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 .
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.
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)(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) 1, 3-5, 8, 10-11, 13-15, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by CLEMENT et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 20180107835 “Clement”).
Regarding claim 11 Clement teaches An apparatus comprising one or more processors (Fig. 3 element 314) configured to perform at least:
hosting a shared virtual world in which a plurality of users, including a first user, are able to interact, the shared virtual world including at least a shared version of a virtual object (“[0025]…….In some implementations, the systems and methods described herein can provide a way for users to share particular portions of information with other users in a same VR space while maintaining data and user privacy for other portions of information and/or VR content. [0079] FIG. 4 is a diagram depicting an example of multiple users interacting in the same VR space”);
transferring the first user from the shared virtual world to a private copy of a portion of the shared virtual world, the private copy including a private copy of the virtual object (“[0009] In some implementations, the method may further include detecting an input associated with the at least one virtual object, determining that the input is associated with data corresponding to the at least one virtual object and a privacy setting, determining that the user is entering additional input corresponding to the at least one virtual object, and changing the privacy setting associated with the at least one virtual object from public to private in response to determining that the additional input includes personal data. [0037] As shown in FIG. 1, the user 102 is accessing VR space 108. The VR space 108 is divided into various regions for providing VR content. The various regions (and content therein) may be configured as private or public and can be switched between private and public by the user generating or interacting with such VR content”); and
modifying the private copy of the virtual object in response to an input from the first user, wherein the shared version of the virtual object is not modified by the input from the first user while the first user is interacting in the private copy (“[0049] The private mode may block display from users other than the single user viewing, modifying, or interacting with content. For example, if a first user modifies, enters, or interacts with VR content in the VR space, the private mode may block, modify, or scramble display of the actual modification, entry or interaction for a second user (and/or other users) in the VR space.”).
wherein, while the first user is interacting in the private copy, other users are able to observe and interact with the shared version of the virtual object (Fig. 7 shows while first user is interacting in a private copy, other user is observing and interacting of the shared version of virtual object (“[0099] As shown, a user 702 is accessing or associated with an HMD device 704, which may be communicably coupled to mobile computing device 706. Similarly, a user 708 is accessing or associated with an HMD device 710, which may be communicably coupled to an input device 712. In this example, user 702 is accessing a VR space depicting content 700A while user 708 is accessing the same VR space and viewing content 700B. [0100]….. For example, the financial application may be associated with a private mode of access. The mode may be preconfigured or user-configured by the VR application 214. If the mode is private for the financial application, user input to such applications may be deemed private and a private mode can be configured for the user 702, as indicated by icon 718. The private mode may ensure that user 708 (or other users in the same VR space) cannot visually see input, data”).
Claim 1 is directed to a method claim and its steps are similar in scope and functions of the apparatus claim 11 and therefore claim 1 is rejected with the same rationale as specified in the apparatus claim 1.
Regarding claims 3 and 13 Clement teaches wherein the modification is applied to the shared version of the virtual object in response to the first user returning to the shared virtual world (“[0060]….. In particular, system 200 can provide a user with a number of options in which to view private and public content and to interact with controllers to manipulate virtual objects and/or text entry within the VR space. [0092]……. The private content is indicated by respective icons 618A and 618B. The user 602 may select one or more icons 618A or 618B to change the privacy setting from public to private or from private to public”).
Regarding claims 4 and 14 Clement teaches wherein the modification of the shared version of the virtual object is delayed until after a determination is made that the shared version of the virtual object is not being observed by other users (“[0089] In one example, the user 502 may be entering credentials into a financial application depicted into area 500A in the VR space. The VR system 210 may determine that the credentials are associated with sensitive user data and can apply privacy settings to obfuscate from view, for other users in the VR space, the data, the user motions entering the data, and applications and files or menus accessed using the data, etc.”).
Regarding claims 5 and 15 Clement teaches perform: making a determination that the shared version of the virtual object was not altered by another user while the first user was in the private copy; and automatically applying the modification to the shared version of the virtual object in response to the first user returning to the shared virtual world (“[0094] As shown in FIG. 6A, the user 602 is accessing photographs 1-4 and the photographs are not displayed to any other users accessing the same VR space. User 604 is accessing a social circle chat privately and such content associated with the chat are not provided or displayed to any other users accessing the same VR space unless user 604 allows provision of the activity and/or content.
