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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 19-20, 24 and 29-30 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kimura et al. (US patent publication: 20210142552, “Kimura”).
Regarding claim 29, A computer system ([0074] "FIG. 2 is a block diagram illustrating a detailed exemplary configuration of the information processing device 1") that is in communication with a display generation component and one or more input devices, ([0074] "sensor unit 12, a storage unit 14, the display unit 16") the computer system comprising:
one or more processors; memory; and one or more programs, (“[0075]…The control unit 10 is achieved by an electronic circuit of a microprocessor such as a CPU or a GPU. The control unit 10 may include, for example, a read only memory (ROM) configured to store a computer program,”) wherein the one or more programs are stored in the memory and configured to be executed by the one or more processors,(“ [0097] The storage unit 14 stores a computer program and a parameter for the control unit 10 described above to execute each function.”) the one or more programs including instructions for:
while displaying, via the display generation component, a respective environment, detecting a change in a number of application user interfaces that are being displayed concurrently with the respective environment; ( [0157] "schematically illustrates change of the display resolution and display format (wire frame display) of the virtual object displayed in a spherical shape in accordance with the number of displayed virtual objects". virtual object is the virtual application interfaces as they are technically virtual or computer generated element.) and
in response to detecting the change in the number of application user interfaces that are being displayed concurrently with the respective environment, changing a level of detail with which the respective environment is being displayed. (“ [0157] "As illustrated in FIG. 11, when the number of displayed virtual objects is large (for example, equal to or larger than six), a virtual object 808a having a low display resolution and a spherical shape is displayed in wire frame display").
Claim 1 is directed to a method and its steps are similar in scope and function of the elements of the device claim 29 and therefore claim 1 is rejected with same rationales as specified in the rejection of claim 29.
Claim 30 is directed to a con-transitory computer readable medium (“Fig. 2 and “ [0097] The storage unit 14 stores a computer program and a parameter for the control unit 10 described above to execute each function.”) and its elements are similar in scope and function of the elements of the device claim 29 and therefore claim 30 is rejected with same rationales as specified in the rejection of claim 29.
Regarding claim 2, Kimura teaches, wherein displaying the respective environment at a respective level of detail includes: in accordance with a determination that a first set of one or more application user interfaces are concurrently displayed with the respective environment, displaying the respective environment with a first level of detail while concurrently displaying the first set of one or more application user interfaces; and in accordance with a determination that a second set of one or more application user interfaces, different from the first set of one or more application user interfaces, are concurrently displayed with the respective environment, displaying the respective environment with a second level of detail concurrently with the second set of one or more application user interfaces, wherein the second level of detail is different from the first level of detail. (“ [0157] "As illustrated in FIG. 11, when the number of displayed virtual objects is large (for example, equal to or larger than six), a virtual object 808a having a low display resolution and a spherical shape is displayed in wire frame display").
Regarding claim 3, Kimura teaches, wherein displaying, via the display generation component, the respective environment includes displaying, via the display generation component, a three-dimensional virtual environment.( [0123] "the amount of display processing can be reduced as compared to the above-described three-dimensional display by displaying the virtual object by using wire frames.")
Regarding claim 4, Kimura teaches, in response to detecting the change in the number of application user interfaces that are being displayed concurrently with the respective environment and in accordance with a determination that the number of application user interfaces that are being displayed concurrently with the respective environment has decreased, increasing the level of detail with which the respective environment is being displayed.(Paragraph {0157)
Regarding claim 6, Kimura teaches, in response to detecting the change in the number of application user interfaces that are being displayed concurrently with the respective environment and in accordance with a determination that the number of application user interfaces that are being displayed concurrently with the respective environment has increased, decreasing the level of detail with which the respective environment is being displayed. . (“ [0157] As illustrated in FIG. 11, when the number of displayed virtual objects is large (for example, equal to or larger than six), a virtual object 808a having a low display resolution and a spherical shape is displayed in wire frame display").
Regarding claim 19, Kimura teaches, wherein changing the level of detail with which the respective environment is displayed includes changing a pixel density of the respective environment. (“ [0157] As illustrated in FIG. 11, when the number of displayed virtual objects is large (for example, equal to or larger than six), a virtual object 808a having a low display resolution and a spherical shape is displayed in wire frame display").
Regarding claim 20, Kimura teaches, wherein changing the level of detail with which the respective environment is being displayed includes: in accordance with a determination that at least one active application user interface is being displayed concurrently with the respective environment, maintaining a pixel density of the at least one active application user interface at a higher level than a pixel density of the respective environment. (“[0157]…. When the display number is intermediate (for example, smaller than six and equal to or larger than three), a virtual object 808b having a higher display resolution than that of the virtual object 808a and having a polygonal shape extremely approximate to a spherical shape is displayed. Virtual objects 808a has a higher resolution than the resolution of environment because resolution of environment doesn’t change.)
Regarding claim 24, Kimura teaches, wherein changing the level of detail with which the respective environment is being displayed includes changing a resolution of one or more virtual elements in the respective environment. (“ [0157] As illustrated in FIG. 11, when the number of displayed virtual objects is large (for example, equal to or larger than six), a virtual object 808a having a low display resolution and a spherical shape is displayed in wire frame display").
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura.
