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
This Final Office action is responsive to the communication filed under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111 on May 6, 2026 (hereafter “Response”). The amendments to the claims are acknowledged and have been entered.
Claims 1–6, 8–11, 16, 18, and 19 are now amended.
Claims 7, 12, 13, and 17 are now canceled.
New claims 20–24 are now added.
Claims 1–6, 8–11, 14–16, and 18–24 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
All prior claim objections are hereby withdrawn in response to the amendment correcting the informalities raised in the previous Office Action. New grounds of objection are raised herein.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1–6, 8–11, 16, 18, 19, and 20–24 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In this Office Action, all claims are rejected over prior art. Therefore, the request for a notice of allowance (Response 10) is respectfully denied.
Claim Objections
The Office objects to claims 2, 6, and 11 for having the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2
In claim 2, the grammar is incomplete. One of the following two modifications must be made:
2. (Option A). The method according to claim 1, wherein, before detecting whether the virtual object exceeds a boundary of the publishing container, the method further comprises
2. (Option B). The method according to claim 1, further comprising: before detecting whether the virtual object exceeds a boundary of the publishing container, and in response to a first operation on the virtual object, moving the virtual object into the publishing container.
Claim 6
As a result of the amendment, claim 6 now contains a double-recitation of the word “the,” and it is missing a word (“…wherein the [missing word] the virtual object into the publishing container…”)
The Examiner believes that claim 6 should be corrected in the following way:
6. The method according to claim 2, wherein moving [[the]] the virtual object into the publishing container comprises moving a center position of the virtual object to a center position of the publishing container.
Claim 11
Claim 11 begins with a series of three limitations, but the text of these three limitations does not adhere to the serial comma rule of English grammar. Therefore, the semicolon on line 3 of claim 11 must be replaced with a comma and a coordinating conjunction. In other words: “The method according to claim 3, wherein a skeletal structure of a virtual item is displayed in the publishing container, the skeletal structure of the virtual item comprises a plurality of skeletal nodes, and[[;]]the response to detecting the virtual object does not exceed the boundary of the publishing container of publishing the virtual object comprises: . . . [etc.]”
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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) 1–4, 8–10, 14–15, 18, 19, and 21–24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0092282 A1 (“Boesel”).
Claim 1
Boesel discloses:
A method for publishing a virtual object, comprising:
“FIGS. 12A–12G is a flowchart illustrating a method 1200” that includes techniques for moving objects in a three-dimensional environment. Boesel ¶ 258, including moving such objects to a container that corresponds to “a user interface of a messaging application” where the object “can be dropped to be added to the messaging conversation.” Boesel ¶ 260.
displaying a publishing container and a virtual object in the publishing container,
Starting with FIG. 12A, “the electronic device displays (1202a), via the display generation component, a three-dimensional environment (e.g., three-dimensional environment 1102 in FIG. 11A) that includes a first object at a first location in the three-dimensional environment (e.g., virtual objects 1104a and/or 1106a in FIG. 11A) and a second object at a second location in the three-dimensional environment.” Boesel ¶ 260.
The second object falls within the scope of the claimed “publishing container” because it provides a place to add the first object to a messaging conversation with one or more other users. See Boesel ¶ 260.
the publishing container being a 3D polyhedron;
While illustrated as a flat slate in the figures, the second object may instead be provided as a “container” in the three-dimensional environment, or a “three-dimensional drop zone.” Boesel ¶¶ 260, 299, and 332.
detecting whether the virtual object exceeds a boundary of the publishing container;
Method 1200 performs the claimed detection/prompting steps twice—a first time leading up to when the user first drags the first object towards the second object (steps 1202c–1202e), and a second time, if the user continues to drag the first object past or through the second object after the first object reaches the second object (steps 1204c–1204e). Both instances anticipate claim 1, and therefore, both will be discussed (with the understanding that this rejection relies on either one independently to show anticipation of this claim).
Example 1 (pre-second object collision test 1202c). When the user first drags the first object in 3d space, the electronic device determines whether the user dragged the first object far enough to reach the second object, Boesel ¶ 262 (describing 1202d), or, if the user failed to drag the first object far enough to reach the boundaries of the second object (thus exceeding the boundaries of the second object). Boesel ¶ 263 (describing step 1202e).
