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 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, 8, 10-12, 16-17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blattner et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0168863) in view of Hudson et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0226648), further in view of Malamud et al. (U.S. Doc. No. 5630080).
Regarding claim 1, Blattner discloses a virtual object interaction method, the method comprising (paragraph 18, line(s) 1-4, “Implementations of any of the techniques discussed above may include a method or process, a system or apparatus, or computer software on a computer-accessible medium”; also, paragraph 67, line(s) 6-7, “The process 300 is performed by a processor executing an instant messaging communications program”): displaying, by processing circuitry (paragraph 200, “The processor displays a user interface for the instant messaging session that includes a window displaying both the sender avatar and the recipient avatar (step 1920).”), a virtual scene including a first virtual object and a second virtual object (paragraph 40, line(s) 10-14, “The instant message sender projects a sender avatar 135 in an instant messaging communications session with an instant message recipient SuperBuddyFan1, who projects a recipient avatar 115”; also, paragraph 37, line(s) 6-9, “The avatars may be displayed in a single instant messaging window, and the displayed animations may create an appearance that the avatars are interacting with one another.”); first virtual object and the second virtual object perform an interaction in the target scene based on the target interaction action (paragraph 38, line(s) 6-11, “When an instant message of "Hi" is received, an avatar representing the sender of the instant message ("sender avatar") approaches the avatar representing recipient of the instant message ("recipient avatar"). The sender avatar extends the avatar's hand (to shake hands with the recipient avatar) and says "How do you do?"”; also, paragraph 54, line(s) 11-14, “ In another example, a sender avatar 135 may be animated to show a kiss and, in response, a recipient avatar 115 may be animated to blush”; also, paragraph 54, line(s) 1-3, “An animation in one of the avatars 135 or 115 displayed on the instant messaging user interface 105 may cause an animation in the other avatar.”). Blattner does not disclose displaying an interaction action selection interface with a plurality of candidate interaction actions based on a first operation being performed on the second virtual object to drag the second virtual object to a region of the first virtual object; and displaying a target scene based on a second operation being performed on a target interaction action in the plurality of candidate interaction actions.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Hudson discloses displaying an interaction action selection interface with a plurality of candidate interaction actions (para 28, “Graphical interface 10 has a radial choice indicator 12 comprising a plurality of selectable slots 14a-f providing selectable options for responses 18a-f presented by the program.”; also, para 35, “The input response 18 into the simulated conversation is preferably selected from a remark, as illustrated in FIGS. 3 and 4, an animate action, and/or a combination of remark and an animated action.”); and displaying a target scene based on a second operation being performed on a target interaction action in the plurality of candidate interaction actions (para 72, “Once a dialog choice is made, the corresponding character voice-over line is played and associated animation is displayed (block 38).”; also, para 43, “Referring to FIGS. 2-4, optionally, when response 18 is a remark, selection of a selectable slot 14 activates a voice-over vocalization of the selected remark into the simulated conversation.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Blattner's invention of a method, performed by a processor executing an instant messaging communications program, of displaying a sender avatar and a recipient avatar together in a single instant messaging window and animating the two avatars so that they approach one another, shake hands, kiss and blush, with the features of Hudson's invention of a radial choice indicator carrying a plurality of selectable slots whose selectable options are remarks, animate actions, or combinations of the two, and which on selection plays the corresponding character line and displays the associated animation. The combination would have been obvious because Blattner leaves the user no way to pick which of its several paired avatar animations will run, tying each animation instead to a trigger buried in typed message text, while Hudson is addressed to precisely that shortfall in the same kind of on-screen character program, and states that its consistent mapping of a fixed set of slots lets the player make informed choices quickly enough to keep pace with real conversation. A person of ordinary skill wanting the user of Blattner's avatar system to choose a handshake rather than a kiss would have taken Hudson's slot interface, which already offers animate actions as its selectable options, and the predictable result is Blattner's paired avatar animation running on the action the user picked rather than on a typed trigger.
Malamud discloses based on a first operation being performed on the second virtual object (col 8, “When the source-visual element 20 is positioned over the target-visual element 22, the secondary button 14 of the mouse 10 is released to drop the source visual element (step 156 in FIG. 13).”; also, col 8, “A context menu 163, such as shown in FIG. 14, is then displayed to show the possible operations that a user may perform (step 158 in FIG. 13). The operations listed on the context menu may include operations such as "move," "copy," and "link."”; also, col 8, “The operations listed in the context menu 163 depend upon the nature of the target object and the source object.”) to drag the second virtual object to a region of the first virtual object col 7, “While keeping the button 12 depressed, the user drags the source-visual element 20 (FIG. 2) across the video display 18 until the source-visual element 20 is positioned over a target visual element 22 that is associated with the target object (step 128 in FIG. 12).”; also, col 8, “Once step 152 of FIG. 13 is performed, the source visual element 20 (FIG. 2) is dragged by movement of the mouse 10 (FIG. 1) until the source-visual element is positioned over the target visual element 22.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Blattner in view of Hudson, in which a user picks from a plurality of selectable slots to drive a paired animation of a sender avatar and a recipient avatar shown together in one window, with the features of Malamud's invention of dragging a source-visual element across the display until it is positioned over a target-visual element and, on the drop, displaying a context menu of the operations available for that particular source and target pair, from which the user chooses one that is then carried out. The combination would have been obvious because Blattner in view of Hudson leaves open how the user tells the system which two of the displayed avatars are to interact, and Malamud answers that question with a gesture that names both participants at once: the element the user picks up and the element the user lands it on. Malamud further teaches that the operations offered depend on the nature of both the source and the target object, which is what makes its menu the right place to offer Hudson's two-avatar actions, and a person of ordinary skill would have recognized that dragging one avatar onto another is a more direct way to set up a two-avatar action than selecting a name from a buddy list. The predictable result is that dragging the recipient avatar onto the sender avatar brings up the slot interface of two-person actions, and the pair then performs the one the user selects.
