DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 and 13-14 is objected to because of the following informalities: introduced a new form of "contact" and should be "virtual contact". Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2-3 and 10-12 is objected to because of the following informalities: "it is detected virtual contact" should be more specific and indicate what "it" is referring to. Appropriate correction is required.
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 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) 1-6, and 9-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lacey et al. (U.S. Pub No. 2019/0362557) in view of Alexander, IV et al. (U.S. Pub No. 2021/0097875).
Regarding claim 1, Lacey discloses an information processing apparatus (Fig. 2A, 200) comprising: a processor (Fig. 2A, 260; also, paragraph 101, line(s) 1-2 “The local processing and data module 260 may comprise a hardware processor”); and a memory (Fig. 2A, 260; also, paragraph 101, line(s) 1-2 “The local processing and data module 260 may comprise a hardware processor, as well as digital memory”); storing a program which, when executed by the processor (Fig 2A, 260; also, paragraph 153, line(s) 7-11 “A pose process 910 (e.g., head or eye pose) may be executed on the wearable computing architecture (e.g., processing module 260 or controller 460) and utilize data from the map to determine position and orientation of the wearable computing hardware or user.” ), causes the processor to detect virtual contact of a second user (paragraph 517, line(s) 2-3 “ facilitate interacting with virtual objects”) with respect to a first user in a three-dimensional space (paragraph 176, line(s) 1-2 “A virtual object may be a three-dimensional (3D), two-dimensional (2D), or one-dimensional (1D) object.”) that is a virtual space or a mixed reality space (paragraph 4, line(s) 2-3 “”virtual reality”, “augmented reality”, or “mixed reality””); and perform control such that, in a case where the virtual contact has occurred (paragraph 110, line(s) 11-16 “Wearable systems including sensors such as those described with reference to FIGS. 2A and 2B advantageously can utilize transmodal input fusion techniques described herein to dynamically select a subset of these sensor inputs to assist the user in selecting, targeting, or interacting with real or virtual objects”; also, paragraph 104, line(s) 13-15 “Physical contact sensors, such as strain gauges, curb feelers, or the like, may also be included as environmental sensors”), the first user is notified of information about a position of the contact (paragraph 175, line(s) 13-15 “a notification from an operating system, text, a text editing application, a messaging application, and so on”; also, paragraph 255, line(s) 34-37 “The wearable system can use the user's position as another input to determine a target virtual object or a parameter for user interaction”). Lacey does not disclose the causes the processor to detect virtual contact of a second user with respect to a first user.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Alexander discloses the detection of a virtual contact of a second user with respect to a first user (paragraph 32, line(s) 1-11 “A virtual avatar may be a virtual representation of a real or fictional person or creature or personified object in an AR/VR/MR environment. For example, a virtual avatar may be a virtual representation of a real object, for example, an object in a museum. During a telepresence session in which two AR/VR/MR users are interacting with each other, a viewer can perceive an avatar of another user in the viewer's environment and thereby create a tangible sense of the other user's presence in the viewer's environment. The avatar can also provide a way for users to interact with each other and do things together in a shared virtual environment.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Lacey’s invention of a detect virtual contact of a second user with respect to a first user in a three-dimensional space that is a virtual space or a mixed reality space with the features of detecting a virtual contact with an avatar. As demonstrated by Alexander, one could choose to detect a virtual contact between different virtual objects including a virtual avatar.