Example 2 (post-second object collision test 1204c). If the user succeeds in dragging the first object into the second object, the electronic device will once again test whether additional dragging of the first object (performed in steps 1204a–1204b) causes the first object to exceed the boundaries of the second object, i.e., past the second object (Boesel ¶ 265 and FIG. 12B, step 1204d), or if the user’s attempt to drag the first object past the second object fails due to the user not dragging the first object far enough to exceed the bounds of the second object (Boesel ¶ 266 and FIG. 13B, step 1204e).
In addition to the above two examples that involve determining whether the first object reached the second object, Boesel further teaches a size-based comparison (hereafter “Example 3”), where, during step 1214, the electronic device decides whether it needs to scale the first object down, due to the first object being large., Example 3 works differently from Examples 1 and 2, because the end result of Example 3 is that a first object that is too large for the second object is scaled down in order to fit into the second object. Notably, while this is likely the opposite of the Applicant’s intention (i.e., to explain why the virtual object cannot be added to the publishing container), the Examiner observes that claim 1 is drafted so broadly that it still covers Example 3,
and displaying first prompt information in response to detecting the virtual object exceeds the boundary of the publishing container.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of “prompt information” does not require any textual information to be displayed, because dependent claim 8 says that the prompt information can include displaying a “preset effect” on the virtual object or the publishing container. See Littelfuse, Inc. v. Mersen USA EP Corp., 29 F. 4th 1376, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (“if a dependent claim reads on a particular embodiment of the claimed invention, the corresponding independent claim must cover that embodiment as well”).
Also, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this whole step is that it is optional, because it is contingent upon the unmet condition precedent of “detecting the virtual object exceeds the boundary of the publishing container.” See MPEP § 2111.04 (subsection II.) (“The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met.”). Claim 1 is a method claim that does not require the virtual object to exceed the boundary of the publishing container in every run of the method, and therefore, claim 1 also does not require displaying the first prompt information under its broadest reasonable interpretation, since it is possible to fully perform the method without exceeding the boundary of the publishing container.
However, for the sake of compact prosecution, this rejection will still explain why the prior art discloses even this optional claim element.
Example 1 anticipates this step by disclosing that when the first input drags the first object to a location that falls outside of the second object’s boundaries (i.e., not close enough to fall within the container), the electronic device, at step 1202f, displays the first object such that it “moves” to a “second distance away from the first location in the three-dimensional environment in accordance with the first input,” i.e., in a new position but still outside of the second object. Boesel ¶ 263.
Example 2 anticipates this step by disclosing that when the user successfully drags the first object from within the second object to exit the second object, “the electronic device moves (1204d) the first object through the second object to a third location in the three-dimensional environment in accordance with the second input (e.g., movement of virtual object 1104a through virtual object 1107a as shown in FIG. 11D),” Boesel ¶ 265, and, “displaying visual feedback in a portion of the second object that corresponds to a location of the first object (e.g., changing an appearance of a portion of the second object that is in front of the first object from the viewpoint of the user) when the first object is moved through the second object to the third location in the three-dimensional environment in accordance with the second input (1206b) (e.g., display of visual indication 1116 as shown in FIG. 11D).” Boesel ¶ 267.
Example 3 anticipates this step by disclosing that “the visual indication indicating that the second object is the valid drop target for the first object comprises changing a size of the first object in the three-dimensional environment (1214) (e.g., changing size of virtual object 1104a as shown in FIG. 11B).” Boesel ¶ 272.
Claim 2
Boesel discloses:
The method according to claim 1, before detecting whether the virtual object exceeds a boundary of the publishing container, further comprising:
This rejection of claim 2 hereby incorporates by reference all of the findings from the Example 2 ground of rejection applied to claim 1 above, i.e., where the electronic device detects whether the first object exceeds a boundary of the second object during steps 1204c–1204e (when the user tries to drag the first object outside of the second object).
in response to a first operation on the virtual object, moving the virtual object into the publishing container.
