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 .
This action is responsive to the Application filed on 05/30/2024, said application claims a priority date of 08/05/2022.
Claims 1-20 are pending in the case.
Claims 1, 9 and 17 are independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Independent Claims 1, 9 and 17:
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the first ground region range" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 9 and 17 are rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 2-8, 10-16 and 18-20:
Claims 2-9, 10-16 and 18-20 are rejected for fully incorporating the deficiency of their respective base claims.
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) N is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Punwani et al. (US 2022/0124286 A1, published 04/21/2022, hereinafter “Punwani”) in view of Melnik (US 2016/0306542 A1, published 10/20/2016, hereinafter “Melnik”).
Independent Claim 1:
Punwani discloses a method performed by a computer device, the method comprising:
displaying a scene picture corresponding to a first display range of a virtual social scene, the virtual social scene including a first virtual object and a second virtual object, the second virtual object being located within a first region in the virtual social scene (A virtual social scene is presented with avatars located in different regions of the virtual social scene, Punwani: Fig. 1A, ¶ [0037], [0040].);
receiving a first navigation operation for navigating the virtual social scene (Punwani: ¶ [0038].);
displaying a social networking animation of the first virtual object and the second virtual object within the first region (Punwani: Figs. 1A-1B, ¶ [0040]).
Punwani does not appear to expressly teach a method wherein the first navigation operation comprises a display range adjustment operation for adjusting a display range from the first display range to a second display range.
However, Melnik teaches a method wherein the first navigation operation comprises a display range adjustment operation for adjusting a display range from the first display range to a second display range (Melnik: Figs. 1 and 2, ¶ [0015]-[0022]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Punwani wherein the first navigation operation comprises a display range adjustment operation for adjusting a display range from the first display range to a second display range, as taught by Melnik.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to provide a more effective means of navigating a large virtual environment (Melnik: ¶ [0003]-[0004], [0015]-[0022].).
According to MPEP § 2111.04 II, “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. “When the second display range and the first ground region range satisfy a position relationship requirement…” is a contingent limitation that does not need to be met. There are conditions when the second display range and the ground region range does not satisfy the positional relationship requirement. In the combination of Punwani in view of Melnik, the user can switch to a second display range (acre) without the second display range and the first ground region (avatar join area, Punwani: Fig. 6B, ¶ [0112]) meeting a positional relationship requirement, which results in the user’s avatar being displayed in the center of the second display range. Accordingly, this contingent limitation is not a required step in this method claim, therefore, it does not need to be taught by the prior art under broadest reasonable interpretation.
Claim 2:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Claim 2 is further adding to the contingent limitation of claim 1. Accordingly, the limitation(s) of this claim does not need to be taught by the prior art under the same rationale presented for the contingent limitation of claim 1.
Claim 3:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Claim 3 is further adding to the contingent limitation of claim 1. Accordingly, the limitation(s) of this claim does not need to be taught by the prior art under the same rationale presented for the contingent limitation of claim 1.
NOTE: Claim 3 introduces an additional contingent limitation that is nested within the contingent limitation of claim 1. If claim 1 were amended to remove the contingent limitation language, claim 3 would still comprise a contingent limitation.
Claim 4:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Punwani in view of Melnik further teaches a method wherein the displaying a social networking animation of the first virtual object and the second virtual object within the first region comprises:
displaying a voice interaction animation of the first virtual object and the second virtual object within the first region, the voice interaction animation including a voice identification element indicating that at least one of the first virtual object and the second virtual object transmits a session audio (Punwani: ¶ [0040]-[0043]).
Claim 5:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Punwani in view of Melnik further teaches a method wherein the receiving a first display range adjustment operation comprises:
receiving a sliding operation performed on the virtual social scene, a sliding direction of the sliding operation corresponding to a changing direction from the first display range to the second display range (Melnik: Figs. 1 and 2, ¶ [0015]-[0022]).
Claim 6:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Claim 6 is further adding to the contingent limitation of claim 1 (the first virtual object enters the first region in the contingent limitation of claim 1). Accordingly, the limitation(s) of this claim does not need to be taught by the prior art under the same rationale presented for the contingent limitation of claim 1.