[0095] At some point, user 602 may wish to share content with another user accessing the same VR space. For example, user 602 may wish to share photographs 1-4 with user 604”).
Regarding claims 8 and 18 Clement teaches wherein the shared virtual world is implemented on a server hosting a plurality of users, and the private copy is implemented in a client device of the first user (“[0071] In some implementations, one or more content servers (e.g., VR system 210) and one or more computer-readable storage devices can communicate with the computing devices 204-208 using network 202 to provide VR content to the devices 204-208”).
Regarding claims 10 and 20 Clement teaches further configured to receive from the first user information indicating an extent of the portion of the shared virtual world represented in the private copy ([0087] “…..In addition, the user 502 may be accessing a financial application and entering a personal identification number on number pad 518 to access funds to continue playing the shared card game”).
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) 2, 6-7, 12 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clement in view of TILTON et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 20170326457 “Tilton”).
Regarding claims 2 and 12 is silent about perform: based at least in part on whether the shared version of the virtual object was altered by another user while the first user was in the private copy, determining whether to modify the shared version of the virtual object according to the input from the first user; and in response to the first user returning to the shared virtual world, applying the modification to the shared version of the virtual object according to the determination.
Tilton teaches perform: based at least in part on whether the shared version of the virtual object was altered for another user while the first user was in the private copy, determining whether to modify the shared version of the virtual object according to the input from the first user (“[0035] The co-presence virtual environment modification data can also include instructions for changing the appearance of the co-presence virtual environment for the other users of the co-presence virtual environment (i.e., those users whose avatars have not entered restricted space). For example, when a first user's avatar enters restricted space, the co-presence virtual environment modification data can include instructions to change the appearance of the first user's avatar. The appearance change can include, for example, making the first user's avatar, or a portion of the first user's avatar, invisible”);
Clement and Tilton are analogous art as both of them are related to processing content of virtual environment.
Therefore it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Clement by performing: based at least in part on whether the shared version of the virtual object was altered by another user while the first user was in the private copy, determining whether to modify the shared version of the virtual object according to the input from the first user similar to performing: based at least in part on whether the shared version of the virtual object was altered for another user while the first user was in the private copy, determining whether to modify the shared version of the virtual object according to the input from the first user as taught by Tilton.
The motivation for the above is to provide controllability to user to change virtual object.
Clement modified by Tilton teaches in response to the first user returning to the shared virtual world, applying the modification to the shared version of the virtual object according to the determination (Clement “[0060]….. In particular, system 200 can provide a user with a number of options in which to view private and public content and to interact with controllers to manipulate virtual objects and/or text entry within the VR space. [0092]……. The private content is indicated by respective icons 618A and 618B. The user 602 may select one or more icons 618A or 618B to change the privacy setting from public to private or from private to public”).
Regarding claims 6 and 16 Clement is silent about wherein the first user is represented by an avatar in the shared virtual world, and wherein the avatar is not visible in the shared virtual world while the first user is interacting in the private copy.
Tilton teaches first user is represented by an avatar in the shared virtual world, and wherein the avatar is not visible in the shared virtual world while the first user is interacting in the private copy (“[0035] The co-presence virtual environment modification data can also include instructions for changing the appearance of the co-presence virtual environment for the other users of the co-presence virtual environment (i.e., those users whose avatars have not entered restricted space). For example, when a first user's avatar enters restricted space, the co-presence virtual environment modification data can include instructions to change the appearance of the first user's avatar. The appearance change can include, for example, making the first user's avatar, or a portion of the first user's avatar, invisible”);
Clement and Tilton are analogous art as both of them are related to processing content of virtual environment.
Therefore it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Clement by having first user that is represented by an avatar in the shared virtual world, and wherein the avatar is not visible in the shared virtual world while the first user is interacting in the private copy as taught by Tilton.
The motivation for the above is to provide a secure area for editing virtual object.
Regarding claims 7 and 17 Clement modified by Tilton teaches wherein the avatar becomes visible in the shared virtual world in response to the first user returning to the shared virtual world (Tilton “[0069]…… Further, in the event that avatar 310 returns to its permitted space region 360, VR user device 155 may receive co-presence virtual environment modification data instructing VR user device 155 to render avatar 310 as visible”).