Regarding claim 2, Lacey in view of Alexander discloses the information processing apparatus of claim 1, wherein, it is detected contact (Lacey: paragraph 517, line(s) 2-3 “facilitate interacting with virtual objects in a three-dimensional (3D) environment.”; also, paragraph 176, line(s) 1-2 “A virtual object may be a three-dimensional (3D), two-dimensional (2D), or one-dimensional (1D) object.”) of an avatar of the second user with respect to the first user in the three-dimensional space that is the mixed reality space (Lacey: paragraph 4, line(s) 2-3 “”virtual reality”, “augmented reality”, or “mixed reality””). Lacey does not disclose the detected contact of an avatar of the second user with respect to the first user.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Alexander discloses the detected contact of an avatar of the second user with respect to the first user (paragraph 32, line(s) 1-11 “A virtual avatar may be a virtual representation of a real or fictional person or creature or personified object in an AR/VR/MR environment. For example, a virtual avatar may be a virtual representation of a real object, for example, an object in a museum. During a telepresence session in which two AR/VR/MR users are interacting with each other, a viewer can perceive an avatar of another user in the viewer's environment and thereby create a tangible sense of the other user's presence in the viewer's environment. The avatar can also provide a way for users to interact with each other and do things together in a shared virtual environment.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Lacey’s invention of the detect virtual contact of a second user with the features of the perspective of the first user the held object of second user with respects to the first user. As demonstrated by Alexander, one could choose to perceive an avatar of another user in the viewers environment and create a sense of the other user’s presence in the viewer’s environment.
Regarding claim 3, Lacey in view of Alexander discloses the information processing apparatus of claim 1, wherein, it is detected contact (Lacey: paragraph 517, line(s) 2-3 “facilitate interacting with virtual objects in a three-dimensional (3D) environment.”; also, paragraph 176, line(s) 1-2 “A virtual object may be a three-dimensional (3D), two-dimensional (2D), or one-dimensional (1D) object.”) of an avatar of the second user with respect to the an avatar of the first user in the three-dimensional space that is the virtual space (Lacey: paragraph 4, line(s) 2-3 “”virtual reality”, “augmented reality”, or “mixed reality””). Lacey does not disclose the detected contact of an avatar of the second user with respect to an avatar of the first user.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Alexander discloses the detected contact of an avatar of the second user with respect to an avatar of the first user (paragraph 32, line(s) 1-11 “A virtual avatar may be a virtual representation of a real or fictional person or creature or personified object in an AR/VR/MR environment. For example, a virtual avatar may be a virtual representation of a real object, for example, an object in a museum. During a telepresence session in which two AR/VR/MR users are interacting with each other, a viewer can perceive an avatar of another user in the viewer's environment and thereby create a tangible sense of the other user's presence in the viewer's environment. The avatar can also provide a way for users to interact with each other and do things together in a shared virtual environment.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Lacey’s invention of a detect virtual contact of a second user with respect to an avatar of the first user in a three-dimensional space that is a virtual space or a mixed reality space with the features of detecting a virtual contact with an avatar. As demonstrated by Alexander, one could choose to detect a virtual contact between different virtual objects including a virtual avatar.
Regarding claim 4, Lacey in view of Alexander discloses the information processing apparatus of claim 1, wherein, the control is performed such that the information about the position and intensity of the contact is notified (Lacey: paragraph 81, line(s) 1-8 “particular sensor inputs that are used at any point in time can change dynamically as the user interacts with the 3D environment. An input mode can be dynamically added (or “fused” as further described herein) when the device determines that the input mode is providing additional information to aid in the targeting of a virtual object, and an input mode can be dynamically removed if that input mode no longer provides relevant information”; also, paragraph 84, line(s) 1-15 “Input modes may be said to converge, for example, when a variance between input vectors of the inputs are less than a threshold. Once the system has recognized that inputs are converged, the system may filter the converged inputs and fuse them together to create a new conditioned input that can then be used to do useful work and be utilized to perform a task with greater confidence and accuracy (than could be accomplished by using the inputs separately). In various embodiments, the system may apply dynamic filtering (e.g., dynamically fuse inputs together) in response to the relative convergence of inputs. The system may continually evaluate whether inputs are convergent. In some embodiments, the system may scale the intensity of input fusion (e.g., how strongly the system fuses inputs together) in relation to the intensity of input”; also, paragraph 86, line(s) 11-13 “an electromagnetic tracking sensor system, a global positioning system (GPS) sensor, a radar or lidar sensor”; also, paragraph 219, line(s) 9-11 “The focus indicator can also include audible or tactile effects such as vibrations, ring tones, beeps, etc.”).
