Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/20/2026 have been fully considered. Regarding the title, the amendment overcomes the objection by being more specific. The amendment to claim 6 resolves the informality. The amendments to overcome 112(f) interpretation successfully do so. Likewise, the amendment to claim 17 corrects the error about non-statutory subject matter. However, the arguments regarding the prior art rejection of claim 1 and its dependent claims are not persuasive. Wigdor [0075] anticipates the amended claim limitations.
DETAILED ACTION
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) (or both) as being anticipated by Wigdor (Pub No. US 20120264510 A1).
As per claim 1, Wigdor anticipates the claimed:
1. An information processing device comprising circuitry configured to extract a relationship between a user in real space and a person or an object around the user from a real space image including the user and the person or the object,, (Wigdor.claim 1: “A method of providing an integrated virtual environment incorporating real-world physical elements, the method comprising: obtaining a 3D spatial model of a physical environment in which a user is located; identifying, via analysis of the 3D spatial model, a physical object in the physical environment; generating a virtualized representation of the physical object; incorporating the virtualized representation of the physical object into an existing virtual environment, thereby yielding the integrated virtual environment; and displaying, on a display device and from a vantage point of the user, a view of the integrated virtual environment, said view being changeable in response to the user moving within the physical environment.” The user moving the physical object is the relationship between the user and the object. The process that makes the determination of the user in relation to the object and the integration between the virtual and physical environment is the relationship extraction. This is the relationship extraction. Wigdor teaches that the virtual environment is shown on a display device. Wigdor abstract: “The method further comprises displaying, on a display device and from a vantage point of the user, a view of the integrated virtual environment, said view being changeable in response to the user moving and/or interacting within the physical environment.”).
convert the user and the person or the object around the user into an avatar and a virtual object in a virtual space based on the relationship, (Wigdor claim 1: “obtaining a 3D spatial model of a physical environment in which a user is located; identifying, via analysis of the 3D spatial model, a physical object in the physical environment; generating a virtualized representation of the physical object; incorporating the virtualized representation of the physical object into an existing virtual environment, thereby yielding the integrated virtual environment” The user moving in the environment is the relationship. Wigdor teaches an existing virtual environment that must be generated. Wigdor [0024]: “Further, integrated virtual environment 200 may further include one or more virtual objects, such as virtual objects 214, 216, 218, and 220 that do not correspond to a physical object. As such, virtual objects 214, 216, 218, and 220 may be virtual objects of an existing virtual environment associated with a particular video game. When an existing virtual environment further includes virtualized representations of physical objects, such as those discussed above, the existing virtual environment may be referred to as an integrated virtual environment, such as integrated virtual environment 200.” The generation of this existing virtual environment is the virtual space image generation.).
and convert and generate generates the real space image into a virtual space image, wherein the relationship is extracted based on posture information of the user with respect to the person or the object around the user.
(Wigdor claim 1: “…obtaining a 3D spatial model of a physical environment in which a user is located; identifying, via analysis of the 3D spatial model, a physical object in the physical environment; generating a virtualized representation of the physical object; incorporating the virtualized representation of the physical object into an existing virtual environment, thereby yielding the integrated virtual environment; and in response, changing the integrated virtual environment.” The 3D spatial model of a physical environment in which a user is located is the real space image. It is then converted into a virtual space image along with other objects. Wigdor [0075]: “Computing system 1300 may include one or more sensors 1310 configured to obtain information about the physical environment. The one or more sensors 1310 may be configured to obtain information optically and in real time. For example, the one or more sensors 1300 may comprise an image capture device configured to obtain one or more depth images of the physical environment. As additional non-limiting examples, computing system 1300 may be operatively coupled to one or more laser range finders, time of flight cameras, and/or structured light 3D scanners. Such technologies may be directly coupled and/or remotely linked to computing system 1300. As one example, one or more sensors 1310 may be included in a display device, such as HMD 1400. As another example, one or more sensors 1310 may be remotely linked to computing system 1300 and HMD 1400. In this way, one or more sensors 1310 may be placed at different positions within an environment, and as such, may be wirelessly linked to computing system 1300. The one or more sensors 1300 may be configured to obtain information regarding the position of a user and/or one or more physical objects. In this way, the sensors may detect the position and movement of the user within the physical environment based on a spatial relationship between the user and the one or more physical objects”
Because the user is wearing the HMD which has the sensors, the posture of the user’s head determines the viewing device’s spatial relationship with the other physical objects in the scene. Likewise, Wigdor teaches that the movements of the user related to the physical object, such as carrying or throwing it, alters the visual representation. These actions alter the posture of the user. Wigdor [0041]: “In some scenarios, a virtualized representation may be changed. As one non-limiting example, a user may move relative to the physical object and thus the virtualized representation may move within the integrated virtual environment. Therefore, depending on the vantage point of the user, the perspective view of the virtualized representation within the integrated virtual environment may change. Such an example will be discussed in greater detail with respect to FIGS. 6 and 7. In another example, a user may interact with a physical object (e.g., pick it up, carry it, throw it, alter its configuration, etc.) and thus may modify the position and/or appearance of the virtualized representation within the integrated virtual environment. Such an example will be discussed in greater detail with respect to FIGS. 8 and 9.”).
