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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: According to MPEP 608.01(m), the present Office practice is to insist that each claim must be the object of a sentence starting with “I (or we) claim,” “The invention claimed is” (or the equivalent). Thus, the heading simply stating “CLAIMS” is not sufficient.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 7, and 11-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghanaie-Sichanie (US 20210135892A1) and Stebbins (US 20210038985A1).
As per Claim 1, Ghanaie-Sichanie teaches a method comprising: at a computer system (125) in communication with one or more input devices and a display generation component: while a user of the computer system is participating in a communication session with one or more participants (remote device 140a-140c, may be associated with the conferencing system and provide a user interface that enables remote participants to a communication session to receive media streams associated with the communication session from the source device 125 [0021]; user interface may be rendered on a display of the remote devices 140a-140c, [0035]; user interface that allows users to control operating parameters of the source device 125, [0037]), and while a three-dimensional environment including a first virtual object is visible via the display generation component (synthetically rendered images using 3D computer graphics, [0043]): receiving an indication to display a spatial representation of a first participant of the one or more participants within the three-dimensional environment; in response to receiving the indication to display the spatial representation of the first participant, displaying, via the display generation component, the spatial representation of the first participant in the three-dimensional environment; and while displaying the spatial representation of the first participant in the three-dimensional environment (the foreground may consist of persons, [0043]): in accordance with a determination that a first portion of the first virtual object is in spatial conflict with a first portion of the spatial representation of a second object (presentation surface) in the three-dimensional environment, displaying, via the display generation component, the first portion of the first virtual object with a first amount of visual prominence relative to the three-dimensional environment and displaying a second portion of the first virtual object not in spatial conflict with the first portion of the spatial representation of the second object (presentation surface) with a second amount of visual prominence relative to the three-dimensional environment, greater than the first amount of visual prominence (determine that content of a region of the presentation surface is being obscured by an object, to identify content associated with the obscured region, and to overlaying a transparent representation of the object over a representation of the content of the region obscured by the object, [0049], [0043]). Ghanaie-Sichanie teaches determining that content of a region of the presentation surface is being obscured by a person, to identify content associated with the obscured region, and to overlaying a transparent representation of the person over a representation of the content of the region obscured by the person. As the participant moves about different regions of the presentation surface may be obscured, the image processing pipeline is configured to update formerly obscured regions with fresh content as formerly obscured areas become unobscured [0049]. Thus, when content of the region of the presentation surface is not in spatial conflict with the first portion of the spatial representation of the first participant, then the whole region of the presentation surface is displayed opaquely. Thus, Ghanaie-Sichanie teaches in accordance with a determination that the first virtual object is not in spatial conflict with the first portion of the spatial representation of the first participant in the three-dimensional environment, displaying, via the display generation component, the first portion and the second portion of the first virtual object with the second amount of visual prominence relative to the three-dimensional environment [0049, 0043].
