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, has all of its limitations taught by Dettinger. Dettinger further teaches wherein in the virtual viewpoint image, the second object related to the second digital content to which the user does not have the right is displayed in a simplified manner compared to the first object related to the first digital content to which the user has the right (Dettinger [0026] Graphical information to cause alteration of the avatar when the avatar is recorded comprises program code that determines when the avatar is being recorded and program code to alter the avatar image in response to detecting recording of the avatar image. The avatar may be altered by one or more of: pixilation, blurring, censoring, abstracting, mirroring, or distortion of at least a part of the avatar image; change in the hue, tone, saturation, brightness, or scale of the avatar image; graphical text, symbol, or icon inserted over or under the avatar image; aging, fading, or scrambling the avatar image relative to other images in an environment; and slowing or accelerating movement of the avatar image relative to other images in an environment. The graphical information may be in the form of program code which is executed when the avatar image is recorded using known technology.)
Regarding claim 5:
(Original) The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, has all of its limitations taught by Dettinger. Dettinger further teaches wherein in the virtual viewpoint image, the second object related to the second digital content to which the user does not have the right has a lower resolution, reproducibility, or visibility than the first object related to the first digital content to which the user has the right (Dettinger [0026] Graphical information to cause alteration of the avatar when the avatar is recorded comprises program code that determines when the avatar is being recorded and program code to alter the avatar image in response to detecting recording of the avatar image. The avatar may be altered by one or more of: pixilation, blurring, censoring, abstracting, mirroring, or distortion of at least a part of the avatar image; change in the hue, tone, saturation, brightness, or scale of the avatar image; graphical text, symbol, or icon inserted over or under the avatar image; aging, fading, or scrambling the avatar image relative to other images in an environment; and slowing or accelerating movement of the avatar image relative to other images in an environment. The graphical information may be in the form of program code which is executed when the avatar image is recorded using known technology.)
Regarding claim 6:
(Currently Amended) The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, has all of its limitations taught by Dettinger. Dettinger further teaches wherein in the virtual viewpoint image, the second object related to the second digital content to which the user does not have the right has a preset shape, or a shape that has been set independently of a three-dimensional shape of the second object indicated by the content data of the second digital content (Dettinger [0030] In another embodiment the contact information may alternatively or additionally allow for substitution with another avatar's likeness.).
Regarding claim 7:
(Original) The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, has all of its limitations taught by Dettinger. Dettinger further teaches wherein in the virtual viewpoint image, the second object related to the second digital content to which the user does not have the right has a shape that has been determined in accordance with metainformation of the second digital content (Dettinger [0024] A watermark 132 may be embedded on the avatar to provide security for the avatar image in the virtual world. The watermark 132 comprises program code that may perform one or more security functions, including: security preferences for the avatar, contact information for an owner of the avatar, and graphical information to cause alteration of the avatar when the avatar is recorded.).
Regarding claim 13:
(Currently Amended) The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, has all of its limitations taught by Dettinger. Dettinger further teaches wherein the virtual viewpoint image includes, in association with the second object related to the second digital content to which the user does not have the right, metainformation of the second digital content (Dettinger [0031] The watermark for Jenna Blur further comprises contact information. The contact information comprises program code that opens a user's email application and the email address is provided to contact the owner of the Jenna Blur avatar to request release of Jenna Blur images.).
Regarding claim 14:
(Currently Amended) The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, has all of its limitations taught by Dettinger. Dettinger further teaches wherein the virtual viewpoint image includes, in association with the second object related to the second digital content to which the user does not have the right, a user interface component for obtaining a right to the second digital content (Dettinger [0031] The watermark for Jenna Blur further comprises contact information. The contact information comprises program code that opens a user's email application and the email address is provided to contact the owner of the Jenna Blur avatar to request release of Jenna Blur images.).
Regarding claim 18:
The claim is a parallel version of claim 1. As such it is rejected under the same teachings.
Regarding claim 19:
The claim is a parallel version of claim 2. As such it is rejected under the same teachings.
Regarding claim 20:
The claim is a parallel version of claim 1. As such it is rejected under the same teachings.
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) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dettinger U.S. Patent/PG Publication 20110066860 in view of Lyren U.S. Patent/PG Publication 20220327225.
Regarding claim 15:
(Currently Amended) The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, has all of its limitations taught by Dettinger. Dettinger further teaches wherein the one or more processors execute the instructions to verify whether the user has a right to the first digital content and the second digital content using a (Dettinger [0036] FIG. 3 is a flow diagram of a method of protecting an avatar or aspects thereof using an embedded security watermark 132 according to a sample embodiment of the present invention. A second avatar records an avatar with a watermark in a virtual world (step 310). The watermark engine 134 determines whether or not the avatar doing the recording meets the security preference (step 315). That is the watermark engine 134 compares the recording avatar to a security preference list to determine whether or not the recording avatar is authorized to access the avatar without alteration. If the recording avatar meets the security preference (Y-branch), then the recording avatar is allowed to record the watermarked avatar without alterations to the watermarked avatar's appearance (step 320). If the recording avatar does not meet the security preference (N-branch), then the watermark engine 134 alters the appearance of the watermarked avatar according to the alteration method previously defined in the watermark (step 330), and embeds the previously defined contact information (step 340).).