As per claims 16 and 17, these claims are similar in scope to limitations recited in claim 1, and thus is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 2, Wigdor anticipates the claimed:
2. The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the relationship is a motion of the user with respect to the person or the object (Wigdor claim 1: “a view of the integrated virtual environment, said view being changeable in response to the user moving within the physical environment.”).
As per claim 3, Wigdor anticipates the claimed:
3. The information processing device according to claim 2, wherein the relationship is a direct motion of the user with respect to the person or the object. (The hand-held weapon in Wigdor fig. 2 would involve a direct motion of the user because it is wielded by the user.).
As per claim 4, Wigdor anticipates the claimed:
4. The information processing device according to claim 2, wherein the relationship is an indirect motion of the user with respect to the person or the object. (The couch shown in Wigdor fig. 6 that is overlaid with the sandbags has a relationship with the user involving an indirect motion in that it changes position on the display when the user changed viewpoint, but is not directly moved by the user’s motion. The human 10 of fig. 6 is the user, while the couch 106 is the object or person.).
As per claim 5, Wigdor anticipates the claimed:
5. The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is further configured to extract an object shape that is a shape of the object included in the real space image, wherein the circuitry converts the user and the person or the object into an avatar (Wigdor teaches considering the shape of a physical object to inform the generation of a virtualized representation. Wigdor [0026]: “As non-limiting examples, a gaming system may consider one or more characteristics of a physical object such as geometric shape, geometric size, weight and/or textile feel. One or more said characteristics may be used to match a physical object to a virtualized representation. For example, the system may recognize that physical objects 102 and 104 have a geometric shape similar to candidates 302 and 304 respectively and select candidates 302 and 304 as virtualized representations of their respective physical objects.” Wigdor teaches generating an avatar to show the interaction between the user and the object. Wigdor claim 16: “The gaming system of claim 15, wherein the instructions are executable to modify the gameplay sequence of the video game by translating a physical user interaction with the physical object into an avatar interaction with the virtualized representation of the physical object.”).
and a virtual object in the virtual space based on the relationship and the object shape, and converts and generates the real space image into a virtual space image. (Wigdor claim 1: “displaying, on a display device and from a vantage point of the user, a view of the integrated virtual environment, said view being changeable in response to the user moving within the physical environment; detecting a user physically interacting with or moving relative to the physical object; and in response, changing the integrated virtual environment.” The user is represented by the avatar.).
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, 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 6-11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wigdor in view of Chen (Chen, Yu-Shan, and Chi-Ying Lin. "Virtual object replacement based on real environments: Potential application in augmented reality systems." Applied Sciences 9.9 (2019): 1797. (Year: 2019).
As per claim 6, Wigdor alone does not explicitly teach the claimed limitations.
