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 is in reply to an Amendment filed on June 18, 2026 regarding Application No. 18/704,064. Applicants amended claims 1, 3, and 5-18 and canceled claims 2 and 4. Claims 1, 3, and 5-20 are pending.
Priority
The instant application is a 371 National Stage of International Application No. PCT/JP2022/034886, filed on September 20, 2022, which claims priority to Japanese Patent Application No. JP 2021-179266, filed on November 2, 2021.
Acknowledgment is made of Applicants’ claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). A certified copy of the JP 2021-179266 application filed in Japan on November 2, 2021 has been filed.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ amendments to claims 5-8, cancelation of claims 2 and 4, and remarks (Remarks / Arguments, p. 11) regarding claim objections are acknowledged. In view of the amendments and canceled claims, the objections are moot.
Applicants’ amendments to claims 1, 3, 5, 7-8, 10-16, and 18, cancelation of claims 2 and 4, and remarks (Remarks / Arguments, p. 11) regarding claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C 112(f) are acknowledged. In view of the amendments and canceled claims, the interpretations are moot.
Applicants’ arguments filed on June 18, 2026 have been fully considered, and without conceding the arguments regarding Kogure, they are not persuasive and/or are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
With respect to the discussion below, the Office submits that all features of newly amended independent claims 1 and 19-20 are taught and/or suggested by Komiyama and/or as modified. For example, figure 2.1 and pages 2-5 of Komiyama teach: determine, based on the control of the direction of the line-of-sight of the avatar toward the first user, that the line-of-sight of the first user and the line-of-sight of the avatar match for one of a first time or a second time, wherein the second time is greater than the first time (i.e., determine, based on the control of the avatar salesperson to look toward the first user purchaser interested in the first object smartphone, a match corresponding to a two second eye contact as the avatar salesperson alternates between looking at/making eye contact with the first user purchaser and the first object smartphone in explaining about the first object smartphone); and control a specific motion of the avatar based on the determination that the line-of-sight of the first user and the line-of-sight of the avatar match for the one of the first time or the second time (i.e., control a gaze motion of the avatar salesperson toward the first object smartphone based on the two second eye contact match as the avatar salesperson alternates between looking at/making eye contact with the first user purchaser and the first object smartphone in explaining about the first object smartphone), as recited in newly amended independent claim 1.
In response to the argument regarding Komiyama and Kogure combination and “’determine, based on the control of the direction of the line-of-sight of the avatar toward the first user, that the line-of-sight of the first user and the line-of-sight of the avatar match for one of a first time or a second time, wherein the second time is greater than the first time; and control a specific motion of the avatar based on the determination that the line-of-sight of the first user and the line-of-sight of the avatar match for the one of the first time or the second time,’ as recited in amended independent claim 1” (Remarks / Arguments, pp. 11 and 13), the Office respectfully submits that the argument is not commensurate with the rejections and the recited features are taught by Komiyama, as discussed above and in the rejections.
In response to the arguments regarding amended independent claim 1 and Komiyama and Kogure combination, and amended independent claims 19-20 and references cited (Remarks / Arguments, pp. 13-14), the Office respectfully disagrees and/or submits that the arguments are not commensurate with the rejections and all features of newly amended independent claim 1, and similarly for newly amended independent claims 19 and 20, are taught and/or suggested by Komiyama and/or as modified, as discussed above and in the rejections. As such, newly amended independent claims 1 and 19-20 are not allowable.
In response to the arguments regarding dependent claim 3, Komiyama, and patentable (Remarks / Arguments, p. 14), the Office respectfully disagrees and submits that all features of newly amended independent claim 1 are taught by Komiyama, as discussed above and in the rejections. As such, newly amended independent claim 1 is not allowable. In addition, claim 3 is not allowable by virtue of its dependency from newly amended independent claim 1, and as discussed in the rejections.
In response to the arguments regarding dependent claims 5-7, Komiyama and Kogure combination, and patentable (Remarks / Arguments, p. 14), the Office respectfully disagrees and submits that all features of newly amended independent claim 1 are taught by Komiyama, as discussed above and in the rejections. As such, newly amended independent claim 1 is not allowable. In addition, claims 5-7 are not allowable by virtue of their individual dependencies from newly amended independent claim 1, and as discussed in the rejections.