Regarding claim 5, Kimura doesn’t expressly teach, wherein the number of application user interfaces that are being displayed concurrently with the respective environment has decreased to zero in response to detecting the change in the number of application user interfaces that are being displayed concurrently with the respective environment.
However Kimura teaches the number of the number of application user interfaces that are being displayed concurrently with the respective environment has decreased to three or two (See Fig. 11 and {0157]).
Reducing the number of application user interfaces that are being displayed concurrently with the respective environment to zero is an obvious variation of the number of the number of application user interfaces that are being displayed concurrently with the respective environment has decreased to three or two as taught by Kimura.
Therefore it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the application to have modified Kimura to have included , wherein the number of application user interfaces that are being displayed concurrently with the respective environment has decreased to zero in response to detecting the change in the number of application user interfaces that are being displayed concurrently with the respective environment as different design choice of the number of applications based on which the level of detail would be changed.
Regarding claim 7, Kimura doesn’t expressly teach, wherein the number of application user interfaces that are being displayed concurrently with the respective environment has increased to one in response to detecting the change in number of application user interfaces that are being displayed concurrently with the respective environment.
However Kimura teaches the number of the number of application user interfaces that are being displayed concurrently with the respective environment has increased to 3 or 6 (See Fig. 11 and {0157]).
Increasing the number of application user interfaces that are being displayed concurrently with the respective environment to one is an obvious variation of the number of the number of application user interfaces that are being displayed concurrently with the respective environment has increased to 3 or 6 as taught by Kimura.
Therefore it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the application to have modified Kimura to have included, wherein the number of application user interfaces that are being displayed concurrently with the respective environment has increased to one in response to detecting the change in number of application user interfaces that are being displayed concurrently with the respective environment as different design choice of the number of applications based on which the level of detail would be changed.
Claim(s) 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura in view of Hayman (US Patent 6538651, “Hayman”).
Regarding claim 8, Kimura doesn’t expressly teach, wherein changing the level of detail with which the respective environment is being displayed includes changing respective frame rates of one or more animations being displayed in the respective environment.
Hayman teaches, changing the level of detail with which the respective environment is being displayed includes changing respective frame rates of one or more animations being displayed in the respective environment.(Column 1 Lines 53-59: “The frame rate is especially important where the graphic image is changed slightly and redisplayed to give the appearance of movement or animation. A low frame rate causes the animation to appear jerky. By lowering the level of detail (e.g., the number of polygons that must be drawn), the frame rate may be increased. However, a lower level of detail may cause the image to appear blocky and unrealistic.”)
Kimura and Hayman are analogous as they are from the field of display processing.
Therefore it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kimura to have included changing the level of detail with which the respective environment is being displayed includes changing respective frame rates of one or more animations being displayed in the respective environment as taught by Hayman.
The motivation to include to control the amount of processing effort or power for the application interfaces.
Regarding claim 9, Kim as modified by Hayman teaches, wherein changing the level of detail with which the respective environment is being displayed includes: in accordance with a determination that at least one active application user interface is being displayed concurrently with the respective environment, maintaining a frame rate of the at least one active application user interface at a higher level than a frame rate of the respective environment. (Kim [0175] teaches changing level of detail of applicant interfaces and Hayman changing level of detail by maintaining a frame rate of the at least one active application user interface at a higher level than a frame rate of the respective environment.(Column 1 Lines 53-59))
The motivation to include to control the amount of processing effort or power for the application interfaces.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-18, 21-23 and 25-28 are objected to 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.
Claim 10 is objected because the combination of the best available prior arts fails to expressly teach, wherein changing the level of detail with which the respective environment is being displayed includes changing one or more characteristics of one or more animations for one or more ambient elements being displayed in the respective environment.
Dependent claims 11-18 are also objected by virtue of dependency.
Claim 21 is objected because the combination of the best available prior arts fails to expressly teach, wherein changing the level of detail with which the respective environment is being displayed includes ceasing to display, in the respective environment, one or more ambient elements that are based on simulated light.
Dependent claim 22 is also objected by virtue of dependency.
Claim 23 is objected because the combination of the best available prior arts fails to expressly teach, wherein changing the level of detail with which the respective environment is being displayed includes changing the level of detail based on an amount of processing power required by the number of application user interfaces concurrently displayed with the respective environment.
Claim 25 is objected because the combination of the best available prior arts fails to expressly teach, while displaying the respective environment with a first level of detail, higher than a second level of detail at which the respective environment can be displayed: displaying a first portion of the respective environment with a texture that includes a first level of animation, displaying a second portion of the respective environment with a texture that includes a second level of animation, less than the first level of animation, wherein the first portion of the respective environment is closer to a viewpoint of a user in the respective environment than the second portion.
Dependent claims 26-27 are also objected by virtue of dependency.
Claim 28 is objected because the combination of the best available prior arts fails to expressly teach, wherein changing the level of detail with which the respective environment is displayed from a first level of detail to a second level of detail includes changing the level of detail such that display of the respective environment requires at most a respective amount of power corresponding to the second level of detail, wherein the respective amount of power corresponding to the second level of detail is the same whether the respective environment is a first environment or a second environment different from the first environment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tapas Mazumder whose telephone number is (571)270-7466. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 PM PST.
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, Alicia Harrington can be reached at 571-272-2330. 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.
/TAPAS MAZUMDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2615