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
The Amendment filed February 24th, 2026, has been entered. Claims 1, 5-24 remain pending in the application. Claims 1, 5-16, and 18-22 have been amended. Claim 17 has not been amended. Claims 23-24 are newly added. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification, Drawings, and Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed November 24th, 2025. Examiner acknowledges that applicant has amended Claims 1, 2, 8, 9, and 11 such that they no longer invoke 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 7, 11-12, and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Guerin (US Patent No. 11279022).
Regarding Claim 1, Guerin teaches an information processing apparatus comprising:
at least one processor circuit with a memory comprising instructions (Column 19, lines 37-47: “FIG. 25 depicts an illustrative embodiment of a computer system 2500 that may be used in computing devices such as, e.g., but not limited to, standalone or client or server devices. FIG. 25 depicts an illustrative embodiment of a computer system that may be used as client device, or a server device, etc. The present invention (or any part(s) or function(s) thereof) may be implemented using hardware, software, firmware, or a combination thereof and may be implemented in one or more computer systems or other processing systems”; Column 20, lines 27-28: “The computer system 2500 may include one or more processors, such as, e.g., but not limited to, processor(s)”; Column 20, lines 38-41: “The processor 2504 may include logic configured to execute computer-executable instructions configured to implement one or more embodiments. The instructions may reside in main memory 2508 or secondary memory 2510”) that, when executed by the at least one processor circuit, cause the at least one processor circuit to at least:
control behavior of either a first avatar that is an avatar movable in a virtual space or a second avatar that is an avatar robot movable in a real space, based on a user operation (Column 7, lines 29-39: “User movement in the virtual environment may be accomplished by, for example, joystick input (e.g., Razer Hydra™ wands). The position and orientation of the user's viewpoint in the virtual environment follow their head motion, motion commanded from a joystick, or their physical motion, as determined by a body tracking device or sensors. In one embodiment, the user may be represented by right and left hand avatars. The hand avatars may follow the position of the users hands via motion sensors held by user 390 (e.g., Razer wands), and may be calibrated to user's head so they appear proprioceptively aligned”; Column 7, lines 51, 62-64: “Robot 110 may be represented by virtual robot 210 … User 390 may interact with the real world robot 110 via the virtual robot 210 (and in effect moving the real robot)” Notes: the second avatar is the robot 110, which is a real world robot); and
switch between a first mode for displaying a virtual video of the virtual space in which the first avatar is movable, the virtual video not including the second avatar, a second mode for displaying a real viewpoint video that the second avatar in the real space, based on the user operation (Column 9, lines 9-20: “information … may be displayed by virtual information displays VIDs. VIDs can be created programmatically by the system or can be spawned on demand by the user, using any input interface. VIDs are created as 2D or 3D sprites in the virtual environment that are textured with a pre-generated texture. This texture can display text, static images, video streams or 2D visual information. VIDs may provide the ability to use 3D information displays to monitor robot state, textual information, video feeds or other information from one or multiple robotic systems”; Column 15, lines 32-37: “User 390 may view the virtual dexterous entity multiple perspectives, and these multiple perspectives may be selectable by user 390. For example, the user 390 may view the dexterous entity from an egocentric perspective, where the user 390 operates the virtual dexterous entity from a point of view of the virtual dexterous entity”; The virtual dexterous entity is a robot in real space made controllable through a virtual space, in which an avatar representative of the user can move in (Figure 2), and an avatar representative of the robot can be interacted with (Figure 2). Notes: “video feeds or other information from one or multiple robotic systems” is encompasses a real viewpoint video of the robot. Since a VID can be spawned in as desired by the user in a variety of manners, the user is able to switch from a mode displaying a video of a virtual space to a mode displaying a video feed of the real robot in the VID, where the user operation is the spawning of the VID. The virtual video does not display the second avatar (which is a real world robot 110, which is separate from its virtual counterpart 210)); and
Cause a display device to display either the virtual video or the real viewpoint video, superimpose and display a place image representing a place in the real space where the second avatar is present, on a predetermined area of the virtual video in the first mode in which the virtual video is being displayed (Column 9, lines 9-20: “information … may be displayed by virtual information displays VIDs. VIDs can be created programmatically by the system or can be spawned on demand by the user, using any input interface. VIDs are created as 2D or 3D sprites in the virtual environment that are textured with a pre-generated texture. This texture can display text, static images, video streams or 2D visual information. VIDs may provide the ability to use 3D information displays to monitor robot state, textual information, video feeds or other information from one or multiple robotic systems”; Column 15, lines 32-37: “User 390 may view the virtual dexterous entity multiple perspectives, and these multiple perspectives may be selectable by user 390. For example, the user 390 may view the dexterous entity from an egocentric perspective, where the user 390 operates the virtual dexterous entity from a point of view of the virtual dexterous entity”; Where the virtual dexterous entity is a representation of the robot in real space made controllable through a virtual space, in which an avatar representative of the user can move in (Figure 2), and an avatar representative of the avatar robot can be interacted with (Figure 2); Column 9, lines 20-29: “VIDs may be moved around by the user (or programmatically), or attached to arbitrary transformation frames in the environment. This is achieved by enforcing that the pose of the VID in the 3D environment to follow the positional frames of the user or other entities in the environment through a static geometric transform. In this way VIDs can be “attached” to the user or robot, to follow his or her position. The VID may be locked to a robotic avatar, by creating a static geometric transformation between some reference frame on the robot and the VID”. Notes: “video feeds or other information from one or multiple robotic systems” encompasses a real viewpoint video of a robot, which provides information about where the robot is currently present. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a “predetermined area” in context with the claim language is taken to be an area considered for the purpose of superimposing an image of the place where the second avatar is. Therefore, since Guerin teaches in Column 9, lines 9-20 that the VID is a 2D or 3D sprite textured to display a multitude of information, including a video feed from a robot, a real viewpoint video of the robot is superimposed on a 2D or 3D sprite serving as the predetermined area. Guerin suggests in Column 9, lines 20-29 that the VID can be attached to a robotic avatar, therefore the virtual robot avatar is also considered a predetermined area for displaying an image of where the second avatar is. A “display device” is inherently present through displaying the virtual video or real viewpoint video of the robot, such as in Figure 2), and