Claim 7:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Punwani in view of Melnik further teaches a method further comprising:
receiving a second display range adjustment operation for adjusting a display range of the virtual social scene from the first display range to a third display range (Melnik: Figs. 1 and 2, ¶ [0015]-[0022]); and
when the third display range and a second region satisfy the positional relationship requirement, displaying an animation of the first virtual object that moving to a center of the second region, the second region only comprising the first virtual object (This is a contingent limitation and does not need to be taught by the prior art for the same rationale provided for the contingent limitation of claim 1.).
Claim 8:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Claim 8 is further adding to the contingent limitation of claim 1. Accordingly, the limitation(s) of this claim does not need to be taught by the prior art under the same rationale presented for the contingent limitation of claim 1.
Independent Claims 9 and 17:
Punwani teaches a computer device, comprising:
a processor and a memory [non-transitory computer-readable storage medium], the memory having at least one program stored therein, the at least one program being loaded and executed by the processor and causing the computer device to implement a social networking method including (Punwani: ¶ [0087]-[0088], [0231] embodiments 51-52.):
displaying a scene picture corresponding to a first display range of a virtual social scene, the virtual social scene including a first virtual object and a second virtual object, the second virtual object being located within a first region in the virtual social scene (A virtual social scene is presented with avatars located in different regions of the virtual social scene, Punwani: Fig. 1A, ¶ [0037], [0040].);
receiving a first navigation operation for navigating the virtual social scene (Punwani: ¶ [0038].);
when the second display range and the first ground region range satisfy a positional relationship requirement, displaying an animation of the first virtual object moving into the first region; and
displaying a social networking animation of the first virtual object and the second virtual object within the first region (Punwani: Figs. 1A-1B, ¶ [0040]).
Punwani does not appear to expressly teach a device and medium wherein:
the first navigation operation comprises a display range adjustment operation for adjusting a display range from the first display range to a second display range; and
when the second display range and the first ground region range satisfy a positional relationship requirement, displaying an animation of the first virtual object moving into the first region.
However, Melnik teaches a device and medium wherein the first navigation operation comprises a display range adjustment operation for adjusting a display range from the first display range to a second display range (Melnik: Figs. 1 and 2, ¶ [0015]-[0022]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device and medium of Punwani wherein the first navigation operation comprises a display range adjustment operation for adjusting a display range from the first display range to a second display range, as taught by Melnik.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to provide a more effective means of navigating a large virtual environment (Melnik: ¶ [0003]-[0004], [0015]-[0022].).
In combination, Punwani in view of Melnik teaches a device and medium wherein when the second display range and the first ground region range satisfy a positional relationship requirement, displaying an animation of the first virtual object moving into the first region (The user is automatically moved to the center of the destination acre, Melnik: ¶ [0022]. If the join area of the second user’s avatar (first ground region range) is in the center of the second acre (positional relationship requirement), then the first user’s avatar would be moving into the region where the second user’s avatar is located (first region), Punwani: Figs. 6A-6C, ¶ [0039], [0118]. If there is no avatar located in the center of the destination acre or in the second acre at all, then the user would not be entering the area where the second user’s avatar is displayed (first region).)
Claims 10 and 18:
The rejection of claims 9 and 17 are incorporated. Punwani in view of Melnik further teaches a device and medium wherein the displaying an animation of the first virtual object moving into the first region comprises:
displaying an animation of the first virtual object moving into the first region when an overlap relationship exists between a first identification point in the second display range and the first region (The user is automatically moved to the center (first identification point) of the destination acre, Melnik: ¶ [0022]. If the join area of the second user’s avatar (first ground region range) is in the center of the second acre (an overlap relationship exists), then the first user’s avatar would be moving into the region where the second user’s avatar is located (first region), Punwani: Figs. 6A-6C, ¶ [0039], [0118]. If there is no avatar located in the center of the destination acre or in the second acre at all, then the user would not be entering the area where the second user’s avatar is displayed (first region).).