Regarding claim 8, Blattner as modified by Hudson and Malamud discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein Blattner further discloses the interaction action selection interface includes a text input interface (paragraph 45, line(s) 1-3, “the text of a message to be sent is specified by the sender in the message specification text box 145.”), and the method further comprises: displaying the target scene based on the second operation being performed on the target interaction action in the plurality of candidate interaction actions and text input in the text input interface (paragraph 50, line(s) 3-7, “The text entered in the message specification text box 145 is sent to the recipient when the sender activates the send button 160. When the send button 160 is activated, the instant message application searches the text of the message for animation triggers”), the text being displayed in the target scene (para 38, “When an instant message of "Hi" is received, an avatar representing the sender of the instant message ("sender avatar") approaches the avatar representing recipient of the instant message ("recipient avatar"). The sender avatar extends the avatar's hand (to shake hands with the recipient avatar) and says "How do you do?"”).
Regarding claim 10, Blattner as modified by Hudson and Malamud discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein Blattner further discloses the displaying the target scene comprises: transmitting, based on the second operation, an interaction message to a user device corresponding to the second virtual object, the interaction message including an action identifier of the target interaction action of the first virtual object and the second virtual object (paragraph 86, line(s) “An instant messaging communications session is established between the first client 602a and the second client 602b in which communications are sent through the instant messaging server host system 604 (step 606)”; also, paragraph 92, line(s) 6-11, “Because each of the first client 602a and the second client 602b have copies of the avatars corresponding to the users of the first client 602a and the second client 602b, the same animations that were played on the first client 602a as a result of executing steps 616a through 630a are played on the second client 602b.”); and displaying the target scene based on a confirmation message that is received from the user device corresponding to the second virtual object (paragraph 38, line(s) 11-13, “The recipient avatar may not be animated unless or until the recipient replies to the sender's message.”).
Regarding claim 11, Blattner as modified by Hudson and Malamud discloses the method according to claim 10, wherein Blattner further discloses the transmitting comprises: obtaining a friend list of a user corresponding to the first virtual object based on the second operation (paragraph 46, line(s) 1-4, “The instant message buddy list window 170 includes an instant message sender-selected list 175 of potential instant messaging recipients ("buddies") 180a-180g”); and transmitting, based on a user corresponding to the second virtual object in the friend list of the user corresponding to the first virtual object, the interaction message to the user device corresponding to the second virtual object (paragraph 68, line(s) 4-6, “ the sender may select the name of the recipient from a buddy list, such as the buddy list 170 from FIG. 1”; also, paragraph 39, line(s) 1-7, “The type of animation displayed for an avatar may depend on the category with which an instant messaging identity is associated in a contact list. For example, if the recipient and sender identities are grouped as co-workers, the sender and recipient avatars shake hands. On the other hand, if the recipient and sender identities are grouped as family members, the sender and recipient avatars hug.”).
Regarding claim 12, Blattner discloses a virtual object interaction apparatus, the apparatus comprising (paragraph 18, line(s) 1-4, “Implementations of any of the techniques discussed above may include a method or process, a system or apparatus, or computer software on a computer-accessible medium”; also, paragraph 67, line(s) 6-7, “The process 300 is performed by a processor executing an instant messaging communications program”): processing circuitry configured to (para 200, “The processor displays a user interface for the instant messaging session that includes a window displaying both the sender avatar and the recipient avatar (step 1920).”; also, para 67, “The process 300 is performed by a processor executing an instant messaging communications program.”): display a virtual scene includes a first virtual object and a second virtual object (paragraph 40, line(s) 10-14, “The instant message sender projects a sender avatar 135 in an instant messaging communications session with an instant message recipient SuperBuddyFan1, who projects a recipient avatar 115”; also, paragraph 37, line(s) 6-9, “The avatars may be displayed in a single instant messaging window, and the displayed animations may create an appearance that the avatars are interacting with one another.”); first virtual object and the second virtual object perform an interaction in the target scene based on the target interaction action (paragraph 38, line(s) 6-11, “When an instant message of "Hi" is received, an avatar representing the sender of the instant message ("sender avatar") approaches the avatar representing recipient of the instant message ("recipient avatar"). The sender avatar extends the avatar's hand (to shake hands with the recipient avatar) and says "How do you do?"”; also, paragraph 54, line(s) 11-14, “ In another example, a sender avatar 135 may be animated to show a kiss and, in response, a recipient avatar 115 may be animated to blush”; also, paragraph 54, line(s) 1-3, “An animation in one of the avatars 135 or 115 displayed on the instant messaging user interface 105 may cause an animation in the other avatar.”). Blattner does not disclose display an interaction action selection interface with a plurality of candidate interaction actions based on a first operation being performed on the second virtual object to drag the second virtual object to a region of the first virtual object; and display a target scene based on a second operation being performed on a target interface action in the plurality of candidate interaction actions.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Hudson discloses display an interaction action selection interface with a plurality of candidate interaction actions (para 28, “Graphical interface 10 has a radial choice indicator 12 comprising a plurality of selectable slots 14a-f providing selectable options for responses 18a-f presented by the program.”; also, para 35, “The input response 18 into the simulated conversation is preferably selected from a remark, as illustrated in FIGS. 3 and 4, an animate action, and/or a combination of remark and an animated action.”); and display a target scene based on a second operation being performed on a target interface action in the plurality of candidate interaction actions (para 72, “Once a dialog choice is made, the corresponding character voice-over line is played and associated animation is displayed (block 38).”; also, para 43, “Referring to FIGS. 2-4, optionally, when response 18 is a remark, selection of a selectable slot 14 activates a voice-over vocalization of the selected remark into the simulated conversation.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Blattner's invention of an apparatus whose processor executes an instant messaging communications program to display a sender avatar and a recipient avatar together in a single instant messaging window and to animate the two avatars so that they approach one another, shake hands, kiss and blush, with the features of Hudson's invention of a radial choice indicator carrying a plurality of selectable slots whose selectable options are remarks, animate actions, or combinations of the two, and which on selection plays the corresponding character line and displays the associated animation. The combination would have been obvious because Blattner leaves the user no way to pick which of its several paired avatar animations will run, tying each animation instead to a trigger buried in typed message text, while Hudson is addressed to precisely that shortfall in the same kind of on-screen character program, and states that its consistent mapping of a fixed set of slots lets the player make informed choices quickly enough to keep pace with real conversation. A person of ordinary skill wanting the user of Blattner's avatar apparatus to choose a handshake rather than a kiss would have taken Hudson's slot interface, which already offers animate actions as its selectable options, and the predictable result is Blattner's paired avatar animation running on the action the user picked rather than on a typed trigger.