However, Ghanaie-Sichanie does not teach in accordance with a determination that a first portion of the first virtual object is in spatial conflict with a first portion of the spatial representation of the first participant in the three-dimensional environment, displaying the first portion of the first virtual object with a first mount of visual prominence relative to the three-dimensional environment and displaying a second portion of the first virtual object not in spatial conflict with the first portion of the spatial representation of the first participant with a second amount of visual prominence relative to the three-dimensional environment, greater than the first amount of visual prominence. However, Stebbins teaches avoiding occlusion of the spatial representation of the first participant in a 3D world in an electronic game (Abstract). A hard occlusion (such as a wall or other opaque graphical object) may cause the camera view to be moved forward so that the wall is removed from the camera view and therefore does not occlude the camera view of the spatial representation of the first participant. A soft occlusion (such as an at least semi-transparent object that only partially occludes the spatial representation of the first participant) causes the camera view be kept stationary, such that the spatial representation of the first participant can be seen moving behind the soft occlusion [0018]. Since Ghanaie-Sichanie teaches in accordance with a determination that a first portion of the first virtual object is in spatial conflict with a first portion of the spatial representation of a second object (presentation surface) in the three-dimensional environment, displaying, via the display generation component, the first portion of the first virtual object with a first amount of visual prominence relative to the three-dimensional environment and displaying a second portion of the first virtual object not in spatial conflict with the first portion of the spatial representation of the second object (presentation surface) with a second amount of visual prominence relative to the three-dimensional environment, greater than the first amount of visual prominence [0049, 0043], this teaching from Stebbins of avoiding occlusion of the spatial representation of the first participant in an electronic game can be implemented into the device of Ghanaie-Sichanie so that it prioritizes displaying the spatial representation of the first participant instead of the presentation surface, and so in accordance with a determination that a first portion of the first virtual object is in spatial conflict with a first portion of the spatial representation of the first participant in the three-dimensional environment, displaying, via the display generation component, the first portion of the first virtual object with a first amount of visual prominence relative to the three-dimensional environment and displaying a second portion of the first virtual object not in spatial conflict with the first portion of the spatial representation of the first participant with a second amount of visual prominence relative to the three-dimensional environment, greater than the first mount of visual prominence.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ghanaie-Sichanie to include that in accordance with a determination that a first portion of the first virtual object is in spatial conflict with a first portion of the spatial representation of the first participant in the three-dimensional environment, displaying the first portion of the first virtual object with a first mount of visual prominence relative to the three-dimensional environment and displaying a second portion of the first virtual object not in spatial conflict with the first portion of the spatial representation of the first participant with a second amount of visual prominence relative to the three-dimensional environment, greater than the first amount of visual prominence because Stebbins suggests that for many applications, such as an electronic game, it is very important to be able to see the avatar, and thus it is advantageous to avoid occlusion of the avatar (Abstract).
As per Claim 7, Ghanaie-Sichanie teaches wherein the first amount of visual prominence is a predetermined visual prominence [0049].
As per Claim 11, Ghanaie-Sichanie teaches further comprising: while the user is participating in the communication session, while the three-dimensional environment is visible via the display generation component, and while displaying, via the display generation component, the first virtual object and the spatial representation: in accordance with the determination that the first virtual object is not in spatial conflict with the first portion of a second object (presentation surface) in the three-dimensional environment: in accordance with a determination that the first portion of the first virtual object is in spatial conflict with a second portion of the second object (presentation surface) different from the first portion of the second object (presentation surface), displaying, via the display generation component, the first portion and the second portion of the first virtual object with the second amount of visual prominence relative to the three-dimensional environment [0049, 0043].
However, Ghanaie-Sichanie does not teach in accordance with the determination that the first virtual object is not in spatial conflict with the first portion of the spatial representation of the first participant in the three-dimensional environment: in accordance with a determination that the first portion of the first virtual object is in spatial conflict with a second portion of the spatial representation different from the first portion of the spatial representation, displaying, via the display generation component, the first portion and the second portion of the first virtual object with the second amount of visual prominence relative to the three-dimensional environment. However, Stebbins teaches avoiding occlusion of the spatial representation of the first participant in a 3D world in an electronic game (Abstract). A hard occlusion (such as a wall or other opaque graphical object) may cause the camera view to be moved forward so that the wall is removed from the camera view and therefore does not occlude the camera view of the spatial representation of the first participant. A soft occlusion (such as an at least semi-transparent object that only partially occludes the spatial representation of the first participant) causes the camera view be kept stationary, such that the spatial representation of the first participant can be seen moving behind the soft occlusion [0018]. Since Ghanaie-Sichanie teaches in accordance with the determination that the first virtual object is not in spatial conflict with the first portion of a second object (presentation surface) in the three-dimensional environment: in accordance with a determination that the first portion of the first virtual object is in spatial conflict with a second portion of the second object (presentation surface) different from the first portion of the second object (presentation surface), displaying, via the display generation component, the first portion and the second portion of the first virtual object with the second amount of visual prominence relative to the three-dimensional environment [0049, 0043], this teaching from Stebbins of avoiding occlusion of the spatial representation of the first participant in an electronic game can be implemented into the device of Ghanaie-Sichanie so that it prioritizes displaying the spatial representation of the first participant instead of the presentation surface, and so in accordance with the determination that the first virtual object is not in spatial conflict with the first portion of the spatial representation of the first participant in the three-dimensional environment: in accordance with a determination that the first portion of the first virtual object is in spatial conflict with a second portion of the spatial representation different form the first portion of the spatial representation, displaying, via the display generation component, the first portion and the second portion of the first virtual object with the second amount of visual prominence relative to the three-dimensional environment. This would be obvious for the reasons given in the rejection for Claim 1.