In a case where a specific motion is made for the predetermined area, based on the user operation, the first mode is switched to the second mode (Column 9, lines 9-20: “information … may be displayed by virtual information displays VIDs. VIDs can be created programmatically by the system or can be spawned on demand by the user, using any input interface. VIDs are created as 2D or 3D sprites in the virtual environment that are textured with a pre-generated texture. This texture can display text, static images, video streams or 2D visual information. VIDs may provide the ability to use 3D information displays to monitor robot state, textual information, video feeds or other information from one or multiple robotic systems”; Column 15, lines 32-37: “User 390 may view the virtual dexterous entity multiple perspectives, and these multiple perspectives may be selectable by user 390. For example, the user 390 may view the dexterous entity from an egocentric perspective, where the user 390 operates the virtual dexterous entity from a point of view of the virtual dexterous entity”; Column 8, lines 15-20: “In one embodiment, interactions with virtual entities (tools, GUIs, virtual robots) take place via selection by proximity”. Notes: as established, the virtual robot avatar qualifies as a “predetermined area”, and can be operated from the switchable point of view of the robot using the video feed of the real robot avatar. The user is able to switch between the modes via interaction with the virtual robot avatar),
Wherein a display content is changed from the virtual video to the real viewpoint video in response to the switch from the first mode to the second mode Column 9, lines 9-20: “information … may be displayed by virtual information displays VIDs. VIDs can be created programmatically by the system or can be spawned on demand by the user, using any input interface. VIDs are created as 2D or 3D sprites in the virtual environment that are textured with a pre-generated texture. This texture can display text, static images, video streams or 2D visual information. VIDs may provide the ability to use 3D information displays to monitor robot state, textual information, video feeds or other information from one or multiple robotic systems”; Column 15, lines 32-37: “User 390 may view the virtual dexterous entity multiple perspectives, and these multiple perspectives may be selectable by user 390. For example, the user 390 may view the dexterous entity from an egocentric perspective, where the user 390 operates the virtual dexterous entity from a point of view of the virtual dexterous entity”; Column 8, lines 15-20: “In one embodiment, interactions with virtual entities (tools, GUIs, virtual robots) take place via selection by proximity”. Notes: as established, the virtual robot avatar qualifies as a “predetermined area”, and can be operated from the switchable point of view of the robot using the video feed of the real robot avatar. The user is able to switch between the modes via interaction with the virtual robot avatar, changing display content from the virtual environment to the video feed of the real robot avatar),
Wherein the behavior of the second avatar is controlled based on the user operation, after the change from the virtual video to the real viewpoint video Column 7, lines 51, 62-64: “Robot 110 may be represented by virtual robot 210 … User 390 may interact with the real world robot 110 via the virtual robot 210 (and in effect moving the real robot)”; Column 15, lines 32-37: “User 390 may view the virtual dexterous entity multiple perspectives, and these multiple perspectives may be selectable by user 390. For example, the user 390 may view the dexterous entity from an egocentric perspective, where the user 390 operates the virtual dexterous entity from a point of view of the virtual dexterous entity”; Column 9, lines 17-20: “VIDs may provide the ability to use 3D information displays to monitor robot state, textual information, video feeds or other information from one or multiple robotic systems”. Notes: as established, the real robot avatar can be operated from the switchable point of view of the robot using the video feed of the real robot avatar, through the user’s interaction with the virtual robot avatar. The user is able to switch between the modes via interaction with the virtual robot avatar),
Wherein the specific motion includes a motion to cause the first avatar to get close to a position of the predetermined area on which the place image is superimposed and displayed, in the virtual space (Column 8, lines 15-17: “In one embodiment, interactions with virtual entities (tools, GUIs, virtual robots) take place via selection by proximity”, where the virtual robot is established as interactable, and as a predetermined area, as established in Claim 2; Column 9, lines 9-20: “information … may be displayed by virtual information displays VIDs. VIDs can be created programmatically by the system or can be spawned on demand by the user, using any input interface. VIDs are created as 2D or 3D sprites in the virtual environment that are textured with a pre-generated texture. This texture can display text, static images, video streams or 2D visual information. VIDs may provide the ability to use 3D information displays to monitor robot state, textual information, video feeds or other information from one or multiple robotic systems”; Column 9, lines 20-29: “VIDs may be moved around by the user (or programmatically), or attached to arbitrary transformation frames in the environment. This is achieved by enforcing that the pose of the VID in the 3D environment to follow the positional frames of the user or other entities in the environment through a static geometric transform. In this way VIDs can be “attached” to the user or robot, to follow his or her position. The VID may be locked to a robotic avatar, by creating a static geometric transformation between some reference frame on the robot and the VID”. Notes: as established, the virtual robot avatar qualifies as a “predetermined area”. The user is able to interact with virtual entities by the proximity of the user avatar to the virtual entity)
Or a motion to cause the first avatar to get close to the position of the predetermined area on which the place image is superimposed and displayed, to have a threshold distance, in the virtual space (Column 8, lines 15-17: “In one embodiment, interactions with virtual entities (tools, GUIs, virtual robots) take place via selection by proximity”, where the virtual robot is established as interactable, and as a predetermined area, as established in Claim 2; Column 9, lines 9-20: “information … may be displayed by virtual information displays VIDs. VIDs can be created programmatically by the system or can be spawned on demand by the user, using any input interface. VIDs are created as 2D or 3D sprites in the virtual environment that are textured with a pre-generated texture. This texture can display text, static images, video streams or 2D visual information. VIDs may provide the ability to use 3D information displays to monitor robot state, textual information, video feeds or other information from one or multiple robotic systems”; Column 9, lines 20-29: “VIDs may be moved around by the user (or programmatically), or attached to arbitrary transformation frames in the environment. This is achieved by enforcing that the pose of the VID in the 3D environment to follow the positional frames of the user or other entities in the environment through a static geometric transform. In this way VIDs can be “attached” to the user or robot, to follow his or her position. The VID may be locked to a robotic avatar, by creating a static geometric transformation between some reference frame on the robot and the VID”. Notes: as established, the virtual robot avatar qualifies as a “predetermined area”. The user is able to interact with virtual entities by the proximity of the user avatar to the virtual entity. A threshold is inherent to proximity-based detection for interaction).
Regarding Claim 7, the information processing apparatus according to Claim 1 is rejected over Guerin.
Guerin teaches the predetermined area is at least a partial area in the virtual space (Column 9, lines 9-20: “information … may be displayed by virtual information displays VIDs. VIDs can be created programmatically by the system or can be spawned on demand by the user, using any input interface. VIDs are created as 2D or 3D sprites in the virtual environment that are textured with a pre-generated texture. This texture can display text, static images, video streams or 2D visual information. VIDs may provide the ability to use 3D information displays to monitor robot state, textual information, video feeds or other information from one or multiple robotic systems”. Following the analysis of a “predetermined area” from Claim 1, the VID by virtue of being a 2D or 3D sprite within the virtual space, is at least a partial area in the virtual space).
