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 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: “an acquisition unit” “a decoding unit”, “a generation unit”, etc. in claims 1, 4, 5, 7 and 14.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. Claims 4 and 14 recite “an information processing device” comprising “a generation unit”. The term “an information processing device” is recited in the preamble of claims 4 and 14, but is not a structural component of the claim.
Thus, the only potentially structural component of the claim is the “an information processing device”. However, “an information processing device” does not invoke a particular structure, in that the term “device” may be structural or non-structural and the term “device” does not have a well-defined meaning that would invoke a particular structural component. For example, software per se can be considered as a “device” of a computer, and “software” is not structural at all.
Therefore, given that claims 4 and 14 recite using the single, non-structural term “an information processing device”, which is modified by function and without further recitation of a structural modifier, the claim invokes 35 USC 112, 6th paragraph.
However, 35 USC 112, 6th paragraph is reserved for a “combination” of elements, not a single element, which raised two issue of undue breadth in the form of scope of enablement (In re Hyatt – MPEP 2164.08 – “where a means recitation does not appear in combination with another recited element of means, is subject to an undue breadth rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph”).
Furthermore, the possibility exists that the claim does NOT invoke 112, 6th paragraph because the claim is NOT to a “combination”. Therefore, if 112, 6th paragraph is not invoked, and “an information processing device” is a non-structural term, the claim is recited entirely functionally, which also raises the same issue of scope of enablement (Ex parte Kenichi Miyazaki; “precedential” BPAI Decision, and the Halliburton Rule).
Either way, the claim attempts to claim the invention via a single means, or entirely functionally, which raises the issue of undue breadth; i.e., the claiming of any and every means for performing the invention including those not yet known. The full scope of the claim is not enabled by the disclosure.
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 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed “a file generation unit that generates a scene description file” are non-structural per se, and the specification does not exclude the “a scene description file” from being software (see paragraphs [0027]-[0028]). Therefore, a reasonable interpretation in light of the specification leads to the conclusion that the claim encompasses pure software, which does not fall within the definition of a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
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.
Claim(s) 4-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US PgPub. No. 2025/0138639 by Galvane et al. (hereinafter ‘Galvane’).
In regards to claim 4, Galvane teaches an information processing device comprising: a file generation unit that generates a scene description file that specifies an accessor for storing dynamic haptics media associated with 3D data in a predetermined storage area. (See Galvane Figure 1, Galvane teaches a scene description generating system.)
In regards to claim 5, Galvane teaches wherein the file generation unit generates the scene description file that specifies the accessor in material. (See Galvane paragraph [0084]).
In regards to claim 6, Galvane teaches generating a scene description file that specifies an accessor for storing dynamic haptics media associated with 3D data in a predetermined storage area. (See Galvane Figure 1, Galvane teaches a scene description generating system.)
In regards to claim 7, Galvane teaches an information processing device comprising: an acquisition unit that acquires encoded data of interactive media associated with 3D data to be reproduced on the basis of a description regarding the interactive media included in a scene description file; and a decoding unit that decodes the acquired encoded data based on the description of the scene description file and generates data of the interactive media. (See Galvane Figure 1 and paragraphs [0032] and [0035], Galvane teaches acquiring a scene description file and rendering a 3D model.)
In regards to claim 8, Galvane teaches wherein the description regarding the interactive media includes a description indicating whether interactive processing executed when a predetermined condition is satisfied in a scene by a user operation is possible or not, and the acquisition unit acquires the encoded data when it is indicated that the interactive processing is possible. (See Galvane paragraph [0044]).
In regards to claim 9, Galvane teaches wherein the description regarding the interactive media includes a description indicating whether or not the interactive media can be selected according to a user operation or avatar attribute information, and the acquisition unit selects the interactive media according to the user operation or the avatar attribute information when it is indicated that the interactive media can be selected and selects the predetermined interactive media when it is indicated that the interactive media cannot be selected. (See Galvane paragraph [0044]).
In regards to claim 10, Galvane teaches wherein the description regarding the interactive media includes a description regarding acquisition of the encoded data, and the acquisition unit acquires the encoded data according to the description regarding the acquisition of the encoded data. (See Galvane Figure 1, element 100).
In regards to claim 11, Galvane teaches wherein the acquisition unit acquires the encoded data based on a description regarding the interactive media described as file information of the interactive media in material of the scene description file. (See Galvane Figure 1, element 190 and paragraph [0044]).
In regards to claim 12, Galvane teaches wherein the acquisition unit acquires the encoded data based on a description regarding the interactive media described as pre-processing information of the interactive media in material of the scene description file. (See Galvane paragraphs [0035] and [0044]).
In regards to claim 13, Galvane teaches acquiring encoded data of interactive media associated with 3D data to be reproduced on the basis of a description regarding the interactive media included in a scene description file; and decoding the acquired encoded data based on the description of the scene description file and generating data of the interactive media. (See Galvane Figure 1 and paragraphs [0032] and [0035], Galvane teaches acquiring a scene description file and rendering a 3D model.)
In regards to claim 14, Galvane teaches a file generation unit that generates a scene description file that includes a description regarding interactive media associated with 3D data. (See Galvane Figure 1, Galvane teaches a scene description generating system.)
In regards to claim 15, Galvane teaches wherein the description regarding the interactive media includes a description indicating whether interactive processing executed when a predetermined condition is satisfied in a scene by a user operation is possible or not. (See Galvane paragraph [0044]).
In regards to claim 16, Galvane teaches wherein the description regarding the interactive media includes a description indicating whether or not the interactive media can be selected according to a user operation or avatar attribute information. (See Galvane paragraph [0044]).
In regards to claim 17, Galvane teaches wherein the description regarding the interactive media includes a description regarding acquisition of the interactive media. (See Galvane Figure 1, element 100).
In regards to claim, Galvane teaches wherein the description regarding the interactive media is stored as file information in material of the scene description file. (See Galvane Figure 1, element 190 and paragraph [0044]).
In regards to claim 19, Galvane teaches wherein the description regarding the interactive media is stored as pre-processing information in material of the scene description file. (See Galvane paragraphs [0035] and [0044]).
In regards to claim 20, Galvane teaches generating a scene description file that includes a description regarding interactive media associated with 3D data. (See Galvane Figure 1, Galvane teaches a scene description generating system.)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
In regards to claims 1-3, the applied art does not teach or suggest “a storage unit that stores the data of the haptics media in a storage area corresponding to an accessor specified by the scene description file.” It is for these reasons claims 1-3 are allowed.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to UTPAL D SHAH whose telephone number is (571)272-5729. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30-5:30.
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, Vu Le can be reached at (571) 272-7332. 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.
/UTPAL D SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2668
Prosecution Insights