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 Arguments
Claims 1-20 are pending; the examiner is maintaining the 101 rejection to claims 1-14; the examiner is also maintaining the prior art rejection.
Regarding independent claims 1, 15 and 18 the applicant argues:
Therefore, the binding process for creating a virtual character model adopted by Chen is clearly different from that specified in claim 1 of the present application.
The first virtual object in claim 1 is bound to the corresponding bone of the skeletal model, rather than the skeletal model itself after determining a first virtual obiect. For example, after determining the candidate virtual object A corresponding to the thigh bone shown in the upper diagram of FIG. 8A, the candidate virtual obiect A is bound to the position xl shown in the lower diagram of FIG. 8A. In other words, the candidate virtual object A is bound to the thigh part of the human bone model.
The examiner respectfully disagrees because Chen suggests binding the bone to the first virtual object (e.g., leg) because as is shown in figs. 4(a-c) of Chen, the bone is placed in the leg portion of the model (i.e., binding the first virtual object (e.g., leg) to a corresponding bone).
Regarding independent claims 1, 15 and 18 the applicant further argues:
The bone to be bound in Chen is bound to the respective model after determining the bone to be bound. For example, after determining the leg bone to be bound as shown in Fig. 4(c), the leg bone to be bound is bound to the leg part of the human body model as shown in Fig. 4a).
The examiner respectfully disagrees because claims 1, 15 and 18 make no mention of the bounding being completed before or after determining the bone to be bound.
Regarding the 101 rejection to claims 1-14, the applicant argues: Nevertheless, merely to expedite allowance of the present application, claims 1-13 have been amended as set forth above. Applicant submits that claims 1-14, as amended, recite statutory subject matter.
The examiner respectfully disagrees because the applicant only amended the preamble of claim 1 to include a computer-implemented method, however the preamble of the claim isn’t given patentable weight unless it is referred to in the body of the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 1 is directed to a method for creating a virtual entity with the steps of presenting, determining and binding which are nothing more than software instructions; software instructions are non-statutory under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 2-14 depend from claim 1 and have the same issue and are rejected under the same rationale as supra.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 14-15 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHEN (CN 115115814A) in view of LIANIDES (US2022/0105389A1).
Regarding claim 1, CHEN teaches:
1. A computer-implemented method for creating a virtual entity, comprising (CHEN: pg. 11 line 22):
in response to an instruction for creating the virtual entity, presenting a skeletal model of the virtual entity, wherein the skeletal model comprises at least two bones (CHEN: fig. 4a, see pg. 11 lines 22-26);
determining at least one first virtual object (CHEN: fig. 4b, see pg. 11 lines 29-30); and
binding each first virtual object to a corresponding bone to create a first virtual entity (CHEN: figs. 4 a-b, see pg. 11 lines 26-31).
CHEN doesn’t teach however the analogous prior art LIANIDES teaches: the virtual entity is presented in a virtual space (LIANIDES: par. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the virtual entity is presented in a virtual space as shown in LIANIDES with CHEN for the benefit of addressing a shortcoming in the prior art in that current telemedicine use cases are limited to treating simple conditions like the flu because their user experiences are similar to Skype® and Facetime®. These platforms are not leveraging advanced technology to address the specific needs of physical therapy patients. Building a solution for PT requires enabling communication based on the patient's body movement to keep patients safe without a physical therapist in the same room [3].
Regarding claim 14, CHEN teaches:
14. The method according to claim 1, wherein in a case that the virtual entity is a virtual character, the skeletal model of the virtual entity is a virtual character skeletal model (CHEN: fig. 4a, pg. 11 lines 22-26).
Claim 15 is analogous to claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claim 15 further requires a different preamble and an additional limitation also taught by CHEN;
15. An electronic device, comprising (CHEN: see abstract):
a processor and a memory, wherein the memory is configured to store computer programs, and the processor is configured to call and run the computer programs stored in the memory to execute a method for creating a virtual entity, and the method for creating the virtual entity comprises (CHEN: pg. 3 lines 38-41).
Claim 18 is analogous to claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claim 18 further requires a different preamble also taught by CHEN;
18. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium configured to store computer programs, the computer programs cause a processor to: (CHEN: pg. 3 lines 35-37).
Claim(s) 2, 16 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHEN in view of LIANIDES in view of HARVEY (US2024/0061975A1).
Regarding claim 2, the previous combination of CHEN in view of LIANIDES don’t teach however the analogous prior art HARVEY teaches:
2. The method according to claim 1, wherein the first virtual object is determined based on at least one candidate virtual object presented in the virtual space (HARVEY: fig. 11 see par. 179).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine wherein the first virtual object is determined based on at least one candidate virtual object presented in the virtual space as shown in HARVEY with the previous combination for the benefit of addressing a shortcoming in the prior art related to digital twins, in that they leverage mathematics tuned to one specific component for simulation, but do not have much use beyond that one purpose. If a new component is to be simulated, the user is left to start over from scratch to model the new unique mathematics. Accordingly, there is a need for improvements to digital twins as they are typically implements [2].
Claim 16 is analogous to claim 2 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claim 19 is analogous to claim 2 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claim(s) 3, 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHEN in view of LIANIDES in view of TIN NYO (US2024/0127521A1).