Regarding Claim 11, the information processing apparatus according to Claim 1 is rejected over Guerin.
Guerin teaches instructions, that when executed by the at least one processor circuit, further cause the at least one processor circuit (Column 19, lines 37-47: “FIG. 25 depicts an illustrative embodiment of a computer system 2500 that may be used in computing devices such as, e.g., but not limited to, standalone or client or server devices. FIG. 25 depicts an illustrative embodiment of a computer system that may be used as client device, or a server device, etc. The present invention (or any part(s) or function(s) thereof) may be implemented using hardware, software, firmware, or a combination thereof and may be implemented in one or more computer systems or other processing systems”; Column 20, lines 27-28: “The computer system 2500 may include one or more processors, such as, e.g., but not limited to, processor(s)”; Column 20, lines 38-41: “The processor 2504 may include logic configured to execute computer-executable instructions configured to implement one or more embodiments. The instructions may reside in main memory 2508 or secondary memory 2510”) to at least:
Cause a display device worn by a user (Column 15, lines 11-16: “the virtual reality system may transmit the IVE to a user 390. The user 390 may view the IVE using one or more visual devices (e.g., … a virtual reality headset, an augmented reality device, virtual reality goggles, augmented reality glasses, Oculus Rift™, Google Glass™, etc.)”)
to display either the virtual video or the real viewpoint video, wherein the second mode is switched to the first mode, in a case where a specific motion is made, based on the user operation (Column 9, lines 9-20: “information … may be displayed by virtual information displays VIDs. VIDs can be created programmatically by the system or can be spawned on demand by the user, using any input interface. VIDs are created as 2D or 3D sprites in the virtual environment that are textured with a pre-generated texture. This texture can display text, static images, video streams or 2D visual information. VIDs may provide the ability to use 3D information displays to monitor robot state, textual information, video feeds or other information from one or multiple robotic systems”; Column 15, lines 32-37: “User 390 may view the virtual dexterous entity multiple perspectives, and these multiple perspectives may be selectable by user 390. For example, the user 390 may view the dexterous entity from an egocentric perspective, where the user 390 operates the virtual dexterous entity from a point of view of the virtual dexterous entity”; Column 8, lines 15-20: “In one embodiment, interactions with virtual entities (tools, GUIs, virtual robots) take place via selection by proximity”; Column 8, lines 15-20: “In one embodiment, interactions with virtual entities (tools, GUIs, virtual robots) take place via selection by proximity”. Notes: as established, the user can either be in a first mode displaying a virtual environment, or a second mode displaying the point of view of a real robot avatar via its video feed. The user is able to display the real viewpoint video of the robot via interacting with the virtual robot avatar).
Regarding Claim 12, the information processing apparatus according to Claim 11 is rejected over Guerin.
Guerin teaches instructions, that when executed by the at least one processor circuit, further cause the at least one processor circuit to at least:
display the real viewpoint video of the second avatar in the second mode (Column 9, lines 9-20: “information … may be displayed by virtual information displays VIDs. VIDs can be created programmatically by the system or can be spawned on demand by the user, using any input interface. VIDs are created as 2D or 3D sprites in the virtual environment that are textured with a pre-generated texture. This texture can display text, static images, video streams or 2D visual information. VIDs may provide the ability to use 3D information displays to monitor robot state, textual information, video feeds or other information from one or multiple robotic systems”; Column 15, lines 32-37: “User 390 may view the virtual dexterous entity multiple perspectives, and these multiple perspectives may be selectable by user 390. For example, the user 390 may view the dexterous entity from an egocentric perspective, where the user 390 operates the virtual dexterous entity from a point of view of the virtual dexterous entity”), and
in a case where the specific motion is made and the second mode is switched to the first mode (Column 13, line 67, Column 14, lines 1-5: “The ability to engage/disengage from control/interaction with a robot avatar in first person perspective using gestures may be provided”),
superimpose a real viewpoint video of at least a partial area of the real viewpoint video of the second avatar on a predetermined area of the virtual video, and displays the virtual video (Column 9, lines 9-20: “information … may be displayed by virtual information displays VIDs. VIDs can be created programmatically by the system or can be spawned on demand by the user, using any input interface. VIDs are created as 2D or 3D sprites in the virtual environment that are textured with a pre-generated texture. This texture can display text, static images, video streams or 2D visual information. VIDs may provide the ability to use 3D information displays to monitor robot state, textual information, video feeds or other information from one or multiple robotic systems”; Refer to Figure 2 for the virtual environment that is displayed to the user through virtual video; Column 9, lines 20-29: “VIDs may be moved around by the user (or programmatically), or attached to arbitrary transformation frames in the environment. This is achieved by enforcing that the pose of the VID in the 3D environment to follow the positional frames of the user or other entities in the environment through a static geometric transform. In this way VIDs can be “attached” to the user or robot, to follow his or her position. The VID may be locked to a robotic avatar, by creating a static geometric transformation between some reference frame on the robot and the VID”. Notes: as established, the virtual robot avatar qualifies as a predetermined area in its broadest reasonable interpretation).
Claim 21, being similar in scope to Claim 1, is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 22, being similar in scope to Claim 1, is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 5-6, 8-9, 13, 15, 17, and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guerin (US Patent No. 10350751).
Regarding Claim 5, the information processing apparatus according to Claim 1 is rejected over Guerin.
Guerin teaches an information apparatus wherein in a case where the specific motion is made, the display content of the predetermined area can be changed from the place image representing the place in the real space where the second avatar is present to a real viewpoint video of at least a partial area of the real viewpoint video of the second avatar (Column 9, lines 9-20: “information … may be displayed by virtual information displays VIDs. VIDs can be created programmatically by the system or can be spawned on demand by the user, using any input interface. VIDs are created as 2D or 3D sprites in the virtual environment that are textured with a pre-generated texture. This texture can display text, static images, video streams or 2D visual information. VIDs may provide the ability to use 3D information displays to monitor robot state, textual information, video feeds or other information from one or multiple robotic systems”; Column 9, lines 20-29: “VIDs may be moved around by the user (or programmatically), or attached to arbitrary transformation frames in the environment. This is achieved by enforcing that the pose of the VID in the 3D environment to follow the positional frames of the user or other entities in the environment through a static geometric transform. In this way VIDs can be “attached” to the user or robot, to follow his or her position. The VID may be locked to a robotic avatar, by creating a static geometric transformation between some reference frame on the robot and the VID” Notes: the real viewpoint video of the second avatar (real robot) is also defined inherently as being at least a partial area of itself. As previously established, the virtual robot avatar qualifies as a predetermined area in its broadest reasonable interpretation).
