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 .
Response to Arguments
Independent claims have been amended. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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, 11, 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Seshita US 20190236849 A1.Claim 1. (Currently Amended) An information processing system (Seshita Fig.2), comprising:
circuitry (Seshita Fig.2 connected processors) configured to:
initiate display of each of a first virtual space and a model from a first virtual user viewpoint, wherein the first model is a miniature of at least one part of the first virtual space (Seshita [0058] Figures 3, 4, 7, 8 with the first visual space being visual space 200. The miniature is virtual space 300. Further, the virtual space 200 has a small space 300, which is arranged in the virtual space 200, based on the information generated by the small space information generation unit 110. In one example, the small space 300 can be configured to be obtained by completely copying the configuration of the virtual space 200, by copying only a part of the configuration of the virtual space 200, or by including a configuration different from that of the virtual space 200);
receive a first user input to change at least one of a position or a posture of the model (Seshita [0114] the small space 300 can be deleted by allowing the user 100 to perform an operation of directing the palm downward from the state in which the small space 300 is placed on the palm of the user virtual object 202. In addition, the small space 300 can be deleted by allowing the user 100 to perform an operation of stepping on the small space 300 with the foot of the user virtual object 202 and [0124] the user 100 can rotate one small space 300 and so perceive the configuration of the virtual space 200 used currently from an angle different from another small space 300); and
initiate the display of each of the first virtual space from the first virtual user viewpoint and the model from a second virtual user viewpoint, based on the first user input (Seshita [0124] the user 100 can rotate one small space 300 and so perceive the configuration of the virtual space 200 used currently from an angle different from another small space 300. Such a configuration makes it possible for the user 100 is able to perceive the state of the virtual space 200 used currently simultaneously from different angles (second virtual viewpoint)).Claim 11 recites a method performed by the system of claim 1. Claim 11 essentially recites the same limitations as claim 1. Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 is applied to claim 11.Claims 7 and 17. (Currently Amended) The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the model is a copy of the first virtual space (Seshita [0050] [0051] The small space can be a space obtained by copying at least a portion of the virtual space).Claims 8 and 18. (Original) The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one part of the first virtual space is based on a user operation (Seshita Fig.2 #112 “operation information processing unit” and #110 “small space information generation unit” have a communication on generating small space after detecting a user operation).Claims 9 and 19. (Currently Amended) The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is further configured to delete the model, based on a second virtual space that is displayed (Seshita, [0114]-[0117] small space is deleted when becoming an obstacle in a virtual space (that is a new space)).
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) 2-5 and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seshita, in view of Osman et al. (US 20120086631 A1) hereinafter referred to as Osman.
Claims 2 and 12, Seshita does not disclose the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is further configured to initiate display of a second virtual space from the second virtual user viewpoint.
Osman discloses the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is further configured to initiate display of a second virtual space from the second virtual user viewpoint (Osman [0063] changing the perspective in the virtual space by the maneuvering of a handheld device 40 to different positions and orientations in the interactive environment, so the position and orientation of the virtual viewpoint will change).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Seshita with the teachings of Osman since they are both analogous in virtual reality related field.
One ordinary skilled in the art before the filing of the claimed invention would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Seshita with the teachings of Osman in order to enable interactivity with an interactive application.Claims 3 and 13, the combination of Seshita and Osman, in [0048] Seshita, discloses eye tracking (gaze) and gesture input command in Seshita [0114]. The combination of Seshita and Osman does not explicitly disclose the information processing system according to claim 2, wherein the circuitry is further configured to initiate the display of the second virtual space based on a gaze at the first model. However, as a matter of design choice, one ordinary skilled in the art before the filing of the claimed invention would have been motivated to gaze as input command to initiate the display of the second virtual space in order to reduce cost caused by input device.Claims 4 and 14. (Original) The information processing system according to claim 2, wherein the circuitry is further configured to initiate the display of the second virtual space based on a second user input (Osman [0063] changing the perspective in the virtual space by the maneuvering of a handheld device 40 to different positions and orientations in the interactive environment, so the position and orientation of the virtual viewpoint will change).Claims 5 and 15. (Original) The information processing system according to claim 4, wherein the second user input is a user operation on an operation device (Osman [0063] a handheld device 40 is the operation device).
Claim(s) 6, 10, 16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seshita, in view of design choice.
Claims 6 and 16, Seshita discloses placing the small space in the palm of the user (See [0114]). Seshita does not explicitly disclose the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the first model is closer to a user than the first virtual space. However, as a matter of design choice, one ordinary skilled in the art before the filing of the claimed invention would have been motivated to place the first model closer to the user in order to make object interaction easier.Claims 10 and 20, Seshita does not explicitly disclose the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the displayed first model is located over a virtually displayed controller. However, as a matter of design choice, one ordinary skilled in the art before the filing of the claimed invention would have been motivated to place the first model over a virtually displayed controller in order to make object interaction easier.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is as follows:
US 20060050069 A1 An actual-size observation mode in which an observer performs observation by being immersed in a virtual three-dimensional space in an actual size and a reduced-size observation mode in which the observer performs observation by reducing a virtual three-dimensional space computer graphics image are provided. A virtual reality presentation device includes an observation mode setting unit for setting, as an observation mode, the actual-size observation mode or the reduced-size observation mode; a position and orientation information acquisition unit for acquiring position and orientation information of the observer; and a generation unit for generating a computer graphics image from computer graphics data representing the virtual three-dimensional space in accordance with the set observation mode and the position and orientation information.
US 20220414991 A1 A video generation apparatus (1) according to the embodiment includes a reception unit (30), a first generation unit (32), and a display control unit (35). The reception unit (30) receives user operation. The first generation unit (32) moves the virtual camera (10) in three-dimensional virtual space (Sv) on the basis of the user operation received by the reception unit (30), thereby generating a camera viewpoint video in which the three-dimensional object (100) in the three-dimensional virtual space (Sv) is shot using the virtual camera (10). The display control unit (35) disposes, in the three-dimensional virtual space (Sv), a virtual screen (Sc) for displaying the camera viewpoint video generated by the first generation unit (32), and displays a camera trajectory (T) of the virtual camera (10) in the three-dimensional virtual space (Sv).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
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 8/31/2026
Prosecution Insights