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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimoto et al. (US 2019/0073830 A1) in view of Vermeulen et al. (US 2013/0101264 A1) in view of Feeney (US 2010/0018382 A1) and further in view of Zalewski (US 2017/0171625 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Fujimoto discloses a head-mounted display (Paragraph 0200, a head mounted displays (HMD) provides video of an event to a user and avatars, figure 16, where the event can be viewed in a virtual space, paragraph 0229) for displaying a video of a content distributed via a network (Figure 12A, sharing of the virtual space by avatars of users using a network), the head-mounted display comprising: a communication unit connected to the network; (Paragraphs 0042-0043, computer connected to a server and other computers via the network) a display configured to display the video of the distributed content received by the communication unit; (Paragraph 0042, display of the HMD) and a processing circuit, (Paragraph 0164, processor) wherein the communication unit is configured to receive avatar information (Paragraph 0158, avatars of other users are present for interaction in the virtual space) and movement information of another person viewing simultaneously the video of the distributed content with a user of the head-mounted display, (Paragraphs 0165-0167, acquiring information of motion of the other users’ avatars in the virtual space viewing the event, paragraphs 0229-0230) and wherein the processing circuit configured to: detect whether the movement information received by the communication unit includes a first movement information indicating a continuous movement of the another person, (Paragraph 0168, received motion information of other users that is used to update positions of their avatars) Fujimoto does not clearly disclose in response to detecting that the first movement information is included in the movement information, generate rhythmic movement information. Vermeulen discloses comparing rhythm information of music with rhythm motion of recorded movements of a user to determine that the user is dancing (Paragraph 0068). Vermeulen’s technique of comparing timing and rhythm information of music with timing and rhythm motion of recorded movements of a user to determine that the user is dancing would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art to be applicable to the updating of other users’ avatars based on received motion information of Fujimoto and the results would have been predictable in the comparing of rhythm information of music with rhythm motion of recorded movements of another user to determine that the another user is dancing and updating the another user’s avatar movements based on the dancing movement information. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Fujimoto in view of Vermeulen does not clearly disclose rhythmic movement information is synchronized with rhythm information included in the distributed content, and generate an avatar of the another person from the avatar information received by the communication unit, by adding a second movement information that is the movement information other than the first movement information. Feeney discloses synchronizing movement of avatars to identified beat/tempo of a musical piece (Paragraph 0128). Feeney’s technique of synchronizing movement of avatars to identified beat/tempo of a musical piece would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art to be applicable to the updating of generated avatars with determined dancing movement in accordance with rhythm information of music that is displayed with event content of Fujimoto in view of Vermeulen and the results would have been predictable in the synchronizing the movement of generated avatars to the identified rhythm information of event content that is displayed with the content. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Fujimoto in view of Vermeulen and further in view of Feenery does not clearly disclose control the display to display the generated avatar of the another person overlapping the video of the distributed content.
Zalewski discloses devices (Paragraph 0044) incorporating multiple users’ avatars into a presentation with motion of the avatars controlled by the users (Figures 3A-3C and paragraph 0050). Zalewski’s incorporation of multiple users’ avatars into a presentation with motion of the avatars controlled by the users would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art to be applicable to the control and display of multiple avatars with motion controlled by remote users of Fujimoto in view of Vermeulen and further in view of Feenery and the results would have been predictable in the incorporation of multiple users’ avatars into a presentation with motion of the avatars controlled by remote users. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, Feeney discloses wherein the rhythm information is information indicating a rhythm of a music associated with the video of the distributed content (Paragraph 0128, synchronizing avatar moves to music).
Regarding claim 3, Fujimoto in view of Vermeulen in view of Feenery and further in view of Zalewski discloses further comprising a sensor configured to detect a movement of the head-mounted display, wherein the processing circuit configured to generate an avatar of the user of the head-mounted display according to the movement detected by the sensor (Fujimoto, paragraph 0130, translating motion of a HMD detected by a sensor to the avatar corresponding to the HMD), and control the display to display the avatar of the another person and the avatar of the user overlapping the video of the distributed content (Zalewski, figures 3A-3C and paragraph 0050, incorporating multiple users’ avatars into a presentation with motion of the avatars controlled by the users).
Regarding claims 5 and 9, similar reasoning as discussed in claim 1 is applied.
Regarding claims 6 and 10, similar reasoning as discussed in claim 2 is applied.
Regarding claims 7 and 11, similar reasoning as discussed in claim 3 is applied.
Claim(s) 4, 8, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimoto et al. (US 2019/0073830 A1) in view of Vermeulen et al. (US 2013/0101264 A1) in view of Feeney (US 2010/0018382 A1) in view of Zalewski (US 2017/0171625 A1) and further in view of Patel et al. (US 2016/0027141 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Fujimoto in view of Vermeulen in view of Feeney and further in view of Zalewski discloses all limitations as discussed in claim 1. Fujimoto in view of Vermeulen in view of Feeney and further in view of Zalewski does not clearly disclose a camera configured to take a picture of the user of the head-mounted display, wherein the processing circuit configured to generate movement information of the user based on the picture of the user taken by the camera, generate an avatar of the user in consideration of the generate movement information. Patel discloses using external cameras to obtain motion data of a user in order to update an avatar in a virtual reality three dimensional space (Paragraph 0022). Patel’s use of external cameras for obtaining motion data of a user in order to update an avatar in a virtual reality three dimensional space would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art to be applicable to the user with a HMD for providing motion information for motion of an avatar of Fujimoto in view of Vermeulen in view of Feeney and further in view of Zalewski and the results would have been predictable in using external cameras to obtain motion data of a user with a HMD for motion of an avatar. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Fujimoto in view of Vermeulen in view of Feeney and further in view of Zalewski discloses controlling the display to display the avatar of the another person and the avatar of the user overlapping the video of the distributed content (Zalewski, paragraph 0050, incorporation of moving avatars into the displayed presentation where the movement of the avatars can be determined using external cameras, Patel, paragraph 0022).
Regarding claims 8 and 12, similar reasoning as discussed in claim 4 is applied.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Petajan et al. (US 2022/0086395 A1) discloses avatars participating in an event as members of a virtual audience.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHI HOANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3417. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00.
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, JASON CHAN can be reached at (571)272-3022. 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.
/PHI HOANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2619