Claims 11 and 19:
The rejection of claims 9 and 17 are incorporated. Punwani in view of Melnik further teaches a device and medium wherein the displaying an animation of the first virtual object moving into the first region comprises:
displaying an animation of the first virtual object moving into the first region when the second display range and the first region satisfy the positional relationship requirement for at least a preset duration (The user is moved to the center (first identification point) of the destination acre, Melnik: ¶ [0022]. In some embodiments the system does not move the user’s avatar automatically, but instead starts a timer to see if user input is received for moving the avatar, if it is received within the time threshold, the avatar is moved to the destination acre, if not the view is returned to the current acre, Melnik: ¶ [0029]. Accordingly, the avatar is not moved at least for the time between the destination acre is displayed and the user provides the input (preset duration). If the join area of the second user’s avatar (first ground region range) is in the center of the second acre (an overlap relationship exists), then the first user’s avatar would be moving into the region where the second user’s avatar is located (first region), Punwani: Figs. 6A-6C, ¶ [0039], [0118]. The second avatar would be displayed in the center of the destination acre until the user provides the input (preset duration). If there is no avatar located in the center of the destination acre or in the second acre at all, then the user would not be entering the area where the second user’s avatar is displayed (first region).).
Claims 12 and 20:
The rejection of claims 9 and 17 are incorporated. Punwani in view of Melnik further teaches a device and medium wherein the displaying a social networking animation of the first virtual object and the second virtual object within the first region comprises:
displaying a voice interaction animation of the first virtual object and the second virtual object within the first region, the voice interaction animation including a voice identification element indicating that at least one of the first virtual object and the second virtual object transmits a session audio (Punwani: ¶ [0040]-[0043]).
Claim 13:
The rejection of claim 9 is incorporated. Punwani in view of Melnik further teaches a device wherein the receiving a first display range adjustment operation comprises:
receiving a sliding operation performed on the virtual social scene, a sliding direction of the sliding operation corresponding to a changing direction from the first display range to the second display range (Melnik: Figs. 1 and 2, ¶ [0015]-[0022]).
Claim 14:
The rejection of claim 9 is incorporated. Punwani in view of Melnik further teaches a device wherein the method further comprises:
when the first virtual object enters the first region, displaying the first virtual object and the second virtual object in a preset arrangement order based on a sequence in which the first virtual object and the second virtual object enter the first region (Figs. 1A and 1B of Punwani shows that the two avatars in conversation (112 and 114) are standing in an arrangement before the avatar 116 joins (preset arrangement order), then when the avatar 116 joins, they are added to the preset arrangement order of the two other avatars in conversation (based on a sequence in which the first virtual object and the second virtual object enter the first region, Punwani: Figs. 1A-1B, 7A, ¶ [0046], [0057], [0131]).
Claim 15:
The rejection of claim 9 is incorporated. Punwani in view of Melnik further teaches a method further comprising:
receiving a second display range adjustment operation for adjusting a display range of the virtual social scene from the first display range to a third display range (Melnik: Figs. 1 and 2, ¶ [0015]-[0022]); and
when the third display range and a second region satisfy the positional relationship requirement, displaying an animation of the first virtual object that moving to a center of the second region, the second region only comprising the first virtual object (The user is automatically moved to the center of the destination acre, Melnik: ¶ [0022]. If there is no avatar located in the center of the destination acre or in the second acre at all, then the user’s avatar is the only avatar displayed in the destination acre. When avatars leave each other’s areas, their conversation is disconnected, Punwani: ¶ [0051]-[0052]).
Claim 16:
The rejection of claim 9 is incorporated. Punwani in view of Melnik further teaches a method wherein the displaying an animation of the first virtual object moving into the first region comprises:
displaying an animation of the first virtual object moving into the first region in response to a selection operation performed on the second virtual object within the first region (The user is automatically moved to the center of the destination acre, Melnik: ¶ [0022]. If the join area of the second user’s avatar (first ground region range) is not in the center of the second acre but is located within the second acre, then the first user would be able to provide additional input to move to the second avatar and enter a conversation with them via a selection input of the second avatar, Punwani: Fig. 14, ¶ [0215]-[0223].).
Conclusion
Examiner has cited particular columns and line and/or paragraph numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
The examiner requests, in response to this Office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line number(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicants’ disclosure.
Akmal et al., US 2023/0315385 A1 (The interface displays an animation to indicate that audio communication is occurring via the avatars, Fig. 9B, ¶ [0200])
Han et al., US 2010/0286987 A1 (The avatar is aminated according to the user’s speech, Abstract.)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3633. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 5:30 am - 2:30 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, Stephen Hong can be reached at (571) 272-4124. 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.
/DANIEL RODRIGUEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2178
Prosecution Insights