Regarding claim 5, Lacey in view of Alexander discloses the information processing apparatus of claim 1, wherein, the control is performed such that the information is notified by display or audio (Lacey: paragraph 93, line(s) 1-9 “A wearable system (also referred to herein as an augmented reality (AR) system) can be configured to present 2D or 3D virtual images to a user. The images may be still images, frames of a video, or a video, in combination or the like. The wearable system can include a wearable device that can present VR, AR, or MR content in an environment, alone or in combination, for user interaction. The wearable device can be a head-mounted device (HMD) which can includes a head-mounted display.”; also, paragraph 97, line(s) 1-17 “FIG. 2A illustrates an example of wearable system 200. The wearable system 200 includes a display 220, and various mechanical and electronic modules and systems to support the functioning of display 220. The display 220 may be coupled to a frame 230, which is wearable by a user, wearer, or viewer 210. The display 220 can be positioned in front of the eyes of the user 210. The display 220 can present AR/VR/MR content to a user. The display 220 can comprise a head mounted display (HMD) that is worn on the head of the user. In some embodiments, a speaker 240 is coupled to the frame 230 and positioned adjacent the ear canal of the user (in some embodiments, another speaker, not shown, is positioned adjacent the other ear canal of the user to provide for stereo/shapeable sound control). The display 220 can include an audio sensor 232 (e.g., a microphone) for detecting an audio stream from the environment on which to perform voice recognition.”; also, paragraph 219, line(s) 1-11 “The wearable system (e.g., the central runtime server 1650) can assign a focus indicator to the target virtual object so that the user can more readily perceive the target virtual object. The focus indicator can be a visual focus indicator. For example, the focus indicator can comprise a halo (substantially surrounding or near the object), a color, a perceived size or depth change (e.g., causing the target object to appear closer and/or larger when selected), or other visual effects which draw the user's attention. The focus indicator can also include audible or tactile effects such as vibrations, ring tones, beeps, etc.”; also, Fig. 2A, 100).
Regarding claim 6, Lacey in view of Alexander discloses the information processing apparatus of claim 1, wherein, the control is performed such that the information is notified by vibration (Lacey: paragraph 219, line(s) 1-11 “The wearable system (e.g., the central runtime server 1650) can assign a focus indicator to the target virtual object so that the user can more readily perceive the target virtual object. The focus indicator can be a visual focus indicator. For example, the focus indicator can comprise a halo (substantially surrounding or near the object), a color, a perceived size or depth change (e.g., causing the target object to appear closer and/or larger when selected), or other visual effects which draw the user's attention. The focus indicator can also include audible or tactile effects such as vibrations, ring tones, beeps, etc.”).