Guerin does not explicitly teach an information processing apparatus switching a place image of where the second avatar is present to a real viewpoint video of at least a partial area of the real viewpoint video of the second avatar.
However, it would have been obvious within the art to switch the texture of a 2D or 3D sprite within a virtual space, and switch the texture of the 2D or 3D sprite from a place image of where the second avatar is present to a real viewpoint video of at least a partial area of the real viewpoint video of the second avatar. Guerin teaches the general motivation for doing so (Paragraph 45: “The relationship between user 390 and the robot 110 for a given task (e.g., the role of the user) may determine the required frequency, fidelity and latency of information flow for a given task. For example, user 390 teleoperating robot 110 requires low-latency, high-frequency, high-degree-of-freedom (DOF) control, as well as real-time feedback from the robot about its state”). It is well known within the art that supplying an image from a robot rather than a video feed from a robot would require less resources; the motivation for having the predetermined area display an image rather than a video would be to limit unnecessary resource use, and to only display the video if the user is going to interact with the virtual robot (and hence the real robot)
The knowledge of switching the texture of a 2D or 3D sprite within a virtual space is known in the art, and the motivation for displaying an image in place of a video is well known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the VID of Guerin to incorporate texture swapping an image of the place where the second avatar is present to a real viewpoint video of at least a partial area of the real viewpoint video of the second avatar, due to the aforementioned, readily available knowledge and motivation in the art; doing so would yield the predictable result of efficient use of the resources of a device displaying the virtual space, especially with regards to scaling the number of robots involved.
Regarding Claim 6, the information processing apparatus of Claim 5 is rejected over Guerin.
Guerin teaches an information processing apparatus wherein in a case where the first mode is switched to the second mode, the display device is caused to display the real viewpoint video of the second avatar including the real viewpoint video of at least the partial area (Column 9, 9-20: “information … may be displayed by virtual information displays VIDs. VIDs can be created programmatically by the system or can be spawned on demand by the user, using any input interface. VIDs are created as 2D or 3D sprites in the virtual environment that are textured with a pre-generated texture. This texture can display text, static images, video streams or 2D visual information. VIDs may provide the ability to use 3D information displays to monitor robot state, textual information, video feeds or other information from one or multiple robotic systems”; Column 15, lines 32-37: “User 390 may view the virtual dexterous entity multiple perspectives, and these multiple perspectives may be selectable by user 390. For example, the user 390 may view the dexterous entity from an egocentric perspective, where the user 390 operates the virtual dexterous entity from a point of view of the virtual dexterous entity”; Refer to Figure 2 for a depiction of the first mode. Notes: User is able to switch between a first mode operating a user avatar in a virtual environment as depicted by Figure 2 to a second mode operating a real robot avatar via a virtual robot avatar from the perspective of the real robot avatar using its video feed. As previously stated, the real viewpoint video of the second avatar (real robot) is also defined inherently as being at least a partial area of itself).
Guerin does not explicitly teach that upon switching between the first and second mode, the display device is caused to display the real viewpoint video of the second avatar including the real viewpoint video of at least the partial area without changing a display position of the real viewpoint video of at least the partial area displayed in the predetermined area.
However, it would have been obvious within the art that the display position of the real viewpoint video of at least the partial area displayed in the predetermined area does not change. Locking the position of a 2D or 3D sprite displaying video, such as the VID of Guerin, to a static position within a virtual space is well established, and is anticipated by Guerin suggesting that the VID can be locked to a non-static entity (Column 9, lines 27-29: “The VID may be locked to a robotic avatar, by creating a static geometric transformation between some reference frame on the robot and the VID”). The motivation for locking the VID to a static entity or position within the virtual space as opposed to locking it to a non-static entity would be reducing visual clutter, especially if a third person view of the virtual space is used when operating the virtual robot.
Keeping a display position of a real viewpoint video of at least the partial area displayed in the predetermined area within a virtual space constant is anticipated by the non-static locking ability of the VID of Guerin. The motivation for doing so is apparent in the art, as keeping visual clutter to a minimum when operating a robot through a virtual space is a common practice for allowing ease of use by the user. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the VID of Guerin such that the VID is locked to a static entity or position; doing so would yield the predictable result of reducing visual clutter and increasing ease of use, especially with regards to third person operation in a virtual space.
Regarding Claim 8, the information processing apparatus according to Claim 1 is rejected over Guerin.
Guerin teaches an information processing apparatus wherein the first mode includes a third person mode for displaying the virtual video including the first avatar and a virtual viewpoint mode for displaying the virtual video viewed from a virtual viewpoint of the first avatar (Column 7, lines 29-39: “User movement in the virtual environment may be accomplished by, for example, joystick input (e.g., Razer Hydra™ wands). The position and orientation of the user's viewpoint in the virtual environment follow their head motion, motion commanded from a joystick, or their physical motion, as determined by a body tracking device or sensors. In one embodiment, the user may be represented by right and left hand avatars”; Figure 2 illustrates the point of view of the user avatar; Column 15, lines 32-42: “User 390 may view the virtual dexterous entity multiple perspectives, and these multiple perspectives may be selectable by user 390. For example, the user 390 may view the dexterous entity from an egocentric perspective, where the user 390 operates the virtual dexterous entity from a point of view of the virtual dexterous entity … In another perspective, user 390 may view the virtual dexterous entity inside the IVE from a point of view external to the virtual dexterous entity (e.g., exocentric perspective)”),
and the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor circuit, further cause the at least one processor circuit to at least (Column 19, lines 37-47: “FIG. 25 depicts an illustrative embodiment of a computer system 2500 that may be used in computing devices such as, e.g., but not limited to, standalone or client or server devices. FIG. 25 depicts an illustrative embodiment of a computer system that may be used as client device, or a server device, etc. The present invention (or any part(s) or function(s) thereof) may be implemented using hardware, software, firmware, or a combination thereof and may be implemented in one or more computer systems or other processing systems”; Column 20, lines 27-28: “The computer system 2500 may include one or more processors, such as, e.g., but not limited to, processor(s)”; Column 20, lines 38-41: “The processor 2504 may include logic configured to execute computer-executable instructions configured to implement one or more embodiments. The instructions may reside in main memory 2508 or secondary memory 2510”. Notes: An exocentric viewpoint encompasses a bird’s-eye view in its definition)
switch from the exocentric view mode to the virtual viewpoint mode, in a case where the specific motion is made in the bird's-eye view mode in the first mode (Column 9, lines 9-20): “information … may be displayed by virtual information displays VIDs. VIDs can be created programmatically by the system or can be spawned on demand by the user, using any input interface. VIDs are created as 2D or 3D sprites in the virtual environment that are textured with a pre-generated texture. This texture can display text, static images, video streams or 2D visual information. VIDs may provide the ability to use 3D information displays to monitor robot state, textual information, video feeds or other information from one or multiple robotic systems”; Note that Figure 6 demonstrates how a user’s specific motion can select a viewpoint).