Prior to steps 1204c–1204e (FIG. 12B), the electronic device performs steps 1202b–1202d (FIG. 12A), where, in response to a first prior input, dragging the first object sufficiently close to the second object, “the first object is moved from the first location in the three-dimensional environment the first distance to the second object at the second location in the three-dimensional environment, and collides with . . . the second object at the second location.” Boesel ¶ 262. The collision may cause the second object to fully contain the first, or, triggers the electronic device to shrink the first object into the second object. Boesel ¶ 272.
Claim 3
Boesel discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising:
in response to detecting the virtual object does not exceed the boundary of the publishing container, publishing the virtual object.
When the first object (e.g., a photograph) is dropped into the second object, and the second object is a messaging application, the first object is added to the messaging conversation embodied by the messaging application. Boesel ¶¶ 260, 318, and 332.
Claim 4
Bosel discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising:
in response to detecting the virtual object does not exceed the boundary of the publishing container and receiving a publishing instruction, publishing the virtual object.
Careful readers will observe that claim 4 differs from claim 3 in that claim 4 requires two conditions to publish the virtual object, rather than just one: first, detecting the virtual object does not exceed the boundary of the publishing container, and second, receiving a publishing instruction.
Boesel likewise discloses that, for the first condition, when the first object is dragged to the second object, but prior to releasing the first object at the second object, the electronic device first checks whether “the second object is a valid drop target for the first object,” and displays “a visual indication indicating that the second object is the valid drop target for the first object (1212b) (e.g., badge 1125 in FIGS. 11B and 11C).” Boesel ¶ 271 (as discussed in the rejections of the previous claims, this also involves checking that the first object has collided with the second object). Then, for the second operation (the claimed publishing instruction), the electronic device further detects whether or not the user has completed the move by dropping/releasing the first object into the second object. Boesel ¶¶ 262 and 303.
Claim 8
Boesel discloses the method according to claim 1,
wherein the virtual object is detected to exceed the publishing container, and displaying the first prompt information comprises: controlling the virtual object and/or the publishing container to display a preset effect.
“[W]hen the first object is moved to the third location in the three-dimensional environment (e.g., the first object is moved through the second object to a location behind the second object), visual feedback is provided to indicate to the user that the first object has been moved through the second object. In some embodiments, a portion of the second object changes in appearance (e.g., a location of the movement through the second object is displayed with a ripple effect . . . after the first object moves through the second object).” Boesel ¶ 267.
Claim 9
Boesel discloses the method according to claim 1,
wherein the virtual object is detected to exceed the publishing container, the method further comprises: receiving an operation on the virtual object, and in response to the operation on the virtual object, moving a position of the virtual object,
When the first object is moved to the correct location corresponding to the second object, the electronic device may, in some embodiments, snap the first object to align with the second object. Boesel ¶ 284 (referring to step 1232b).
and/or, adjusting a size of the virtual object, to cause the virtual object to be completely contained in the publishing container.
Additionally, when the first object is moved to the correct location corresponding to the second object, the electronic device may display a “visual indication indicating that the second object is the valid drop target for the first object” by “changing a size of the first object in the three-dimensional environment (1214) (e.g., changing size of virtual object 1104a as shown in FIG. 11B).” Boesel ¶ 272.
Claim 10
Boesel discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising:
detecting a target model touches an edge of the publishing container, and in response to detecting that the target model touches the edge of the publishing container, controlling a touching area or a surface where the touching area is located to be displayed differently from other areas of the publishing container,
“[W]hen the first object is moved to the third location in the three-dimensional environment (e.g., the first object is moved through the second object to a location behind the second object), visual feedback is provided to indicate to the user that the first object has been moved through the second object. In some embodiments, a portion of the second object changes in appearance (e.g., a location of the movement through the second object is displayed with a ripple effect . . . after the first object moves through the second object).” Boesel ¶ 267.
wherein the target model is a virtual model of a controller corresponding to an extended reality scenario.