Regarding claim 9, Lacey in view of Alexander discloses the information processing apparatus of claim 1, wherein, the second user is present in a field of view of the first user (Lacey: paragraph 21, line(s) 1-3 “FIG. 12B schematically illustrates an example of virtual objects in a user's field of view and virtual objects in a field of regard.”; also, paragraph 175, line(s) 1-17 ”FIG. 12B schematically illustrates an example of virtual objects in a user's field of view (FOV) and virtual objects in a field of regard (FOR). In FIG. 12B, the FOR 1200 can contain a group of objects (e.g. 1210, 1220, 1230, 1242, and 1244) which can be perceived by the user via the wearable system. The objects within the user's FOR 1200 may be virtual and/or physical objects. For example, the user's FOR 1200 may include physical object such as a chair, a sofa, a wall, etc. The virtual objects may include operating system objects such as e.g., a recycle bin for deleted files, a terminal for inputting commands, a file manager for accessing files or directories, an icon, a menu, an application for audio or video streaming, a notification from an operating system, text, a text editing application, a messaging application, and so on. The virtual objects may also include objects in an application such as e.g., avatars, virtual objects in games, graphics or images, etc.”; also, Fig. 12B) in the three-dimensional space (Lacey: paragraph 176, line(s) 1-2 “A virtual object may be a three-dimensional (3D), two-dimensional (2D), or one-dimensional (1D) object.”), the information is not notified (Lacey: paragraph 175, line(s) 13-15 “a notification from an operating system, text, a text editing application, a messaging application, and so on”; also, paragraph 219, line(s) 1-11 “The wearable system (e.g., the central runtime server 1650) can assign a focus indicator to the target virtual object so that the user can more readily perceive the target virtual object. The focus indicator can be a visual focus indicator. For example, the focus indicator can comprise a halo (substantially surrounding or near the object), a color, a perceived size or depth change (e.g., causing the target object to appear closer and/or larger when selected), or other visual effects which draw the user's attention. The focus indicator can also include audible or tactile effects such as vibrations, ring tones, beeps, etc.”).
Regarding claim 10, Lacey in view of Alexander discloses the information processing apparatus of claim 1, wherein, it is detected contact of a hand (Lacey: paragraph 517, line(s) 2-3 “ facilitate interacting with virtual objects”; also, paragraph 86, line(s) 1-10 “As will be further explained herein, input modes can include, but are not limited to, hand or finger gestures, arm gestures, body gestures, head pose, eye gaze, body pose, voice commands, environmental inputs (e.g., position of the user or objects in the user's environment), a shared pose from another user, etc. The sensors used to detect these input modes can include, for example, an outward-facing camera (e.g., to detect hand or body gestures), an inward-facing camera (e.g., to detect eye gaze), an inertial measurement unit”) of the second user with respect to the first user. Lacey does not disclose the detected contact of a hand of the second user with respect to the first user.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Alexander discloses the detected contact of a hand of the second user with respect to the first user (paragraph 32, line(s) 1-11 “A virtual avatar may be a virtual representation of a real or fictional person or creature or personified object in an AR/VR/MR environment. For example, a virtual avatar may be a virtual representation of a real object, for example, an object in a museum. During a telepresence session in which two AR/VR/MR users are interacting with each other, a viewer can perceive an avatar of another user in the viewer's environment and thereby create a tangible sense of the other user's presence in the viewer's environment. The avatar can also provide a way for users to interact with each other and do things together in a shared virtual environment.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Lacey’s invention of a detected contact of a hand with the features of interacting with each other where each viewer can perceive an avatar of another user in the viewer’s environment. As demonstrated by Alexander, one could choose to perceive an avatar of another user in the viewers environment create a sense of the other user’s presence in the viewer’s environment.