Guerin does explicitly teach an information processing apparatus wherein the first mode includes a bird’s-eye view mode.
However, displaying avatars in a bird’s-eye viewpoint is well established within the art as being encompassed by the definition of an exocentric viewpoint. Given that viewpoints in virtual spaces are manipulated through camera placement and selection, it would constitute no significant step to generate bird’s-eye viewpoints for additional avatars in a space from an existing exocentric viewpoint. The motivation for implementing egocentric and exocentric viewpoint modes for avatars is well documented within the art, and also reiterated by Guerin (Column 8, lines 40-56: “The egocentric perspective allows user 390 to place themselves “inside” virtual robot 210 and operate it from the robot's point of view. This is enabled by placing the user's viewpoint in such a position that the visible virtual geometry of the robot overlaps with the spatial region that would normally correspond to the user's arm. Instead of seeing their own arm, they see the robot's arm, allowing the user to make natural movements with his or her own arm and see the robot arm behaving in the same way. This allows the user to have more of a proprioceptive grounding in the control of virtual robot 210. Conversely, the exocentric perspective allows user 390 to use his or her visual perception of the scene, for example leaning in to examine fine details of the scene closely to make precise adjustments. The user's viewpoint is fixed to be in alignment with virtual robot 210 for egocentric and it is mobile for exocentric perspectives”). The motivation for using a bird’s-eye viewpoint follows from the motivation for using an exocentric perspective.
Having the ability to switch between the two viewpoints would allow the user maximize the benefits a viewpoint can provide them during the control of the avatar. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the information processing apparatus of Guerin to encompass a bird’s-eye view mode for displaying the virtual video including the first avatar, and integrate switching between the preexisting virtual viewpoint mode for displaying the virtual video viewed from a virtual viewpoint of the first avatar with the bird’s eye view mode through the existing switching mechanism of the VIDs.
Regarding Claim 9, the information processing apparatus according to Claim 1 is rejected over Guerin. Claim 9, being similar in scope to Claim 8, is rejected under the same rationale, with the distinction “that an instruction from a user in the first mode” is similarly taught by Guerin (Column 15, lines 32-35): “User 390 may view the virtual dexterous entity multiple perspectives, and these multiple perspectives may be selectable by user 390”, as demonstrated in Figure 6).
Regarding Claim 13, the information processing apparatus according to Claim 12 is rejected over Guerin. The subject matter of Claim 13 is similar in scope to Claims 8-9 with respect to a bird’s-eye view mode for displaying the virtual video including the first avatar and a virtual viewpoint mode for displaying the virtual video viewed from a virtual viewpoint of the first avatar, and similar in scope to Claim 11-12 with respect to a case where the specific motion is made, and the second mode is switched to the first mode, the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor circuit to at least superimpose a real viewpoint video of at least the partial area on a predetermined area of the virtual video in the virtual viewpoint mode, and display the virtual video, and is analyzed under the same rationale; therefore, Claim 13 is rejected over Guerin.
Regarding Claim 15, the information processing apparatus according to Claim 12 is rejected over Guerin. The subject matter of Claim 15 is similar in scope to Claims 8-9 with respect to a bird’s-eye view mode for displaying the virtual video including the first avatar and a virtual viewpoint mode for displaying the virtual video viewed from a virtual viewpoint of the first avatar, and similar in scope to Claim 8-9, 11-12 with respect to a case where the specific motion is made, and the second mode is switched to the first mode, the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor circuit, further causes the at least one processor circuit to at least superimpose a real viewpoint video of at least the partial area on a predetermined area of the virtual video in the bird’s-eye view mode, and display the virtual video, and is analyzed under the same rationale; therefore, Claim 15 is rejected over Guerin.
Regarding Claim 17, the information processing apparatus according to Claim 11 is rejected over Guerin.
Guerin teaches a second avatar contained within a movable area with defined boundaries (Column 7, lines 16-18: “the virtual environment may take the form of any 3D representation of an indoor or outdoor environment (e.g., a 10×10 meter room)”; Column 3, lines 1-3: “The term “dexterous entity” may refer to a robot such as a robotic arm or any robot that may move and require programming”; Column 14, lines 49-52: “a real-world dexterous entity (e.g., robot 110, an industrial robot, a domestic robot, an articulated welding robot, an autonomous robot, a military robot, a medical robot, etc.”)
Guerin does not explicitly teach that the second avatar in a movable area within a real space may get close to a boundary of said movable area.
However, it would have been obvious within the art that a robot operated by a user may operate a robot such that it performs an act of motion to get close to a boundary within a real space. Such knowledge is implicit, especially with regards to a representation of an indoor environment such as 10x10 meter room containing a dexterous entity (a movable robot). The motivation for doing so would be to allow reasonable range of motion of a robot within an environment. It is worth noting that in the broadest reasonable interpretation of a “boundary of a movable area” in the real space, this would include the z axis (the floor), which would lead to ground-based robots to always be close to a boundary of a movable area.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dexterous entity within the environment of Guerin such that the dexterous entity can be instructed by a user to move toward a boundary of the moveable area; doing so would yield the predictable result of allowing a robot to operate throughout all of the space within the boundaries of the real space.
Regarding Claim 23, the information processing apparatus according to Claim 8 is rejected over Guerin.
Guerin teaches the virtual video including the first avatar in the bird’s-eye view mode (Column 15, lines 32-42: “User 390 may view the virtual dexterous entity multiple perspectives, and these multiple perspectives may be selectable by user 390. For example, the user 390 may view the dexterous entity from an egocentric perspective, where the user 390 operates the virtual dexterous entity from a point of view of the virtual dexterous entity … In another perspective, user 390 may view the virtual dexterous entity inside the IVE from a point of view external to the virtual dexterous entity (e.g., exocentric perspective)”; Figure 2; Figure 6. Notes: as asserted previously, exocentric viewpoint encompasses bird’s-eye viewpoint within its definition), and
Does not include the second avatar (Column 7, lines 51, 62-64: “Robot 110 may be represented by virtual robot 210 … User 390 may interact with the real world robot 110 via the virtual robot 210 (and in effect moving the real robot)” Notes: the second avatar is the robot 110, which is a real world robot, and is separate from the virtual robot avatar in its depiction in a virtual environment).