Rather than simply moving the object by itself, the virtual object may be “displayed with a respective user interface element 1315, which is optionally a grabber or handlebar, that is selectable (e.g., by user 1326) to cause device 101 to initiate movement of virtual object 1311a containing virtual object 1304a in three-dimensional environment 1302.” Boesel ¶ 292 (referring to FIG. 13A). Thus, it may be the user interface element 1315 that first makes contact with (and passes through) the second object to cause the ripple effect. User interface element 1315 falls within the scope of the claimed controller corresponding to an extended reality scenario, because the Applicant’s specification says that “controller corresponding to the target model extended reality scenario may be a virtual handle, a virtual hand model, or a combination of a virtual handle and a virtual hand model, and the specific form of the virtual model is not limited in this embodiment.” (Spec. ¶ 150).
Claim 14
Boesel discloses the method according to claim 1,
wherein a size of the publishing container is determined based on a size threshold of a virtual object in an application.
“[O]bjects optionally have defined sizes that are optimal or ideal for their current distance from the viewpoint of the user (e.g., to ensure objects remain interactable by the user at their current distance from the user).” Boesel ¶ 181.
Claim 15
Boesel discloses the method according to claim 1,
wherein the publishing container is a transparent entity or a translucent entity.
“In some embodiments, after moving the first object through the second object to the third location in the three-dimensional environment in accordance with the second input, wherein the second object is between the third location and a viewpoint of the three-dimensional environment displayed via the display generation component (1208a), the electronic device displays (1208b), via the display generation component, a visual indication of the first object (e.g., a visual indication of a location of the first object) through the second object (e.g., visibility of virtual object 1104a as shown in FIG. 11D). For example, when the first object is moved to the third location in the three-dimensional environment (e.g., the first object is moved through the second object to a location behind the second object), and the second object is between the first object and a viewpoint of the user (e.g., viewing of the first object is obstructed by the second object), a visual indication of the first object is displayed through the second object.” Boesel ¶ 268.
Claims 18 and 19
Claim 18 recites a general purpose computer that otherwise performs exactly the same method as claim 1. Claim 18 is therefore rejected over the findings provided in the rejection of claim 1, together with Boesel’s further disclosure of the general purpose computer, its processor, its memory, and the instructions stored thereon. See Boesel ¶ 258.
Claim 19 recites a broader version of claim 18, requiring only the memory and (described even more broadly as a “non-transient computer-readable storage medium”) its instructions. Claim 19 is therefore rejected over all of the findings and rationale provided in the rejection of claim 18.
Claim 21
Boesel discloses the method according to claim 3,
wherein the response to detecting the virtual object does not exceed the boundary further comprises: displaying second prompt information.
When the first object is dragged to the second object, but prior to releasing the first object at the second object, the electronic device first checks whether “the second object is a valid drop target for the first object,” and displays “a visual indication indicating that the second object is the valid drop target for the first object (1212b) (e.g., badge 1125 in FIGS. 11B and 11C).” Boesel ¶ 271 (as discussed in the rejections of the previous claims, this also involves checking that the first object has collided with the second object).
Claim 22
Boesel discloses the method according to claim 1,
wherein detecting whether the virtual object exceeds the boundary of the publishing container comprises: detecting whether a size of the virtual object is greater than a size of the publishing container.
“The size to which object 1104a is scaled is optionally based on the size of object 1107a and/or the size of the region within object 1107a that is able to accept object 1104a.” Boesel ¶ 247.
Claim 23
Boesel discloses the method according to claim 8,
wherein the preset effect of the virtual object comprises: peripheral blinking or highlighting of the virtual object.
“In some embodiments, device 101 provides a visual indication of the presence of virtual object 1104a behind virtual object 1107a in three-dimensional environment 1102. For example, in FIG. 11D, device 101 alters an appearance of virtual object 1104a and/or an appearance of virtual object 1107a, such that a respective location of virtual object 1104a is identifiable from the viewpoint of user 1126 even though virtual object 1104a is located behind virtual object 1107a in three-dimensional environment 1102. In some embodiments, the visual indication of virtual object 1104a behind virtual object 1107a in three-dimensional environment 1102 is a faded or ghosted version of object 1104a displayed through (e.g., overlaid on) object 1107a, an outline of object 1104a displayed through (e.g., overlaid on) object 1107a, etc.” Boesel ¶ 253.