For the reasons discussed above and in the rejections, pending claims 1, 3, and 5-20 are not allowable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Komiyama et al. in “Eye communication with an avatar in VR space”, IPSJ SIG Technical Report, Vol. 2018-HCI-178 No. 4, Vol. 2018-EC-48 No. 4, 2018/6/14, pp. 1-6 (hereinafter Komiyama; corresponds to 04 April 2024 IDS reference (“Eye communication with an avatar in VR space”, ITE Technical Report, Volume 42, No. 17, June 07, 2018, pp. 21-26) – includes a translation of the Abstract; an original copy and machine translation thereof was provided with the 18 March 2026 Office action).
Regarding claim 1, Komiyama teaches:
An information processing device (HMD), comprising (Komiyama: p. 3, ¶ 2 (“”The HMD... is a FOV E with eye tracking functionality ….”)):
a central processing unit (CPU) (of the HMD) configured to (Komiyama: p. 3, ¶ 2 (“”The HMD... is a FOV E with eye tracking functionality . The FOV E is capable of tracking the user 's gaze using infrared eye tracking technology . This is a typical HMD , HTC V i ve and Oculus....”)):
acquire line-of-sight information (corresponding to gaze information) indicating a direction of a line-of-sight (corresponding to gaze) of a first user (of the HMD) (Komiyama: p. 3, ¶ 1 (“The subject’s gaze direction is determined by… gaze direction… or head direction….”) and ¶ 2 (“The FOV E is capable of tracking the user’s gaze using infrared eye tracking technology …. Also, as a head tracking system, orientation tracking IM U (Ine r t i a l It is equipped with an Orientation Tracking System ( M easu remen t Unit ) and infrared position tracking. Orientation tracking detects head tilt, and position tracking uses an external camera and infrared system to detect position….”));
estimate, based on the line-of-sight information a first object (one of the three smartphones in FIGs. 2.1A-D) visually recognized by the first user (Komiyama: FIGs. 2.1A-D, p. 3, ¶ 2 (“… [T]he gaze tracking accuracy is less than 1 degree.”), and p. 5, ¶ 3 (“… This device writes out the time for the… gaze position… [and] objects detected as hits by gaze…. [T]he objects detected as hits… are the… three smartphones….”), see also p. 2, last ¶ (“… The avatar responds to the object [(one of the three smartphones)] the subject is looking at.” and p. 4, ¶ 1 (“… [In FIG. 2.1,] C ) Avatar is looking at the smartphone the subject is looking at….”));
control, based on the first object, a direction of a line-of-sight of an avatar toward the first user (Komiyama: FIGs. 2.1A, 2.1C-D, and 2.2, p. 2, last ¶ (“… The avatar responds to the object [(one of the three smartphones)] the subject is looking at.”, p. 3, last ¶ on the right (“... [W]hen explaining about smartphones, the avatar alternates between looking at the subject and the smartphone every two seconds.”), p. 4, ¶ 1 (“[in FIG. 2.1,]… A ) Avatar looking at the subject,... C ) Avatar looking at the smartphone the subject is looking at , D ) Avatar pointing at the smartphone and explaining.” ), and p. 5, ¶ 2 (“… [T]he avatar’s gaze also changes depending on where the user is looking.”) and last ¶ on the right (“[W]hen… [the subject] looked at a particular smartphone…[,] the avatar asked… “Would you like to hear an explanation about this smartphone?”…”));
determine, based on the control of the direction of the line-of-sight of the avatar toward the first user, that the line-of-sight of the first user and the line-of-sight of the avatar match for one of a first time (two seconds) or a second time, wherein the second time is greater than the first time (Komiyama: FIGs. 2.1C-D, p. 2, ¶ 2 (“... [T]he act of making eye contact and looking at the same thing As is natural, the HMD user is the purchaser and the avatar is the We will create a VR system that simulates face-to-face sales with a salesperson ....”), p. 3, last ¶ on the right (“... [W]hen explaining about smartphones, the avatar alternates between looking at the subject and the smartphone every two seconds.”), p. 4, ¶ 1 (“[in FIG. 2.1,]… C ) Avatar looking at the smartphone the subject is looking at , D ) Avatar pointing at the smartphone and explaining.”), and p. 5, ¶ 3 (“… This device writes out the time for the… gaze position… [and] objects detected as hits by gaze…. [T]he objects detected as hits… are the avatar ‘s face and three smartphones….”); note: “a second time, wherein the second time is greater than the first time” is not treated on the merits since the claim language is met by alternative “a first time”); and
control a specific motion (looking at a smartphone) of the avatar based on the determination that the line-of-sight of the first user and the line-of-sight of the avatar match for the one of the first time or the second time (Komiyama: FIGs. 2.1C-D, p. 2, ¶ 2 (“... [T]he act of making eye contact and looking at the same thing As is natural, the HMD user is the purchaser and the avatar is the We will create a VR system that simulates face-to-face sales with a salesperson ....”), p. 3, last ¶ on the right (“... [W]hen explaining about smartphones, the avatar alternates between looking at the subject and the smartphone every two seconds.”), p. 4, ¶ 1 (“[in FIG. 2.1,]… C ) Avatar looking at the smartphone the subject is looking at , D ) Avatar pointing at the smartphone and explaining.”), and p. 5, ¶ 3 (“… This device writes out the time for the… gaze position… [and] objects detected as hits by gaze…. [T]he objects detected as hits… are the avatar ‘s face and three smartphones….”); note: “the second time” is not treated on the merits since the claim language is met by alternative “the first time”).