Regarding Claim 24, the information processing apparatus according to Claim 8 is rejected over Guerin.
Guerin teaches that the virtual video does not include the second avatar in the virtual viewpoint mode (Column 7, lines 51, 62-64: “Robot 110 may be represented by virtual robot 210 … User 390 may interact with the real world robot 110 via the virtual robot 210 (and in effect moving the real robot)” Notes: the second avatar is the robot 110, which is a real world robot, and is separate from the virtual robot avatar in its depiction in a virtual environment).
Guerin does not teach that the virtual video does not include the first avatar in the virtual viewpoint mode.
However, it is well known in the art that controlling an avatar does not necessitate visual indicators of the avatar in the viewpoint for the avatar. A person having ordinary skill in the art can change the camera position of the avatar viewpoint such that the avatar is not visible in the field of view (virtual video) of the camera, or otherwise make the avatar not visible in general when operating in the virtual viewpoint mode; such practices are established in the art with respect to virtual environments and avatars operating in virtual environments.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the virtual viewpoint mode of Guerin such that the first avatar is not visible in the virtual video of the virtual viewpoint mode; Doing so would yield the predictable result of virtual video with no clutter to maximize information gain of the virtual environment in which the first avatar is operating in.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guerin (US Patent No. 10350751), in view of RVR (Unity Game Creator – Player Switch, YouTube. Time: 14:50 – 15:10).
Regarding Claim 10, the information processing apparatus according to Claim 1 is rejected over Guerin.
Guerin teaches an information processing apparatus, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor circuit, further cause the at least one processor circuit (Column 19, lines 37-47: “FIG. 25 depicts an illustrative embodiment of a computer system 2500 that may be used in computing devices such as, e.g., but not limited to, standalone or client or server devices. FIG. 25 depicts an illustrative embodiment of a computer system that may be used as client device, or a server device, etc. The present invention (or any part(s) or function(s) thereof) may be implemented using hardware, software, firmware, or a combination thereof and may be implemented in one or more computer systems or other processing systems”; Column 20, lines 27-28: “The computer system 2500 may include one or more processors, such as, e.g., but not limited to, processor(s)”; Column 20, lines 38-41: “The processor 2504 may include logic configured to execute computer-executable instructions configured to implement one or more embodiments. The instructions may reside in main memory 2508 or secondary memory 2510”) to at least cause
the first avatar to get close to the predetermined area with a threshold distance, a switching operation is performed (Column 8, lines 15-22: “In one embodiment, interactions with virtual entities (tools, GUIs, virtual robots) take place via selection by proximity. For example, when the user places his or her hand avatar 220 near an interactive entity, the distance will be calculated between the users hand avatar and the entity. Should that distance be below some threshold, (e.g. such as the radius of the sphere enclosing the entity) that entity will be “selected””, where that entity is now operable by the user in either an egocentric or exocentric viewpoint with respect to the entity. Notes: As stated previously, the virtual robot avatar qualifies as a predetermined area in its broadest reasonable interpretation, since the video can be displayed on the virtual robot).
Guerin does not teach that the first avatar stops moving, in a case where the first avatar gets close to the predetermined area with a threshold distance.
However, RVR teaches causing the first avatar to stop moving when a threshold is crossed, and a key is pressed, transferring control from the first avatar to a second avatar (Time: 14:28). It is worth noting that the key to swap avatars only comes up after the threshold is crossed; hence, the threshold component of RVR is considered analogous to the control unit as it functions in Claim 10.
It is well known within the art to control, and more specifically stop, avatar movement in virtual spaces through the use of thresholds; this is most commonly performed through collider objects. The motivation for stopping avatar motion when a threshold is encountered is well established, as set forth by RVR, where control of an avatar is transferred over to another, and only a single avatar is intended to be in motion.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the stopping of the movement of a first avatar upon switching to another avatar of RVR with the instructions causing the avatar to get close to a predetermined area with a threshold distance; doing so would yield the predictable result of allowing a user to individually control either an avatar in a virtual space, or a real robot avatar, upon crossing the threshold.
Claims 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guerin as modified, in view of The Game Looters (All Clothing Store Locations & What they Sell in Pokémon Scarlet and Violet. YouTube. Time: 1:50-3:50).
Regarding Claim 14, the information processing apparatus according to Claim 13 is rejected over Guerin as modified.
Guerin as modified teaches an information processing apparatus wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor circuit, further cause the at least one processor circuit to at least cause the virtual video to be displayed (Guerin, Column 13, line 67, Column 14, lines 1-5: “The ability to engage/disengage from control/interaction with a robot avatar in first person perspective using gestures may be provided”; Guerin, Column 9, lines 20-29: “VIDs may be moved around by the user (or programmatically), or attached to arbitrary transformation frames in the environment. This is achieved by enforcing that the pose of the VID in the 3D environment to follow the positional frames of the user or other entities in the environment through a static geometric transform. In this way VIDs can be “attached” to the user or robot, to follow his or her position. The VID may be locked to a robotic avatar, by creating a static geometric transformation between some reference frame on the robot and the VID”; Guerin, Column 9, lines 9-20: “information … may be displayed by virtual information displays VIDs. VIDs can be created programmatically by the system or can be spawned on demand by the user, using any input interface. VIDs are created as 2D or 3D sprites in the virtual environment that are textured with a pre-generated texture. This texture can display text, static images, video streams or 2D visual information. VIDs may provide the ability to use 3D information displays to monitor robot state, textual information, video feeds or other information from one or multiple robotic systems”. Notes: the virtual robot qualifies as a predetermined area in its broadest reasonable interpretation, as previously stated. The real viewpoint video, by inherent definition, is at least a partial area of the real viewpoint video).
Guerin as modified does not teach that the virtual video be displayed such that the first avatar does not face the predetermined area in the virtual viewpoint mode.
However, Pokémon Scarlet & Violet demonstrates virtual video be displayed such that the first avatar does not face the predetermined area in the virtual viewpoint mode, as illustrated in the video by The Game Looters (Time: 1:50-3:50). The user’s avatar enters a threshold for the door to a store, causing a store screen mode to come up. After exiting the screen, the store screen mode switches back to the first virtual video mode, in which the user’s avatar is positioned both outside the threshold, and facing away from the store.
The motivation for positioning the avatar to face away from an interactable object is to prevent the user avatar from accidently walking forward and triggering a threshold for the interactable again; this is a common motivation in the art with regards to user avatars in virtual environments.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the display of a predetermined area after switching from a second mode to a first mode of Guerin as modified with the common practice of positioning the first avatar to not face the predetermined area in the virtual viewpoint mode of Game Looters; doing so would yield the predictable result of allowing for an easier user experience with regards to transitioning from interacting with certain objects with thresholds, allowing for easier navigation within the virtual space.