Claim 24
Boesel discloses the method according to claim 8, wherein the preset effect of the publishing container comprises at least one of following effects:
a change in color of an edge of the publishing container, a change in color of an exceeding area of the virtual object, or a change in color of an exceeding surface of the virtual object on the publishing container.
“[W]hen the first object is moved to the third location in the three-dimensional environment (e.g., the first object is moved through the second object to a location behind the second object), visual feedback is provided to indicate to the user that the first object has been moved through the second object. In some embodiments, a portion of the second object changes in appearance (e.g., a location of the movement through the second object is displayed with a ripple effect . . . after the first object moves through the second object).” Boesel ¶ 267.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were effectively filed absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was effectively filed in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
I. Boesel and Rodrigues teach claim 5.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Boesel as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0319134 A1 (“Rodrigues”).
Claim 5
Boesel teaches the method according to claim 4, and while the idea of a messaging application in general suggests the idea of a “send” button for sending the first object to the conversation, Boesel does not explicitly say whether the publishing instruction further comprises “receiving a first operation on a publishing control displayed at a first preset position of the publishing container” or “receiving a second operation on a first control displayed at a second preset position of the publishing container, displaying an interaction panel comprising a publishing control; and in response to a third operation on the publishing control in the interaction panel, publishing the virtual object.”
Rodrigues, however, teaches a method for publishing virtual objects in a three-dimensional environment, comprising:
receiving a first operation on a publishing control displayed at a first preset position of the publishing container; or receiving a second operation on a first control displayed at a second preset position of the publishing container, displaying an interaction panel comprising a publishing control;
“FIG. 10 is an example 1000 of a user interface for selecting options in relation to a selected content item. In example 1000, a user has selected a content item 1002, which caused the XR content sharing system to bring up circular UI 1004 with a variety of options. One of these options is the share UI 1006, which a user can select to initiate sharing of the content item 1002.” Rodrigues ¶ 65.
and in response to a third operation on the publishing control in the interaction panel, publishing the virtual object.
“With the content item, the XR content sharing system can provide a user-supplied message, which the user can enter into message UI 1202 and then send the message with the content item by activating UI 1204.” Rodrigues ¶ 67.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve Boesel’s messaging application by adding either Rodrigues’s entire circular UI 1004, or even merely the send button in UI 1202, thereby allowing the user to confirm that he wishes to publish the first object to the conversation in the messaging application represented by the second object. One would have been motivated to add Rodrigues’s circular UI 1004 or send button to Boesel’s messaging application because this would give the user a final opportunity to ensure he has not made a mistake before publishing the content to the messaging conversation.
II. Boesel and Storyline 360 teach claim 6.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Boesel as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Ashley T. Pollard, Comment to Snap options for Drag-n-Drops in Storyline, E-Learning Heros – Articulate Products Discussion Board (July 22, 2013) https://community.articulate.com/discussions/discuss/snap-options-for-drag-n-drops-in-storyline/147731/replies/147732 (hereafter “Storyline 360”)
Claim 6
Boesel teaches the method according to claim 2. With respect to moving a center position of the virtual object to a center position of the publishing container, Boesel further teaches that objects, in general, may be selected in dragged in such a way that object remains centered on the user’s hand as the user drags the object. Boesel ¶ 360. Additionally, FIG. 11B at least suggests that the first object is centered within the second object upon dropping the first object within the second object.
That said, Boesel does not explicitly anticipate “moving a center position of the virtual object to a center position of the publishing container.”
However, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the Storyline 360 software included a feature whereby drag-and-drop actions in a graphical user interface could be configured to behave in several different ways, including a “Snap to center” configuration, which causes the software to “place the center of [a dragged] object over the center of the target.” Storyline 360, page 1.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Storyline 360’s known technique of centering a dragged object over the center of its drop target to Boesel’s known electronic device, ready for improvement, to yield the predictable result of moving a center position of a dragged virtual object to the center position of a publishing container where the virtual object is being dragged.