10. As per Claim 12, Ghanaie-Sichanie teaches further comprising: while the user is participating in the communication session, while the three-dimensional environment is visible via the display generation component, and while displaying, via the display generation component, the first virtual object and the spatial representation: in accordance with the determination that the first virtual object is in spatial conflict with the first portion of a second object (presentation surface) in the three-dimensional environment: in accordance with a determination that the second portion of the first virtual object is in spatial conflict with a second portion of the second object (presentation surface) from the first portion of the second object (presentation surface), displaying, via the display generation component, the first portion of the first virtual object with the first amount of visual prominence relative to the three-dimensional environment, the second portion of the first virtual object with a third amount of visual prominence relative to the three-dimensional environment, and a third portion of the first virtual object not in spatial conflict with the first portion or the second portion of the second object (presentation surface) with the second amount of visual prominence relative to the three-dimensional environment, wherein the third amount of visual prominence is less than the second amount of visual prominence [0049, 0043].
However, Ghanaie-Sichanie does not teach in accordance with the determination that the first virtual object is in spatial conflict with the first portion of the spatial representation of the first participant in the three-dimensional environment: in accordance with a determination that the second portion of the first virtual object is in spatial conflict with a second portion of the spatial representation different from the first portion of the spatial representation, displaying, via the display generation component, the first portion of the first virtual object with the first amount of visual prominence relative to the three-dimensional environment, the second portion of the first virtual object with a third amount of visual prominence relative to the three-dimensional environment, and a third portion of the first virtual object not in spatial conflict with the first portion or the second portion of the spatial representation with the second amount of visual prominence relative to the three-dimensional environment, wherein the third amount of visual prominence is less than the second amount of visual prominence. However, Stebbins teaches avoiding occlusion of the spatial representation of the first participant in a 3D world in an electronic game (Abstract). A hard occlusion (such as a wall or other opaque graphical object) may cause the camera view to be moved forward so that the wall is removed from the camera view and therefore does not occlude the camera view of the spatial representation of the first participant. A soft occlusion (such as an at least semi-transparent object that only partially occludes the spatial representation of the first participant) causes the camera view be kept stationary, such that the spatial representation of the first participant can be seen moving behind the soft occlusion [0018]. Since Ghanaie-Sichanie teaches in accordance with the determination that the first virtual object is in spatial conflict with the first portion of a second object (presentation surface) in the three-dimensional environment: in accordance with a determination that the second portion of the first virtual object is in spatial conflict with a second portion of the second object (presentation surface) from the first portion of the second object (presentation surface), displaying, via the display generation component, the first portion of the first virtual object with the first amount of visual prominence relative to the three-dimensional environment, the second portion of the first virtual object with a third amount of visual prominence relative to the three-dimensional environment, and a third portion of the first virtual object not in spatial conflict with the first portion or the second portion of the second object (presentation surface) with the second amount of visual prominence relative to the three-dimensional environment, wherein the third amount of visual prominence is less than the second amount of visual prominence [0049, 0043], this teaching from Stebbins of avoiding occlusion of the spatial representation of the first participant in an electronic game can be implemented into the device of Ghanaie-Sichanie so that it prioritizes displaying the spatial representation of the first participant instead of the presentation surface, and so in accordance with the determination that the first virtual object is in spatial conflict with the first portion of the spatial representation of the first participant in the three-dimensional environment: in accordance with a determination that the second portion of the first virtual object is in spatial conflict with a second portion of the spatial representation different from the first portion of the spatial representation, displaying, via the display generation component, the first portion of the first virtual object with the first amount of visual prominence relative to the three-dimensional environment, the second portion of the first virtual object with a third amount of visual prominence relative to the three-dimensional environment, and a third portion of the first virtual object not in spatial conflict with the first portion or the second portion of the spatial representation with the second amount of visual prominence relative to the three-dimensional environment, wherein the third amount of visual prominence is less than the second amount of visual prominence. This would be obvious for the reasons given in the rejection for Claim 1.