Regarding claim 11, Lacey in view of Alexander discloses the information processing apparatus of claim 1, wherein, at least a portion of a plurality of parts of the second user is tracked (Lacey: paragraph 86, line(s) 1-14 “As will be further explained herein, input modes can include, but are not limited to, hand or finger gestures, arm gestures, body gestures, head pose, eye gaze, body pose, voice commands, environmental inputs (e.g., position of the user or objects in the user's environment), a shared pose from another user, etc. The sensors used to detect these input modes can include, for example, an outward-facing camera (e.g., to detect hand or body gestures), an inward-facing camera (e.g., to detect eye gaze), an inertial measurement unit (IMU, e.g., an accelerometer, a gravimeter, a magnetometer), an electromagnetic tracking sensor system, a global positioning system (GPS) sensor, a radar or lidar sensor, etc. (see, e.g., the description of examples of sensors with reference to FIGS. 2A and 2B).”), and is it detected virtual contact of a tracked part (Lacey: paragraph 517, line(s) 2-3 “facilitate interacting with virtual objects”; also, paragraph 175, line(s) 13-15 “a notification from an operating system, text, a text editing application, a messaging application, and so on”; also, paragraph 163, line(s) 7-9 “the wearable system may detect a motion of a totem. The movement of the totem may be recognized through the outward facing system or may be detected through sensors”; also, paragraph 157, line(s) 8-13 “In one embodiment, a totem (e.g. a user input device), or an object such as a toy gun may be held by the user and tracked by the system. The system preferably will be configured to know that the user is holding the item and understand what kind of interaction the user is having with the item”; also, paragraph 86, line(s) 1-14 “As will be further explained herein, input modes can include, but are not limited to, hand or finger gestures, arm gestures, body gestures, head pose, eye gaze, body pose, voice commands, environmental inputs (e.g., position of the user or objects in the user's environment), a shared pose from another user, etc. The sensors used to detect these input modes can include, for example, an outward-facing camera (e.g., to detect hand or body gestures), an inward-facing camera (e.g., to detect eye gaze), an inertial measurement unit (IMU, e.g., an accelerometer, a gravimeter, a magnetometer), an electromagnetic tracking sensor system, a global positioning system (GPS) sensor, a radar or lidar sensor, etc. (see, e.g., the description of examples of sensors with reference to FIGS. 2A and 2B).”) among the plurality of parts of the second user (Lacey: paragraph 86, line(s) 1-14“ As will be further explained herein, input modes can include, but are not limited to, hand or finger gestures, arm gestures, body gestures, head pose, eye gaze, body pose, voice commands, environmental inputs (e.g., position of the user or objects in the user's environment), a shared pose from another user, etc. The sensors used to detect these input modes can include, for example, an outward-facing camera (e.g., to detect hand or body gestures), an inward-facing camera (e.g., to detect eye gaze), an inertial measurement unit (IMU, e.g., an accelerometer, a gravimeter, a magnetometer), an electromagnetic tracking sensor system, a global positioning system (GPS) sensor, a radar or lidar sensor, etc. (see, e.g., the description of examples of sensors with reference to FIGS. 2A and 2B).”) with respect to the first user. Lacey does not disclose the plurality of parts of the second user with respect to the first user.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Alexander discloses the detected virtual contact of a tracked part among the plurality of parts of the second user with respect to the first user (paragraph 32, line(s) 1-11 “A virtual avatar may be a virtual representation of a real or fictional person or creature or personified object in an AR/VR/MR environment. For example, a virtual avatar may be a virtual representation of a real object, for example, an object in a museum. During a telepresence session in which two AR/VR/MR users are interacting with each other, a viewer can perceive an avatar of another user in the viewer's environment and thereby create a tangible sense of the other user's presence in the viewer's environment. The avatar can also provide a way for users to interact with each other and do things together in a shared virtual environment.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Lacey’s invention of at least a portion of a plurality of parts of the second user is tracked, and it is detected virtual contact of a tracked part among the plurality of parts of the second with the features of viewing the detected virtual contact of a tracked part among the plurality of parts of the second user. As demonstrated by Alexander, one could choose to perceive an avatar of another user in the viewers environment and create a sense of the other user’s presence in the viewer’s environment.
Regarding claim 12, Lacey in view of Alexander discloses the information processing apparatus of claim 1, wherein, it is detected contact of a virtual object (Lacey: paragraph 517, line(s) 2-3 “facilitate interacting with virtual objects”; also, paragraph 175, line(s) 13-15 “a notification from an operating system, text, a text editing application, a messaging application, and so on”; also, paragraph 163, line(s) 7-9 “the wearable system may detect a motion of a totem. The movement of the totem may be recognized through the outward facing system or may be detected through sensors”; also, paragraph 157, line(s) 8-13 “In one embodiment, a totem (e.g. a user input device), or an object such as a toy gun may be held by the user and tracked by the system. The system preferably will be configured to know that the user is holding the item and understand what kind of interaction the user is having with the item”) held by the second user with respect to the first user. Lacey does not disclose the detected contact of a virtual object held by the second user with respect to the first user.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Alexander discloses the detected contact of a virtual object held by the second user with respect to the first user (paragraph 32, line(s) 5-11 “During a telepresence session in which two AR/VR/MR users are interacting with each other, a viewer can perceive an avatar of another user in the viewer's environment and thereby create a tangible sense of the other user's presence in the viewer's environment. The avatar can also provide a way for users to interact with each other and do things together in a shared virtual environment.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Lacey’s invention of a detected contact of a virtual object with the features of viewing the held object of second user with respects to the first user. As demonstrated by Alexander, one could choose to perceive an avatar of another user in the viewers environment and create a sense of the other user’s presence in the viewer’s environment.