The rationale to support this conclusion is that “a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art,” where “[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.” MPEP § 2143 (subsection (I.)(D.)).
Consistent with the guidance at MPEP § 2143 (subsection (I.)(D.)), the relevant factual findings for this rationale, and their supporting evidence, is as follows:
(1) The prior art contained a “base” device (method, or product) upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement.” The evidence for this finding includes all of the quotations provided from the Boesel reference in the rejections of claims 1 and 6 above, along with the acknowledgement above that Boesel does not exactly center the first object on the second object.
(2) The prior art contained a known technique that is applicable to the base device (method, or product). The evidence for this finding includes the quotation from the Storyline 360 documentation, above.
(3) One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. The evidence that the results were predictable is that Boesel’s electronic device is presumed to be operable, and FIG. 11B of the Boesel reference shows that the electronic device does indeed find some location within the second object to display the first object upon dropping it there, so, it would have been reasonable to predict that following the “centering” guidance from Storyline 360 would indeed result in a computer system that centers the first object within the second object.
The computer arts are a highly predictable field because computers are deterministic. Unlike the life sciences, computers do exactly as they are told. Thus, the only rationale expectation to arise out of modifying an instruction to display the first object to further display that object with its center aligned with the second object’s center is that the machine will indeed display the first object to further display that object with its center aligned with the second object’s center, as it was told.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the result was an improved system because displaying objects evenly spaced is more aesthetically balanced.
Therefore, the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Storyline 360’s known technique of centering a dragged object over the center of its drop target to Boesel’s known electronic device, ready for improvement, to yield the predictable result of moving a center position of a dragged virtual object to the center position of a publishing container where the virtual object is being dragged.
III. Boesel and Chen teach claim 11.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Boesel as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chinese Patent Application Publication no. 115115814 A (“Chen”).1
Claim 11
Boesel teaches the method according to claim 3, and further teaches that, rather than a photograph, the first object (which is ultimately displayed within the second object/publishing container, as discussed in the rejections of earlier claims) may be a three-dimensional model. See Boesel ¶¶ 138, 372, and 445. Boesel does not appear to explicitly disclose the remaining elements of claim 11.
wherein a skeletal structure of a virtual item is displayed in the publishing container,
“As shown in Figure 4, by selecting ‘bipedal animal’ under ‘object type’ in the operation box on the right, the corresponding skeleton can be created on the left.” Chen ¶ 121.
the skeletal structure of the virtual item comprises a plurality of skeletal nodes;
“As shown in Figure 4(c), the points and surfaces in the box represent model points and surfaces near the model’s leg bones.” Chen ¶ 121.
the response to detecting the virtual object does not exceed the boundary of the publishing container of publishing the virtual object comprises: determining that the virtual object is mounted on a corresponding skeletal node of the plurality of skeletal nodes, based on detecting that the virtual object overlaps the corresponding skeletal node;
“Model points and surfaces near the bones can be selected for skinning.” Chen ¶ 121.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Boesel with Chen, thereby making it possible to mount skins on skeletal model, and share the same with other users in a 3d environment (similar to how Boesel includes means for mounting content onto other objects, and sharing the mounted content with others in the environment). One would have been motivated to combine Chen with Boesel because Chen’s skeletal structure technique helps users “create excellent and exquisite motion content.” Chen ¶ 121.
IV. Boesel teaches claims 16 and 20.
Claim(s) 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Boesel.
Claim 16
Boesel teaches the method according to claim 3 via the method 1200 embodiment illustrated in FIGs. 11–12. In an adjacent embodiment (FIGS. 13–14, which illustrate method 1400), Boesel teaches an alternative arrangement where, rather than dropping the first object directly onto the second object (e.g., the messaging window), the user interface provides a three dimensional drop zone 1318 (see FIG. 13B).
