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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-9 have been cancelled and claims 10-27 have been added; as a result, claims 10-27 are currently pending in the present application, with claims 10, 11, and 12 being independent.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 16 August 2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claims 16-18 be found allowable, claims19-21 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Examiner Note
Claims 25-27 recite a recording medium with the experience space switching program according to claim (22, 23, or 24) being recorded therein, the experience space switching program being readable by a computer system” – which is statutory (see Sequoia Technology vs. Dell, Inc No. 21-2263 – Fed Cir. 2023).
Claim Interpretation
An attribute is being interpreted as the shape, pattern, and/or color of the virtual space/object.
Paragraphs 22 and 98 set forth “Here, the “attribute” is the shape, pattern, or color of the virtual space, or combination thereof”.
Environment to be recognized is being interpreted as an environment of the composite space or virtual space to be experienced by the user through their five senses. (Note five senses is being interpreted broadly to cover the primary ways humans interact with the physical world: sight, hearing/sound, taste, smell, and touch. If applicant intended a different set of five senses, the examiner invites them to clarify the record as to the specific five senses they intended).
Paragraph 66 sets forth “Here, the ‘environment to be recognized’ by a user refers to an environment of composite space or virtual space to be experienced by the user through his five senses. For example, the environment is an environment configured with images of virtual objects existing in composite space or virtual space to be recognized by the suer, and sounds and the like generated based on the virtual objects”.
Composite space is being interpreted as a mixed-reality space that makes a virtual object exist in real space and enables the user existing in the real space to affect the virtual object.
Paragraph 8 sets forth “In the description below, ‘composite space’ is so-called mixed reality space (MR space) that makes a virtual object exist in real space and enables a user existing in the real space to affect the virtual object (for example, to move the virtual object).
Virtual space is being interpreted as a virtual reality space which is a virtual space that a user recognizes instead of a real space where the user themselves exist.
Paragraph 9 sets forth “Further, ‘virtual space’ is so-called virtual reality space (VR space) which is virtual space that a user recognizes instead of real space where the user himself exists. In the virtual space, virtual objects, and an avatar that performs to a motion of the user may be arranged”.
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 real space recognition unit recognizing ...; a virtual object generation unit generating ...; a composite space generation unit generating ...; a user environment determination unit determining ...; a user motion recognition unit recognizing ...; a trigger event recognition unit recognizing ...; a virtual space generation unit generating ...; the user environment determination unit determining...; a target person recognition unit recognizing...; and an avatar generation unit generating ...; in claims 16-21.
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.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claims 22-24 are directed to a program causing a computer system to execute the experience space switching method. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and state-of-the-art, the claim does not specify the functional or structural relationship between the (computer) program and physical elements of the computer that permits the realization of the computer programs' functionality and is therefore non-statutory subject matter. The examiner suggests amending the claim to embody the program on non- transitory computer readable medium or equivalent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to claim 10, given the plain and ordinary meaning of the claimed limitations when afforded their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the corresponding disclosure, the scope of the claimed limitation is unclear. For instance, it is not immediately clear as to:
If the claimed units are structural units and if the applicant was intending to bring different structural units into the method claim? How do the various units for instance, recognize, generate, determine, etc different functional steps throughout the claims. For instance, how does the trigger event recognition unit recognize a predetermined trigger event which is a motion that the user performs to the virtual object? Paragraph 57 describes processing units as functions realized by at least either implemented hardware components or programs.
What is meant by recognizing real space where the user exists. Does the claim require determining if the space is real, if the claim is simply saying determining if a user is present in the space, or something else? How and to what extent is the real-space being recognized? Paragraph 58 sets forth the real space recognition unit 30 recognizes image data of the real space RS shot by cameras 2, and recognizes a situation of the real space RS based on the image data. The situation of the real space RS is, for example, postures, coordinates, and the like of the users U and real objects (in the present embodiment, a table RO1, bookshelves RO2, drawer chests RO3) existing in the real space RS.” However, taking that into the consideration, the scope of the unit recognizing real space where the user exists remains unclear.
What is meant by the environment of the composite space to be recognized by the user via the environment output device. The composite space is the combination of the real space and the virtual object. What comprises the environment of the composite space? Is that just the composite space itself? Is it something in addition to the composite space? Is it the changing an appearance of the composite prior to display (the to be recognized portion)? Is it something else? How does the environment to be recognized reconcile with the 5 senses?
