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: position information acquisition unit, comment registration unit, comment arrangement unit, and image output unit in claim 1.
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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because claim 20 is directed towards a recording medium storing a program. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is directed towards a recording medium, thus includes a transitory medium. See MPEP 2106.01.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent.
“A transitory, propagating signal … is not a “process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” Those four categories define the explicit scope and reach of subject matter patentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101; thus, such a signal cannot be patentable subject matter.” (In re Nuijten, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007)).
Because the full scope of the claim as properly read in light of the disclosure appears to encompass non-statutory subject matter (i.e., because the specification defines/exemplifies a computer readable medium as a non-statutory signal, carrier waver, etc.) the claim as a whole is non-statutory. (See 1351 OG 212).
A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 US.C. § 101 by adding the limitation "non-transitory" to the claim.
Any amendment to the claim should be commensurate with its corresponding disclosure.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-7, 10-12, 14, 16, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gavriliuc et al. (U.S. PGPUB 20170076505) in view of Wang et al. (U.S. PGPUB 20190213769).
With respect to claim 1, Gavriliuc et al. disclose an information processing device (paragraph 80, FIG. 8 schematically shows a non-limiting embodiment of a computing system 800) comprising:
a position information acquisition unit (paragraph 82, Logic processor 804 includes one or more physical devices configured to execute instructions. For example, the logic processor may be configured to execute instructions that are part of one or more applications, programs, routines, libraries, objects, components, data structures, or other logical constructs) that acquires position information indicating a position of an exhibit in a virtual space (paragraph 35, first user 302 may use the first display device 30 to capture an image of the art piece 312, paragraph 37, first user 302 may instruct the First display device 30 to generate a virtual place-located anchor at a world-locked virtual location, paragraph 38, the first display device 30 may transmit to computing device 200 an instruction 54 to generate a virtual place-located anchor 56 at a virtual location that is world-locked);
a comment registration unit (paragraph 82, Logic processor 804 includes one or more physical devices configured to execute instructions. For example, the logic processor may be configured to execute instructions that are part of one or more applications, programs, routines, libraries, objects, components, data structures, or other logical constructs) that registers a comment on the exhibit in association with a specific position in the virtual space (paragraph 39, In response to the instruction 54 from first user 302 via first display device 30, the anchor program 214 may link a subset 64 of the plurality of data items 62 from the first target data source 38 to the virtual place-located anchor 56. In the present example, the anchor program 214 may filter the data items 62 to identify and select comments to the first user's posting 320 of the image of the art piece 312. The anchor program 214 may then transmit first display data 66 to the first display device 30 that causes the device to display one or more holograms of this subset of data items to the first user 302);
a comment arrangement unit (paragraph 82, Logic processor 804 includes one or more physical devices configured to execute instructions. For example, the logic processor may be configured to execute instructions that are part of one or more applications, programs, routines, libraries, objects, components, data structures, or other logical constructs) that disposes the comment in a vicinity of the exhibit on a basis of position information of the exhibit (paragraph 48, In the example of FIG. 3, an anchor hologram in the form of a holographic star 356 may be displayed at the world-locked virtual location corresponding to the virtual place-located anchor 56. In some examples, the holograms 330A, 330B and 330C may be displayed within a predetermined distance of the anchor hologram. For example, the holograms 330A, 330B and 330C may be displayed within 0.5 m, 1.0 m, 2.0 m, or any suitable predetermined distance from the holographic star 356); and
an image output unit (paragraph 89, When included, display subsystem 816 may be used to present a visual representation of data held by non-volatile storage device 812) that outputs an image of the virtual space from a specific viewpoint corresponding to the avatar on a basis of the comment that has been disposed (paragraph 40, In the example of FIG. 3, the first display device 30 may display to the first user 302 holograms of comments to the first user's posting 320 of the image of the art piece 312. For example, a hologram 330A of the comment “Nice!” from Friend A to the first user's posting 320 may be displayed at the world-locked virtual place-located anchor at the virtual location. One or more other holograms of comments to the first user's posting 320 from other friends and/or users of social network A, such as holograms 330B and 330C, may also be displayed). However, Gavriliuc et al. do not expressly disclose the comment arrangement unit disposes the comment in a vicinity of the exhibit on a basis of attribute information of the comment and position information indicating a position of an avatar present in the virtual space.