Regarding Claim 16, the information processing apparatus according to Claim 15 is rejected over Guerin as modified. The subject matter of Claim 16 is similar in scope to Claims 8-9 with respect to an avatar in the bird’s-eye view mode, and similar in scope to Claim 14 with regards to instructions, when executed by at least one processor circuit, further cause the at least one processor circuit to at least cause the virtual video to be displayed such that the first avatar does not face the predetermined area. Therefore, Claim 16 is analyzed under the same rationale as Claims 8-9 and 14, and is rejected over Guerin as modified, in view of The Game Looters.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guerin as modified, in view of SpiggoGaming (Battlefield 4: Insane Jet Eject Takeout Challenge. YouTube. Time: 00:12-00:20)
Regarding Claim 18, the information processing apparatus according to Claim 11 is rejected over Guerin as modified.
Guerin teaches switching from a second mode to a first mode in a case where a specific motion is made (Guerin, Column 13, line 67, Column 14, lines 1-5: “The ability to engage/disengage from control/interaction with a robot avatar in first person perspective using gestures may be provided”), and
Instructions, when executed by the at least one processor circuit, further cause the at least one processor circuit to at least control a movement of the first avatar (Guerin, Column 19, lines 37-47: “FIG. 25 depicts an illustrative embodiment of a computer system 2500 that may be used in computing devices such as, e.g., but not limited to, standalone or client or server devices. FIG. 25 depicts an illustrative embodiment of a computer system that may be used as client device, or a server device, etc. The present invention (or any part(s) or function(s) thereof) may be implemented using hardware, software, firmware, or a combination thereof and may be implemented in one or more computer systems or other processing systems”; Guerin, Column 20, lines 27-28: “The computer system 2500 may include one or more processors, such as, e.g., but not limited to, processor(s)”; Guerin, Column 20, lines 38-41: “The processor 2504 may include logic configured to execute computer-executable instructions configured to implement one or more embodiments. The instructions may reside in main memory 2508 or secondary memory 2510”; Guerin, Column 7, lines 29-39: “User movement in the virtual environment may be accomplished by, for example, joystick input (e.g., Razer Hydra™ wands). The position and orientation of the user's viewpoint in the virtual environment follow their head motion, motion commanded from a joystick, or their physical motion, as determined by a body tracking device or sensors. In one embodiment, the user may be represented by right and left hand avatars).
Guerin as modified does not teach a movement of the first avatar, based on a moving speed and a moving acceleration of the second avatar.
However, the video game Battlefield 4 demonstrates the preservation of movement with respect to physics when transferring the user’s control from a vehicle avatar, to the user’s soldier avatar, as illustrated in the video by SpiggoGaming. The user is demonstrated controlling a fighter jet avatar (second mode), before ejecting from the fighter jet avatar with the speed and acceleration of the jet avatar at the point of ejecting, while controlling the soldier avatar (first mode).
The motivation for transferring movement speed and acceleration from one avatar to another is well established in the art, as doing so allows for immersion of the user when controlling avatars, whether the avatars are within a virtual space or a real space.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the control unit for an information processing apparatus of Guerin as modified to with the movement speed and acceleration transfer between avatars of SpiggoGaming; doing so would yield the predictable result of a smooth transition between avatars, immersing the user in the operation of said avatars.
Regarding Claim 19, the information processing apparatus according to Claim 12 is rejected over Guerin.
Guerin teaches instructions, when executed by the at least one processor circuit, further cause the at least one processor circuit (Guerin, Column 19, lines 37-47: “FIG. 25 depicts an illustrative embodiment of a computer system 2500 that may be used in computing devices such as, e.g., but not limited to, standalone or client or server devices. FIG. 25 depicts an illustrative embodiment of a computer system that may be used as client device, or a server device, etc. The present invention (or any part(s) or function(s) thereof) may be implemented using hardware, software, firmware, or a combination thereof and may be implemented in one or more computer systems or other processing systems”; Guerin, Column 20, lines 27-28: “The computer system 2500 may include one or more processors, such as, e.g., but not limited to, processor(s)”; Guerin, Column 20, lines 38-41: “The processor 2504 may include logic configured to execute computer-executable instructions configured to implement one or more embodiments. The instructions may reside in main memory 2508 or secondary memory 2510”) to at least:
Cause a content display area to be displayed in the virtual video together with the predetermined area, and in a case where a specific motion is made and the second mode is switched to the first mode, control a position of the content display area with respect to the first avatar (Column 9, lines 9-20: “information … may be displayed by virtual information displays VIDs. VIDs can be created programmatically by the system or can be spawned on demand by the user, using any input interface. VIDs are created as 2D or 3D sprites in the virtual environment that are textured with a pre-generated texture. This texture can display text, static images, video streams or 2D visual information. VIDs may provide the ability to use 3D information displays to monitor robot state, textual information, video feeds or other information from one or multiple robotic systems; Column 9, lines 20-29: “VIDs may be moved around by the user (or programmatically), or attached to arbitrary transformation frames in the environment. This is achieved by enforcing that the pose of the VID in the 3D environment to follow the positional frames of the user or other entities in the environment through a static geometric transform. In this way VIDs can be “attached” to the user or robot, to follow his or her position. The VID may be locked to a robotic avatar, by creating a static geometric transformation between some reference frame on the robot and the VID”).
Guerin does not explicitly teach controlling the position of another content display area with respect to the user avatar’s moving speed.
However, it is a common practice within the art to design virtual spaces such that the user is able to easily navigate within it using an avatar. Guerin teaches generating VIDs that can be “created programmatically by the system”, as well as “moved around programmatically”. Spawning or moving the VIDs of Guerin based on the user’s avatar movement speed is anticipated by Guerin’s statement on being able to programmatically create and move the VIDs, as conditionally spawning or moving an object based on the moving speed of an avatar is well known and easily implemented. The motivation to do so would be to avoid the user’s avatar from coming into unwanted contact with interactable objects if the user’s avatar is in an initial moving state, to provide time for the user to react to their conditions. Placing the interactable objects farther away from the user’s avatar in accordance with the avatar’s initial movement speed is a common solution.