Claim(s) 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clement in view of Faaborg et al. 10795449 “Faaborg”).
Regarding claims 9 and 19 Clement teaches a boundary of the private copy and in response to the first user exiting the private copy, the first user is automatically returned to the shared virtual world (Fig. 6A shows boundary of private copy and first user exits private copy, first user automatically enters shared world “[0096]…. Accordingly, the system 210 can detect the gesture using tracking system 212, for example, and can change a privacy setting associated with the computing device 610 (or associated with user 602 or associated with a particular VR space) from private to public. Such a change may trigger display of the screen content from device 610 in the VR space. The display of such content may be provided to any or all other users accessing the same VR space) but doesn’t do so in response to the first user exiting a boundary of the private copy;
Faaborg teaches in response to first user exiting a boundary of private copy, the first user is automatically returned to shared virtual world (Col 7 lines 10-19 “For example, in FIG. 4A, the private window 302 has be pushed beyond a pre-determined distance 402 (see FIG. 4A) to trigger changing of the window 302 to the shared window 304. The distance 402 can represent a private or unshared space boundary, e.g., arms reach. Such a boundary 402 could be satisfied with the original gesture 308 or continued motion of the window 302”.
Col 7 lines 56-60 “As shown in FIG. 5, another example gesture in the form of a swiping gesture 504 of an element 506 of a private window 508 across the private window 508 is used to signal that the element 506 be made into a shared element 510. The shared element 510 may be implemented as a separate window, or may be incorporated by another into one of their windows”);
Clement and Faaborg are analogous art as both of them are related to processing content of virtual environment.
Therefore it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Clement by having in response to first user exiting a boundary of private copy, the first user is automatically returned to shared virtual world as taught by Faaborg.
The motivation for the above is to provide the user chance to play, interact or view with shared element.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 07/27/2028 with respect to double patenting rejection have been fully considered and persuasive as applicant filed terminal disclaimer.. Therefore the rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed on 07/27/2028 with respect to112(b) have been fully considered and persuasive. Therefore the rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed on 07/27/2028 with respect to rejection under 35 USC 102(a)(2) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Therefore the rejection has been maintained.
Applicant argues see remarks page 5 “Specifically, claims 1 and 11 as presented herein recite that, "while the first user is interacting in the private copy, other users are able to observe and interact with the shared version of the virtual object." No such feature is disclosed in Clement. The rejection of original claims 1 and 11 relied on Clement's disclosure of a virtual object that itself is transferred "from public to private." See OA at 9 (quoting Clement par. [0009]), see also id. pars. [0010], [0088], [0092], [0126]. That is, Clement does not create a "private copy of the virtual object," as recited in the claims; instead, in Clement, there is a single version of the virtual object, and it is only the properties of the object that are changed. Thus, in Clement, there is not both a "private copy of the virtual object" and also a "shared version" with which other users are able to interact "while the first user is interacting in the private copy." Accordingly, claims 1 and 11, and their dependent claims, are believed to be patentably distinguishable over the disclosure of Clement”.
Examiner wants to note that Clement creates private copy of the virtual object. Fig. 7 shows a shared window having card game and private window also having card game with other information for first user. So there are two separate copy of virtual objects one in shared window and another in private window. Second user is interacting in the shared window while first user is interacting in private window.
See Clement “[0049] The private mode may block display from users other than the single user viewing, modifying, or interacting with content. For example, if a first user modifies, enters, or interacts with VR content in the VR space, the private mode may block, modify, or scramble display of the actual modification, entry or interaction for a second user (and/or other users) in the VR space. [0087] The user 502 may be engaged with user 508 in a card game in a shared portion of VR space 500A and respective shared portion of VR space 500B, as indicated by respective icons 514 and 516. In addition, the user 502 may be accessing a financial application and entering a personal identification number on number pad 518 to access funds to continue playing the shared card game. Although the private area indicated by icon 520 is described as associated with shared content in another portion of VR space 500A”.
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 SAPTARSHI MAZUMDER whose telephone number is (571)270-3454. The examiner can normally be reached 8 am-4 pm PST.
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, Said Broome can be reached at (571)272-2931. 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.
/SAPTARSHI MAZUMDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2612
Prosecution Insights