Regarding claim 13, Lacey discloses an information processing apparatus (Fig. 2A, 200) comprising: detecting virtual contact of a second user (paragraph 517, line(s) 2-3 “facilitate interacting with virtual objects in a three-dimensional (3D) environment.”) with respect to a first user in a three-dimensional space that is a virtual space or a mixed reality space (paragraph 4, line(s) 2-3 “”virtual reality”, “augmented reality”, or “mixed reality””; also, paragraph 176, line(s) 1-2 “A virtual object may be a three-dimensional (3D), two-dimensional (2D), or one-dimensional (1D) object.”); and performing control such that, in a case where the virtual contact has occurred, the first user is notified of information about a position of the contact (paragraph 175, line(s) 13-15 “a notification from an operating system, text, a text editing application, a messaging application, and so on”; also, paragraph 255, line(s) 34-37 “The wearable system can use the user's position as another input to determine a target virtual object or a parameter for user interaction”). Lacey does not disclose the detecting virtual contact of a second user with respect to a first user.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Alexander discloses the detecting virtual contact of a second user with respect to a first user (paragraph 32, line(s) 5-11 “During a telepresence session in which two AR/VR/MR users are interacting with each other, a viewer can perceive an avatar of another user in the viewer's environment and thereby create a tangible sense of the other user's presence in the viewer's environment. The avatar can also provide a way for users to interact with each other and do things together in a shared virtual environment.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Lacey’s invention of a detecting virtual contact of a second user with the features of the perspective of the first user the held object of second user with respects to the first user. As demonstrated by Alexander, one could choose to perceive an avatar of another user in the viewers environment and create a sense of the other user’s presence in the viewer’s environment.
Regarding claim 14, Lacey discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium that stores a program (Lacey: paragraph 117, line(s) 3-5 “The controller 460 includes programming (e.g., instructions in a non-transitory computer-readable medium)”), wherein the program causes a computer to execute a control method of an information processing apparatus (Lacey: Fig. 2A, 200), the control method comprising: detect virtual contact of a second user (Lacey: paragraph 517, line(s) 2-3 “ facilitate interacting with virtual objects in a three-dimensional (3D) environment.”) with respect to a first user in a three-dimensional space that is a virtual space or a mixed reality space (Lacey: paragraph 4, line(s) 2-3 “”virtual reality”, “augmented reality”, or “mixed reality””; also, paragraph 176, line(s) 1-2 “A virtual object may be a three-dimensional (3D), two-dimensional (2D), or one-dimensional (1D) object.”); and performing control such that, in a case where the virtual contact has occurred, the first user is notified of information about a position of the contact (Lacey: paragraph 175, line(s) 13-15 “a notification from an operating system, text, a text editing application, a messaging application, and so on”; also, , paragraph 255, line(s) 34-37 “The wearable system can use the user's position as another input to determine a target virtual object or a parameter for user interaction”). Lacey does not disclose the detect virtual contact of a second user with respect to a first use.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Alexander discloses the detect virtual contact of a second user with respect to a first user (paragraph 32, line(s) 5-11 “During a telepresence session in which two AR/VR/MR users are interacting with each other, a viewer can perceive an avatar of another user in the viewer's environment and thereby create a tangible sense of the other user's presence in the viewer's environment. The avatar can also provide a way for users to interact with each other and do things together in a shared virtual environment.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Lacey’s invention of the detect virtual contact of a second user with the features of the perspective of the first user the held object of second user with respects to the first user. As demonstrated by Alexander, one could choose to perceive an avatar of another user in the viewers environment and create a sense of the other user’s presence in the viewer’s environment.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lacey et al. (U.S. Pub No. 2019/0362557) in view of Alexander, IV et al. (U.S. Pub No. 2021/0097875) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bailey (U.S. Pub No. 2020/0042742).