However, Wigdor in combination with Chen teaches the claimed:
6. The information processing device according to claim 5, further comprising; a virtual object candidate database including at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium in which a virtual object candidate to be a candidate of the virtual object for conversion of the object is registered in association with a relationship and an object shape set for each of the virtual object candidates, (Wigdor teaches candidates for virtual representations of the real-world objects. Wigdor [0025]: “Using the combat game scenario as an example, a virtualized representation of a physical object may be selected from one of a plurality of candidate virtualized representations based on characteristics of the physical object. For example, FIG. 3 illustrates a plurality of candidate virtualized representations 300 that may correspond to an existing virtual environment, such as a combat video game. After selecting a candidate virtualized representation, a gaming system may modify the appearance of the candidate virtualized representation to more closely match at least one characteristic of the physical object. In this way, the physical object may be incorporated into an existing virtual environment with a virtualized representation of that physical object.” Chen teaches candidate objects stored in a database. Chen 5.3: “Performing normalization before estimating and solving the initial parameters enables the generation of a geometric shape that is highly similar to that of the point group.
For AR applications, we can replace the identified objects with similar virtual objects using pre-established databases, model database, and scene database. The model database records the shape features of object models, and the scene database stores the index values and probability of the objects relevant to various scenes. Assume that the scene to be generated is known. The step after acquiring the size, shape, and position of the object point group is to search the model information from the database and identify the relevance between the object and the scene for a best-fitted model. The object replacement procedure can then be finished by importing this fitted model into the real scene (or virtual scene) and moving the model to the position of object point group with the correct orientation.” Registration of an object is adding it to the database record of Chen, where it is matched, based on its similarity to the real object. The replacement procedure imports the model into the real scene to fit the relationship of the user to the real object.).
wherein the circuitry converts the object into the virtual object corresponding to the virtual object candidate having the relationship and the object shape similar to those of the object among the virtual object candidates registered in the virtual object candidate database. (Chen introduction: “As shown in Figure 1, the proposed system comprises three parts: (1) mapping, (2) point cloud segmentation, and (3) shape fitting. Mapping uses the differences between two images captured by a moving camera to characterize the movement relationship and establish 3D environmental point clouds. Point cloud segmentation uses environmental information to characterize the relationship between points and segment the environment into independent objects during the mapping process. Shape fitting involves identifying the geometric features of segmented objects and using geometric similarities as the basis for the replacement of virtual objects in our system.”.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the database of virtual objects to compare similarity to as taught by Chen with the system of Wigdor in order to have an easily accessible set of replacement objects from which to choose.
As per claim 7, Wigdor alone does not explicitly teach the claimed limitations.
However, Wigdor in combination with Chen teaches the claimed:
7. The information processing device according to The information processing device according to wherein the circuitry is further configured to calculate, as a virtual object candidate similarity, a similarity with the relationship and the object shape of the object based on the relationship and the object shape set for each of the virtual object candidates registered in the virtual object candidate database, (Wigdor [0026]: “As non-limiting examples, a gaming system may consider one or more characteristics of a physical object such as geometric shape, geometric size, weight and/or textile feel. One or more said characteristics may be used to match a physical object to a virtualized representation. For example, the system may recognize that physical objects 102 and 104 have a geometric shape similar to candidates 302 and 304 respectively and select candidates 302 and 304 as virtualized representations of their respective physical objects. The system may modify the appearance, such as the size and/or the perspective view of candidates 302 and 304, to more closely match the dimensions of physical objects 102 and 104. For example, as shown in FIG. 1, physical object 102 is displayed as a coat rack. The gaming system may recognize candidate 302 as a good match for physical object 102 because candidate 302 is a palm tree, and the shape of the trunk and branches of the palm tree closely resemble the shape of the coat rack.” The objects are contained in the candidate database taught by Chen. Chen 5.3: “For AR applications, we can replace the identified objects with similar virtual objects using pre-established databases, model database, and scene database. The model database records the shape features of object models, and the scene database stores the index values and probability of the objects relevant to various scenes. Assume that the scene to be generated is known. The step after acquiring the size, shape, and position of the object point group is to search the model information from the database and identify the relevance between the object and the scene for a best-fitted model. The object replacement procedure can then be finished by importing this fitted model into the real scene (or virtual scene) and moving the model to the position of object point group with the correct orientation.”).