Malamud discloses based on a first operation being performed on the second virtual object (col 8, “When the source-visual element 20 is positioned over the target-visual element 22, the secondary button 14 of the mouse 10 is released to drop the source visual element (step 156 in FIG. 13). “; also, col 8, “A context menu 163, such as shown in FIG. 14, is then displayed to show the possible operations that a user may perform (step 158 in FIG. 13). The operations listed on the context menu may include operations such as "move," "copy," and "link." “; also, col 8, “The operations listed in the context menu 163 depend upon the nature of the target object and the source object.”) to drag the second virtual object to a region of the first virtual object (col 7, “While keeping the button 12 depressed, the user drags the source-visual element 20 (FIG. 2) across the video display 18 until the source-visual element 20 is positioned over a target visual element 22 that is associated with the target object (step 128 in FIG. 12).”; also, col 8, “Once step 152 of FIG. 13 is performed, the source visual element 20 (FIG. 2) is dragged by movement of the mouse 10 (FIG. 1) until the source-visual element is positioned over the target visual element 22.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Blattner in view of Hudson, in which a user picks from a plurality of selectable slots to drive a paired animation of a sender avatar and a recipient avatar shown together in one window, with the features of Malamud's invention of dragging a source-visual element across the display until it is positioned over a target-visual element and, on the drop, displaying a context menu of the operations available for that particular source and target pair, from which the user chooses one that is then carried out. The combination would have been obvious because Blattner in view of Hudson leaves open how the user tells the apparatus which two of the displayed avatars are to interact, and Malamud answers that question with a gesture that names both participants at once: the element the user picks up and the element the user lands it on. Malamud further teaches that the operations offered depend on the nature of both the source and the target object, which is what makes its menu the right place to offer Hudson's two-avatar actions, and a person of ordinary skill would have recognized that dragging one avatar onto another is a more direct way to set up a two-avatar action than selecting a name from a buddy list. The predictable result is that dragging the recipient avatar onto the sender avatar brings up the slot interface of two-person actions, and the pair then performs the one the user selects.
Regarding claim 16, Blattner as modified by Hudson and Malamud discloses the apparatus according to claim 12, wherein Blattner further discloses the processing circuitry configured to: transmit, based on the second operation, an interaction message to a user device corresponding to the second virtual object, the interaction message including an action identifier of the target interaction action of the first virtual object and the second virtual object (paragraph 86, line(s) 1-4, “An instant messaging communications session is established between the first client 602a and the second client 602b in which communications are sent through the instant messaging server host system 604 (step 606).”; also, paragraph 92, line(s) 6-11, “Because each of the first client 602a and the second client 602b have copies of the avatars corresponding to the users of the first client 602a and the second client 602b, the same animations that were played on the first client 602a as a result of executing steps 616a through 630a are played on the second client 602b”); and display the target scene based on a confirmation message that is received from the user device corresponding to the second virtual object (paragraph 38, line(s) 11-13, “The recipient avatar may not be animated unless or until the recipient replies to the sender's message.”).
Regarding claim 17, Blattner discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (para 18, “Implementations of any of the techniques discussed above may include a method or process, a system or apparatus, or computer software on a computer-accessible medium.”), storing instructions which when executed by a processor cause the processor to perform (“para 200, “The processor displays a user interface for the instant messaging session that includes a window displaying both the sender avatar and the recipient avatar (step 1920).”; also, para 67, “The process 300 is performed by a processor executing an instant messaging communications program.”): displaying a virtual scene including a first virtual object and a second virtual object (paragraph 40, line(s) 10-14, “The instant message sender projects a sender avatar 135 in an instant messaging communications session with an instant message recipient SuperBuddyFan1, who projects a recipient avatar 115”; also, paragraph 37, line(s) 6-9, “The avatars may be displayed in a single instant messaging window, and the displayed animations may create an appearance that the avatars are interacting with one another.”); first virtual object and the second virtual object perform an interaction in the target scene based on the target interaction action (paragraph 38, line(s) 6-11, “When an instant message of "Hi" is received, an avatar representing the sender of the instant message ("sender avatar") approaches the avatar representing recipient of the instant message ("recipient avatar"). The sender avatar extends the avatar's hand (to shake hands with the recipient avatar) and says "How do you do?"”; also, paragraph 54, line(s) 11-14, “ In another example, a sender avatar 135 may be animated to show a kiss and, in response, a recipient avatar 115 may be animated to blush”; also, paragraph 54, line(s) 1-3, “An animation in one of the avatars 135 or 115 displayed on the instant messaging user interface 105 may cause an animation in the other avatar.”). Blattner does not disclose displaying an interaction action selection interface with a plurality of candidate interaction actions based on a first operation being performed on the second virtual object to drag the second virtual object to a region of the first virtual object; and displaying a target scene based on a second operation being performed on a target interaction action in the plurality of candidate interaction actions.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Hudson discloses displaying an interaction action selection interface with a plurality of candidate interaction actions (para 28, “Graphical interface 10 has a radial choice indicator 12 comprising a plurality of selectable slots 14a-f providing selectable options for responses 18a-f presented by the program.”; also, para 35, “The input response 18 into the simulated conversation is preferably selected from a remark, as illustrated in FIGS. 3 and 4, an animate action, and/or a combination of remark and an animated action.”); and displaying a target scene based on a second operation being performed on a target interaction action in the plurality of candidate interaction actions (para 72, “Once a dialog choice is made, the corresponding character voice-over line is played and associated animation is displayed (block 38).”; also, para 43, “Referring to FIGS. 2-4, optionally, when response 18 is a remark, selection of a selectable slot 14 activates a voice-over vocalization of the selected remark into the simulated conversation.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Blattner's invention of computer software on a computer-accessible medium whose processor displays a sender avatar and a recipient avatar together in a single instant messaging window and animates the two avatars so that they approach one another, shake hands, kiss and blush, with the features of Hudson's invention of a radial choice indicator carrying a plurality of selectable slots whose selectable options are remarks, animate actions, or combinations of the two, and which on selection plays the corresponding character line and displays the associated animation. The combination would have been obvious because Blattner leaves the user no way to pick which of its several paired avatar animations will run, tying each animation instead to a trigger buried in typed message text, while Hudson is addressed to precisely that shortfall in the same kind of on-screen character program, and states that its consistent mapping of a fixed set of slots lets the player make informed choices quickly enough to keep pace with real conversation. A person of ordinary skill wanting the user of Blattner's stored avatar program to choose a handshake rather than a kiss would have taken Hudson's slot interface, which already offers animate actions as its selectable options, and the predictable result is Blattner's paired avatar animation running on the action the user picked rather than on a typed trigger.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Blattner's invention of computer software on a computer-accessible medium whose processor displays a sender avatar and a recipient avatar together in a single instant messaging window and animates the two avatars so that they approach one another, shake hands, kiss and blush, with the features of Hudson's invention of a radial choice indicator carrying a plurality of selectable slots whose selectable options are remarks, animate actions, or combinations of the two, and which on selection plays the corresponding character line and displays the associated animation. The combination would have been obvious because Blattner leaves the user no way to pick which of its several paired avatar animations will run, tying each animation instead to a trigger buried in typed message text, while Hudson is addressed to precisely that shortfall in the same kind of on-screen character program, and states that its consistent mapping of a fixed set of slots lets the player make informed choices quickly enough to keep pace with real conversation. A person of ordinary skill wanting the user of Blattner's stored avatar program to choose a handshake rather than a kiss would have taken Hudson's slot interface, which already offers animate actions as its selectable options, and the predictable result is Blattner's paired avatar animation running on the action the user picked rather than on a typed trigger.
