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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/30/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a determination module, configured to determine; in claim 9
a prompting module, configured to prompt; and in claim 9
an adjustment module, configured to adjust. in claim 9
a collision module, which is configured to: collide in claim 13
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim is drawn to a “storage medium which stores a program”. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification and Official Gazette Notice (1251 OG 212, made available February 23, 2010), concludes that the claim as a whole covers a transitory signal, which does not fall within the definition of a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (In re Nuijten).
Therefore, claim 11 does not fall within a statutory category. In view of the Official Gazette Notice (1251 OG 212, made available February 23, 2010), the examiner suggests amending the claims to recite a "a non-transitory computer readable storage medium".
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida (US 20120249597 A1), in view of Maruyama (US 20230215123 A1).
Claim 1, Yoshida discloses an object tracking method in an extended reality environment (Yoshida, Abstract, (Tracking object)), being applied to a terminal, the method comprising:
determining whether the object in the extended reality environment appears within a screen display range of the terminal (Yoshida, [0054] positional relationship between the display range and an object is judged by the display range determining module 202 by comparing the sets of coordinates of the display range with those of the object);
Yoshida does not disclose prompting a user of an orientation of the object when the object does not appear within the screen display range of the terminal; and adjusting a posture of the terminal to make the object to appear within the screen display range of the terminal, in response to an adjustment operation triggered by the user according to the orientation of the object, which is prompted.
Maruyama discloses prompting a user of an orientation of the object when the object does not appear within the screen display range of the terminal (Maruyama, [0117] the information acquirer acquires information that causes at least one of movement of the position of the user. The acquisition of the information is the trigger/prompt); and adjusting a posture of the terminal to make the object to appear within the screen display range of the terminal, in response to an adjustment operation triggered by the user according to the orientation of the object, which is prompted (Maruyama, [0117] the user who is wearing the HMD 107 moves according to movement of an object displayed in the virtual space (The HMD by way user’s movement, HMD is understood to adjust a posture). The HMD is interpreted as the terminal).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Yoshida with the teachings of Maruyama since they are both analogous in information processing related field.
One ordinary skilled in the art before the filing of the claimed invention would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Yoshida with the teachings of Maruyama in order to prevent virtual reality (VR) sickness in the VR environment.Claim 9 recites an apparatus (Yoshida, Abstract, Apparatus) executing the method of claim 1. Claim 9 essentially recites the same limitations as claim 1. Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 is applied to claim 9.Claim 10. (Currently amended) An electronic device, comprising: a storage apparatus, having stored thereon a computer program; a processing apparatus, configured to execute the computer program in the storage apparatus to implement steps of the method according to claim 1 (Yoshida, Abstract, Apparatus).
Claim 11. (Currently amended) A computer-readable storage medium, having stored thereon a computer program, the computer program, when executed by a processing apparatus, implementing steps of the method according to claim 1 (Yoshida, [0042]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-8, 13-19 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 2 and 13, no prior art discloses the feature “The method according to claim 1, further comprising: colliding with the object based on a ray passing through the screen of the terminal in response to the object appearing within the screen display range of the terminal; and presenting an animation effect for the object to the user in response to the ray hitting the object.
Claim 3 depends on allowable claim 2 and is therefore allowable for the same reasons as claim 2.Claim 14 depends on allowable claim 13 and is therefore allowable for the same reasons as claim 13.
Claims 4 and 15, no prior art discloses the feature “The method according to claim 1, wherein before the prompting the user of the orientation of the object when the object does not appear within the screen display range of the terminal, the method further comprises: acquiring a first transformation matrix from a camera coordinate system to a world coordinate system; transforming coordinates of the object in the world coordinate system into coordinates of the object in the camera coordinate system according to an inverse matrix of the first transformation matrix; and determining the orientation of the object according to the coordinates of the object in the camera coordinate system.
Claims 5 and 6 directly/indirectly depend on allowable claim 4 and are therefore allowable for the same reasons as claim 4. Claims 16 and 17 directly/indirectly depend on allowable claim 15 and are therefore allowable for the same reasons as claim 15.
Claims 7 and 18, no prior art discloses the feature “The method according to claim1, wherein the determining whether the object in the extended reality environment appears within the screen display range of the terminal comprises: determining whether the object appears within the screen display range of the terminal according to coordinates of the object in a clipping coordinate system of a camera.
Claim 8 depends on allowable claim 7 and is therefore allowable for the same reasons as claim 7.Claim 19 depends on allowable claim 18 and is therefore allowable for the same reasons as claim 18.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is as follows:
US 20160284051 A1 A method of controlling display of object data includes calculating distances from a terminal to the positions of multiple items of the object data, determining, by a processor, an area based on the distribution of the calculated distances, and displaying object data associated with a position in the determined area on a screen.
US 20170075548 A1 a display control device, an information processing device, an information processing method, and a program capable of presenting information in a suitable mode according to a positional relationship between a display region and a user, the display control device including: a calculation unit configured to specify a first region in which a user is a reference point; and a display control unit configured to control display of a display object on a display unit according to the specified first region and a second region occupied by the display unit.
US 20190369722 A1 An apparatus configured to, based on virtual reality content for presentation to a user in a virtual reality space for viewing in virtual reality, wherein a virtual reality view presented to the user provides for viewing of the virtual reality content, and an identified physical real-world object; providing for display of an object image that at least includes a representation of the identified physical real-world object that is overlaid on the virtual reality content presented in the virtual reality view, the object image displayed at a location in the virtual reality space that corresponds to a real-world location of the identified physical real-world object relative to the user, the object image further including at least a representation of a further physical real-world object that is identified as potentially hindering physical user-access to said identified physical real-world object.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARTIN MUSHAMBO whose telephone number is (571)270-3390. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (8:00AM-5:00PM).
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.
/MARTIN MUSHAMBO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2615 01/09/2026