11. As per Claim 13, Claim 13 is similar in scope to Claim 12, except that Claim 13 is performing the method of Claim 12 on a second virtual object instead of the first virtual object. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the combination of Ghanaie-Sichanie and Stebbins teaches that there is a plurality of virtual objects, and this same processing that is performed on the first virtual object is performed on all of the plurality of virtual objects, and thus the same method of Claim 12 that is performed on the first virtual object is also performed on the second virtual object. Thus, Claim 13 is rejected under the same rationale as Claim 12.
12. As per Claim 14, Claim 14 is similar in scope to Claim 13, and therefore is rejected under the same rationale. As per Claim 15, Claim 15 is similar in scope to Claim 14, and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
13. As per Claim 16, Claim 16 is similar in scope to Claim 1, except that Claim 16 is directed to the computer system comprising: one or more processors; memory; and one or more programs, wherein the one or more programs are stored in the memory and configured to be executed by one or more processors, the one or more programs including instructions for the method of Claim 1. Ghanaie-Sichanie teaches a computer system comprising: one or more processors; memory; and one or more programs, wherein the one or more programs are stored in the memory and configured to be executed by one or more processors, the one or more programs including instructions for the method (machine 600 configured to read instructions from a machine-readable storage medium and perform any of the features described herein, [0075]). Thus, Claim 16 is rejected under the same rationale as Claim 1.
14. As per Claim 17, Claim 17 is similar in scope to Claim 16, and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
15. Claim(s) 2 and 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghanaie-Sichanie (US 20210135892A1) and Stebbins (US 20210038985A1) in view of Nakadaira (US 20080225007A1).
16. As per Claim 2, Ghanaie-Sichanie and Stebbins are relied upon for the teachings as discussed above relative to Claim 1.
However, Ghanaie-Sichanie and Stebbins do not teach that the spatial representation of the first participant is associated with a first boundary that has a first minimum distance from an outline of the first portion of the spatial representation and a second boundary that has a second minimum distance from the outline of the first portion of the spatial representation, the second minimum distance greater than the first minimum distance. However, Nakadaira teaches determining that a point overlaps with a point at which the pointer is pointing, and transparentizing only a region within a circle centering on the point that overlaps with the point at which the pointer is pointing [0120]. The transparency is changed such that the transparency is α=0 (completely transparent) in the inside of the circle of the radius and transparency is gradually changed in the outside of the circle of radius in proportion to the distance so as to become α=1 (completely opaque) [0967]. Thus, the circle is a second boundary that has a second minimum distance from the point, and there is a first boundary within the circle that has a first minimum distance from the point, where the first boundary has α=0.5 for example. Thus, Nakadaira teaches wherein the point is associated with a first boundary that ahs a first minimum distance from the point and a second boundary that has a second minimum distance from the point, the second minimum distance greater than the first minimum distance [0120, 0967]. Since the combination Ghanaie-Sichanie and Stebbins teaches the spatial representation of the first participant, as discussed in the rejection for Claim 1, this teaching from Nakadaira can be implemented into the combination of Ghanaie-Sichanie and Stebbins so that the spatial representation of the first participant is associated with a first boundary that has a first minimum distance from an outline of the first portion of the spatial representation and a second boundary that has a second minimum distance from the outline of the first portion of the spatial representation, the second minimum distance greater than the first minimum distance.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ghanaie-Sichanie and Stebbins so that the spatial representation of the first participant is associated with a first boundary that has a first minimum distance from an outline of the first portion of the spatial representation and a second boundary that has a second minimum distance from the outline of the first portion of the spatial representation, the second minimum distance greater than the first minimum distance because Nakadaira suggests that this helps the user to visualize and locate an object when another object is in spatial conflict with it [0024, 0120, 0967].