Dettinger does not teach blockchain. In a related field of endeavor, Lyren teaches:
wherein the one or more processors execute the instructions to verify whether the user has a right to the first digital content and the second digital content using a blockchain technology (Lyren [0043] In an example embodiment, the restrictions are translated into executable code or programming code of a smart contract that includes conditional statements that describe the restrictions governing future transactions and/or how the digital asset plays or is displayed. The code for the restrictions is stored in the blockchain network and replicated among the participants or nodes in the blockchain across a distributed ledger. When a term of the smart contract (e.g., ownership, restriction, etc.) is verified among the participants, the transaction executes.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use blockchain as taught by Lyren. The rationale for doing so would have been that it is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results where Dettinger checks the rights of digital content, and Lyren checks the rights of digital content using blockchain, where there are predictable results since they are performing the same check merely with different methods. Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Lyren with Dettinger to obtain the invention.
Regarding claim 16:
(Currently Amended) The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, has all of its limitations taught by Dettinger. Dettinger further teaches wherein the one or more processors execute the instructions to verify whether the user has a right to the first digital content and the second digital content based on a first digital content and the second digital content (Dettinger [0036] FIG. 3 is a flow diagram of a method of protecting an avatar or aspects thereof using an embedded security watermark 132 according to a sample embodiment of the present invention. A second avatar records an avatar with a watermark in a virtual world (step 310). The watermark engine 134 determines whether or not the avatar doing the recording meets the security preference (step 315). That is the watermark engine 134 compares the recording avatar to a security preference list to determine whether or not the recording avatar is authorized to access the avatar without alteration. If the recording avatar meets the security preference (Y-branch), then the recording avatar is allowed to record the watermarked avatar without alterations to the watermarked avatar's appearance (step 320). If the recording avatar does not meet the security preference (N-branch), then the watermark engine 134 alters the appearance of the watermarked avatar according to the alteration method previously defined in the watermark (step 330), and embeds the previously defined contact information (step 340).).
Dettinger does not teach NFT. In a related field of endeavor, Lyren teaches:
wherein the one or more processors execute the instructions to verify whether the user has a right to the first digital content and the second digital content based on a non-fungible token (NFT) added to the first digital content and the second digital content (Lyren [0024] Another problem is that each person with access to a token has equal rights to view or use the token regardless of whether the person is an owner of the token. Consider an example in which an artist creates a picture, tokenizes the picture, and offers the picture for sale as a token, such as a non-fungible token (NFT). Other people can access the token and view the picture without making a payment to the owner of the token. Granted, these other people are not owners of the token and would not appear on the blockchain, but nonetheless they can view and enjoy the picture for free.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use NFT as taught by Lyren. The rationale for doing so would have been that it is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results where Dettinger checks the rights of digital content, and Lyren checks the rights of digital content using NFT, where there are predictable results since they are performing the same check merely with different methods. Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Lyren with Dettinger to obtain the invention.
Claim(s) 8-10, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dettinger U.S. Patent/PG Publication 20110066860 in view of Miller U.S. Patent/PG Publication 20130120369.
Regarding claim 8:
(Currently Amended) The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, has all of its limitations taught by Dettinger. Dettinger further teaches wherein the content data of the second digital content includes shape data of the second object and texture data of the second object (Dettinger [0024] In one embodiment, storage 125 may include a set of avatars 131 that can be manipulated in the virtual world 130 through client application 109 on client computer 110. The avatars comprise code which defines the appearance of the avatar image to users of the virtual world. For example, the avatar may be a visual representation of the user or the user's alter ego in the form of a three-dimensional model.).
Dettinger discloses shape and texture data as describe above. However, for the purposes of compact prosecution and for further clarity, in a related field of endeavor, Miller teaches:
wherein the content data includes shape data of the object and texture data of the object (Miller [0026] Generally speaking, the 3D modeling application 50a provides a set of modeling controls to generate, position, and variously adjust three-dimensional shapes, apply textures to the shapes or surfaces, define interactions between shapes, etc. Models developed using the 3D modeling software 50a may be stored on a non-transitory, tangible computer-readable medium, such as the data storage 36, as data files including model data that conforms to a certain non-image format. For example, the non-image format may specify a set of faces of a 3D model along with the corresponding attributes, such as the position and orientation of a face, the texture of the face, etc. In an embodiment, the model data may include an indication of an author of the model. Further, model data may include a hierarchical tree data structure with branches on two or more levels describing respective components. An example tree data structure that may be used to store model data is discussed in more detail with reference to FIG. 3.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include shape and texture data as taught by Miller. The rationale for doing so would have been that it is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results where Dettinger includes 3D models having rights, and Miller includes 3D objects having rights, where there are predictable results since they are both digital assets with rights management. Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Miller with Dettinger to obtain the invention.
