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 Objections
Claims 4 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 4 and 5 recite the limitation “selection action”. The limitation “a selection action” appears in claim 3 not claim 2 from which claims 4 and 5 depend. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Regarding claim 12, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 9 and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suzuki (US 2020/0005545).
In regard to claim 1, Suzuki teaches a virtual reality, VR, communication device (element 100 and paragraph 44, virtual space) to be used by a first user, comprising a communication interface (element 300), a user interface (display element 106), and a processing unit configured to control operations of the communication interface and the user interface (element 102), wherein: the communication interface is configured to communicate information with a further VR communication device to be used by a further user (element 400 and paragraph 51, both VR devices communicate with the server through element 300); the processing unit is configured to create and render a representation of the further user based on the information communicated with the further VR communication device (fig. 9 and paragraph 51); the processing unit is configured to receive, from the first user, an indication of a minimum distance to the representation of the further user, wherein the minimum distance defines, for the first user, a closest perceived distance for the representation of the further user to be rendered at by the user interface (fig. 12 element P and paragraph 109, setting the non-interference region); the processing unit is configured to, based on the minimum distance received, render the representation of the further user to, on the user interface, appear at the minimum distance received (fig. 12).
In regard to claim 2, Suzuki teaches wherein, the processing unit is configured to, upon having created the representation of the further user, initially render the representation of the further user to appear at a pre-set distance on the user interface (fig. 10 and paragraph 102, Suzuki teaches moving the user’s closer together when user B leans toward user A).
In regard to claim 3, Suzuki teaches wherein the indication is received in form of a selection action with respect to the representation of the further user (fig. 8, leaning forward, straining eyes, loud voice, etc.).
In regard to claim 9, Suzuki teaches wherein a respective minimum distance is set for each representation of further users rendered by the processing unit (figs. 16 and 17).
In regard to claim 12, Suzuki teaches wherein the representation of the further user is an avatar, such as a three-dimensional avatar (fig. 9. Suzuki describes virtual objects which are avatars).
Claim 13 is the system corresponding to the device of claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 14 is the method corresponding to the device of claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons.
In regard to claim 15, Suzuki teaches all the elements of claim 15 (see claim 1 rejection above), including a non-transitory computer readable medium (paragraph 138).
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) 4-6 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki.
In regard to claim 4, Suzuki teaches wherein the selection action comprises a gesture for the further user to appear closer than the pre-set distance when the minimum distance is shorter than the pre-set distance (see fig. 8, Suzuki teaches using gestures to reduce the distance between virtual objects) but does not teach a pulling gesture or a pushing gesture.
Before the effective filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the apparatus of Suzuki with a pulling gesture. The rationale is as follows: Before the effective filing it would have been obvious to provide the apparatus of Suzuki with a pulling gesture because using a pulling gesture would work equally as well as the gestures of Suzuki. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize any user gesture could be interpreted in any number of ways. Absent a showing of criticality, any gesture would work predictably and can be chosen based on factors such as user preferences and design cost.
In regard to claim 5, Suzuki teaches wherein the selection action comprises a gesture for the further user to appear further away than the pre-set distance when the minimum distance is longer han the pre-set distance (see fig. 8, Suzuki teaches using gestures to increase the distance between virtual objects) but does not teach a pushing gesture or a pushing gesture.
Before the effective filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the apparatus of Suzuki with a pushing gesture. The rationale is as follows: Before the effective filing it would have been obvious to provide the apparatus of Suzuki with a pushing gesture because using a pushing gesture would work equally as well as the gestures of Suzuki. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize any user gesture could be interpreted in any number of ways. Absent a showing of criticality, any gesture would work predictably and can be chosen based on factors such as user preferences and design cost.
In regard to claim 6, Suzuki teaches wherein the processing unit is configured to create and to render a new representation of the further user at the minimum distance and instruct the user interface to display the new representation of the further user, such that the representation of the further user appears to be moved from the pre-set distance to the minimum distance (fig. 10).
Claim(s) 10 and 11 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Young et al. (US 2023/0163987).
In regard to claim 10, Suzuki teaches all the elements of claim 10 except wherein: the communication interface is configured to communicate information with a yet further VR communication device to be used by a yet further user; the processing unit is configured to create and render a representation of the yet further user based on the information communicated with the yet further VR communication device; and the processing unit is configured to receive, from the first user, an indication of a further minimum distance to the representation of the yet further user, wherein the further minimum distance defines, for the first user, a closest perceived distance for the representation of the yet further user to be rendered at by the processing unit, and wherein the further minimum distance is different from the minimum distance.
Young et al. teach wherein: the communication interface is configured to communicate information with a yet further VR communication device to be used by a yet further user (elements 130 and paragraph 20); the processing unit is configured to create and render a representation of the yet further user based on the information communicated with the yet further VR communication device (fig. 4 and elements 451, 452); and the processing unit is configured to receive, from the first user, an indication of a further minimum distance to the representation of the yet further user, wherein the further minimum distance defines, for the first user, a closest perceived distance for the representation of the yet further user to be rendered at by the processing unit, and wherein the further minimum distance is different from the minimum distance (see tiers A, B and C in fig. 4).
The two are analogous art because they both deal with the same field of invention of virtual environments.
Before the effective filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the apparatus of Suzuki with the multiple personal space tiers of Young et al. The rationale is as follows: Before the effective filing it would have been obvious to provide the apparatus of Suzuki with the multiple personal space tiers of Young et al. because it would allow the user to create separate personal space areas for friends and unknown persons.
In regard to claim 11, Young et al. teach wherein: the processing unit is configured to render the representation of the yet further user to, on the user interface, appear to be at the further minimum distance (fig. 4 and paragraphs 43 and 44).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art fails to teach or make obvious moving the representation of the further user according to a non-linear function in combination with the claim’s other features.
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 JOSEPH R HALEY whose telephone number is (571)272-0574. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am-5pm.
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, Amr Awad can be reached at 571-272-7764. 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.
/JOSEPH R HALEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621
Prosecution Insights