Regarding claim 3, Komiyama teaches:
The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the CPU is further configured to:
control, based on the first object, the direction of the line-of-sight of the avatar toward the first object (Komiyama: FIGs. 2.1A and 2.1C-D, p. 3, last ¶ on the right (“… [W]hen explaining about smartphones, the avatar alternates between looking at the subject and the smartphone every two seconds.”), p. 4, ¶ 1 (“… [In FIG. 2.1,] A ) Avatar looking at the subject,… C ) Avatar looking at the smartphone the subject is looking at , [and] D ) Avatar pointing at the smartphone and explaining.”), and p. 5, ¶ 2 (“… [T]he avatar’s gaze also changes depending on where the user is looking.”) and last ¶ on the right (“[W]hen… [the subject] looked at a particular smartphone…[,] the avatar asked… “Would you like to hear an explanation about this smartphone?”…”)); and
control, based on the control of the direction of the line-of-sight of the avatar toward the first object, the direction of the line-of-sight of the avatar toward the first user (Komiyama: FIGs. 2.1A and 2.1C-D, p. 3, last ¶ on the right (“… [W]hen explaining about smartphones, the avatar alternates between looking at the subject and the smartphone every two seconds.”), p. 4, ¶ 1 (“… [In FIG. 2.1,] A ) Avatar looking at the subject,… C ) Avatar looking at the smartphone the subject is looking at , [and] D ) Avatar pointing at the smartphone and explaining.”), and p. 5, ¶ 2 (“… [T]he avatar’s gaze also changes depending on where the user is looking.”) and last ¶ on the right (“[W]hen… [the subject] looked at a particular smartphone…[,] the avatar asked… “Would you like to hear an explanation about this smartphone?”…”)).
Regarding claim 19, this claim is rejected under similar rationale as claim 1 above.
However, it is noted that claim 19 differs from claim 1 above in that the following are recited:
An information processing method, the information processing method comprising:
in a computer:.
Komiyama teaches:
An information processing method, the information processing method comprising (Komiyama: p. 3, ¶ 2 (“The HMD… is a FOV E with eye tracking functionality . The FOV E is capable of tracking the user 's gaze using infrared eye tracking technology . This is a typical HMD , HTC V i ve and Oculus….”); claim 1 above (i.e., method corresponding to the device in claim 1 above)):
in a computer (of the HMD) (Komiyama: see p. 3, ¶ 2 (“The HMD… is a FOV E with eye tracking functionality . The FOV E is capable of tracking the user 's gaze using infrared eye tracking technology . This is a typical HMD , HTC V i ve and Oculus….”)):.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 non-obviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicants are advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komiyama in view of Kogure et al. in “Virtual Shop Assistant System Working on Customer’s Conditions in Real Environment”, IPSJ SIG Technical Report, Vol. 2012-HCI-147 No. 19, 2012/3/22, pp. 1-8 (hereinafter Kogure; corresponds to 04 April 2024 IDS reference (“Virtual Shop Assistant System Working on Customer’s Conditions in Real Environment”, IPSJ SIG Technical Report, Volume 2012-HCI-147, No. 19, April 15, 2012, pp. 1-8) – includes a translation of the Abstract; an original copy and machine translation thereof was provided with the 18 March 2026 Office action).