Regarding claim 7, Lacey as modified by Alexander discloses the information processing apparatus of claim 1, wherein, in a case where the second user is included in a first list (Lacey: paragraph 275, line(s) 20 “contact on the virtual contact list”; also, paragraph 319, line(s) 1-2 “The wearable system can also determine whether the contact with whom the object is shared can be recognized”), the information is not notified. Lacey and do not disclose whether or not the second user is included in a first list, the information is not notified.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Bailey discloses the second user is included in a first list, the information is not notified (paragraph 9, line(s) 9-21 “present to the first user a first list of users connected to the first user comprising one or more connected users with matching personal data and one or more connected users without matching personal data; receive from the first user a selection of all users on the first list of users to whom the first user is willing to disclose the matching personal data; identify a selected user comprising a user who is part of the selection of the first user and has matching personal data to the first user; present to the selected user a second list of users from the group comprising the first user, users connected to the selected user with matching personal data, and users connected to the selected user without matching personal data; receive from the selected user a selection of all users on the second list of users to whom the selected user is willing to disclose the matching personal data”; also, paragraph 60, line(s) 12-13 “The system may display matched members with the privacy toggle unset for that group to user 445, and then only notify selected 450 users”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Lacey and Alexander’s invention of a second user is included in a first list, the information is not notified with the features of users being in each other’s list and only being notified if such user in such list had been selected by the user. As demonstrated by Bailey, one could choose to have another user in a list and not be notified if the user has not selected by the user of the list the user belongs to.
Regarding claim 8, Lacey as modified by Alexander discloses the information processing apparatus of claim 1, wherein, in a case where the second user is included in a second list (Lacey: paragraph 275, line(s) 20 “contact on the virtual contact list”; also, paragraph 319, line(s) 1-2 “The wearable system can also determine whether the contact with whom the object is shared can be recognized”), the information is not notified. Lacey does not disclose whether or not the second user is included in a second list, the information is not notified.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Bailey discloses the second user is included in a second list, the information is not notified (paragraph 9, line(s) 9-21 “present to the first user a first list of users connected to the first user comprising one or more connected users with matching personal data and one or more connected users without matching personal data; receive from the first user a selection of all users on the first list of users to whom the first user is willing to disclose the matching personal data; identify a selected user comprising a user who is part of the selection of the first user and has matching personal data to the first user; present to the selected user a second list of users from the group comprising the first user, users connected to the selected user with matching personal data, and users connected to the selected user without matching personal data; receive from the selected user a selection of all users on the second list of users to whom the selected user is willing to disclose the matching personal data”; also, paragraph 60, line(s) 12-13 “The system may display matched members with the privacy toggle unset for that group to user 445, and then only notify selected 450 users”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Lacey and Alexander’s invention of a second user is included in a second list, the information is not notified with the features of users being in each other’s list and only being notified if such user in such list had been selected by the user. As demonstrated by Bailey, one could choose to have another user in a list and not be notified if the user has not selected by the user of the list the user belongs to.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAI WEI TOMMY LI whose telephone number is (571) 272-1170. The examiner can normally be reached 6:00AM-4:00PM EST.
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, Xiao Wu can be reached at (571) 272-7761. 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.
/JAI LI/Junior Examiner,
Art Unit 2613
/XIAO M WU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2613