Wang et al., who also deal with virtual environments, disclose a method for disposing the comment in a vicinity of the exhibit on a basis of attribute information of the comment (paragraph 124, the comments 201-205 are assigned to a hierarchical structure based at least on semantic analysis of the comment, paragraph 128, The size and/or shape of the comment-spatial-range may be based on one or more of the hierarchal position in the hierarchy 400; the generality of the comment based on semantic analysis) and position information indicating a position of an avatar present in the virtual space (paragraph 102, each comment of the subset of comments may be provided for display such that they are positioned in the VR view within a predetermined distance of the position at which the point of interest is visible in the video imagery. They may be positioned not obscure the point of interest but appear associated with it, paragraph 104, The apparatus may then be configured to filter the comments based on the viewing direction of the comment being within a threshold of the viewing direction of the virtual reality view and the point of interest being visible. The threshold may be up to 30, 25, 20, 15, 10 or 5°). By positioning the comment as to not obscure the point of interest and filtering based on viewing direction, this is dependent on the avatar’s position viewing the point of interest.
Gavriliuc et al. and Wang et al. are in the same field of endeavor, namely computer graphics.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to apply the method of disposing the comment in a vicinity of the exhibit on a basis of attribute information of the comment and position information indicating a position of an avatar present in the virtual space, as taught by Wang et al., to the Gavriliuc et al. system, because this may be advantageous as a point of interest may be defined by the geographical area (or virtual geographical area representing the geographical area in the virtual reality space) over which it extends or in which it is visible (within a particular threshold distance) rather than a particular point (paragraph 129 of Wang et al.) and this may be advantageous, particularly for points of interest that may only be visible, or viewed best from certain angles. In one or more examples, the viewing direction may be an important factor to consider when close to a point of interest as the viewing direction will affect which part of the point of interest is in view (paragraph 105 of Wang et al.)
With respect to claim 2, Gavriliuc et al. as modified by Wang et al. disclose the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the comment arrangement unit arranges a plurality of comments on the exhibit in the vicinity of the exhibit (Gavriliuc et al.: paragraph 48, In the example of FIG. 3, an anchor hologram in the form of a holographic star 356 may be displayed at the world-locked virtual location corresponding to the virtual place-located anchor 56. In some examples, the holograms 330A, 330B and 330C may be displayed within a predetermined distance of the anchor hologram. For example, the holograms 330A, 330B and 330C may be displayed within 0.5 m, 1.0 m, 2.0 m, or any suitable predetermined distance from the holographic star 356).
With respect to claim 3, Gavriliuc et al. as modified by Wang et al. disclose the information processing device according to claim 2, wherein the comment arrangement unit arranges the plurality of comments in the vicinity of the exhibit on a basis of attribute information of each of the plurality of comments (Wang et al.: paragraph 124, the comments 201-205 are assigned to a hierarchical structure based at least on semantic analysis of the comment, paragraph 128, The size and/or shape of the comment-spatial-range may be based on one or more of the hierarchal position in the hierarchy 400; the generality of the comment based on semantic analysis), the position information of the avatar (Wang et al.: paragraph 102, each comment of the subset of comments may be provided for display such that they are positioned in the VR view within a predetermined distance of the position at which the point of interest is visible in the video imagery. They may be positioned not obscure the point of interest but appear associated with it, paragraph 104, The apparatus may then be configured to filter the comments based on the viewing direction of the comment being within a threshold of the viewing direction of the virtual reality view and the point of interest being visible. The threshold may be up to 30, 25, 20, 15, 10 or 5°), and the position information of the exhibit (Gavriliuc et al.: paragraph 48, In the example of FIG. 3, an anchor hologram in the form of a holographic star 356 may be displayed at the world-locked virtual location corresponding to the virtual place-located anchor 56. In some examples, the holograms 330A, 330B and 330C may be displayed within a predetermined distance of the anchor hologram. For example, the holograms 330A, 330B and 330C may be displayed within 0.5 m, 1.0 m, 2.0 m, or any suitable predetermined distance from the holographic star 356).