What is meant by a motion that the user performs to the virtual object and if the motion the user performs is the same or different than the motion the user If the motion that the user performs in the real space.
What is meant by the user determining unit determining, instead of the environment of the composite space being recognized by the user before the predetermined trigger event is recognized, an environment of the virtual space to be recognized by the user via the environment output device. What is the environment with is being determined? Does this step mean the previous determining step is not executed? Is anything produced from this determination?
It is not clear as to what exactly the target recognition unit is performing – the claim calls for it to recognize the user who is a target person for whom switching a type of space to be experienced is performed and a non-target person for whom the switching of the type of space to be experienced is not performed. The previous limitations do call for switching the type of space – in fact, they do not seem to call for displaying any space. The previous limitations generate a virtual space (VR) and a composite (MR) space and then determine “an environment” of one of the spaces based on if a pretrigger event is recognized by a trigger event recognition unit.
If the motions described throughout the claim are all related to each other or are different. It appears that some are related and some are different – for instance a motion of the user is recognized by the user motion recognition unit, and the motion of the avatar is used to induce movement of an avatar.
The examiner respectfully requests the applicant clarify the scope of the claimed limitations.
Claims 11 and 12 recite similar limitations as to those noted in claim 10, as such those limitations are also rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that set forth in the rejection of claim 10.
Claims depending thereon do not cure the totality of the deficiencies and are accordingly also rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that for the claim(s) from which they depend.
With respect to claim 11, in addition to that which is noted with respect to claim 10, given the plain and ordinary meaning of the claimed limitations when afforded their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the corresponding disclosure, the scope of the claimed limitation is unclear. For instance, it is not immediately clear as to if the trigger event is the same event as the predetermined trigger event previously referenced. If it is referring back to the trigger event recognition unit, then it is unclear as to how that squares with the claim language. The examiner respectfully requests the applicant clarify the scope of the claimed limitation. For the purposes of further examination, the examiner is interpreting the claim to recite “when the predetermined trigger event is recognized”, which aligns the claimed limitation with the remainder of the claim.
With respect to claim 12, in addition to that which is noted with respect to claim 10, given the plain and ordinary meaning of the claimed limitations when afforded their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the corresponding disclosure, the scope of the claimed limitation is unclear. For instance, it is not immediately clear as to how the composite (MR) space is mixed with the virtual (VR) space. The corresponding disclosure in paragraph 111 for instance recites “Therefore, according to the system S, an environment to be experienced by a suer U is not limited to the composite space MS or the virtual space VS as before and can be space where the composite space MS and the virtual space VS are mixed”. Paragraphs 113-115 provide details on how the composite space and virtual space are mixed, for instance by “a virtual object being a trigger of a trigger event that expands as if it swallowed up users and becomes the virtual space VS”. While there is support, as currently claimed it is unclear as to how the mixed reality space and the virtual spaces are mixed – since the mixed reality space is by definition in the specification (see claim interpretation above) is a real space in which virtual objects exists. Wouldn’t the mixing of the spaces still remain a composite space? Did applicant intend to claim transitioning from one space to the other, which is what the specification describes?
Allowable Subject Matter
Since no prior art is being applied to the claims, claims 10-12 (and claims depending thereon) would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent 10,748,340 to Zhang et al. teaches transitioning between MR and VR, see for instance, abstract and fig. 7.
US Patent 12,307,066 to Sorrentino, III teaches that “conventionally, when the user is in a position to view the content shown via a display generation component, the user has the option to see the physical environment or not see the physical environment by switching between displaying the computer-generated environment with different levels of emersions (e.g., switching between complete pass-through mode, mixed reality mode, or virtual reality mode)”.
US PG Publication 2018/0005429 to Osman et al. teaches tracking bodily movements of different users and mapping those movements to different avatars, see for instance, paragraph 10 and claim 12.
US PG Publication 2020/0183567 to Gullicksen teaches switching between different modes (e.g., AR to VR mode) and tracking the movement of different users, see for instance, paragraph 123 and claim 1.
Pointecker et al. teaches “Bridging the Gap Across Realities: Visual Transitions Between Virtual and Augmented Reality”.
PNG
media_image1.png
366
718
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J COBB whose telephone number is (571)270-3875. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 11am - 7pm ET.
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.
/MICHAEL J COBB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2615
Prosecution Insights