Regarding claim 5, Komiyama teaches:
The information processing device according to claim 3.
However, it is noted that Komiyama does not teach:
wherein the CPU is further configured to:
acquire motion information indicating a motion of the first user; and
control the specific motion of the avatar based on the acquired motion information.
Kogure teaches:
acquire motion information (user motion information) indicating a motion (user motion) of a first user (Kogure: p. 4, ¶ 1 (“In order to make eye contact with the user, it is necessary to grasp the user's position. Therefore, the position of the user's head is detected and used as the user's position….”) and p. 5, ¶ 4 on the left (“… [B]y keeping a record of head information for a certain period of time, it is possible to obtain information on whether the user is approaching or moving away from the system from the amount of change in head distance over time.”), see also Figures 4-9); and
control specific motion (corresponding to making eye contact, product introduction, conversation, calling out, and/or greetings) of an avatar (virtual salesperson) based on the acquired motion information (corresponding to a user’s head distance) (Kogure: Figure 13, Table 1, p. 5, ¶ 4 on the left (“… [B]y keeping a record of head information for a certain period of time, it is possible to obtain information on whether the user is approaching or moving away from the system from the amount of change in head distance over time.”), and p. 6, ¶ 1 on the right (“Based on the information on the user's head obtained by the sensor, it is expected that the virtual clerk's behavior will be classified and controlled according to the user's state, allowing the clerk to behave in a way that is appropriate for the user's state.”) and ¶ 2 on the right (“For users at close or medium distances, due to interpersonal distance, it is thought that users will be more receptive to a virtual store clerk explaining or advertising about a product. On the other hand, for users at long distances,… it is expected that an explanation of a product or other such interaction will feel unnatural. Therefore, eye contact and a greeting are considered sufficient behavior.”), see also Figures 14-16 and p. 2, 2nd to the last ¶ on the left (“… [T]he system uses various sensors and microphones to grasp the user's state and ascertain the situation in the real world. Based on this, the virtual salesperson acts upon users within a certain distance according to their state and behavior, such as their physical distance from the user, and actively draws their attention and explains product information….” ; see also Komiyama: p. 3, ¶ 3 (“… [T]he subject and avatar converse using voice . Voice synthesis and lip-sync assets are used for the avatar's voice, making it appear as if the avatar is moving its mouth while speaking ….”)).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include: the features taught by Kogure, such that Komiyama as modified teaches: wherein the CPU is further configured to (CPU of Komiyama): acquire motion information indicating a motion of the first user (first user of Komiyama combined with acquire of Kogure); and control the specific motion of the avatar based on the acquired motion information (specific motion of the avatar of Komiyama combined with control of Kogure; i.e., the avatar salesperson looks at the first object smartphone in alternating between looking at/making eye contact with the first user purchaser and the first object smartphone in explaining the first object smartphone to the first user purchaser who approached the avatar salesperson), so a user can interact with a virtual salesperson in a more natural manner. (Kogure: p. 6, ¶ 2 on the right).