17. As per Claim 4, Ghanaie-Sichanie and Stebbins do not teach wherein: in accordance with a determination that the first boundary has a first spatial characteristic, displaying the first portion of the first virtual object with the first amount of visual prominence includes displaying the first virtual object with a second appearance, and in accordance with a determination that the first boundary has a third spatial characteristic different from the first spatial characteristic, displaying the first portion of the first virtual object with the first amount of visual prominence includes displaying the first virtual object with the second appearance. However, Nakadaira teaches wherein: in accordance with a determination that the first boundary has a first spatial characteristic (circle), displaying the first portion of the first virtual object with the first amount of visual prominence includes displaying the first virtual object with a second appearance, and in accordance with a determination that the first boundary has a third spatial characteristic (polygon) different from the first spatial characteristic (circle), displaying the first portion of the first virtual object with the first amount of visual prominence includes displaying the first virtual object with the second appearance (transparentizing only a region within an arbitrary shape such as a circle, an ellipse and a polygon centering on a point that overlaps with a point at which the pointer is pointing, [0120]; when transparentizing only the inside of the circle of the radius centering on the point overlapping the pointing position of the pointer, the transparency may be changed such that transparency is α=0 (completely transparent) in the inside of the circle of the radius and transparency is gradually changed in the outside of the circle of radius in proportion to the distance so as to become α=1 (completely opaque), [0967]; the region to be transparentized in the object is not limited to the circle region of the radius, it may be any predetermined shape such as an ellipse region or a polygon region, [0969]; only a predetermined shape of the region is transparentized, such as the circle region, the ellipse region, or polygon region centering on the point overlapping the position pointed at by the pointer, [0970]). This would be obvious for the reasons given in the rejection for Claim 2.
18. As per Claim 5, Ghanaie-Sichanie and Stebbins do not teach wherein: in accordance with a determination that the first boundary and the second boundary have a first set of spatial characteristics, displaying the first portion of the first virtual object with the first amount of visual prominence includes displaying the first virtual object with a second appearance, and in accordance with a determination that the first boundary and the second boundary have a third set of spatial characteristics different from the first set of spatial characteristics, displaying the first portion of the first virtual object with the first amount of visual prominence includes displaying the first virtual object with a fourth appearance different from the second appearance. However, Nakadaira teaches transparentizing only a region within an arbitrary shape such as a circle, an ellipse and a polygon centering on a point that overlaps with a point at which the pointer is pointing [0120]. When transparentizing only the inside of the circle of the radius centering on the point overlapping the pointing position of the pointer, the transparency may be changed such that transparency is α=0 (completely transparent) in the inside of the circle of the radius and transparency is gradually changed in the outside of the circle of radius in proportion to the distance so as to become α=1 (completely opaque) [0967]. The region to be transparentized in the object is not limited to the circle region of the radius, it may be any predetermined shape such as an ellipse region or a polygon region [0969]. Only a predetermined shape of the region is transparentized, such as the circle region, the ellipse region, or polygon region centering on the point overlapping the position pointed at by the pointer [0970]. Thus, when the first boundary (circle inside circle where α=0.5 for example) and the second boundary (circle) have a first set of spatial characteristics (circle), the first portion of the first virtual object would have a different appearance than when the first boundary (polygon inside polygon where α=0.5 for example) and the second boundary (polygon) have a third set of spatial characteristics (polygon), because the amount of transparency would be different depending on the shape of the boundaries. Thus, Nakadaira teaches wherein: in accordance with a determination that the first boundary and the second boundary have a first set of spatial characteristics, displaying the first portion of the first virtual object with the first amount of visual prominence includes displaying the first virtual object with a second appearance, and in accordance with a determination that the first boundary and the second boundary have a third set of spatial characteristics different from the first set of spatial characteristics, displaying the first portion of the first virtual object with the first amount of visual prominence includes displaying the first virtual object with a fourth appearance different from the second appearance [0120, 0967, 0969, 0970]. This would be obvious for the reasons given in the rejection for Claim 2.
