DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the amendments filed 6/5/2026.
Claims 1-17 and 19-21 are pending. Claims 1, 19 and 20 are currently amended; Claim 18 is canceled and Claim 21 is new.
All prior rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102-103 are withdrawn as necessitated by amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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 1-3, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14-17 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Schaefer, et al., U.S. PGPUB No. 12,097,427 (“Schaefer”) .
With regard to Claim 1, Schaefer teaches a method comprising:
at an electronic device including a non-transitory memory, one or more processors, a display (Fig. 1) and one or more sensors (Fig. 7):
while displaying a rig comprising a set of interconnected joints of a virtual character on the display, detecting a gesture that corresponds to a request to manipulate the rig (Col. 2, lines 18-36 describe an environment where a user controls an avatar using sensor data from external devices, where Col. 3, lines 9-13 describe that the avatar is defined as a body model of substantially rigid bodies connected by joints. Col. 15, lines 44-56 describes that a motion plan for a body model is generated by first selecting a motion template matching a detected user gesture);
in response to detecting the gesture, obtaining, via the one or more sensors, interaction data that characterizes an interaction of a user of the electronic device in a physical environment of the electronic device (Col. 7, lines 56-63 describe that the motion planner also obtains a combination of sensor data and information derived therefrom that modulates or configures the selected motion template);
manipulating the rig in accordance with a first manipulation when the interaction data satisfies a first interaction criterion; and manipulating the rig in accordance with a second manipulation when the interaction data satisfies a second interaction criterion (Col. 14, lines 21-47 describe that an intensity score is calculated using sensor data, to determine an intensity level of a user. A level of exaggeration is applied when mapping a user’s motions to a user avatar based on the intensity score, thereby producing different manipulations when the intensity score is at different levels), wherein
manipulating the rig comprises changing a pose of the rig by modifying one or more joints of the set of interconnected joints (Col. 17, line 63 – Col. 18, line 3 describe that a motion plan is applied to a user avatar by actuating one or more joints of the avatar to affect changes to the avatar’s pose across a sequence of frames as defined in the motion plan, including how much to move each joint).
Claim 19 recites a device which carries out the method of Claim 1, and is similarly rejected. Claim 20 recites a memory storing one or more programs which execute to carry out the method of Claim 1, and is likewise rejected.
With regard to Claim 2, Schaefer teaches that the interaction includes a current interaction. Col. 14, lines 21-35 describe that a single, instantaneous intensity level can be captured and used as the intensity score.
With regard to Claim 3, Schaefer teaches that the interaction includes a historical interaction. Col. 14, lines 21-42 describe that an intensity score can account for previous interactions by averaging, weighting, or otherwise deriving an intensity score from a plurality of interactions over time.
With regard to Claim 7, Schaefer teaches that the interaction data indicates a material characteristic of the physical environment; wherein the electronic device manipulates the rig in accordance with the first manipulation when the material characteristic matches a first material specified by the first interaction criterion; and wherein the electronic device manipulates the rig in accordance with the second manipulation when the material characteristic matches a second material specified by the second interaction criterion. Col. 14, lines 43=-47 describe that the intensity score can indicate how chaotic or erratic a user’s motion is, and define a level of exaggeration to apply when moving the user’s avatar.
With regard to Claim 8, Schaefer teaches that the interaction comprises an utterance; wherein the electronic device manipulates the rig in accordance with the first manipulation when the utterance is associated with a first verbal characteristic specified by the first interaction criterion; and wherein the electronic device manipulates the rig in accordance with the second manipulation when the utterance is associated with a second verbal characteristic specified by the second interaction criterion. Col. 14, lines 43-47 describe that the intensity score is calculated to indicate how chaotic or erratic a user’s voice is, which defines the level of exaggeration to apply when mapping motion to the user’s avatar.
With regard to Claim 10, Schaefer teaches that the interaction data indicates a facial expression of a user of the electronic device; wherein the electronic device manipulates the rig in accordance with the first manipulation when the facial expression matches a first type of facial expression specified by the first interaction criterion; and wherein the electronic device manipulates the rig in accordance with the second manipulation when the facial expression matches a second type of facial expression specified by the second interaction criterion. Col. 14, lines 21-42 describe that the intensity score can be based in part on a user’s facial expression.