Regarding claim 6, Komiyama as modified by Kogure teaches:
The information processing device according to claim 5, wherein
the control of the specific motion of the avatar includes the control of the direction of the line-of-sight of the avatar toward a second object (another of the smartphones in FIGs. 2.1A-C of Komiyama) (Komiyama: FIG. 2.1A-D, p. 2, last ¶ (“…The avatar responds to the object [(one of the three smartphones)] the subject is looking at.”), p. 3, last ¶ on the right (“… [W]hen explaining about smartphones, the avatar alternates between looking at the subject and the smartphone….”), and p. 4, ¶ 1 (“… [In FIG. 2.1.,] A ) Avatar looking at the subject, B ) Avatar looking at the smartphone on the left , C ) Avatar looking at the smartphone the subject is looking at… [and] D ) Avatar pointing a the smartphone and explaining.”), see also p. 4, ¶ 2 (“… [T]he robot alternates between looking at the user and a randomly selected smartphone every three seconds . If the user does not select a smartphone for more than 20 seconds , the robot will alert the user by saying, "Please look at the smartphone that catches your eye .”), and p. 5, ¶ 2 (“… [T]he avatar’s gaze also changes depending on where the user is looking.” and last ¶ on the right (“[W]hen… [the subject] looked at a particular smartphone…[,] the avatar asked… “Would you like to hear an explanation about this smartphone?”…”)), and
the second object is in vicinity of the avatar (Komiyama: FIG. 2.1B, p. 4, ¶ 1 (“… [In FIG. 2.1,] B ) Avatar looking at the smartphone on the left….”), see also FIGs. 2.1A and 2.1C-D, p. 2, last ¶ (“…The avatar responds to the object [(one of the three smartphones)] the subject is looking at.”), p. 3, last ¶ on the right (“… [W]hen explaining about smartphones, the avatar alternates between looking at the subject and the smartphone….”), p. 4, ¶ 1 (“… [In FIG. 2.1.,] A ) Avatar looking at the subject,… C ) Avatar looking at the smartphone the subject is looking at… [and] D ) Avatar pointing a the smartphone and explaining.”) and ¶ 2 (“… [T]he robot alternates between looking at the user and a randomly selected smartphone every three seconds . If the user does not select a smartphone for more than 20 seconds , the robot will alert the user by saying, "Please look at the smartphone that catches your eye ."”), and p. 5, ¶ 2 (“… [T]he avatar’s gaze also changes depending on where the user is looking.”)).
Regarding claim 7, Komiyama as modified by Kogure teaches:
The information processing device according to claim 6, wherein the CPU is further configured to:
acquire voice information indicating words (“yes” or “no” in Komiyama) uttered by the first user (Komiyama: p. 3, ¶ 1 (“The avatar speaks, and the subject answers "yes " to the question from the avatar. The scene progresses depending on the response "No."…”) and ¶ 3 (“… To recognize the subject’s speech, a microphone input is converted into text….”), see also FIG. 2.2 and p. 5 last ¶ on the right (“The subject[] responded vocally twice: when… [the subject] looked at a particular smartphone and the avatar asked them, "Would you like to hear an explanation about this smartphone?", and when they had finished listening to the explanations for all smartphones in one phase and the avatar asked them, "Would you like to hear the explanation again?"”)); and
control the direction of the line-of-sight of the avatar toward the first user based on the voice information (Komiyama: FIG 2.2, p. 3, ¶ 1 (“The avatar speaks, and the subject answers "yes " to the question from the avatar….”) and last ¶ on the right (“… [W]hen explaining about smartphones, the avatar alternates between looking at the subject and the smartphone every two seconds.”), and p. 5 last ¶ on the right (“The subject[] responded vocally twice: when… [the subject] looked at a particular smartphone and the avatar asked them, "Would you like to hear an explanation about this smartphone?", and when they had finished listening to the explanations for all smartphones in one phase and the avatar asked them, "Would you like to hear the explanation again?"”), see also FIG. 2.1C-D, p. 3, ¶ 3 (“… [T]he subject and avatar converse using voice…. [T]he user’s responses are limited to “yes” and “no”….”) and p. 4, ¶ 1 (“… [In FIG. 2.1,] C ) Avatar looking at the smartphone the subject is looking at… [and] D ) Avatar pointing at the smartphone and explaining….”)).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komiyama.