Regarding claim 3, CHEN teaches:
3. The method according to claim 1, wherein the binding each first virtual object to a corresponding bone comprises: in response to an instruction for each first virtual object, binding each first virtual object to the corresponding bone (CHEN: figs. 4a-b, pg. 11 see lines 22-31).
CHEN in view of LIANIDES don’t teach however the analogous prior art TIN NYO teaches:
the instruction is a movement control instruction (TIN NYO: par. 23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the instruction is a movement control instruction as shown in TIN NYO with the previous combination for the benefit of addressing a shortcoming in the prior art related to the present technology also solves other problems that are collateral to the supporting of interactions between avatars. One such problem is one of consent. Just because contact interactions are supported, it does not mean that a user wants their avatar to be touched. The nature of virtual reality environments is that users can be intimately connected with their avatars. Often users choose to view the world from a first person point of view such that an interaction where one avatar is touching another avatar can be perceived as a first person contact. Thus, just as some contact is not welcome in the real world, it is not welcome in a virtual world either. Accordingly, the present technology provides a safety framework that declares a user's consent for touching and that disables contact when it is not desired [24].
Claim 17 is analogous to claim 3 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claim 20 is analogous to claim 3 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHEN in view of LIANIDES in view of KIM (US2020/0226827A1).
Regarding claim 7, the previous combination of CHEN in view of LIANIDES don’t teach however the analogous prior art KIM teaches:
7. The method according to claim 1, further comprising: determining a relative pose of the first virtual object relative to the corresponding bone (KIM: par. 21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine determining a relative pose of the first virtual object relative to the corresponding bone as shown in KIM with the previous combination for the benefit of to save the expense of constructing a 3D full-body skeleton model and to raise the accuracy of prediction of a skeleton [10].
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHEN in view of LIANIDES in view of GAO (CN 112843701A).
Regarding claim 9, the previous combination of CHEN in view of LIANIDES don’t teach however the analogous prior art GAO teaches:
9. The method according to claim 1, further comprising: in response to an unbinding instruction for a first virtual object and a corresponding bone, releasing a binding relationship between the first virtual object and the corresponding bone (GAO: pg. 7 lines 19-34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine in response to an unbinding instruction for a first virtual object and a corresponding bone, releasing a binding relationship between the first virtual object and the corresponding bone as shown in GAO with the previous combination for the benefit of avoiding the skin binding confusion caused by abnormal display [pg. 7 lines 32-34].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6, 8 and 10-13 would be objected to (except for the 101 rejection) as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 4-6, 8 and 10-13, the prior art doesn’t teach:
4. The method according to claim 3, wherein the in response to a movement control instruction for each first virtual object, binding each first virtual object to the corresponding bone, comprises: in response to the movement control instruction for each first virtual object, controlling each first virtual object to move to a position of the corresponding bone; and in a case that the first virtual object collides with a bone, binding the first virtual object to the corresponding bone, the corresponding bone being the bone with which the first virtual object collides.
5. The method according to claim 4, wherein the in a case that the first virtual object collides with a bone, binding the first virtual object to the corresponding bone, comprises: in a case that the first virtual object collides with a plurality of bones, determining distances between the first virtual object and each of the plurality of bones with which the first virtual object collides; and binding the first virtual object to the corresponding bone, the corresponding bone being a bone corresponding to a smallest distance among all the distances.
6. The method according to claim 5, wherein the determining distances between the first virtual object and each of the plurality of bones with which the first virtual object collides comprises: determining distances between a center point of the first virtual object and a center point of each of the plurality of bones with which the first virtual object collides.
8. The method according to claim 7, further comprising:
acquiring an input signal corresponding to the virtual entity, and determining a pose of at least one bone in the skeletal model of the virtual entity according to the input signal; and
according to the relative pose and the pose of the at least one bone, determining a pose of each first virtual object, and displaying the first virtual object.
10. The method according to claim 9, wherein the in response to an unbinding instruction for a first virtual object and a corresponding bone, releasing a binding relationship between the first virtual object and the corresponding bone, comprises:
displaying a binding connection line between the first virtual object and the corresponding bone; and
in response to a cutting operation on the binding connection line, releasing the binding relationship between the first virtual object and the corresponding bone.
11. The method according to claim 1, further comprising:
in response to a new binding instruction for a first bone on the skeletal model, determining the first virtual object according to a second virtual object and a third virtual object, wherein the second virtual object is an original first virtual object bound to the first bone, and the third virtual object is a new virtual object carried by the new binding instruction; and
binding the first virtual object to the first bone.
12. The method according to claim 11, wherein the determining the first virtual object according to a second virtual object and a third virtual object comprises:
grouping the second virtual object and the third virtual object to obtain an object group, and determining the object group as the first virtual object.
13. The method according to claim 11, wherein before the binding the first virtual object to the first bone, the method further comprises:
releasing a binding relationship between the second virtual object and the first bone.
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 MAURICE L MCDOWELL, JR whose telephone number is (571)270-3707. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 2pm-10pm.
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, Said A. Broome can be reached at 571-272-2931. 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.
/MAURICE L. MCDOWELL, JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2612