Malamud discloses based on a first operation being performed on the second virtual object (col 8, “When the source-visual element 20 is positioned over the target-visual element 22, the secondary button 14 of the mouse 10 is released to drop the source visual element (step 156 in FIG. 13).”; also, col 8, “A context menu 163, such as shown in FIG. 14, is then displayed to show the possible operations that a user may perform (step 158 in FIG. 13). The operations listed on the context menu may include operations such as "move," "copy," and "link."”; also, col 8, “The operations listed in the context menu 163 depend upon the nature of the target object and the source object.”) to drag the second virtual object to a region of the first virtual object (col 7, “While keeping the button 12 depressed, the user drags the source-visual element 20 (FIG. 2) across the video display 18 until the source-visual element 20 is positioned over a target visual element 22 that is associated with the target object (step 128 in FIG. 12).”; also, col 8, “Once step 152 of FIG. 13 is performed, the source visual element 20 (FIG. 2) is dragged by movement of the mouse 10 (FIG. 1) until the source-visual element is positioned over the target visual element 22.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Blattner in view of Hudson, in which a user picks from a plurality of selectable slots to drive a paired animation of a sender avatar and a recipient avatar shown together in one window, with the features of Malamud's invention of dragging a source-visual element across the display until it is positioned over a target-visual element and, on the drop, displaying a context menu of the operations available for that particular source and target pair, from which the user chooses one that is then carried out. The combination would have been obvious because Blattner in view of Hudson leaves open how the user tells the stored program which two of the displayed avatars are to interact, and Malamud answers that question with a gesture that names both participants at once: the element the user picks up and the element the user lands it on. Malamud further teaches that the operations offered depend on the nature of both the source and the target object, which is what makes its menu the right place to offer Hudson's two-avatar actions, and a person of ordinary skill would have recognized that dragging one avatar onto another is a more direct way to set up a two-avatar action than selecting a name from a buddy list. The predictable result is that dragging the recipient avatar onto the sender avatar brings up the slot interface of two-person actions, and the pair then performs the one the user selects.
Regarding claim 20, Blattner as modified by Hudson and Malamud discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 17, wherein Blattner further discloses the instructions when executed by the processor further cause the processor to perform: transmitting, based on the second operation, an interaction message to a user device corresponding to the second virtual object, the interaction message including an action identifier of the target interaction action of the first virtual object and the second virtual object (paragraph 86, line(s) 1-4, “An instant messaging communications session is established between the first client 602a and the second client 602b in which communications are sent through the instant messaging server host system 604 (step 606)”; also, paragraph 92, line(s) 6-11, “Because each of the first client 602a and the second client 602b have copies of the avatars corresponding to the users of the first client 602a and the second client 602b, the same animations that were played on the first client 602a as a result of executing steps 616a through 630a are played on the second client 602b”); and displaying the target scene based on a confirmation message that is received from the user device corresponding to the second virtual object (paragraph 38, line(s) 11-13, “The recipient avatar may not be animated unless or until the recipient replies to the sender's message”).
Claim(s) 2-7, 9, 13-15, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blattner et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0168863) as modified by Hudson et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0226648) and Malamud et al. (U.S. Doc. No. 5630080) as applied to claim 1, 12, and 17 above, and further in view of Allen et al. (U.S. Doc. No. 10071314).
Regarding claim 2, Blattner as modified by Hudson and Malamud discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the displaying the interaction action selection interface comprises: displaying the interaction action selection interface when a range bounding box of the second virtual object intersects with a range bounding box of the first virtual object, wherein the range bounding box of the second virtual object indicates an area covering the second virtual object according to the first operation.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Allen discloses displaying the interaction action selection interface comprises: displaying the interaction action selection interface when a range bounding box of the second virtual object intersects with a range bounding box of the first virtual object (col 11, “Wedges may be projected from a key character in an interaction scenario and candidates may be assigned slots based on which wedge they fall within and, in the case of multiple candidates for the same slot, based on additional content creator driven scoring (e.g., game state, closest to matching angle and/or distance, etc.).”; also, col 6, “In one embodiment, game characters are identified based on their proximity to an identified player in the game (e.g., a ball carrier).”), wherein the range bounding box of the second virtual object is configured for indicating an area covering the second virtual object according to the first operation (col 11, “A wedge may be defined by an angle tolerance (e.g., minimum and maximum) and a distance tolerance (e.g., minimum and maximum).”; also, col 4, “Additionally, assignment unit 204 may take into account physical filters, which may dictate physical relationships between the candidates in order for them to be slotted (e.g., Tackler 1 should be in front of the Ball Carrier with a 20 degree tolerance, Tackler 2 at 45 degrees with a 20 degree tolerance, etc.).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Blattner in view of Hudson and Malamud, in which dragging one avatar onto another brings up a plurality of selectable slots that drive a paired avatar animation, with the features of Allen's invention of projecting a bounded region defined by an angle tolerance and a distance tolerance from one game character and assigning other characters to interaction slots according to which region they fall within. The combination would have been obvious because Malamud decides whether a drop counts by asking only whether the dragged element is positioned over the target element, which is a bare screen-position test, and Allen supplies the machinery a game engine already uses to decide when two characters are close enough to be staged into a joint animation. A person of ordinary skill building the drag gesture into Blattner's animated avatar scene would have looked to how that art already qualifies pairs of characters for a shared animation, and Allen's regions are sized by tolerances rather than by exact coincidence, which is what makes them workable for a hand-dragged avatar that will rarely land exactly on its target. The predictable result is that the slot interface appears once the dragged avatar's region and the stationary avatar's region overlap rather than only on an exact hit.
