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 .
This office action is in responsive to communication(s):
Application filed on 7/26/2024 with effective filing date of 2/2/2022 based on PCT application PCT/JP2023/001883 filed on 1/23/2023 and Japanese application JP2022-015026 filed 2/2/2022.
The status of the claims is summarized as below:
Claims 1-7 are pending.
Claim 1 is the only independent claim.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) filed on 7/26/2024 and 6/30/2025 comply/complies with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 1.97, 1.98, and MPEP § 609, and therefore has/have been placed in the application file. The information referred to therein has/have been considered as to the merits.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a destination acquirer configured to acquire …” and “a display controller configured to cause a display device to display …“ in claim 1;
“an information acquirer configured to acquire …“ and “a location information generator configured to generate …“ in claim 2;
“a history acquirer configured to acquire …“ and “a correspondence information generator configured to generate …“ in claim 4;
“a receiver configured to receive …“ and “a communication controller configured to transmit …“ in claim 5;
“a history acquirer configured to acquire …“ and “a correspondence information generator configured to generate …“ in claim 6;
“a history acquirer configured to acquire …“ and “a correspondence information generator configured to generate …“ in claim 7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: Fig. 4-5, Fig. 7-8, [0037-0070].
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Spivack et al. (US Pub 20190107990, hereinafter Spivack).
Per claim 1, Spivack teaches:
A display control apparatus comprising: (abstract: method of virtual objects as message objects to facilitate communication in an augmented reality environment);
a destination acquirer configured to acquire at least one destination to which a message is to be transmitted, ([0365-0367] Fig. 10 shows at step 1002-1004 a request to post a virtual object (message) at a place or a region (at least one destination) in an AR environment is received, where the virtual object can be world-locked/fixed to a geolocation) the at least one destination corresponding to a location in a real space, with the location corresponding to a position in a virtual space ([0367] Fig. 10 step 1006 shows the virtual object is associated with a location in the real world environment; [0300] Fig. 5D shows the location in the camera view (real world) corresponding to a position in the map view (virtual space) through marker for user position; also see [0129]) at which position a virtual object relating to the message has been placed, ([0368, 0370] the virtual object relating to the message can be placed at the world-locked position, i.e. private note appearing on the doorway of the house, virtual rose on Mary’s living room table, etc.; also see Fig. 2A [0162-0163]);
based on location information indicative of the location in the real space, ([0300] object locator includes GPS/altitude information indicative of the location in the real world) and correspondence information indicative of a correspondence between the location in the real space and the at least one destination, to which the message is to be transmitted; and ([0300-0303] object locator in 3D space can pinpoints the x/y/z coordinates of a virtual object that corresponds to a real word location with GPS/altitude information; [0367] Fig. 10 step 1002 virtual object can be posted/transmitted to a fixed/locked geolocation)
a display controller configured to cause a display device to display the virtual space including both the virtual object and a destination image representative of the at least one destination. ([0302, 0307-0308] Fig. 5F 564 shows a virtual object of a smiley face has been placed, and is displayed in a virtual data layer on top of an image of representative of the destination of the virtual object; also see Fig. 5G, Fig. 2A [0162-0163]).
Per claim 2, Spivack teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches:
wherein the location information has an information structure in which locations are classified into a plurality of layers according to area sizes, and ([0372] location criteria parameter defined in the requested location for the virtual object includes area within a radius or distance of the given location, e.g. 1m, 5m, 50m, 500m, etc.)
the display control apparatus further comprises:
an information acquirer configured to acquire designation information in which a layer corresponding to an area size of the location is designated by a user; and ([0372] Fig. 10 step 1002: a request to post the virtual object at a location can be specified by a location criteria parameter which includes a defined area within a distance of the given location (designation information));
a location information generator configured to generate the location information based on ([0129, 0300] object locator in 3D space can be used to pinpoints the x/y/z coordinates of the virtual object in the virtual space);
position information representative of the position in the virtual space, at which position the virtual object has been placed, and the designation information. ([0129, 0300] the x/y/z coordinates in 3D space represents the position of the ).
Per claim 3, Spivack teaches all the limitations of claim 2, and further teaches:
The display control apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the information acquirer is configured to acquire the designation information after the virtual object has been placed in the virtual space. ([0372] after the user made the request of location to place the virtual object; the vicinity of the given location can be defined by the system to be certain area within a distance of the given location).
