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 .
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgment is made of applicant arguments/Remarks made in amendment in which the following is noted: claims 1 – 3, 9 – 10, 13, and 16 – 17 are amended and the rejection of the claims are traversed. Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending are currently pending and an Office action on the merits follows.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Shapiro (in view of Bao) does not disclose at least determining a velocity of at least a portion of the subject and applying a transparency to a portion of the virtual representation of the subject in accordance with the determined velocity.
In particular, Applicant argues Bao is focused on displaying the virtual representation as opposed to generating the virtual representation, as claimed. Applicants argues Bao does not disclose determining a velocity of a portion of the subject. Further, Applicant argues Bao teaches a blanket change to the opacity of the display.
However, applicant’s arguments do not appear commensurate with the scope of the claims. The Office submits the virtual representation must be generated when displayed. For example, Shapiro [0155] illustrates than avatar viewing itself in a virtual mirror. Further, the Office notes the HMD is directly connected to the wearer of the device and is configured to detect a velocity of at least a portion of the subject, as claimed. And Bao Figure 4a – 4b disclose embodiments in which opacity control can be applied to a plurality of regions 404 and not in a blanket manner as argued.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 – 3, 6 – 12, and 17 -19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shapiro et al; (Publication number: US 2019/0096106 A1), hereafter Shapiro, in view of Bao et al; (Publication number: US 2018/0088323 A1), hereafter Bao.
Regarding claim 1:
Shapiro discloses a method (Shapiro ABSTRACT; Figure 15) comprising: obtaining sensor data corresponding to a subject (Shapiro Figure 15 700); and generating a virtual representation of the subject based on the sensor data (Shapiro Figure 15 730, 740).
Shapiro does not disclose the method further comprising: determining, for a particular frame of the sensor data, a velocity of at least a portion of the subject; and applying, for the particular frame, a transparency treatment to the portion of a virtual representation of the subject in accordance with the determined velocity.
However, Bao discloses selectably opaque displays. More particularly Bao discloses determining, for a particular frame of the sensor data, a velocity of at least a portion of the subject (Bao Figure 11 1114 and 1102; [0118]); and
applying, for the particular frame, a transparency treatment to the portion of a virtual representation of the subject in accordance with the determined velocity (Bao Figure 1 1114 and 206).
It would have been obvious to modify the method Shapiro to include determining, for a particular frame of the sensor data, a velocity of at least a portion of the subject; and applying, for the particular frame, a transparency treatment to a portion of a virtual representation of the subject in accordance with the determined velocity, as claimed. Those skilled in the art would appreciate the ability to reduce the chance of injury to the user when in motion.Regarding claim 2:
Shapiro (in view of Bao) discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the determining the velocity of at least a portion of the subject comprises determining a translational velocity of a head mounted device (Shapiro [0118]).
Regarding claim 3:
Shapiro (in view of Bao) does not disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the at least the portion of the virtual representation comprises a shoulder region of the virtual representation.
However, Bao further discloses an eye tracking such that the opacity controller 202 is configure to adapt the selectable opacity to various regions of the opacity layer such as when the user is looking downward, beyond the opacity layer (Bao [0125][0127] walking ).
As such, it would have been obvious to modify Shapiro (in view of Bao) wherein the least a portion of the virtual representation comprises a shoulder region of the virtual representation, as claimed, thereby allowing the user to view more clearly view what is in front of him/her, thereby allowing the user to make adjustments to their movement to avoid a collision with an approaching object.
Regarding claim 6:
Shapiro (in view of Bao) discloses the method of claim 1, wherein applying the transparency treatment to the portion of the virtual representation of the subject comprises: determining that the velocity stratifies a predetermined threshold (Bao [0118]; velocity stratifies determination of walking), determining a transparency parameter in accordance with the velocity (Bao [0080] request 408 selects opacity level), and applying a shader to the portion of the virtual representation using the transparency parameter (Bao [0080] transmission state of portion of display is changed).
