DETAILED ACTION
Preliminary Remarks
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
This application is a continuation of PCT/JP2023/009092 filed 03/09/23 which further claims foreign priority to JP 2022-056821 filed 03/30/22.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 and 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terahata (U.S. Publication 2017/0228928) and Sugano et al. (U.S. Publication 2022/0343583).
In reference to claim 1, Terahata discloses a computer system comprising at least one processor or circuit programmed to execute (see paragraphs 29, 48-52 and Figures 1-2 wherein Terahata discloses an HMD (head-mounted display) system comprising an HMD display interfaced with a control unit or computer, the computer comprising various processing circuits and memory for executing applications and programs that provide an image of a virtual space in which a user is immersed to the head-mounted display and takes images of a part of a virtual space to generated images for display.):
setting a virtual space for expressing a given embodiment space in a first virtual space (see paragraphs 50-52, 56-57, 77-79, 84 and Figures 12, 13A-B wherein Terahata discloses the invention in one embodiment taking images of a display object positioned in a first virtual space using first left-eye and first right-eye virtual cameras and superimposing the object into a space displayed via the HMD using images of a 3D object taken from a generated second virtual space. As can be seen in at least Figures 13A-B, the display object of the first virtual space and 3D object of the generated second virtual space are superimposed into an HMD display space of left-eye and right-eye units. Terahata also explicitly discloses the virtual cameras positioned via a user’s first person perspective or a point of view associated with an avatar of the user and capturing a field of view as defined by first virtual space. The Examiner interprets the “combined” HMD virtual space displaying the merged objects functionally equivalent to Applicant’s “virtual space,” the field of view area (#408A of Figure 13A) of first virtual space via a user’s perspective functionally equivalent to Applicant’s “embodiment space” and the first virtual space from which the display object is captured within functionally equivalent to Applicant’s “first virtual space.”);
disposing an object in the virtual space based on information of an object in a second virtual space; and performing space expression control for expressing the embodiment space embodying the second virtual space by generating from an embodiment point of view in the second virtual space, an embodiment image of the object in the second virtual space, disposing a virtual object in the first virtual space (see paragraphs 77-79, 84-85 and Figures 12, 13A-B wherein Terahata discloses superimposing the 3D object into a an HMD space such that the 3D object and display object overlap one another. Again, the 3D object is taken from a generated second virtual space with an embodiment point of view and therefore crates an “embodiment image” while the display object is taken from images of a first virtual space. Note, it is clear that in order to properly overlap the objects as indicated in Terahata that an “alignment” or “disposition” of sorts must inherently be performed of either or both of the display objects in at least the HMD display space . Lastly, as can be seen by at least Figures 13A-B, the process of merging the two objects taken from different virtual spaces into the HMD in Terahata is what the Examiner interprets functionally equivalent to Applicant “performing space expression control.”), and performing texture mapping of the embodiment image onto the virtual object.
It is clear Terahata discloses performing superimposing of objects in virtual spaces however, Terahata does not explicitly disclose performing a texture mapping of objects. Sugano et al. discloses performing texture mapping of a 3D object and more particularly to determining whether to use first texture information or second texture information for mapping to the 3D object (see paragraph 6). Sugano et al. discloses a rendering process in a mobile terminal device that receives 3D model data from various viewpoint positions and determines from different texture information to be applied thereto (see at least paragraphs 127-128 and Figure 9). Sugano et al. further explicitly discloses the invention applicable to rendering in augmented reality environments (see at least paragraph 170). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to implement the 3D object texture information mapping techniques of Sugano et al. with the virtual environment object superimposing techniques of Terahata in order to dynamically modify the detail of rendered object modifying its applied texture information (see for example paragraph 79 of Sugano et al.) which ultimately allows for a more aesthetically pleasing and consistent rendered environment.
In reference to claim 2, Terahata and Sugano et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as applied to claim 1 above. Terahata discloses superimposing the 3D object into a an HMD space such that the 3D object and display object overlap one another (See paragraphs 84-85 and Figures 13A-B). Note, it is clear that in order to properly overlap the objects as indicated in Terahata that an “alignment” or “disposition” of sorts must inherently be performed of either or both of the display objects in at least the HMD display space. Terahata again explicitly discloses that the final superimposition is based on the image taken by both virtual cameras, which take the images of the objects (see at least paragraph 85).