With respect to claim 4, Gavriliuc et al. as modified by Wang et al. disclose the information processing device according to claim 3, wherein the comment arrangement unit arranges the plurality of comments in the vicinity of the exhibit depending on an importance level of each of the comments (Wang et al.: paragraph 125, the fifth comment 205 is considered the most general and assigned to a category at the top of the tree 400. The fourth comment 204 is considered more specific and assigned to a second level in the tree 400. The first to third comments all relate to Big Ben, although the second comment 202 is determined to be opinion and the first and third comments to be facts. Accordingly, the second comment 202 is placed in a first branch 401 and the first and third comments are placed in a second branch 402. Finally, in the second branch 402, the first comment 201 is considered more specific than the third comment 203 and is placed in a third and fourth level respectively. Thus, in this example, the comments are categorized based on generality and type (fact or opinion), Wang et al.: paragraph 128, The size and/or shape of the comment-spatial-range may be based on one or more of the hierarchal position in the hierarchy 400).
With respect to claim 6, Gavriliuc et al. as modified by Wang et al. disclose the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the attribute information of the comment includes a reaction of a user to the comment (Gavriliuc et al.: paragraph 40, a hologram 330A of the comment “Nice!” from Friend A to the first user's posting 320 may be displayed at the world-locked virtual place-located anchor at the virtual location. One or more other holograms of comments to the first user's posting 320 from other friends and/or users of social network A, such as holograms 330B and 330C, may also be displayed).
With respect to claim 7, Gavriliuc et al. as modified by Wang et al. disclose the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the attribute information of the comment includes information regarding a user who has input the comment (Gavriliuc et al.: paragraph 58, a hologram 380A of the comment “Cool!” from User F may be displayed at the virtual place-located anchor at the world-locked virtual location. One or more other holograms of comments to the first user's posting from other friends and/or users of the other social network, such as hologram 380B, may also be displayed, thus including the social network as an attribute of the user to the comment).
With respect to claim 10, Gavriliuc et al. as modified by Wang et al. disclose the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the comment arrangement unit prevents the comment from being disposed in an area where the comment cannot be disposed (Wang et al.: paragraph 103, the apparatus 100 may be configured to provide for determination of a subset of the comments based on more than visibility of the point of interest in the virtual reality view. For example, further factors may be considered to filter out comments from the subset or control when they are displayed to a user). The filtered out comments are based on the condition of too many comments. It would have been obvious to apply the teachings of Wang et al. because the display of all of the comments may be bothersome for a user trying to view the point of interest (paragraph 103 of Wang et al.), or too cluttered.
With respect to claim 11, Gavriliuc et al. as modified by Wang et al. disclose the information processing device according to claim 10, wherein the area where the comment cannot be disposed is either set in advance or set on a basis of information regarding the specific viewpoint corresponding to the avatar (Wang et al.: paragraph 104, Accordingly, in order to be within the subset of comments provided for display, the point of interest is required to appear, at least in part, within the virtual reality view and the user must be viewing the point of interest with a similar viewing direction to that of the commenting-user).
With respect to claim 12, Gavriliuc et al. as modified by Wang et al. disclose the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein at least one of an orientation or a position of the comment disposed in the vicinity of the exhibit is adjusted on a basis of at least one of the attribute information of the comment, the position information of the avatar, or the position information of the exhibit (Gavriliuc et al.: paragraph 46, In response to identifying the art piece 312 in the kitchen 400, the computing device 200 may transmit display data to the first display device 30 that causes the device to display the holograms 330A, 330B and 330C to the first user 302 at the virtual place-located anchor at the virtual location world-locked to the position relative to the art piece 312 in the kitchen 400).