With regard to Claim 11, Schaefer teaches that the interaction data indicates a body pose of a user of the electronic device; wherein the electronic device manipulates the rig in accordance with the first manipulation when the body pose matches a first body pose specified by the first interaction criterion; and wherein the electronic device manipulates the rig in accordance with the second manipulation when the body pose matches a second body pose specified by the second interaction criterion. Col. 15, line 46 – Col. 16, line 2 describe that the speed and apparent enthusiasm of an animation can be configured based on a determined sentiment, where Col. 14, lines 1-15 describe that a sentiment analyzer determines sentiment by determining a user’s pose.
With regard to Claim 14, Schaefer teaches that manipulating the rig in accordance with the first manipulation comprises displaying a movement of the rig in a first direction; and wherein manipulating the rig in accordance with the second manipulation comprises displaying a movement of the rig in a second direction that is different from the first direction. Col. 2, lines 37-51 describe that waving an avatar’s hand can move the hand up or down, depending on the horizontal acceleration or altimeter data in addition to the detected gesture.
With regard to Claim 15, Schaefer teaches that manipulating the rig in accordance with the first manipulation comprises displaying a movement of the rig at a first speed; and wherein manipulating the rig in accordance with the second manipulation comprises displaying a movement of the rig at a second speed that is different from the first speed.
With regard to Claim 16, Schaefer teaches that manipulating the rig in accordance with the first manipulation comprises displaying a movement of the rig at a first speed; and wherein manipulating the rig in accordance with the second manipulation comprises displaying a movement of the rig at a second speed that is different from the first speed. Col. 15, line 46 – Col. 16, line 2 describe that the speed of an animation can be configured based on the intensity score.
With regard to Claim 17, Schaefer teaches that the rig is capable of transforming into a plurality of shapes; wherein manipulating the rig in accordance with the first manipulation comprises displaying a transformation of the rig into a first shape of the plurality of shapes; and wherein manipulating the rig in accordance with the second manipulation comprises displaying a transformation of the rig into a second shape of the plurality of shapes that is different from the first shape. Col. 2, lines 37-53 describe that the user avatar can be shaped to hold a hand over the head or at other heights, depending on the sensed height of the device as the user performs the gesture.
With regard to Claim 21, Schaefer teaches that the interaction data indicates at least one of a number of people in the physical environment, a speech characteristic of a speech of the user, a gaze direction of the user relative to the rig, a facial expression of the user, a body pose of the user, a physiological measurement of the user, or a grip type of the user. Col. 2, lines 18-36 describe data sensors for sensing a user’s pose, voice, and facial expression.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaefer, in view of Langridge, et al., U.S. Patent No. 8,657,683 (“Langridge”).
With regard to Claim 4, Langridge teaches that the electronic device manipulates the rig in accordance with the first manipulation when a time at which the gesture is performed is within a first time period specified by the first interaction criterion; and wherein the electronic device manipulates the rig in accordance with the second manipulation when the time at which the gesture is performed is within a second time period specified by the second interaction criterion.
Col. 5, lines 12-56 describe that a user can enter a spell selection gesture in a game in which their avatar appears, as shown in Fig. 1. A user entering a spell gesture at a subsequent time casts a specified spell. One of skill in the art would understand that the same gesture input at a time when the spell selection gesture was not previously entered, would cause a manipulation of the avatar other than the spell manipulation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Langridge with Schaefer. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve user experience by enabling additional control over gestures, and enabling a wider array of gesture inputs for an avatar by including a preceding gesture such as the spell enabling gesture described in Langridge.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaefer, in view of Ganesan, et al., U.S. PGPUB No. 2017/0090582 (“Ganesan”).
With regard to Claim 5, Schaefer, in view of Ganesan teaches that the electronic device manipulates the rig in accordance with the first manipulation when a geographical location where the gesture is performed is a first type of geographical location specified by the first interaction criterion; and wherein the electronic device manipulates the rig in accordance with the second manipulation when the geographical location where the gesture is performed is a second type of geographical location specified by the second interaction criterion.
Schaefer teaches at Col. 7, lines 56-63 that the motion planner also obtains a combination of sensor data and information derived therefrom that modulates or configures the selected motion template. Ganesan teaches at [0034] that upon a detection of a gesture, a geographic location of a sender and receiver of a gesture can be determined, and [0039] describes that an input gesture can cause a different gesture to be displayed, such as by causing a user gesture of a “V” sign to be displayed as a waving hand.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Ganesan with Schaefer. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve user experience by enabling filtering of gestures in contexts where users may unknowingly make rude or inappropriate gestures.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaefer, in view of Reville, et al., U.S. PGPUB No. 2011/0289456 (“Reville”).