Regarding claim 7:
Shapiro (in view of Bao) discloses the method of claim 6, wherein applying the shader to the portion of the representation comprises: in accordance with the velocity being greater than the predetermined threshold, increasing the transparency of the virtual representation (Bao [0105])
Regarding claim 8:
Shapiro (in view of Bao) discloses the method of claim 6, wherein applying the shader to the portion of the representation comprises: in accordance with the velocity being greater than the predetermined threshold, reducing transparency of the portion of the virtual representation (Bao [0105]).
Regarding claim 9:
Claim 9 directed to the computer-readable medium is similarly rejected for those reasons discussed above in claim 1 (and additional for those disclosed by Shapiro [0186]).
Regarding claim 10:
Claim 10 is similarly rejected for those reasons discussed above in claim 2.
Regarding claim 11:
Claim 11 is similarly rejected for those reasons discussed above in claim 3.
Regarding claim 16:
Claim 16 directed to the system is similarly rejected for those reasons discussed above in claim 1 (and additional for those disclosed by Shapiro [0186]).
Regarding claim 17:
Claim 17 is similarly rejected for those reasons discussed above in claim 2.
Regarding claim 18:
Claim 18 is similarly rejected for those reasons discussed above in claim 3.
Regarding claim 19:
Claim 19 is similarly rejected for those reasons discussed above in claim 6.
Claim(s) 4, 5, 12 – 15, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shapiro et al; (Publication number: US 2019/0096106 A1), hereafter Shapiro, in view of Bao et al; (Publication number: US 2018/0088323 A1), hereafter Bao, in view of Shriram et al; (Publication number: US 2022/0230379 A1), hereafter Shriram.
Regarding claim 4:
Shapiro (in view of Bao) does not disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the virtual representation is further generated based on enrollment data for the subject.
However, Shriram discloses three-dimensional avatar generation and manipulation using shaders. More particularly, Shriram discloses wherein the virtual representation is further generated based on enrollment data for the subject (Shriram [0040] customization module).
It would have been obvious to further modify Shapiro (in view of Bao) wherein the virtual representation is further generated based on enrollment data for the subject, as claimed. Those skilled in the art would appreciate the ability to allow the user to realize a pleasing avatar.
Regarding claim 5:
Shapiro (in view of Bao and Shriram) discloses the method of claim 4, wherein the virtual representation of the subject is generated by: determining a shoulder width from the enrollment data and a shoulder position for the subject (Shriram [0040]; Shapiro [0116]), and generating a subject-specific should region using a generic virtual should region, the shoulder width, and the shoulder position (Shriram [0040] Shapiro [0116] and Figure 15 740).
Regarding claim 12:
Claim 12 is similarly rejected for those reasons discussed above in claim 4.
Regarding claim 13:
Claim 13 is similarly rejected for those reasons discussed above in claim 5.
Regarding claim 14:
Shapiro (in view of Bao) does not disclose the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 9, wherein the virtual representation of the subject is generated based on enrollment image data from which a geometry and texture of the subject are derived.
However, Shriram discloses three-dimensional avatar generation and manipulation using shaders. More particularly, Shriram discloses wherein the virtual representation of the subject is generated based on enrollment image data from which a geometry and texture of the subject are derived (Shriram [0040][0044 – 0045]).
It would have been obvious to further modify Shapiro (in view of Bao) wherein the virtual representation of the subject is generated based on enrollment image data from which a geometry and texture of the subject are derived, as claimed. Those skilled in the art would appreciate the ability to allow the user to realize a pleasing avatar.
Regarding claim 15:
Shapiro (in view of Bao) discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 9, further comprising computer readable code to: generate virtual representation data based on sensor data (Shapiro Figure 15 730, 740) and virtual representation of the subject (Shapiro [0120]), and transmit the virtual representation data to the receiving device (Shapiro Figure 11 output of 480).
Regarding claim 20:
Claim 20 is similarly rejected for those reasons discussed above in claim 14.
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 MIHIR K RAYAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 - 5pm (EST).
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, LunYI Lao can be reached at 571-272-7671. 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.
/MIHIR K RAYAN/ 20 January 2026 Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621