Regarding claim 3, Blattner as modified by Hudson, Malamud and Allen discloses the method according to claim 2, wherein displaying the interaction action selection interface comprises: displaying prompt information when the range bounding box of the second virtual object intersects with the range bounding box of the first virtual object, the prompt information being configured to indicate that the first operation performed on the second virtual object is to be stopped; and displaying the interaction action selection interface in response to the first operation performed on the second virtual object being stopped.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Allen discloses wherein the displaying the interaction action selection interface comprises: displaying prompt information when the range bounding box of the second virtual object intersects with the range bounding box of the first virtual object (col 11, “Wedges may be projected from a key character in an interaction scenario and candidates may be assigned slots based on which wedge they fall within and, in the case of multiple candidates for the same slot, based on additional content creator driven scoring (e.g., game state, closest to matching angle and/or distance, etc.).”; also, col 6, “In one embodiment, game characters are identified based on their proximity to an identified player in the game (e.g., a ball carrier).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Blattner in view of Hudson and Malamud, in which dragging one avatar onto another brings up a plurality of selectable slots that drive a paired avatar animation, with the features of Allen's invention of projecting a bounded region defined by an angle tolerance and a distance tolerance from one game character and testing which other characters fall within it. The combination would have been obvious because a drag has to have a moment at which the system treats the two avatars as paired, and Malamud fixes that moment only by asking whether one element sits over the other, which a hand-dragged avatar will rarely satisfy exactly, while Allen supplies the tolerance-sized region that game art already uses to qualify two characters for a joint animation. The predictable result is that the two avatars are treated as paired once the dragged avatar's region and the stationary avatar's region overlap.
Hudson discloses the prompt information being configured to indicate that the first operation performed on the second virtual object is to be stopped (para 46, “Optionally, highlighting selectable slot 14 before it is selected during playing of a videogame initiates animated movements of the corresponding videogame character”; also, para 40, “In a particular embodiment of the invention, paraphrases appear in the slots while the associated full text appears at another location of the graphical interface, for example at the center of a radial interface.”); and displaying the interaction action selection interface in response to the first operation performed on the second virtual object being stopped (para 45, “It has been found from experience that graphic interface 10 is more easily used when selectable slot 14 is initially highlighted before selection, as illustrated in FIGS. 1 through 4.”; also, para 30, “Through repeated use a user quickly becomes familiar with a position of a particular slot 14 corresponding to a class of response 18.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Blattner in view of Hudson and Malamud and Allen, in which the two avatars are treated as paired once the dragged avatar's region and the stationary avatar's region overlap, with the features of Hudson's invention of showing the user a visual cue on a slot before that slot is committed, the cue carrying a paraphrase in the slot and the full text elsewhere on the interface and setting the corresponding character moving. The combination would have been obvious because the overlap condition is invisible to the user, so a drag gesture gives the user no way of knowing when the system has treated the drop as valid, and Hudson is already in the combination for the purpose of telling the user what a choice will do before the user makes it. A person of ordinary skill would have applied that same pre-commitment cue to the moment the overlap condition is met, and the predictable result is that the user sees a cue telling them the drop will now take, releases, and gets the slot interface.
Regarding claim 4, Blattner as modified by Hudson, Malamud and Allen discloses the method according to claim 2, wherein the displaying the interaction action selection interface comprises: displaying, at a target position of the first virtual object, a target object when the range bounding box of the second virtual object intersects with the range bounding box of the first virtual object, the target object indicating that the first operation performed on the second virtual object is to be stopped; and displaying of the interaction action selection interface in response to the first operation performed on the second virtual object being stopped.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Allen discloses displaying the interaction action selection interface comprises: displaying, at a target position of the first virtual object, a target object when the range bounding box of the second virtual object intersects with the range bounding box of the first virtual object (Allen: col 11, “Wedges may be projected from a key character in an interaction scenario and candidates may be assigned slots based on which wedge they fall within and, in the case of multiple candidates for the same slot, based on additional content creator driven scoring (e.g., game state, closest to matching angle and/or distance, etc.).”; also, col 4, “Additionally, assignment unit 204 may take into account physical filters, which may dictate physical relationships between the candidates in order for them to be slotted (e.g., Tackler 1 should be in front of the Ball Carrier with a 20 degree tolerance, Tackler 2 at 45 degrees with a 20 degree tolerance, etc.).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Blattner in view of Hudson and Malamud, in which dragging one avatar onto another brings up a plurality of selectable slots that drive a paired avatar animation, with the features of Allen's invention of projecting a bounded region from one game character, anchored on that character's own position and shaped by angle and distance tolerances measured from it, and testing which other characters fall within it. The combination would have been obvious because a drag has to have a moment at which the system treats the two avatars as paired, and Allen supplies the tolerance-sized region that game art already uses to qualify two characters for a joint animation, drawn around the stationary character and therefore anchored at a position on screen. The predictable result is that the two avatars are treated as paired once the dragged avatar's region and the stationary avatar's region overlap, at a position fixed on the stationary avatar.