and wherein the circuitry converts the object into the virtual object corresponding to the virtual object candidate having the highest virtual object candidate similarity with the object among the virtual object candidates registered in the virtual object candidate database. (Wigdor [0026]: “For example, as shown in FIG. 1, physical object 102 is displayed as a coat rack. The gaming system may recognize candidate 302 as a good match for physical object 102 because candidate 302 is a palm tree, and the shape of the trunk and branches of the palm tree closely resemble the shape of the coat rack.” These candidates would be stored in the database of Chen.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the database containing objects with which to replace the object in the scene as taught by Chen with the system of Wigdor in order to allow the objects to be easily accessible.
As per claim 8, Wigdor alone does not explicitly teach the claimed limitations.
However, Wigdor in combination with Chen teaches the claimed:
8. The information processing device according to claim 7, wherein the circuitry calculates the virtual object candidate similarity by a weighted product sum of a similarity of the relationship and a similarity of the object shape of each of the virtual object candidates registered in the virtual object candidate database. (The examiner is interpreting “weighted product sum” to be the same as “weighted sum” to compute geometric similarity. Chen under fig. 1: “We developed an object replacement scheme that allows users to segment scenes and perform environment modeling even as the cameras are moving. This scheme also makes it possible to obtain shape information of segmented objects. The segmentation and shape fitting results can then be used to construct virtual objects to replace (within the virtual world) actual objects encountered (within the real world). Our ultimate objective was to eliminate limitations imposed by the real environment, which could otherwise limit the ability of the user to experience the virtual environment and enable the application of AR technology to a diversity of applications. The contributions of this study are as follows:” Chen 4.3:” In this study, we used the methods outlined in [28,29] to segment objects. This approach involves the use of graphs to construct models, wherein the vertices in a graph are used as 3D points. The edges in graphs represent adjacency relations between points. Therefore, we drew edges between the point in question and adjacent points. The edge weights indicated the degree of geometric similarity between points.” “here ∠(∶,∶) represented the angle between the two vectors. If θij was less than the preset threshold value, then the two points were deemed to belong to different objects. The threshold value determined the weight value between two points.” Chen 4.3.2. Graph Construction: “Once the setting of weights between points was completed, segmentation could commence. We employed the graph-based segmentation method using adaptive thresholds to determine the degree of similarity between two neighboring points. We first regarded points Vi of a supervoxel as a single group Si. The image segmentation algorithm is outlined in the following:” The weights are used for segmentation and the segmentation. The sum is the weights of the different respective points.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the weighted sum to calculate similarity as taught by Chen with the system of Wigdor in order to mathematically determine the closest matching object.
As per claim 15, Wigdor alone does not explicitly teach the claimed limitations.
However, Wigdor in combination with Chen teaches the claimed:
15. The information processing device according to The information processing device according to wherein an item is further registered in the virtual object candidate database for each of the virtual object candidates, and wherein, when the circuitry converts the user and the person or the object into an avatar and a virtual object in a virtual space based on the relationship and converts and generates the real space image into a virtual space image, the circuitry is further configured to add the item registered in association with the virtual object candidate identified as the virtual object to the avatar. (Wigdor [0047]: “At time t.sub.2, physical object 108 hits wall 802 which may correspond to virtualized representation 208 exploding at 902. In this example, the game player interaction with the physical object modifies the appearance of virtualized representation 208 within integrated virtual environment 900. In this way, a game player may interact with the physical object to modify a gameplay sequence of a video game. For example, as shown, the game player may use physical object 108 (and thus virtualized representation 208) as a weapon to combat virtual enemies. In other words, the computing system translates the interaction of the game player with the physical object and translates this interaction such that it is included within the integrated virtual environment. In some embodiments, the position, velocity, or other attributes of one or more physical objects may be taken into consideration. In this way, the gameplay sequence is modified in response to the user interacting with a physical object. Thus, in the example provided, the combat gameplay sequence may be modified to include the avatar throwing a grenade at an enemy as a result of the game player throwing a ball.” The weapon is the item that is associated with the virtual object, and the use of the weapon is the relationship. The sequence includes the avatar and the weapon. This would be in the database of candidates taught by Chen above in the rejection to claim 6.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the candidate database of objects to overlay an object in the scene as taught by Chen with the system of Wigdor in order to store clear options for replacement and have them be easily accessible.