With regard to Claim 6, Schaefer, in view of Reville teaches that the electronic device manipulates the rig in accordance with the first manipulation when a number of people performing the gesture is one; and wherein the electronic device manipulates the rig in accordance with the second manipulation when the number of people performing the gesture is more than one.
Schaefer teaches at Col. 7, lines 56-63 that the motion planner also obtains a combination of sensor data and information derived therefrom that modulates or configures the selected motion template. Reville at [0078] describes that a context for interpreting gestures can change dependent on a number of users. Users can be assigned roles, which affects functions that gestures will implement.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to Reville with Schaefer. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve user experience by enabling additional adaptations for user gestures, including when operating avatar-based environments with multiple users.
Claims 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaefer, in view of Kwon, U.S. PGPUB No. 2015/0177843 (“Kwon”).
With regard to Claim 9, Schaefer, in view of Kwon teaches the interaction data comprises a gaze vector that characterizes a gaze of a user of the electronic device; wherein the electronic device manipulates the rig in accordance with the first manipulation when the gaze vector is associated with a first gaze characteristic; and wherein the electronic device manipulates the rig in accordance with the second manipulation when the gaze vector is associated with a second gaze characteristic that is different from the first gaze characteristic.
Schaefer teaches at Col. 7, lines 56-63 that the motion planner also obtains a combination of sensor data and information derived therefrom that modulates or configures the selected motion template. Kwon teaches at [0059] that a user making an input while a gaze is detected as not directed at a screen can have the finger on the screen reset to a previous position when making an input, rather than allow the input as made which may be erroneous.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Kwon with Schaefer. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve user experience by minimizing erroneous inputs when users are looking away from the screen.
With regard to Claim 13, Schaefer, in view of Kwon teaches that the interaction comprises a user of the electronic device holding the electronic device; wherein the electronic device manipulates the rig in accordance with the first manipulation when the interaction data indicates that the user is holding the electronic device with a first type of grip specified by the first interaction criterion; and wherein the electronic device manipulates the rig in accordance with the second manipulation when the interaction data indicates that the user is holding the electronic device with a second type of grip specified by the second interaction criterion.
Schaefer teaches at Col. 7, lines 56-63 that the motion planner also obtains a combination of sensor data and information derived therefrom that modulates or configures the selected motion template. Kwon teaches at [0053] that a virtual remote controller display can be responsive to a user grip, such that a user gripping the remote control part of the device in a first operative manner causes a normal virtual remote to be displayed, while a user gripping in a second manner causes a touch remote to be displayed, in response to a finger gesture thereon.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Schaefer with Kwon. One of ordinary skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve user experience by enabling additional control of a user rig that accounts for various capabilities of input devices with which a user might interact with an avatar-based system.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaefer, in view of Palamadai, et al., U.S. PGPUB No. 2022/0383260 (“Palamadai”).
With regard to Claim 12, Schaefer, in view of Palamadai teaches that the interaction data indicates a physiological measurement of a user of the electronic device; wherein the electronic device manipulates the rig in accordance with the first manipulation when the physiological measurement is within a first range specified by the first interaction criterion; and wherein the electronic device manipulates the rig in accordance with the second manipulation when the physiological measurement is within a second range specified by the second interaction criterion.
Schaefer teaches at Col. 7, lines 56-63 that the motion planner also obtains a combination of sensor data and information derived therefrom that modulates or configures the selected motion template. Palamadai teaches at [0020] a platform that a user interacts with. [0065] describes that the system is capable of carrying out different tasks in response to detecting a user is agitated, such as by physiological symptoms of elevated heart or breathing rate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Palamadai with Schaefer. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve user experience by enabling gesture responses to be modified to better serve a user in an agitated or otherwise excited state, and improving the ability to detect such a state by using physiological signals.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments 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.
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 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 KEITH D BLOOMQUIST whose telephone number is (571)270-7718. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30-5 PM.
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, Kieu Vu can be reached at 571-272-4057. 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.
/KEITH D BLOOMQUIST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
9/3/2026
Prosecution Insights