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 .
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.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 2, this claim recites “a totaled result” derived from totaling determination results, but claim 1 already recites “a totaled result” based on totaling determination results. It is therefore unclear whether the totaled result in claim 2 was intended to refer to the totaled result of claim 1, or some other totaled result. Thus, this limitation is indefinite. The specification appears to support the former, but not the latter; thus for the purposes of examination, this limitation will be interpreted as such.
Regarding claim 3, this claim is rejected because it inherits, and does not resolve, the deficiencies of the claim(s) from which it depends, and because it can not be determined to which totaled result its recitation of “the totaled result” was intended to refer. Thus, this limitation is indefinite. As in claim 2, for the purposes of examination, this limitation will be interpreted as referring to the totaled result of claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oz et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0360199), referred herein as Oz, in view of Peters et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0176429), referred herein as Peters.
Regarding claim 1, Oz teaches a terminal for participating in a conference held in a virtual space in which an avatar of a participant is arranged (fig 5; paragraph 58; paragraphs 132-134), the terminal comprising:
a memory storing instructions, and one or more processors configured to execute the instructions (paragraphs 42-44; paragraphs 120-122) to implement:
collecting a voice of the participant (paragraph 145; paragraphs 278 and 279; voice information is collected from the participants);
generating control data for controlling the avatar of the participant (paragraph 61; paragraphs 135-137; many types of “control data” are generated for controlling the avatar, just one example being gaze information);
determining a state of the participant, and transmitting voice data, the control data, and a determination result of the participant (paragraph 64; paragraph 132; paragraphs 137 and 142; paragraphs 144-146; paragraphs 289 and 290; the state of the participant is determined using all of the gathered information, and user input can be provided to determine desired views of the conference);
receiving voice data, control data, and a determination result of another participant (fig 5; paragraph 61; paragraphs 132-134; paragraphs 289 and 290; the above steps are performed for multiple, or all, users participating in the virtual conference);
determining, from different display modes, a display mode of the conference based on totaling the determination result of the participant and the determination result of the other participant, and selecting the display mode based on a totaled result, the results reflecting states of multiple participants including the participant and the other participant, each of the different display modes being respective to one of different pre-set screens of the conference (fig 11, display modes 41, 42, and 43; paragraphs 61 and 62; paragraphs 132 and 144; paragraphs 154 and 155; paragraphs 286 and 291; display modes are determined and selected based on a total result of the determination results of each of the participants, each display mode respective to one of different preset screens of the conference), and
reproducing the voice data, controlling the avatar based on the control data, and displaying a screen of the conference according to the display mode, the screen is one of the different pre-set screens (figs 5 and 11; paragraphs 62 and 63; paragraphs 132, 144, and 145; paragraphs 154 and 155; paragraph 291; the determined results of the participants are used to reproduce the voice data and control the avatars to display particular view modes of the virtual conference).
Oz does not explicitly teach that the totaled result reflects an aggregated state of the multiple participants.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Peters teaches a terminal for participating in a conference held in a virtual space in which an image of a participant is arranged, comprising processor that implement instructions comprising collecting voice and control data of multiple participants, determining a state of each participants, and transmitting the data and a determination result of each participant (figs 7 and 9D; paragraph 129; paragraphs 211 and 212; paragraphs 230 and 236; paragraphs 284-286), and further comprising totaling the determination results of each participant, and selecting a display mode based on a totaled result, the totaled result reflecting an aggregated state of the multiple participants (figs 9, 16, 17; paragraphs 300 and 301).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the total aggregated results of Peters with the determination results of Oz because this can provide high-quality, accurate, individualized participant and conference data processing, and help improve the engagement and experience of the participants (see, for example, Peters, paragraphs 179 and 180; paragraph 198; paragraph 306).
Regarding claim 2, Oz in view of Peters teaches the terminal according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to implement: obtaining a captured image of the participant, determining, from the captured image, whether the participant is looking at the screen (Oz, paragraphs 132 and 136; paragraphs 261 and 292), and totaling the determination results and determining the display mode of the conference based on a totaled result (Oz, paragraphs 61 and 62; paragraph 145; paragraphs 154 and 155; the aggregate determination results determine how the virtual conference is generated and updated; Peters, paragraphs 300 and 301; the motivation to combine is the same as that discussed above in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 3, Oz in view of Peters teaches the terminal according to claim 2, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to implement determining a viewpoint when rendering the virtual space or a division of the screen into frames, based on the totaled result, the viewpoint is the one of the plurality of different pre-set screens (Oz, figs 5 and 11; paragraph 61; paragraph 133; paragraphs 135 and 136; paragraph 261; paragraphs 286 and 291; Peters, paragraphs 300 and 301; the motivation to combine is the same as that discussed above in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 4, Oz in view of Peters teaches the terminal according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to implement storing a past shot breakdown in which an avatar is displayed, specifying a participant who is in a conversation, based on the determination result, and determining a shot breakdown of an avatar of the participant who is in the conversation, based on the past shot breakdown, the shot breakdown is the one of the plurality of different pre-set screens (Oz, figs 5 and 11; paragraphs 61-63; paragraph 138; paragraphs 154 and 155; paragraphs 160 and 195; paragraphs 286 and 291).