As per claim 9, Wigdor teaches the claimed:
9. The information processing device according to 9. (Currently Amended) The information processing device according to wherein the circuitry converts the user and the person or the object into an avatar and a virtual object in the virtual space based on a scene, the relationship, and the object shape, and converts and generates the real space image into a virtual space image. (Wigdor claim 2. “The method of claim 1, wherein generating the virtualized representation of the physical object comprises selecting one of a plurality of candidate virtualized representations based on one or more characteristics of the physical object and modifying said one of the plurality of candidate virtualized representations based on one or
more of said characteristics.” The virtualized representations include the avatar and object and their relationship. Wigdor claim 5: “The method of claim 1, further comprising changing the virtualized representation of the physical object in response to detecting the user physically interacting with the physical object.” As taught in claim 7 above, the virtual representation is chosen based on a similarity to the real-world object.).
As per claim 10, Wigdor alone does not explicitly teach the claimed limitations.
However, Wigdor in combination with Chen teaches the claimed:
10. The information processing device according to claim 9 wherein the virtual object candidate database includes a plurality of databases set according to the scene, wherein the circuitry is further configured to switch the plurality of databases forming the virtual object candidate database according to the scene, (Chen teaches multiple databases. “For AR applications, we can replace the identified objects with similar virtual objects using pre-established databases, model database, and scene database. The model database records the shape features of object models, and the scene database stores the index values and probability of the objects relevant to various scenes. Assume that the scene to be generated is known. The step after acquiring the size, shape, and position of the object point group is to search the model information from the database and identify the relevance between the object and the scene for a best-fitted model. The object replacement procedure can then be finished by importing this fitted model into the real scene (or virtual scene) and moving the model to the position of object point group with the correct orientation.”).
and wherein the circuitry converts the object into the virtual object corresponding to the virtual object candidate having the highest virtual object candidate similarity with the object among the registered virtual object candidates. (Wigdor [0026]: “As non-limiting examples, a gaming system may consider one or more characteristics of a physical object such as geometric shape, geometric size, weight and/or textile feel. One or more said characteristics may be used to match a physical object to a virtualized representation. For example, the system may recognize that physical objects 102 and 104 have a geometric shape similar to candidates 302 and 304 respectively and select candidates 302 and 304 as virtualized representations of their respective physical objects. The system may modify the appearance, such as the size and/or the perspective view of candidates 302 and 304, to more closely match the dimensions of physical objects 102 and 104. For example, as shown in FIG. 1, physical object 102 is displayed as a coat rack. The gaming system may recognize candidate 302 as a good match for physical object 102 because candidate 302 is a palm tree, and the shape of the trunk and branches of the palm tree closely resemble the shape of the coat rack.” Wigdor claim 5: “The method of claim 1, further comprising changing the virtualized representation of the physical object in response to detecting the user physically interacting with the physical object.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the search through multiple databases to select the best match for a virtualized representation as taught by Chen with the system of Wigdor in order to allow different options and more sophisticated organization of the virtual objects.
As per claim 11, Wigdor alone does not explicitly teach the claimed limitations.
However, Wigdor in combination with Chen teaches the claimed:
11. The information processing device according to claim 6 wherein in the virtual object candidate database, a default value of an object effect that is an effect of the virtual object is further registered for each of the virtual object candidates (Wigdor [0024]: “Further, integrated virtual environment 200 may further include one or more virtual objects, such as virtual objects 214, 216, 218, and 220 that do not correspond to a physical object. As such, virtual objects 214, 216, 218, and 220 may be virtual objects of an existing virtual environment associated with a particular video game. When an existing virtual environment further includes virtualized representations of physical objects, such as those discussed above, the existing virtual environment may be referred to as an integrated virtual environment, such as integrated virtual environment 200.” The virtual object that does not correspond with a physical object contrasts an object that does correspond to the object, as described in the paragraph above this one. The virtual object overlay that does not change in relation to the object is the graphical overlay. This is the default value of an object effect.).