Hudson discloses the target object indicating that the first operation performed on the second virtual object is to be stopped (paragraph 46, line(s) 1-3, “highlighting selectable slot 14 before it is selected during playing of a videogame initiates animated movements of the corresponding videogame character.”; also, para 40, “In a particular embodiment of the invention, paraphrases appear in the slots while the associated full text appears at another location of the graphical interface, for example at the center of a radial interface.”); and displaying of the interaction action selection interface in response to the first operation performed on the second virtual object being stopped (paragraph 45, “It has been found from experience that graphic interface 10 is more easily used when selectable slot 14 is initially highlighted before selection, as illustrated in FIGS. 1 through 4.”; also, para 30, “Through repeated use a user quickly becomes familiar with a position of a particular slot 14 corresponding to a class of response 18.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Blattner in view of Hudson and Malamud and Allen, in which the two avatars are treated as paired once the dragged avatar's region and the stationary avatar's region overlap, with the features of Hudson's invention of showing the user a visual cue on a slot before that slot is committed, the cue carrying a paraphrase in the slot and the full text elsewhere on the interface and setting the corresponding character moving. The combination would have been obvious because the overlap condition is invisible to the user, so a drag gesture gives the user no way of knowing when the system has treated the drop as valid, and Hudson is already in the combination for the purpose of telling the user what a choice will do before the user makes it. A person of ordinary skill would have applied that same pre-commitment cue to the moment the overlap condition is met, and the predictable result is that the user sees a cue telling them the drop will now take, releases, and gets the slot interface.
Regarding claim 5, Blattner as modified by Hudson, Malamud and Allen discloses the method according to claim 2, first operation is a drag operation; and the method further comprises: determining, based on the drag operation being performed on the second virtual object, a center position of the dragged second virtual object; determining a reference area by using the dragged second virtual object as a center; and using the reference area as the range bounding box of the dragged second virtual object.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Malamud discloses wherein the first operation is a drag operation (col 7, “While keeping the button 12 depressed, the user drags the source-visual element 20 (FIG. 2) across the video display 18 until the source-visual element 20 is positioned over a target visual element 22 that is associated with the target object (step 128 in FIG. 12).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Blattner in view of Hudson, in which a user picks from a plurality of selectable slots to drive a paired animation of a sender avatar and a recipient avatar shown together in one window, with the features of Malamud's invention of a gesture in which the user holds a button down, moves a source-visual element across the display, and releases it over a target-visual element. The combination would have been obvious because an operation directed at one of two avatars has to be carried out by some concrete input gesture, and Malamud supplies the one that expresses taking hold of a displayed thing and putting it somewhere, which is the gesture that identifies both avatars at once. The predictable result is that the operation on the recipient avatar is a press, a move, and a release rather than a tap.
Allen discloses the method further comprises: determining, based on the drag operation being performed on the second virtual object, a center position of the dragged second virtual object (col 6, “In one embodiment, game characters are identified based on their proximity to an identified player in the game (e.g., a ball carrier).”); determining a reference area by using the dragged second virtual object as a center (col 11, “Wedges may be projected from a key character in an interaction scenario and candidates may be assigned slots based on which wedge they fall within and, in the case of multiple candidates for the same slot, based on additional content creator driven scoring (e.g., game state, closest to matching angle and/or distance, etc.).”); and using the reference area as the range bounding box of the dragged second virtual object (col 11, “A wedge may be defined by an angle tolerance (e.g., minimum and maximum) and a distance tolerance (e.g., minimum and maximum).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Blattner in view of Hudson and Malamud, in which the user drags one avatar onto another to bring up a plurality of selectable slots that drive a paired avatar animation, with the features of Allen's invention of taking one character's own position as the origin, projecting from it a region bounded by an angle tolerance and a distance tolerance, and testing which other characters fall within that region. The combination would have been obvious because a dragged avatar has no fixed position to test against, so its qualifying region has to be recomputed from wherever the avatar currently sits, and Allen's construction is anchored on a character's own position for exactly that reason. The predictable result is that the region travels with the dragged avatar as the user moves it.
Regarding claim 6, Blattner as modified by Hudson, Malamud and Allen discloses the method according to claim 5, wherein Blattner further comprising: canceling display of an action identifier of an action currently performed by the first virtual object in the virtual scene (paragraph76, line(s) 11-14, “When the processor detects that the sender is no longer idle, such as by receiving an input from the sender, the processor may immediately stop playing the animation event”; also, paragraph 79, line(s) 1-4, “The process of identifying and playing types of animations during a sent instant message (steps 310-335) is performed for every instant message that is sent and for every instant message that is received”), range bounding box of the dragged second virtual object intersects with the range bounding box of the first virtual object.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Allen further discloses when the range bounding box of the dragged second virtual object intersects with the range bounding box of the first virtual object (col 11, “Wedges may be projected from a key character in an interaction scenario and candidates may be assigned slots based on which wedge they fall within and, in the case of multiple candidates for the same slot, based on additional content creator driven scoring (e.g., game state, closest to matching angle and/or distance, etc.).”; also, col 6, “In one embodiment, game characters are identified based on their proximity to an identified player in the game (e.g., a ball carrier).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Blattner in view of Hudson and Malamud, in which a running avatar animation is stopped when the processor receives new input from the user, with the features of Allen's invention of projecting a bounded region from one game character and testing which other characters fall within it. The combination would have been obvious because Blattner stops an animation on a generic new input and gives no rule for which input, while Allen supplies a specific, spatially meaningful moment in the same field of staging characters into a joint animation. A person of ordinary skill would have taken the moment at which the two characters qualify for a joint animation as the moment to clear whatever solo animation the stationary character was running, since the two cannot be displayed at once. The predictable result is that the stationary avatar's current action indicator clears as the dragged avatar arrives.
Regarding claim 7, Blattner as modified by Hudson, Malamud and Allen discloses the method according to claim 5, wherein Blattner further comprising: canceling display of an action identifier of an action currently performed by the second virtual object in response to a third operation being performed on the second virtual object (para 76, “When the processor detects that the sender is no longer idle, such as by receiving an input from the sender, the processor may immediately stop playing the animation event (not shown).”); or canceling display of action identifiers of actions currently performed by a plurality of candidate virtual objects in response to the third operation being performed on the second virtual object (paragraph 76, line(s) 11-14, “When the processor detects that the sender is no longer idle, such as by receiving an input from the sender, the processor may immediately stop playing the animation event”; also, paragraph 79, line(s) 1-4, “The process of identifying and playing types of animations during a sent instant message (steps 310-335) is performed for every instant message that is sent and for every instant message that is received by the processor”; also, paragraph 54, line(s) 1-3, “An animation in one of the avatars 135 or 115 displayed on the instant messaging user interface 105 may cause an animation in the other avatar”).
