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
Acknowledgment is made of information disclosure statement filed 18 July 2024.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1 - 7, 9, 10, 13, and 14is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mindlin et al; (Publication number: US 2023/0032545 A1), hereafter Mindlin.
Regarding claim 1:
Mindlin discloses a method comprising: at a first electronic device in communication with a display, and one or more input devices (Mindlin Figure 1 and 3; [0095]; display within user’s interface, and Figures 8A and 8B):
while in a communication session with a second electronic device, the communication session including a first user of the first electronic device (Mindlin Figure 3 302-1; Figure 8A and 8B 602) and second user of the second electronic device (Mindlin Figure 3 302-2 and Figure 8A and 8B 604), displaying, via the display, a first representation corresponding to the second user of the second electronic device at a first location in a computer-generated environment (Mindlin Figure 3, 8A – 8B; [0091]; collaboration sessions 800-A and 800-B during which audio communications between users are simulated to propagate with different propagation radius parameters. Specifically, as shown in both Figures 8A and 8B, an icon 602 represents a voice origination location of a speaking user and a plurality of icons 604 represent termination locations where avatars are located and for their corresponding users to be able to hear the voice communication originating at icon 602);
while displaying the computer-generated environment including the first representation corresponding to the second user of the second electronic device at the first location (Mandlin Figure 8A and 8B), determining that one or more criteria are satisfied, including a criterion that is satisfied when a distance between a second location in the computer-generated environment corresponding to the first electronic device relative to a respective location associated with the communication session is greater than a threshold distance; and in response to determining that the one or more criteria are satisfied: displaying, via the display, an indication that the second location in the computer-generated environment corresponding to the first electronic device is further than the threshold distance from the respective location associated with the communication session (Mandlin [0092] and Figure 8A shows that all but one of the additional avatars in 802-A so as to be within reach of the sound propagation of voice communications originating from icon 602; see Figure 8A [0093] The users represented by avatars farther away from icon 602 than propagation radius 804-B (i.e., outside of circle 802-B) will not be presented with the virtual whisper originating at icon 602. Thus, if the criteria is satisfied, i.e., farther away from icon 602 than propagation radius 804A or 804B, then they will not be presented with virtual whisper originating from icon 602, r what is the same, if they leave the radius, this indication, virtual whisper, will be stopped; see also [0094 – 0095] and [0051 – 0052]).
Regarding claim 2:
Mandlin discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first representation corresponding to the second user includes a three-dimensional avatar of the second user, the method further comprising: displaying the three-dimensional avatar of the second user in the computer-generated environment independent of whether the distance between the second location in the computer-generated environment corresponding to the first electronic device relative to the respective location associated with the communication session is further than the threshold distance; obtaining, from the second electronic device, information corresponding to audio associated with the second user; and in response to obtaining the information corresponding to the audio associated with the second user, presenting the audio as if emanating from a respective location of the first representation corresponding to the second user of the second electronic device independent of whether the distance between the second location in the computer-generated environment corresponding to the first electronic device relative to the respective location associated with the communication session is further than the threshold distance (Mandlin Figures 8A and 8B; [0093 – 0095]).
Regarding claim 3:
Mandlin discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first representation corresponding to the second user includes a three-dimensional avatar of the second user, the method further comprising: while displaying the three-dimensional avatar of the second user in the computer-generated environment, determining that one or more second criteria are satisfied, including a criterion that is satisfied when a second distance between a third location of the three-dimensional avatar corresponding to the second electronic device relative to a respective second location associated with the communication session is greater than the threshold distance; and in response to determining that the one or more second criteria are satisfied: displaying the three-dimensional avatar of the second user in the computer-generated environment independent of whether the second distance between the third location in the computer-generated environment corresponding to the second electronic device relative to the respective second location associated with the communication session is further than the threshold distance (Mandlin Figures 8A and 8B; [0093 – 0095]).
Regarding claim 4:
Mandlin discloses the method of claim 1, wherein: the one or more criteria include a criterion that is satisfied when the computer-generated environment includes shared content in the communication session; and the respective location associated with the communication session corresponds to a center of an area in the computer-generated environment corresponding to the shared content (Mandlin see center of avatar 60 and radius 804A-B; see also Figures 8A and 8B [0095]).
Regarding claim 5:
Mandlin discloses The method of claim 1, wherein: the one or more criteria include a criterion that is satisfied when the computer-generated environment does not include shared content in the communication session; and the respective location associated with the communication session corresponds to: in accordance with a determination that a respective location of the second user of the second electronic device is closer to a current location corresponding to the first electronic device in the computer-generated environment than a respective location of a third user of a third electronic device in the communication session, the respective location of the second user of the second electronic device in the communication session; and in accordance with a determination that the respective location of the third user of the third electronic device is closer to the current location corresponding to the first electronic device in the computer-generated environment than the respective location of the second user of the second electronic device in the communication session, the respective location of the third user of the third electronic device in the communication session (Mandlin discloses thress or more users within a shared space in the communication session and shared content (i.e., icons corresponding to avatars representing the remote user devices) and not shared content (i.e., audio content) depending on the distance between the avatars, see [0093 – 0095], [0101 – 0105], [0051 – 0052] and Figures 8A -9B).