Per claim 5, Spivack teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and Spivack further teaches:
a receiver configured to receive a user operation made to the destination image; and ([0307-0310] Fig. 5F shows at 568, a user operation of “send” is made on the destination image; also see Fig. 6A “save to current location”);
a communication controller configured to transmit the message to a destination included in the at least one destination based on the user operation. ([0307-0310] the virtual object can be transmitted/shared with another user or a location based on the user’s previous operation to “send” or “share”).
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.
Claims 4, 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being as being unpatentable over Spivack, in view of Van Wie et al. (US Pub 20140115502, hereinafter Van Wie).
Per claim 4, Spivack teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but Spivack does not explicitly teach “a history acquirer configured to acquire a history of users associated with the location in the real space; and a correspondence information generator configured to generate the correspondence information based on the history of users“.
However, Van Wie teaches:
a history acquirer configured to acquire a history of users associated with the location in the real space; and ([0114-0117] Fig. 7 shows a real world view mode where a history of users presence at each locations are shown);
a correspondence information generator configured to generate the correspondence information based on the history of users. ([0114-0117] Fig. 7 further shows in the people panel 230, a correspondence between each locations and history of users present in the location are generated and displayed, e.g. Dan, Ed and Matt are located at “Ji’s Coffee – Palo Alto”).
Van Wie and Spivack are analogous art because Van Wie also teach method of communication in an interactive virtual reality space. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in art before the effective filing date, having the teachings of Spivack and Van Wie before him/her, to modify the teachings of Spivack to include the teachings of Van Wie so that a history of users in a location can be obtained to facilitate virtual communications. One would be motivated to make the combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would provide the sender of a message with accurate location and users correspondence to help the sender to decide where to post the virtual object/message.
Per claim 6, Spivack teaches all the limitations of claim 2, but Spivack does not explicitly teach “a history acquirer configured to acquire a history of users associated with the location in the real space; and a correspondence information generator configured to generate the correspondence information based on the history of users“.
However, Van Wie teaches:
a history acquirer configured to acquire a history of users associated with the location in the real space; and ([0114-0117] Fig. 7 shows a real world view mode where a history of users presence at each locations are shown);
a correspondence information generator configured to generate the correspondence information based on the history of users. ([0114-0117] Fig. 7 further shows in the people panel 230, a correspondence between each locations and history of users present in the location are generated and displayed, e.g. Dan, Ed and Matt are located at “Ji’s Coffee – Palo Alto”).
Van Wie and Spivack are analogous art because Van Wie also teach method of communication in an interactive virtual reality space. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in art before the effective filing date, having the teachings of Spivack and Van Wie before him/her, to modify the teachings of Spivack to include the teachings of Van Wie so that a history of users in a location can be obtained to facilitate virtual communications. One would be motivated to make the combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would provide the sender of a message with accurate location and users correspondence to help the sender to decide where to post the virtual object/message.
Per claim 7, Spivack teaches all the limitations of claim 3, but Spivack does not explicitly teach “a history acquirer configured to acquire a history of users associated with the location in the real space; and a correspondence information generator configured to generate the correspondence information based on the history of users“.
However, Van Wie teaches:
a history acquirer configured to acquire a history of users associated with the location in the real space; and ([0114-0117] Fig. 7 shows a real world view mode where a history of users presence at each locations are shown);
a correspondence information generator configured to generate the correspondence information based on the history of users. ([0114-0117] Fig. 7 further shows in the people panel 230, a correspondence between each locations and history of users present in the location are generated and displayed, e.g. Dan, Ed and Matt are located at “Ji’s Coffee – Palo Alto”).
Van Wie and Spivack are analogous art because Van Wie also teach method of communication in an interactive virtual reality space. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in art before the effective filing date, having the teachings of Spivack and Van Wie before him/her, to modify the teachings of Spivack to include the teachings of Van Wie so that a history of users in a location can be obtained to facilitate virtual communications. One would be motivated to make the combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would provide the sender of a message with accurate location and users correspondence to help the sender to decide where to post the virtual object/message.
Conclusion
The examiner requests, in response to this Office action, support by shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line no(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections, See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHOEBE X PAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7794. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Fred Ehichioya can be reached at (571) 272-4034. 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.
/PHOEBE X PAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2179
/IRETE F EHICHIOYA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2179
Prosecution Insights