This claim is rejected based on the obviousness of modifying the method 1200 embodiment to use the drop zone 1318 of the adjacent method 1400 embodiment, rather than directly dropping the first object into the second object. To that end, Boesel further teaches:
wherein the displaying a publishing container comprises: in response to a summoning instruction with respect to the publishing container, displaying the publishing container;
When the user begins to move the first object to the second object, the electronic device may display a “drop zone 1318” which is a “volume in three-dimensional environment 1302 into which objects to be added to object 1307a can be dropped to add those objects to object 1307a, such as the movement of object 1304a/1311a to within drop zone 1318 in FIG. 13B.” Boesel ¶ 299.
and the method further comprises: in response to a closing instruction with respect to the publishing container, hiding the publishing container.
“The drop zone optionally extends out from the surface of the second object into the three-dimensional environment toward a viewpoint of the user to receive the photograph when the photograph is moved to within a threshold distance,” meaning, once the first object is no longer within the threshold distance, the drop zone is no longer displayed. Boesel ¶ 332.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve Boesel’s method 1200 embodiment with the drop zone 1318 from Boesel’s adjacent method 1400 embodiment. The rationale for doing so was twofold. First, as a matter of obviousness law, the courts recognize that “[c]ombining two embodiments disclosed adjacent to each other in a prior art patent does not require a leap of inventiveness.” Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. v. Cordis Corp., 554 F.3d 982, 991 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Second, there was also an explicit evidence motivation to make such a combination, independent from the claimed invention: “Providing a volumetric drop zone for a drop target that is a valid drop target for an object facilitates user input for adding the object to the drop zone and thus the drop target, thereby improving the user-device interaction.” Boesel ¶ 332.
Accordingly, since it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve Boesel’s method 1200 embodiment with the drop zone 1318 from Boesel’s adjacent method 1400 embodiment, claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claim 20
Boesel teaches the method according to claim 3 via the method 1200 embodiment illustrated in FIGs. 11–12. In an adjacent embodiment (FIGS. 13–14, which illustrate method 1400), Boesel teaches an alternative arrangement where, rather than dropping the first object directly onto the second object (e.g., the messaging window), the user interface provides a three dimensional drop zone 1318. Boesel ¶ 332 and FIG. 13B.
To be clear, this claim is rejected based on the obviousness of modifying the method 1200 embodiment to use the drop zone 1318 of the adjacent method 1400 embodiment, rather than directly dropping the first object into the second object. To that end, Boesel further teaches:
publishing the virtual object comprises: the virtual object disappearing from the publishing container.
Much like in the rejections of claims 1 and 3, method 1400 describes adding a virtual object to a messaging application, Boesel ¶ 337, except doing so by dropping the object in a separate drop zone 1318 rather than the messaging window itself. Boesel ¶ 337. Upon completing this action, “device 101 ceases display of object 1311a in three-dimensional environment 1302.” Boesel ¶ 304.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve Boesel’s method 1200 embodiment with the drop zone 1318 from Boesel’s adjacent method 1400 embodiment. The rationale for doing so was twofold. First, as a matter of obviousness law, the courts recognize that “[c]ombining two embodiments disclosed adjacent to each other in a prior art patent does not require a leap of inventiveness.” Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. v. Cordis Corp., 554 F.3d 982, 991 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Second, there was also an explicit evidence motivation to make such a combination, independent from the claimed invention: “Providing a volumetric drop zone for a drop target that is a valid drop target for an object facilitates user input for adding the object to the drop zone and thus the drop target, thereby improving the user-device interaction.” Boesel ¶ 332.
Accordingly, since it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve Boesel’s method 1200 embodiment with the drop zone 1318 from Boesel’s adjacent method 1400 embodiment, claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Conclusion
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 C.F.R. § 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 C.F.R. § 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 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 Justin R. Blaufeld whose telephone number is (571)272-4372. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am - 4:00pm ET.
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, James K Trujillo can be reached at (571) 272-3677. 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.
Justin R. Blaufeld
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2151
/Justin R. Blaufeld/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2151
1 An English machine translation for this document was attached to the First Action on the Merits, and is also available at the following link: <https://translationportal.epo.org/emtp/translate/?ACTION=description-retrieval&COUNTRY=CN&ENGINE=google&FORMAT=docdb&KIND=A&LOCALE=en_EP&NUMBER=115115814&SRCLANG=zh&TRGLANG=en>.
Prosecution Insights