With respect to claim 14, Gavriliuc et al. as modified by Wang et al. disclose the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein at least one of a character size or interline spacing of the comment disposed in the vicinity of the exhibit is adjusted depending on an angle of view of an image of the virtual space to be output (Wang et al.: paragraph 128, The size and/or shape of the comment-spatial-range may be based on one or more of the hierarchal position in the hierarchy 400; the generality of the comment based on semantic analysis; the virtual position and/or the viewing direction of the commenting user when the comment was made or other factors).
With respect to claim 16, Gavriliuc et al. as modified by Wang et al. disclose the information processing device according to claim 6, wherein the image output unit outputs an image of the virtual space on a basis of the comment including a favorable evaluation as a reaction of the user (Gavriliuc et al.: paragraph 40, a hologram 330A of the comment “Nice!” from Friend A to the first user's posting 320 may be displayed at the world-locked virtual place-located anchor at the virtual location), and the image of the virtual space that is output is posted on a social networking service (SNS) (Gavriliuc et al.: paragraph 35, In the example of FIG. 3, first user 302 may use the first display device 30 to capture an image of the art piece 312. The first user 302 may desire to share the image with others via social network A 316. Accordingly, the first user 302 may send the image to the social network A 316 in a posting 320 to the network).
With respect to claim 19, Gavriliuc et al. as modified by Wang et al. disclose an information processing method, by an information processing device, as executed by the system of claim 1; see rationale for rejection of claim 1.
With respect to claim 20, Gavriliuc et al. as modified by Wang et al. disclose a recording medium storing a program for causing a computer to function (Gavriliuc et al.: paragraph 31, The computing device 200 may include an anchor program 214 that may be stored in mass storage 218 of the computing device) as a system like in claim 1; see rationale for rejection of claim 1.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gavriliuc et al. (U.S. PGPUB 20170076505) in view of Wang et al. (U.S. PGPUB 20190213769) and further in view of Kawakami et al. (U.S. PGPUB 20130013089).
With respect to claim 5, Gavriliuc et al. as modified by Wang et al. disclose the information processing device according to claim 2. However, Gavriliuc et al. as modified by Wang et al. do not expressly disclose the comment arrangement unit moves a comment, which is disposed at an overlapping position, among the plurality of comments to a non-overlapping position.
Kawakami et al., who also deal with virtual worlds, disclose a method wherein the comment arrangement unit moves a comment, which is disposed at an overlapping position, among the plurality of comments to a non-overlapping position (paragraph 120, the `CPU` outputs the comment stored in the `main memory` at a predetermined display position on the display panel (not shown in figure) through the `output circuit for image` while processing, for example, to avoid overlap of a plurality of comments when displaying the moving comment).
Gavriliuc et al., Wang et al., and Kawakami et al. are in the same field of endeavor, namely computer graphics.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to apply the method wherein the comment arrangement unit moves a comment, which is disposed at an overlapping position, among the plurality of comments to a non-overlapping position, as taught by Kawakami et al., to the Gavriliuc et al. as modified by Wang et al. system, because even the viewer (viewer of a virtual world) of the stage can view the distributed live image of the stage including the comment entered by the viewer utilizing the user terminal, and can control the production equipment on the stage by the comment, so that the viewer can get a feel for participation in the performance on the real stage in a different way from the viewer (viewer of the real world) of the real stage (paragraph 17 of Kawakami et al.).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gavriliuc et al. (U.S. PGPUB 20170076505) in view of Wang et al. (U.S. PGPUB 20190213769) and further in view of Kawakami et al. (U.S. PGPUB 20240346743, referred to as Kawakami ‘743 herein).