Regarding claim 9, Blattner as modified by Hudson and Malamud discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the displaying the target scene comprises: generating a request for obtaining action data based on the second operation, the request including an action identifier of the target interaction action, an object identifier of the second virtual object, and an object identifier of the first virtual object (Blattner: paragraph 70, line(s) 4-6, “The processor compares the text of the message to multiple animation triggers that are associated with the avatar projected by the sender (step 320)”; also, paragraph 86, line(s) 1-3, “An instant messaging communications session is established between the first client 602a and the second client 602b in which communications are sent through the instant messaging server host system 604 (step 606).”); transmitting the request to a server to obtain the action data for the first virtual object and the second virtual object to perform interaction based on the target interaction action (Blattner: paragraph 85, line(s) 7-9, “The communications between the clients 602a and 602b are facilitated by an instant messaging host system 604”); processing the action data returned by the server based on the request (Blattner: paragraph 92, line(s) 6-12, “Because each of the first client 602a and the second client 602b have copies of the avatars corresponding to the users of the first client 602a and the second client 602b, the same animations that were played on the first client 602a as a result of executing steps 616a through 630a are played on the second client 602b as a result of executing the similar steps 616b through 630b.”); target scene when the processing of the action data is completed.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Allen discloses displaying the target scene when the processing of the action data is completed (col 7, “processing logic provides the identified game characters, the corresponding assigned animation roles, and the selected interaction scenario for display in the game”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Blattner in view of Hudson and Malamud, in which a client asks a host system for the data that drives a paired avatar animation and then plays that animation, with the features of Allen's invention of a processing block that, having identified the characters and settled which interaction scenario applies, hands the characters, their assigned roles, and the chosen scenario onward for display. The combination would have been obvious because Blattner says what is fetched and what is played but not at what point the display happens, and Allen sequences that step expressly as the last block after the selection work is done. The predictable result is that the paired avatar scene is put on screen once the fetched action data has been resolved rather than while it is still being assembled.
Regarding claim 13, Blattner as modified by Hudson and Malamud discloses the apparatus according to claim 12, wherein processing circuitry is configured to: display the interaction action selection interface when a range bounding box of the second virtual object intersects with a range bounding box of the first virtual object, wherein the range bounding box of the second virtual object indicates an area covering the second virtual object according to the first operation.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Allen discloses the processing circuitry is configured to: display the interaction action selection interface when a range bounding box of the second virtual object intersects with a range bounding box of the first virtual object (col 11, “Wedges may be projected from a key character in an interaction scenario and candidates may be assigned slots based on which wedge they fall within and, in the case of multiple candidates for the same slot, based on additional content creator driven scoring (e.g., game state, closest to matching angle and/or distance, etc.).”; also, col 6, “In one embodiment, game characters are identified based on their proximity to an identified player in the game (e.g., a ball carrier).”), wherein the range bounding box of the second virtual object indicates an area covering the second virtual object according to the first operation (col 11, “A wedge may be defined by an angle tolerance (e.g., minimum and maximum) and a distance tolerance (e.g., minimum and maximum).”; also, col 4, “Additionally, assignment unit 204 may take into account physical filters, which may dictate physical relationships between the candidates in order for them to be slotted (e.g., Tackler 1 should be in front of the Ball Carrier with a 20 degree tolerance, Tackler 2 at 45 degrees with a 20 degree tolerance, etc.).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Blattner in view of Hudson and Malamud, in which dragging one avatar onto another brings up a plurality of selectable slots that drive a paired avatar animation, with the features of Allen's invention of projecting a bounded region defined by an angle tolerance and a distance tolerance from one game character and assigning other characters to interaction slots according to which region they fall within. The combination would have been obvious because Malamud decides whether a drop counts by asking only whether the dragged element is positioned over the target element, which is a bare screen-position test, and Allen supplies the machinery a game engine already uses to decide when two characters are close enough to be staged into a joint animation. A person of ordinary skill building the drag gesture into Blattner's animated avatar apparatus would have looked to how that art already qualifies pairs of characters for a shared animation, and Allen's regions are sized by tolerances rather than by exact coincidence, which is what makes them workable for a hand-dragged avatar that will rarely land exactly on its target. The predictable result is that the slot interface appears once the dragged avatar's region and the stationary avatar's region overlap rather than only on an exact hit.
Regarding claim 14, Blattner as modified by Hudson, Malamud and Allen discloses the apparatus according to claim 13, wherein the processing circuitry configured to: display prompt information when the range bounding box of the second virtual object intersects with the range bounding box of the first virtual object, the prompt information is configured to indicate that the first operation performed on the second virtual object is to be stopped; and display the interaction action selection interface in response to the first operation performed on the second virtual object being stopped.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Allen further discloses display prompt information when the range bounding box of the second virtual object intersects with the range bounding box of the first virtual object (col 11, “Wedges may be projected from a key character in an interaction scenario and candidates may be assigned slots based on which wedge they fall within and, in the case of multiple candidates for the same slot, based on additional content creator driven scoring (e.g., game state, closest to matching angle and/or distance, etc.).”; also, col 6, “In one embodiment, game characters are identified based on their proximity to an identified player in the game (e.g., a ball carrier).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Blattner in view of Hudson and Malamud, in which dragging one avatar onto another brings up a plurality of selectable slots that drive a paired avatar animation, with the features of Allen's invention of projecting a bounded region defined by an angle tolerance and a distance tolerance from one game character and testing which other characters fall within it. The combination would have been obvious because a drag has to have a moment at which the apparatus treats the two avatars as paired, and Malamud fixes that moment only by asking whether one element sits over the other, which a hand-dragged avatar will rarely satisfy exactly, while Allen supplies the tolerance-sized region that game art already uses to qualify two characters for a joint animation. The predictable result is that the two avatars are treated as paired once the dragged avatar's region and the stationary avatar's region overlap.