Furthermore, it is demonstrated that the transfer of movement parameters such as speed and acceleration are apparent within the art, as illustrated by the video of SpiggoGaming, where the aforementioned motivation for said transfer of movement from Claim 18 would have been obvious within the art, especially with regards to user immersion.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display control unit of Guerin as modified such that content display areas such as VIDs attached to interactable objects are placed away from the user’s avatar after switching from a second mode of controlling a robot avatar to a first mode of controlling a user avatar, and combine the modified display control unit of Guerin with the speed and acceleration transfer between avatars demonstrated by the video of SpiggoGaming; doing so would yield the predictable result of a display control unit capable of spawning or moving content display areas in accordance with an avatar’s moving speed and acceleration upon switching control from another avatar, wherein the moving speed is dependent on the moving speed and acceleration of the previously controlled avatar.
Regarding Claim 20, the information processing apparatus of Claim 19 is rejected over Guerin as modified, in view of SpiggoGaming. The subject matter of Claim 20 is similar in scope to Claims 19 with respect to instructions, when executed by the at least one processor circuit, further cause the at least one processor circuit to at least control the position of the content display area such that a distance from the first avatar to the content display area increases, as the moving speed of the first avatar increases. Therefore, Claim 20 is analyzed under the same rationale as Claim 19, and is rejected over Guerin, in view of SpiggoGaming.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 24th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that Guerin fails to teach amended Claim 1 with regards to the second avatar being a real object and not a virtual object to be displayed in a virtual space, the Examiner directs the applicant to Guerin, Column 7, lines 51, 62-64: “Robot 110 may be represented by virtual robot 210 … User 390 may interact with the real world robot 110 via the virtual robot 210 (and in effect moving the real robot)”, which is utilized in the rejection of original Claim 1 with regards to a second avatar that is an avatar robot in a real space. The second avatar is explicitly defined as being “real world robot 110”. While the real robot 110 has a virtual counterpart “virtual robot 210”, the real robot and virtual robot are differentiated from one another within Guerin, and that the real robot 110 of Guerin is movable by the user.
In response to applicant’s argument that Guerin fails to teach amended Claim 1 with regards to “a place image representing a place in the real space where the second avatar is present”, The Examiner directs the applicant to Guerin, Column 9, lines 9-20: “information … may be displayed by virtual information displays VIDs. VIDs can be created programmatically by the system or can be spawned on demand by the user, using any input interface. VIDs are created as 2D or 3D sprites in the virtual environment that are textured with a pre-generated texture. This texture can display text, static images, video streams or 2D visual information. VIDs may provide the ability to use 3D information displays to monitor robot state, textual information, video feeds or other information from one or multiple robotic systems” and Column 9, lines 20-29: “VIDs may be moved around by the user (or programmatically), or attached to arbitrary transformation frames in the environment. This is achieved by enforcing that the pose of the VID in the 3D environment to follow the positional frames of the user or other entities in the environment through a static geometric transform. In this way VIDs can be “attached” to the user or robot, to follow his or her position. The VID may be locked to a robotic avatar, by creating a static geometric transformation between some reference frame on the robot and the VID”, which are utilized in the rejection of original Claim 1 and original Claim 2, respectively. “video feeds from robotic systems” includes the second avatar robot, which is a real robot. Hence, Guerin teaches VIDs which may display real video from the second avatar robot, where video reads on image. It subsequently follows that Guerin does teach displaying/superimposing and displaying the place image on a “predetermined area of the virtual video” as set forth in Claim 1 as amended, as the broadest reasonable interpretation of a “predetermined area” is established as any area within the virtual video that is has a predetermined role for displaying/superimposing place images, which the VIDs of Guerin perform.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention with regards to amended Claim 1, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the specific motion is suggested as “jumping into it”, allowing a user to “instantly move from the virtual space to a distant real space and freely view the local situation”, and the general intent of the invention as provided by the applicant) are not recited in the rejected claim. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant’s request to withdraw the rejections of Claims 7, 11, 12, 21, and 22 for at least the reason that Claims 7, 11, 12, 21, and 22 depend either directly or indirectly from Claim 1 as amended, the Examiner asserts that amended Claim 1 is taught in its entirety by Guerin (US Patent No. 11279022), and hence the rejections of Claims 7, 11, 12, 21, and 22 are not withdrawn.
In response to applicant’s request to withdraw the rejections of Claims 5, 6, 8, 9, 13, 15, and 17 at least for the reason that Claims 5, 6, 8, 9, 13, 15, and 17 depend either directly or indirectly from Claim 1 as amended, the Examiner asserts that amended Claim 1 is taught in its entirety by Guerin (US Patent No. 11279022), and hence the rejections of Claims 5, 6, 8, 9, 13, 15, and 17 are not withdrawn.
In response to applicant’s argument that Guerin and RVR fail to teach or suggest the elements of Claim 1 as amended, the Examiner maintains that amended Claim 1 is taught in its entirety by Guerin.
In response to applicant’s request to withdraw the rejection of Claim 10 at least for the reason that Claim 10 depends from Claim 1 as amended, the Examiner asserts that amended Claim 1 is taught in its entirety by Guerin (US Patent No. 11279022), and hence the rejection of Claim 10 is not withdrawn.
In response to applicant’s argument that Guerin and The Game Looters fail to teach or suggest the elements of Claim 1 as amended, the Examiner maintains that amended Claim 1 is taught in its entirety by Guerin.
In response to applicant’s request to withdraw the rejection of Claims 14 and 16 at least for the reason that Claims 14 and 16 depend from Claim 1 as amended, the Examiner asserts that amended Claim 1 is taught in its entirety by Guerin (US Patent No. 11279022), and hence the rejection of Claims 14 and 16 are not withdrawn.
In response to applicant’s argument that Guerin and SpiggoGaming fail to teach or suggest the elements of Claim 1 as amended, the Examiner maintains that amended Claim 1 is taught in its entirety by Guerin.
In response to applicant’s request to withdraw the rejection of Claims 18-20 at least for the reason that Claims 18-20 depend from Claim 1 as amended, the Examiner asserts that amended Claim 1 is taught in its entirety by Guerin (US Patent No. 11279022), and hence the rejections of Claims 18-20 are not withdrawn.
Claims 23 and 24 are added by the Applicant. The Examiner agrees that no new subject matter has been added. However, the Examiner asserts that Claim 1 is taught in its entirety by Guerin, and that Claims 23 and 24 are not patentable based solely off of the patentability of Claim 1. Additionally, Claims 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guerin (US Patent No. 10350751).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 RAYMOND CHUN LAM LI whose telephone number is (571)272-5124. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5.
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, Kent Chang can be reached at 571-272-7667. 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.
/RAYMOND CHUN LAM LI/Examiner, Art Unit 2614
/KENT W CHANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2614
Prosecution Insights