19. As per Claim 6, the combination of Ghanaie-Sichanie and Stebbins teaches further comprising: while the user is participating in the communication session, while the three-dimensional environment is visible via the display generation component, and while displaying, via the display generation component, the first virtual object and the spatial representation: in accordance with the determination that the first portion of the first virtual object is in spatial conflict with the first portion of the spatial representation of the first participant in the three-dimensional environment, while displaying the first portion of the first virtual object with the first amount of visual prominence and displaying the second portion of the first virtual object with the second amount of visual prominence, as discussed in the rejection for Claim 1.
However, Ghanaie-Sichanie and Stebbins do not teach displaying, via the display generation component, a third portion of the first virtual object that is in spatial conflict with the second boundary and not in spatial conflict with the first boundary with an amount of visual prominence that has a gradient from the first amount of visual prominence to the second amount of visual prominence. However, Nakadaira teaches displaying, via the display generation component, a third portion of the first virtual object that is in spatial conflict with the second boundary (circle) and not in spatial conflict with the first boundary (circle inside circle where α=0.5 for example) with an amount of visual prominence that has a gradient from the first amount of visual prominence to the second amount of visual prominence [0120, 0967, 0969, 0970]. This would be obvious for the reasons given in the rejection for Claim 2.
20. Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghanaie-Sichanie (US 20210135892A1) and Stebbins (US 20210038985A1) in view of Majumder (US 20100287493A1).
Ghanaie-Sichanie and Stebbins are relied upon for the teachings as discussed above relative to Claim 1. Ghanaie-Sichanie teaches wherein displaying the first portion of the first virtual object with the first amount of visual prominence [0049].
However, Ghanaie-Sichanie and Stebbins do not teach in accordance with a determination that a first user-defined setting has a first value on the computer system, displaying, via the display generation component, the first portion of the first virtual object with a first appearance; and in accordance with a determination that the first user-defined setting has a second value, different from the first value, on the computer system, displaying, via the display generation component, the first portion of the first virtual object with a second appearance different from the first appearance. However, Majumder teaches in accordance with a determination that a first user-defined setting has a first value on the computer system, displaying, via the display generation component, a first appearance; and in accordance with a determination that the first user-defined setting has a second value, different from the first value, on the computer system, displaying, via the display generation component, a second appearance different from the first appearance (selective transparency that would allow a user-selected amount of the image 104 to be displayed, the user can set a particular amount of transparency that may allow darker, more intense, or larger features of the image to be seen through the window, [0036]). Thus, since Ghanaie-Sichanie teaches wherein displaying the first portion of the first virtual object with the first amount of visual prominence [0049], this teaching from Majumder can be implemented into the device of Ghanaie-Sichanie so in accordance with a determination that a first user-defined setting has a first value on the computer system, displaying, via the display generation component, the first portion of the first virtual object with a first appearance; and in accordance with a determination that the first user-defined setting has a second value, different from the first value, on the computer system, displaying, via the display generation component, the first portion of the first virtual object with a second appearance different from the first appearance.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ghanaie-Sichanie and Stebbins to include in accordance with a determination that a first user-defined setting has a first value on the computer system, displaying, via the display generation component, the first portion of the first virtual object with a first appearance; and in accordance with a determination that the first user-defined setting has a second value, different from the first value, on the computer system, displaying, via the display generation component, the first portion of the first virtual object with a second appearance different from the first appearance because Majumder suggests that this way, the user can set a particular amount of transparency that allows important features to be seen, so that the user can determine information that they need to know, such as useful contextual information [0036].
21. Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghanaie-Sichanie (US 20210135892A1) and Stebbins (US 20210038985A1) in view of Ponce (US011756260B1).
22. As per Claim 9, Ghanaie-Sichanie and Stebbins are relied upon for the teachings as discussed above relative to Claim 1.