Regarding claim 6:
Mandlin discloses The method of claim 1, wherein: the one or more criteria include a criterion that is satisfied when the first representation corresponding to the second user of the second electronic device comprises a two-dimensional representation of the second user displayed within a virtual canvas; and the respective location associated with the communication session corresponds to a center of the virtual canvas (Mandlin see center of avatar 60 and radius 804A-B, Figures 8A-8B and [0095]).
Regarding claim 7:
Mandlin discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the threshold distance from the respective location associated with the communication session includes a threshold horizontal distance between the second location in the computer-generated environment corresponding to the first electronic device relative to the respective location associated with the communication session (Mandlin see center of avatar 60 and radius 804A-B, Figures 8A-8B and [0095]).
Regarding claim 9:
Mandlin discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining that the one or more criteria are satisfied includes detecting movement of the first representation of the second user of the second electronic device to a location in the computer-generated environment that is further than the threshold distance from the respective location associated with the communication session (Mandlin Figures 8A and 8B; [0093 – 0095]).
Regarding claim 10:
Mandlin discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining that the one or more criteria are satisfied includes detecting movement of a location corresponding to the first electronic device to a location in the computer-generated environment that is further than the threshold distance from the respective location associated with the communication session (Mandlin Figures 8A and 8B; [0093 – 0095]).
Regarding claim 13:
Claim 13 is similarly rejected for those reasons discussed above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 14:
Claim 14 is similarly rejected for those reasons discussed above in claim 1 (and Mandlin [0028]).
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.
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. Applicant is 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.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mandlin in view of Pejsa et al; (Publication number: US 2021/0350604 A1), hereafter Pejsa.
Regarding claim 8:
Mandlin does not disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the threshold distance from the respective location associated with the communication session includes a threshold vertical distance between the second location in the computer-generated environment corresponding to the first electronic device relative to the respective location associated with the communication session.
However, Pejsa discloses audio/visual presence transitions in a collaborative reality environment. More particularly, Pejsa discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the threshold distance from the respective location associated with the communication session includes a threshold vertical distance between the second location in the computer-generated environment corresponding to the first electronic device relative to the respective location associated with the communication session (Pejsa [0180 – 0184], Figure 12A – 12B; repositioning and re-scaling the avatart considering not only the horizontal distance component by also the vertical).
It would have been obvious to modify Mandlin wherein the threshold distance from the respective location associated with the communication session includes a threshold vertical distance between the second location in the computer-generated environment corresponding to the first electronic device relative to the respective location associated with the communication session, as claimed. Those skilled in the art would allowing eye-to-eye communication between the avatar and viewer.
Claim(s) 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mandlin in view of George-Svahn (Publication number: US 2016/0109946 A1), hereafter George-Svahn.
Regarding claim 11:
Mandlin does not disclose the method of claim 1, wherein displaying the indication includes ceasing to display the indication after a predetermined period of time.
However, George-Svahn discloses systems and methods for gaze input based dismissal of information on a display. More particularly, George-Svahn discloses wherein displaying the indication includes ceasing to display the indication after a predetermined period of time (George-Svahn Figure 2 270).
It would have been obvious to modify Mandlin wherein displaying the indication includes ceasing to display the indication after a predetermined period of time, as claimed. Those skilled in the art would appreciate dismissing the indication, thereby increasing the available display area for the user.
Regarding claim 12:
Mandlin does not disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more criteria include a criterion that is satisfied when more than a threshold amount of time has elapsed since a prior satisfaction of the one or more criteria.
However, George-Svahn discloses systems and methods for gaze input based dismissal of information on a display. More particularly, George-Svahn discloses wherein the one or more criteria include a criterion that is satisfied when more than a threshold amount of time has elapsed since a prior satisfaction of the one or more criteria (George-Svahn Figure 2 second time period 260 after first time period 240).
It would have been obvious to modify Mandlin wherein the one or more criteria include a criterion that is satisfied when more than a threshold amount of time has elapsed since a prior satisfaction of the one or more criteria, as claimed. Those skilled in the art would appreciate dismissing the indication, thereby increasing the available display area for the user.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIHIR K RAYAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 - 5pm (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, LunYi Lao can be reached at 571-272-7671. 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.
/MIHIR K RAYAN/ 4 January 2026Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621