and wherein, when the circuitry converts the user and the person or the object into an avatar and a virtual object in a virtual space based on a basis of the relationship and converts and generates the real space image into a virtual space image, the circuitry is further configured to add the object effect based on the default value registered in association with the virtual object candidate identified as the virtual object to the virtual object. (Wigdor [0025]: “Using the combat game scenario as an example, a virtualized representation of a physical object may be selected from one of a plurality of candidate virtualized representations based on characteristics of the physical object. For example, FIG. 3 illustrates a plurality of candidate virtualized representations 300 that may correspond to an existing virtual environment, such as a combat video game. After selecting a candidate virtualized representation, a gaming system may modify the appearance of the candidate virtualized representation to more closely match at least one characteristic of the physical object. In this way, the physical object may be incorporated into an existing virtual environment with a virtualized representation of that physical object.” The candidates are registered in the database as taught by Chen above. This would include the default candidate. Then, the specific object affect is the virtualize representation that matches the characteristics of the real-world object.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the database containing objects with which to replace the object in the scene as taught by Chen with the system of Wigdor in order to allow the objects to be easily accessible.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wigdor in view of Chen and further in view of Roberts (Pub No. US 20110316845 A1).
As per claim 12, Wigdor alone does not explicitly teach the claimed limitations.
However, Wigdor in combination with Roberts teaches the claimed:
12. The information processing device according to claim 11 wherein the circuitry is further configured to extract an object state that is a state of the object from the real space image, (Roberts [0007]: “One embodiment of the present invention provides a system that facilitates interaction between two entities located away from each other. The system includes a virtual reality system, an augmented reality system, and an object-state-maintaining mechanism. During operation, the virtual reality system displays an object associated with a real-world object. The augmented reality system displays the object based on a change to the state of the object. The object-state-maintaining mechanism determines the state of the object and communicates a state change to the virtual reality system, the augmented reality system, or both. A respective state change of the object can be based on one or more of: a state change of the real-world object; a user input to the virtual reality system or the augmented reality system; and an analysis of an image of the real-world object.”).
calculate the object effect from the default value and the object state, and add the object effect calculated from a default value registered in association with the virtual object candidate identified as the virtual object and the object state to the virtual object. (Roberts [0010]: “In a variation of this embodiment, the object-state-maintaining mechanism further comprises a scene recognition engine which determines a model for the object and communicates information indicative of the model to the virtual reality system, the augmented reality system, or both.” Robert [0024]: “Note that virtual world client 114 may be an electronic device that: interfaces with computer system 110; keeps the displayed state of the one or more objects in the virtual reality application synchronized with world model 112; and displays the virtual reality application using a multi-dimensional rendering technique. Furthermore, virtual world client 114 can capture interactions of users with the objects in the virtual reality application, such as users' selections and gestures, and can relay these interactions to computer system 110, which updates world model 112 as needed, and distributes instructions that reflect any changes to both virtual world client 114 and augmented reality client 120.” The rendering of the overlay requires calculation, so the rendering involves the object effect calculation. The overlay is the object effect.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the extracting of an object state and the correction as taught by Robert with the system of Wigdor in order to clearly establish the object state in the virtual reality environment and output a state corresponding to it.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wigdor in view of Chen and further in view of Roberts and further in view of Singh (Pub No. KR 20160068827 A).
As per claim 13, Wigdor alone does not explicitly teach the claimed limitations.