However, Ghanaie-Sichanie and Stebbins do not teach further comprising: while the three-dimensional environment is visible via the display generation component: displaying, via the display generation component, a second virtual object in a predetermined portion of the three-dimensional environment with a predetermined spatial relationship with a viewpoint of the user of the computer system in the three-dimensional environment, wherein the second virtual object is different from the first virtual object and the first virtual object is displayed outside of the predetermined portion of the three-dimensional environment. However, Ponce teaches further comprising: while the three-dimensional environment is visible via the display generation component: displaying, via the display generation component, a second virtual object in a predetermined portion of the three-dimensional environment with a predetermined spatial relationship with a viewpoint of the user of the computer system in the three-dimensional environment, wherein the second virtual object is different from the first virtual object and the first virtual object is displayed outside of the predetermined portion of the three-dimensional environment (notification can be virtually displayed to the user by the user device, the notification can be shown on a particular physical surface within a room of the 3D environment, or can be displayed as if floating in space, col. 10, lines 47-50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ghanaie-Sichanie and Stebbins to include while the three-dimensional environment is visible via the display generation component: displaying, via the display generation component, a second virtual object in a predetermined portion of the three-dimensional environment with a predetermined spatial relationship with a viewpoint of the user of the computer system in the three-dimensional environment, wherein the second virtual object is different from the first virtual object and the first virtual object is displayed outside of the predetermined portion of the three-dimensional environment because Ponce suggests that this way, while the user is viewing the 3D environment, the user can be notified of information that is useful to the user, such as that a new content item is available for virtual display (col. 10, lines 42-50).
23. As per Claim 10, the combination of Ghanaie-Sichanie and Stebbins teaches in accordance with a determination that a first portion of the first virtual object is in spatial conflict with the first portion of the spatial representation of the first participant in the three-dimensional environment, displaying, via the display generation component, the first virtual object with a third amount of visual prominence relative to the three-dimensional environment; and
In accordance with a determination that the first virtual object is not in spatial conflict with the first portion of the spatial representation of the first participant in the three-dimensional environment, displaying, via the display generation component, the second first object with the third amount of visual prominence relative to the three-dimensional environment, as discussed in the rejection for Claim 1.
However, Ghanaie-Sichanie and Stebbins do not teach in accordance with a determination that a first portion of the second virtual object is in spatial conflict with the first portion of the spatial representation of the first participant in the three-dimensional environment, displaying, via the display generation component, the second virtual object with a third amount of visual prominence relative to the three-dimensional environment; and in accordance with a determination that the second virtual object is not in spatial conflict with the first portion of the spatial representation of the first participant in the three-dimensional environment, displaying, via the display generation component, the second virtual object with the third amount of visual prominence relative to the three-dimensional environment. However, Ponce teaches while the user is participating in the communication session, while the three-dimensional environment is visible via the display generation component, and while displaying, via the display generation component, the second virtual object and the spatial representation (col. 10, lines 47-50). Thus, this teaching of the second virtual object from Ponce can be implemented into the combination of Ghanaie-Sichanie and Stebbins so in accordance with a determination that a first portion of the second virtual object is in spatial conflict with the first portion of the spatial representation of the first participant in the three-dimensional environment, displaying, via the display generation component, the second virtual object with a third amount of visual prominence relative to the three-dimensional environment; and in accordance with a determination that the second virtual object is not in spatial conflict with the first portion of the spatial representation of the first participant in the three-dimensional environment, displaying, via the display generation component, the second virtual object with the third amount of visual prominence relative to the three-dimensional environment. This would be obvious for the reasons given in the rejection for Claim 9.
Allowable Subject Matter
24. Claim 3 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.
25. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art taken singly or in combination do not teach the combination of all the limitations of Claim 3 and base Claim 1 and intervening Claim 2, and in particular, do not teach wherein: determining that the first portion of the first virtual object is in spatial conflict with the first portion of the spatial representation includes determining that the first boundary is in spatial conflict with the first portion of the first virtual object, and determining that the first portion of the first virtual object is not in spatial conflict with the first portion of the spatial representation includes determining that the first boundary is not in spatial conflict with the first portion of the first virtual object.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONI HSU whose telephone number is (571)272-7785. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6:30pm.
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, Kee Tung can be reached at (571)272-7794. 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.
JH
/JONI HSU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Prosecution Insights