Regarding claim 6, the limitations of this claim substantially correspond to the limitations of claim 1; thus they are rejected on similar grounds.
Regarding claim 8, the limitations of this claim substantially correspond to the limitations of claim 1; thus they are rejected on similar grounds.
Regarding claim 9, Oz in view of Peters teaches the terminal according to claim 1, wherein each of the different pre-set screens are respective ones of different viewpoints of the conference (Oz, fig 11, viewpoints 41, 42, and 43; paras 286 and 291).
Regarding claim 10, Oz in view of Peters teaches the terminal according to claim 1, wherein the different pre-set screens comprise: a first screen pre-set as indicating to display a view directed at and displaying at least a speaker in the conference (Oz, fig 11, view 42; paragraphs 286 and 291; paragraphs 318 and 323), and any of: a second screen pre-set as indicating to display an overlooking view of the virtual space in which the conference is held (Oz, fig 11, view 41; paragraphs 286 and 291; paragraph 323), and a third screen pre-set as indicating to display the avatar of the participant and an avatar of the other participant in respectively different shot breakdown frames (Oz, fig 11, view 43; paragraphs 286 and 291).
Regarding claim 11, Oz in view of Peters teaches the terminal according to claim 10, wherein the different pre-set screens comprise the first screen and the second screen, and the overlooking view of the virtual space is a view of the virtual space elevated, relative to each of the avatar of the participant and the avatar of the other participant, in the virtual space and displaying each of the avatar of the participant and the avatar of the other participant (Oz, fig 11, viewpoints 41 and 42; paragraphs 286 and 291; the angle of the table and position of the participants illustrates that the overlooking view is elevated relative to the avatars).
Regarding claim 12, Oz in view of Peters teaches the terminal according to claim 10, wherein the different pre-set screens comprise the first screen and the third screen, and the respectively different shot breakdown frames comprise a first shot breakdown frame and a second shot breakdown frame, and the third screen comprises the first shot breakdown frame illustrated side-by-side with the second shot breakdown frame with the avatar of the participant and the avatar of the other participant shown as facing each other across the respectively different shot breakdown frames (Oz, figs 5 and 11, viewpoints 41 and 43; paragraphs 134-136; paragraphs 286 and 291; hybrid view 43 shows first and second shot breakdown frames side-by-side each depicting an avatar of a participant, and the hybrid view also displays the avatars such that they face each other when deemed appropriate, based on participant interaction).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oz, in view of Peters, and further in view of Hahn (“Taming the wild west of VR: 5 technical lessons learned making the serious game Art Sort in VRChat”), December 15, 2020.
Regarding claim 5, Oz in view of Peters teaches the terminal according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to implement, when the participant is in a conversation with the other participant, moving a position of the avatar of the participant to face an avatar of the other participant (Oz, paragraphs 61 and 64; paragraphs 134 and 136).
Oz in view of Peters does not teach that the virtual avatar is moved closer to the other participant’s avatar according to a type of the terminal.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Hahn teaches a terminal for participating in a conference held in a virtual space in which an avatar of a participant is arranged (page 2, the second paragraph; page 5, fig 4 and the first paragraph), wherein virtual objects are moved closer to a participant’s avatar according to a type of the terminal (page 9, the first paragraph, lines 1-3 and 6-12; fig 8 and its caption).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the virtual object movement of Hahn with the avatar interaction of Oz in view of Peters because this helps to ensure that the virtual conference experience will work well for participants regardless of the device platform they are using, by making the location of virtual objects more suitable for each type of device (see, for example, Hahn, page 9, the first paragraph, lines 4-6 and 10-13).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 is 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:
Regarding claim 13, the prior art teaches the virtual conference terminal described in claim 1, as discussed above. Moving virtual objects closer to one another is also known in the art, as discussed above. In the context of claims 1 and 13 as a whole, however, the prior art does not appear to teach the terminal according to claim 1, further comprising automatically determining, based on a type of the terminal, whether the participant can freely move the avatar, and when the participant is in a conversation with the other participant and a difficulty in freely moving the avatar is detected, automatically moving a position of the avatar of the participant closer to an avatar of the other participant. Thus claim 13, in the particular context of claims 1 and 13 as a whole, comprises allowable subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim objection have been fully considered, and are persuasive. The amendments have resolved this issue; thus the claim objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections of claims 1, 6, and 8 have been fully considered, but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection presented above.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Walkin (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0057555); Devices, methods, and graphical user interfaces for navigating between user interfaces, displaying a dock, and displaying system user interface elements.
Peters (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0076002); Enhanced video conference management.
Peters (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0185276); Architecture for scalable video conference management.
Scapel (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0295602); Systems, methods, and graphical user interfaces for displaying and manipulating virtual objects in augmented reality environments.
Peters (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0086393); Management and analysis of related concurrent communication sessions.
Jain (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0100990); System and method of determining an emotional state of a user.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID T WELCH whose telephone number is (571)270-5364. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:30-5:30 EST, and alternate Fridays, 9:00-2:30 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.
DAVID T. WELCH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2613
/DAVID T WELCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2613
Prosecution Insights