Regarding claim 9:
(Currently Amended) The information processing apparatus according to claim 8, has all of its limitations taught by Dettinger in view of Miller. Dettinger further teaches wherein the shape data of the second object is data indicating a three-dimensional shape of the second object, (Dettinger [0024] In one embodiment, storage 125 may include a set of avatars 131 that can be manipulated in the virtual world 130 through client application 109 on client computer 110. The avatars comprise code which defines the appearance of the avatar image to users of the virtual world. For example, the avatar may be a visual representation of the user or the user's alter ego in the form of a three-dimensional model.).
Regarding claim 10:
(Original) The information processing apparatus according to claim 8, has all of its limitations taught by Dettinger in view of Miller. Dettinger further teaches wherein an image of the second object which is in the virtual viewpoint image and which is related to the second digital content to which the user does not have the right is generated in accordance with only a part of a data group composed of the shape data and the texture data (Dettinger [0026] Graphical information to cause alteration of the avatar when the avatar is recorded comprises program code that determines when the avatar is being recorded and program code to alter the avatar image in response to detecting recording of the avatar image. The avatar may be altered by one or more of: pixilation, blurring, censoring, abstracting, mirroring, or distortion of at least a part of the avatar image; change in the hue, tone, saturation, brightness, or scale of the avatar image; graphical text, symbol, or icon inserted over or under the avatar image; aging, fading, or scrambling the avatar image relative to other images in an environment; and slowing or accelerating movement of the avatar image relative to other images in an environment. The graphical information may be in the form of program code which is executed when the avatar image is recorded using known technology.) since the avatar is altered, the generated avatar only has part of its shape and texture.
Regarding claim 12:
(Currently Amended) The information processing apparatus according to claim 8, has all of its limitations taught by Dettinger in view of Miller. Dettinger further teaches wherein in the virtual viewpoint image, the second object related to the second digital content to which the user does not have the right is generated in accordance with shape data or texture data that has a lower resolution than the shape data or the texture data included in the content data of the second digital content (Dettinger [0026] Graphical information to cause alteration of the avatar when the avatar is recorded comprises program code that determines when the avatar is being recorded and program code to alter the avatar image in response to detecting recording of the avatar image. The avatar may be altered by one or more of: pixilation, blurring, censoring, abstracting, mirroring, or distortion of at least a part of the avatar image; change in the hue, tone, saturation, brightness, or scale of the avatar image; graphical text, symbol, or icon inserted over or under the avatar image; aging, fading, or scrambling the avatar image relative to other images in an environment; and slowing or accelerating movement of the avatar image relative to other images in an environment. The graphical information may be in the form of program code which is executed when the avatar image is recorded using known technology.) since at least pixelation and scale would be a lower resolution shape/texture.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dettinger U.S. Patent/PG Publication 20110066860 in view of Miller U.S. Patent/PG Publication 20130120369 and Gisslen U.S. Patent/PG Publication 20210366183.
Regarding claim 11:
(Original) The information processing apparatus according to claim 8, has all of its limitations taught by Dettinger in view of Miller.
Dettinger does not teach not displaying the texture, although they teach changing numerous appearance aspects. In a related field of endeavor, Gisslen teaches:
wherein the second object which is in the virtual viewpoint image and which is related to the second digital content to which the user does not have the right is based on the shape data, while a texture image based on the texture data is not added to the second object (Gisslen [0063] For example, the texture was not have loaded correctly, the texture was not found in the asset database, or otherwise not available. In these cases, a default placeholder texture can be used.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to display a default placeholder when the texture is not available as taught by Gisslen. The motivation for doing so would have been to prevent a glitch when the user does not have access to the texture (Gisslen [0063]). Further, the rationale for doing so would have been that it combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, since Dettinger is obscuring the appearance of a model based on rights, and Gisslen is adding a default texture for when a model cannot be textured, such as if there were not appropriate permissions in Dettinger, where the end result would yield predictable results of applying a default texture to a model. Therefore it would have been obvious to combine Gisslen with Dettinger in view of Miller to obtain the invention.
Conclusion
For the prior art referenced and the prior art considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure but not relied upon, see PTO-892 “Notice of References Cited”.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON PRINGLE-PARKER whose telephone number is (571) 272-5690 and e-mail is jason.pringle-parker@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30am-5:00pm est Monday-Friday. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, King Poon can be reached on (571) 270-0728. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, seehttp://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JASON A PRINGLE-PARKER/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2617