Regarding claim 20, Komiyama teaches:
acquiring line-of-sight information (corresponding to gaze information) indicating a direction of a line-of-sight (corresponding to gaze) of a user (of the HMD) (Komiyama: p. 3, ¶ 1 (“The subject’s gaze direction is determined by… gaze direction… or head direction….”) and ¶ 2 (“The FOV E is capable of tracking the user’s gaze using infrared eye tracking technology …. Also, as a head tracking system, orientation tracking IM U (Ine r t i a l It is equipped with an Orientation Tracking System ( M easu remen t Unit ) and infrared position tracking. Orientation tracking detects head tilt, and position tracking uses an external camera and infrared system to detect position….”));
estimating, based on the line-of-sight information, an object (one of the three smartphones in FIGs. 2.1A-D) visually recognized by the user (Komiyama: FIGs. 2.1A-D, p. 3, ¶ 2 (“… [T]he gaze tracking accuracy is less than 1 degree.”), and p. 5, ¶ 3 (“… This device writes out the time for the… gaze position… [and] objects detected as hits by gaze…. [T]he objects detected as hits… are the… three smartphones….”), see also p. 2, last ¶ (“… The avatar responds to the object [(one of the three smartphones)] the subject is looking at.” and p. 4, ¶ 1 (“… [In FIG. 2.1,] C ) Avatar is looking at the smartphone the subject is looking at….”));
controlling, based on the object, a direction of a line-of-sight of an avatar toward the user (Komiyama: FIGs. 2.1A, 2.1C-D, and 2.2, p. 2, last ¶ (“… The avatar responds to the object [(one of the three smartphones)] the subject is looking at.”, p. 3, last ¶ on the right (“... [W]hen explaining about smartphones, the avatar alternates between looking at the subject and the smartphone every two seconds.”), p. 4, ¶ 1 (“[in FIG. 2.1,]… A ) Avatar looking at the subject,... C ) Avatar looking at the smartphone the subject is looking at , D ) Avatar pointing at the smartphone and explaining.” ), and p. 5, ¶ 2 (“… [T]he avatar’s gaze also changes depending on where the user is looking.”) and last ¶ on the right (“[W]hen… [the subject] looked at a particular smartphone…[,] the avatar asked… “Would you like to hear an explanation about this smartphone?”…”));
determining, based on the control of the direction of the line-of-sight of the avatar toward the user, that the line-of-sight of the user and the line-of-sight of the avatar match for one of a first time (two seconds) or a second time, wherein the second time is greater than the first time (Komiyama: FIGs. 2.1C-D, p. 2, ¶ 2 (“... [T]he act of making eye contact and looking at the same thing As is natural, the HMD user is the purchaser and the avatar is the We will create a VR system that simulates face-to-face sales with a salesperson ....”), p. 3, last ¶ on the right (“... [W]hen explaining about smartphones, the avatar alternates between looking at the subject and the smartphone every two seconds.”), p. 4, ¶ 1 (“[in FIG. 2.1,]… C ) Avatar looking at the smartphone the subject is looking at , D ) Avatar pointing at the smartphone and explaining.”), and p. 5, ¶ 3 (“… This device writes out the time for the… gaze position… [and] objects detected as hits by gaze…. [T]he objects detected as hits… are the avatar ‘s face and three smartphones….”); note: “a second time, wherein the second time is greater than the first time” is not treated on the merits since the claim language is met by alternative “a first time”); and
controlling a specific motion (looking at a smartphone) of the avatar based on the determination that the line- of-sight of the user and the line-of-sight of the avatar match for the one of the first time or the second time (Komiyama: FIGs. 2.1C-D, p. 2, ¶ 2 (“... [T]he act of making eye contact and looking at the same thing As is natural, the HMD user is the purchaser and the avatar is the We will create a VR system that simulates face-to-face sales with a salesperson ....”), p. 3, last ¶ on the right (“... [W]hen explaining about smartphones, the avatar alternates between looking at the subject and the smartphone every two seconds.”), p. 4, ¶ 1 (“[in FIG. 2.1,]… C ) Avatar looking at the smartphone the subject is looking at , D ) Avatar pointing at the smartphone and explaining.”), and p. 5, ¶ 3 (“… This device writes out the time for the… gaze position… [and] objects detected as hits by gaze…. [T]he objects detected as hits… are the avatar ‘s face and three smartphones….”); note: “the second time” is not treated on the merits since the claim language is met by alternative “the first time”).
However, it is noted that Komiyama does not teach:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, having stored thereon, computer-executable instructions which, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to execute operations, the operations comprising:,
but which would have been obvious to include, such that Komiyama as modified teaches: A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, having stored thereon, computer-executable instructions which, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to execute operations, the operations comprising (Komiyama: a computer of the HMD; see p. 3, ¶ 2 (“The HMD… is a FOV E with eye tracking functionality . The FOV E is capable of tracking the user 's gaze using infrared eye tracking technology . This is a typical HMD , HTC V i ve and Oculus….”)):, since the claimed features are well-known in the art to implement computer functions.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-18 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.
Conclusion
Applicants’ amendments necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicants are reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to K. Kiyabu whose telephone number is (571) 270-7836. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 9:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M. ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Temesghen Ghebretinsae, can be reached at (571) 272-3017. The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, Applicants are encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/K. K./
Examiner, Art Unit 2626
/TEMESGHEN GHEBRETINSAE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2626 7/28/26
Prosecution Insights