With respect to claim 8, Gavriliuc et al. as modified by Wang et al. disclose the information processing device according to claim 1. However, Gavriliuc et al. as modified by Wang et al. do not expressly disclose the image output unit outputs a bird's-eye view image of the virtual space mapped with the exhibit in the virtual space.
Kawakami ‘743, who also deals with virtual spaces, discloses a method wherein the image output unit outputs a bird's-eye view image of the virtual space mapped with the exhibit in the virtual space (paragraph 107, [Step S702] A first virtual space to which the user belongs is identified. In this case, belong includes, for example, not only the case where the user is present in the first virtual space but also the case where the user is at a position close to the first virtual space and is attempting to enter the first virtual space, the case where an artwork of the user is displayed in the first virtual space and the user is approaching the first virtual space, and the like). Fig. 3A-3D show artwork 12A in the bird’s eye view.
Gavriliuc et al., Wang et al., and Kawakami ‘743 are in the same field of endeavor, namely computer graphics.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to apply the method wherein the image output unit outputs a bird's-eye view image of the virtual space mapped with the exhibit in the virtual space, as taught by Kawakami ‘743, to the Gavriliuc et al. as modified by Wang et al. system, because this would provide an alternative view that shows a wider perspective of the virtual space.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gavriliuc et al. (U.S. PGPUB 20170076505) in view of Wang et al. (U.S. PGPUB 20190213769), Kawakami et al. (U.S. PGPUB 20240346743, referred to as Kawakami ‘743 herein), and further in view of Spivack et al. (U.S. PGPUB 20200019295).
With respect to claim 9, Gavriliuc et al. as modified by Wang et al. and Kawakami ‘743 disclose the information processing device according to claim 8. However, Gavriliuc et al. as modified by Wang et al. and Kawakami ‘743 do not expressly disclose the image output unit superimposes information regarding a comment amount for the exhibit on the bird's-eye view image.
Spivack et al., who also deal with VR environments, disclose a method wherein the image output unit superimposes information regarding a comment amount for the exhibit (paragraph 140, Item 586 depicts a Vizz Preview: A minimized picture or video of the Boxed Vizz—tap to close the Vizz (re-box it). The little boxes within this are badges for number of likes and number of comments for the Vizz).
Gavriliuc et al., Wang et al., Kawakami ‘743, and Spivack et al. are in the same field of endeavor, namely computer graphics.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to apply the method wherein the image output unit superimposes information regarding a comment amount for the exhibit, as taught by Spivack et al., to the Gavriliuc et al. as modified by Wang et al. and Kawakami ‘743 system comprising the bird’s-eye image, because this would implement techniques to control or adjust various mixtures of perceptibility, in a digital environment, between the real world objects/content/environment and virtual objects/content/environment (paragraph 32 of Spivack et al.).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gavriliuc et al. (U.S. PGPUB 20170076505) in view of Wang et al. (U.S. PGPUB 20190213769) and further in view of Moore et al. (U.S. PGPUB 20150106755).
With respect to claim 13, Gavriliuc et al. as modified by Wang et al. disclose the information processing device according to claim 1. However, Gavriliuc et al. as modified by Wang et al. do not expressly disclose a color of the comment is adjusted depending on a background of the comment disposed in the vicinity of the exhibit.
Moore et al., who also deal with virtual spaces, disclose a method wherein a color of the comment is adjusted depending on a background of the comment disposed in the vicinity of the exhibit (paragraph 140, note editor 96 may automatically modify, or invoke note enhancement module 89 to automatically modify, the color of one or more foreground objects based on the updated background color).
Gavriliuc et al., Wang et al., and Moore et al. are in the same field of endeavor, namely computer graphics.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to apply the method wherein a color of the comment is adjusted depending on a background of the comment disposed in the vicinity of the exhibit, as taught by Moore et al., to the Gavriluic et al. as modified by Wang et al. system, because this may enable editing of the background color of the digital note without sacrificing the readability of the one or more foreground objects (paragraph 140 of Moore et al.).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gavriliuc et al. (U.S. PGPUB 20170076505) in view of Wang et al. (U.S. PGPUB 20190213769) and further in view of Flynn et al. (U.S. PGPUB 20120290591).