In reference to claim 3, Terahata and Sugano et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as applied to claim 1 above. Although Terahata discloses generating the second virtual space and arranging the 3D object in second virtual space (see at least #1208, 1210 of Figure 12), neither Terahata or Sugano et al. explicitly disclose expressing the second virtual space at a smaller calculation amount when reproducing/outputting the second virtual space. At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform calculations in a multitude of different amounts/number of pixels, resolution, units, etc. including those which are reduced, when performing such virtual space computations of the combination of Terahata and Sugano et al.. Applicant has not disclosed that explicitly reducing calculations amounts for this particular situation of virtual space processing provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with the teachings of Terahata and Sugano et al. because the exact amount of data desired to be processed is a matter of engineering design choice as preferred by the inventor/design to best achieve the results as desired. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art to modify Terahata and Sugano et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 3.
In reference to claim 4, Terahata and Sugano et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as applied to claim 1 above. Terahata discloses the invention in one embodiment taking images of a display object positioned in a first virtual space using first left-eye and first right-eye virtual cameras and superimposing the object into a space displayed via the HMD using images of a 3D object taken from a generated second virtual space (see at least #1204 & 1212 of Figure 12). Terahata also explicitly discloses the virtual cameras positioned via a user’s first person perspective or a point of view associated with an avatar of the user and capturing a field of view as defined by first virtual space (see paragraphs 56-57). Again, the 3D object is taken from a generated second virtual space with an embodiment point of view and therefore crates an “embodiment image” while the display object is taken from images of a first virtual space.
In reference to claim 13, Terahata and Sugano et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as applied to claim 1 above. Although Terahata does disclose the virtual cameras positioned via a user’s first person perspective or a point of view associated with an avatar of the user and capturing a field of view as defined by first virtual space, neither Terahata or Sugano et al. explicitly disclose the viewpoints of the camera’s and multiple users differing for each user. It is well known in the art of virtual reality and virtual reality scene generation to allow for multiple users to view the scene/environment/world/realm from their own unique/different point of view. Allowing for multiple users to obtain their own unique/different point of view creates a simulated real-life experience for each user in their own moment while using the virtual reality system (Official Notice). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the combination of Terahata and Sugano et al., who already teaches obtaining virtual reality spaces, objects and a single user point of view, to allow for multiple users to obtain their own unique/different point of view in order to create a simulated real-life experience for each user in their own moment while using the virtual reality system.
In reference to claim 14, Terahata and Sugano et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as applied to claim 1 above. Terahata explicitly discloses the HMD device to be used in gaming application and further explicitly discloses the virtual space as a virtual game space (see at least paragraphs 49 and 69).
In reference to claim 15, Terahata and Sugano et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as applied to claim 1 above. Terahata discloses the HMD system comprising an HMD display interfaced with a control unit or computer, the computer comprising various processing circuits and memory for executing applications and programs, the HMD display specifically controlled to output information using a left-eye display unit and a right-eye display unit (see paragraphs 48-52 and Figures 1 and 6B) therefore, the Examiner interprets “a computer for controlling the first virtual space and a computer for controlling the second virtual space are individually configured and provided” as at least inherently taught by such hardware configuration of Terahata.
In reference to claim 16, Terahata and Sugano et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as applied to claim 1 above. Terahata further explicitly discloses the computer comprising the control unit to be integrated within a server connected via a network to the HMD device (e.g. “user terminal serving as a man-machine interface…”) (see at least paragraphs 48-52). Even further, Sugano et al. explicitly discloses the invention operating with a server and mobile terminal (see at least Figure 1).
In reference to claim 17, claim 17 is similar in scope to claim 1 and is therefore rejected under like rationale. Claim 17 recites, a “method” of the invention of which the Examiner deems has, at least inherently, been disclosed by the teachings of the combination of Terahata and Sugano et al. with reference to the rejection of claim 1 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7 of Applicant’s Remarks, filed 06/23/2026, with respect to the objection of the drawings have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of the drawings has been withdrawn since amendments remedy the previous issues.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7 of Applicant’s Remarks, filed 06/23/2026, with respect to the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claims 6-10 and 13 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 112(b) of claims 6-10 and 13 has been withdrawn since amendments remedy the previous issues.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8 of Applicant’s Remarks, filed 06/23/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-4 and 13-17 under 35 USC 102 & 103 in view of Terahata have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Terahata and Sugano et al..
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-12 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Antonio Caschera whose telephone number is (571) 272-7781. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday between 6:30 AM and 2:30 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Said Broome, can be reached at (571) 272-2931.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Mail Stop ____________
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
or faxed to:
571-273-8300 (Central Fax)
See the listing of “Mail Stops” at http://www.uspto.gov/patents/mail.jsp and include the appropriate designation in the address above.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the Technology Center 2600 Customer Service Office whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600.
/Antonio A Caschera/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2612
8/7/26
Prosecution Insights