However, Wigdor in combination with Roberts and Singh teaches the claimed:
13. The information processing device according to claim 12, wherein the object state is a degree of management indicating a state of management of the object. (Singh attached English translation lines 132-146: “The transition from one state to another state may be based on (e.g., in response to) a determination of whether a virtual object's interest (or user interest expression) can be detected. As an example, a virtual object may be in a first (e.g., compact) state and / or may be transited back to that state when the representation of interest of the virtual object can not be detected and / or can not be inferred. The virtual object may be in a second (e.g., non-compact) state and / or may be transited back to that state when the virtual object's interest indication ("interest indication") can be detected and / . The interest indication may have a value ("interest indication value") corresponding to varying degrees of interest, such as, for example, "minimal interest", "some degree of interest", " As an example, the indicia of interest may be stored on a sliding scale having a " minimum interest "toward one end and a" complete interest "toward the other end of interest of varying moderate interest therebetween (e.g., (I.e., a scale having a value corresponding to " a " In addition to being used for a transition to a second (e.g., non-compact) state, the value of interest indication may be used to control the expansion (expansion and / or contraction) of the virtual object while in the second state .” The interest indication is the degree of management related to the object state.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the varying degrees of a state of an object to be represented as taught by Singh with the system of Wigdor modified by the object state effect calculation of Roberts in order to show different situations and conditions in which the object might be to allow more accurate rendering of that object.
As per claim 14, Wigdor alone does not explicitly teach the claimed limitations.
However, Wigdor in combination with Roberts and Singh teaches the claimed:
14. The information processing device according to 14. (Currently Amended) The information processing device according to wherein the degree of management is a value set from 0 to 100%, and wherein the circuitry is further configured to calculate the object effect by multiplying the default value of the object effect by the degree of management. (Singh lines 132-146: “The transition from one state to another state may be based on (e.g., in response to) a determination of whether a virtual object's interest (or user interest expression) can be detected. As an example, a virtual object may be in a first (e.g., compact) state and / or may be transited back to that state when the representation of interest of the virtual object can not be detected and / or can not be inferred. The virtual object may be in a second (e.g., non-compact) state and / or may be transited back to that state when the virtual object's interest indication ("interest indication") can be detected and / . The interest indication may have a value ("interest indication value") corresponding to varying degrees of interest, such as, for example, "minimal interest", "some degree of interest", " As an example, the indicia of interest may be stored on a sliding scale having a " minimum interest "toward one end and a" complete interest "toward the other end of interest of varying moderate interest therebetween (e.g., (I.e., a scale having a value corresponding to " a " In addition to being used for a transition to a second (e.g., non-compact) state, the value of interest indication may be used to control the expansion (expansion and / or contraction) of the virtual object while in the second state .” The sliding scale would be a value indicating interest. It would be obvious to have it range from 0% to 100%. 100% corresponds to “complete interest.” Singh lines 660-674: “The virtual objects 0a-d may be associated with a higher priority object, such as a different identifier, a level or degree of highlighting, or other indication associated with identifying the object more appropriately, ≪ / RTI > In one example, components such as the augmented reality unit 210 and / or the user recognition unit 210, the ROI determination unit 220, and / or the augmented reality engine 250, It is possible to determine or locate an object that the user may be pinning while viewing the scene, as described herein. The augmented reality unit 210 and / or the components of the present disclosure may classify the objects based on a fixed time (e.g., how long the user can stare the object in the scene). According to one example, the augmented reality unit 210 and / or components of the present disclosure may display and / or display one or more objects (e.g., using the augmented reality unit 210), such as objects having the highest priority A sorted list can be used to display each object having a different identifier, level or degree of highlighting, or other attention indications. In the examples, a user's experience can be improved by selecting a portion of the real-world object to display the virtual object associated based on the priority.” The output to the display requires calculation of the scale’s value and using that value to affect the object’s characteristics. It would be obvious to multiply it by a value of the object to get an output value relating to that object at that scale for display, to quantify how to represent the object.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the scale representing the object state in a range from 0% to 100% as taught by Singh with the system of Wigdor in order to clearly quantify the degrees of the scale and show a complete state and a relationship to that complete state.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS JOHN FOSTER whose telephone number is (571)272-5053. The examiner can normally be reached Mon, Fri 8:30-6. Tues-Thurs 7:30-5.
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, Daniel Hajnik can be reached at 571-272-7642. 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.
/THOMAS JOHN FOSTER/Examiner, Art Unit 2616
/HAI TAO SUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2616
Prosecution Insights