With respect to claim 15, Gavriliuc et al. as modified by Wang et al. disclose the information processing device according to claim 1. However, Gavriliuc et al. as modified by Wang et al. do not expressly disclose the comment includes an artist's comment and a comment of a user, and the artist's comment and the comment of the user are adjusted in a distinguishable manner.
Flynn et al., who also deal with virtual reality spaces, disclose a method wherein the comment includes an artist's comment and a comment of a user (paragraph 35, the tags may include various forms of user-created content, such as comments posted by other users, tag icons selected by other users, digital photographs or videos captured by other users to be displayed with the real-world object, etc., paragraph 36, The tags might include the artist's comment 1358 "How do you like my art???" and/or a link to the artist's web page), and the artist's comment and the comment of the user are adjusted in a distinguishable manner (paragraph 36, This tag data 1356 and 1358 associated with the street art 1302 may then be rendered by the virtual tagging client 112 over the video being captured by mobile device 110-N in order to alert the user of mobile device 110-N that tag data for the real world object is available). The tag data 1356 and 1358 are distinguishable based on the different shade in Fig. 13.
Gavriliuc et al., Wang et al., and Flynn et al. are in the same field of endeavor, namely computer graphics.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to apply the method wherein the comment includes an artist's comment and a comment of a user, and the artist's comment and the comment of the user are adjusted in a distinguishable manner, as taught by Flynn et al., to the Gavriliuc et al. as modified by Wang et al. system, which includes user’s comments, because this would facilitate sharing of tags, or user comments.
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gavriliuc et al. (U.S. PGPUB 20170076505) in view of Wang et al. (U.S. PGPUB 20190213769) and further in view of Kawano (U.S. PGPUB 20200004321).
With respect to claim 17, Gavriliuc et al. as modified by Wang et al. disclose the information processing device according to claim 1. However, Gavriliuc et al. as modified by Wang et al. do not expressly disclose the comment is obtained by converting user's voice into text by voice recognition.
Kawano, who also deals with VR spaces, discloses a method wherein the comment is obtained by converting user's voice into text by voice recognition (paragraph 169, the character string 60 may be the voice recognition result itself or may be only the interjection extracted from the voice recognition result).
Gavriliuc et al., Wang et al., and Kawano are in the same field of endeavor, namely computer graphics.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to apply the method wherein the comment is obtained by converting user's voice into text by voice recognition, as taught by Kawano, to the Gavriliuc et al. as modified by Wang et al. system, because it is possible to notify the user that the user has uttered (and notify the user of a word actually uttered by the user). Furthermore, usually, visual information tends to be easier for the user to return to himself/herself than sound information, and it is thus possible to significantly reduce the immersion degree of the user by the display example (paragraph 172 of Kawano).
With respect to claim 18, Gavriliuc et al. as modified by Wang et al. and Kawano disclose the information processing device according to claim 17, wherein the comment is displayed on a display device in a real space (Kawano: paragraph 169, in a case where the voice recognition result includes the interjection, as in a video 30b illustrated in FIG. 22, the output control unit 106 causes a character string 60 corresponding to the voice recognition result to be superimposed and displayed on the video 30b in the vicinity of a gaze point of the user in the video 30b (or in the vicinity of the center of the video 30b)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. PGPUB 20200066046 to Stahl et al. for a method of leaving a user comment adjacent to artwork
U.S. PGPUB 20130271457 to Haswell et al. for a method of visiting a virtual exhibit.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW GUS YANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5514. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, Kent Chang can be reached at (571)272-7667. 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.
/ANDREW G YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2614
4/24/26
Prosecution Insights