Hudson discloses the prompt information is configured to indicate that the first operation performed on the second virtual object is to be stopped (para 46, “Optionally, highlighting selectable slot 14 before it is selected during playing of a videogame initiates animated movements of the corresponding videogame character.”; also, para 40, “In a particular embodiment of the invention, paraphrases appear in the slots while the associated full text appears at another location of the graphical interface, for example at the center of a radial interface.”); and display the interaction action selection interface in response to the first operation performed on the second virtual object being stopped (para 45, “It has been found from experience that graphic interface 10 is more easily used when selectable slot 14 is initially highlighted before selection, as illustrated in FIGS. 1 through 4.”; also, para 30, “Through repeated use a user quickly becomes familiar with a position of a particular slot 14 corresponding to a class of response 18.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Blattner in view of Hudson and Malamud and Allen, in which the two avatars are treated as paired once the dragged avatar's region and the stationary avatar's region overlap, with the features of Hudson's invention of showing the user a visual cue on a slot before that slot is committed, the cue carrying a paraphrase in the slot and the full text elsewhere on the interface and setting the corresponding character moving. The combination would have been obvious because the overlap condition is invisible to the user, so a drag gesture gives the user no way of knowing when the apparatus has treated the drop as valid, and Hudson is already in the combination for the purpose of telling the user what a choice will do before the user makes it. A person of ordinary skill would have applied that same pre-commitment cue to the moment the overlap condition is met, and the predictable result is that the user sees a cue telling them the drop will now take, releases, and gets the slot interface.
Regarding claim 15, Blattner as modified by Hudson and Malamud discloses the apparatus according to claim 12, wherein Blattner further discloses the processing circuitry configured to: generate a request for obtaining action data based on the second operation, the request including an action identifier of the target interaction action, an object identifier of the second virtual object, and an object identifier of the first virtual object (paragraph 70, line(s) 4-6, “The processor compares the text of the message to multiple animation triggers that are associated with the avatar projected by the sender (step 320).”; also, paragraph 86, line(s) 1-4, “An instant messaging communications session is established between the first client 602a and the second client 602b in which communications are sent through the instant messaging server host system 604 (step 606).”); transmit the request to a server to obtain the action data for the first virtual object and the second virtual object perform interaction based on the target interaction action (paragraph 85, line(s) 1-4, “The communications between the clients 602a and 602b are facilitated by an instant messaging host system 604”); process the action data returned by the server based on the request (paragraph 92, line(s) 6-12, “Because each of the first client 602a and the second client 602b have copies of the avatars corresponding to the users of the first client 602a and the second client 602b, the same animations that were played on the first client 602a as a result of executing steps 616a through 630a are played on the second client 602b as a result of executing the similar steps 616b through 630b.”); target scene when the process of the action data is completed.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Allen discloses display the target scene when the process of the action data is completed (col 7, “processing logic provides the identified game characters, the corresponding assigned animation roles, and the selected interaction scenario for display in the game”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Blattner in view of Hudson and Malamud, in which a client asks a host system for the data that drives a paired avatar animation and then plays that animation, with the features of Allen's invention of a processing block that, having identified the characters and settled which interaction scenario applies, hands the characters, their assigned roles, and the chosen scenario onward for display. The combination would have been obvious because Blattner says what is fetched and what is played but not at what point the display happens, and Allen sequences that step expressly as the last block after the selection work is done. The predictable result is that the paired avatar scene is put on screen once the fetched action data has been resolved rather than while it is still being assembled.
Regarding claim 18, Blattner as modified by Hudson discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 17, wherein the instructions when executed by the processor further cause the processor to perform: interaction action selection interface when a range bounding box of the second virtual object intersects with a range bounding box of the first virtual object, wherein the range bounding box of the second virtual object is configured for indicating an area covering the second virtual object according to the first operation.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Allen discloses displaying the interaction action selection interface when a range bounding box of the second virtual object intersects with a range bounding box of the first virtual object (col 11, “Wedges may be projected from a key character in an interaction scenario and candidates may be assigned slots based on which wedge they fall within and, in the case of multiple candidates for the same slot, based on additional content creator driven scoring (e.g., game state, closest to matching angle and/or distance, etc.).”; also, col 6, “In one embodiment, game characters are identified based on their proximity to an identified player in the game (e.g., a ball carrier).”), wherein the range bounding box of the second virtual object is configured for indicating an area covering the second virtual object according to the first operation (col 11, “A wedge may be defined by an angle tolerance (e.g., minimum and maximum) and a distance tolerance (e.g., minimum and maximum).”; also, col 4, “Additionally, assignment unit 204 may take into account physical filters, which may dictate physical relationships between the candidates in order for them to be slotted (e.g., Tackler 1 should be in front of the Ball Carrier with a 20 degree tolerance, Tackler 2 at 45 degrees with a 20 degree tolerance, etc.).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Blattner in view of Hudson and Malamud, in which dragging one avatar onto another brings up a plurality of selectable slots that drive a paired avatar animation, with the features of Allen's invention of projecting a bounded region defined by an angle tolerance and a distance tolerance from one game character and assigning other characters to interaction slots according to which region they fall within. The combination would have been obvious because Malamud decides whether a drop counts by asking only whether the dragged element is positioned over the target element, which is a bare screen-position test, and Allen supplies the machinery a game engine already uses to decide when two characters are close enough to be staged into a joint animation. A person of ordinary skill building the drag gesture into Blattner's stored avatar program would have looked to how that art already qualifies pairs of characters for a shared animation, and Allen's regions are sized by tolerances rather than by exact coincidence, which is what makes them workable for a hand-dragged avatar that will rarely land exactly on its target. The predictable result is that the slot interface appears once the dragged avatar's region and the stationary avatar's region overlap rather than only on an exact hit.
Regarding claim 19, Blattner as modified by Hudson and Malamud discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 17, wherein Blattner further discloses the instructions when executed by the processor further cause the processor to perform: generating a request for obtaining action data based on the second operation, the request including an action identifier of the target interaction action, an object identifier of the second virtual object, and an object identifier of the first virtual object (paragraph 70, line(s) 4-6, “The processor compares the text of the message to multiple animation triggers that are associated with the avatar projected by the sender (step 320).”; also, paragraph 86, line(s) 1-4, “An instant messaging communications session is established between the first client 602a and the second client 602b in which communications are sent through the instant messaging server host system 604 (step 606)”); transmitting the request to a server to obtain the action data for the first virtual object and the second virtual object perform interaction based on the target interaction action (paragraph 85, line(s) 7-9, “The communications between the clients 602a and 602b are facilitated by an instant messaging host system 604.”); processing the action data returned by the server based on the request (Blattner: paragraph 92, line(s) 6-12, “Because each of the first client 602a and the second client 602b have copies of the avatars corresponding to the users of the first client 602a and the second client 602b, the same animations that were played on the first client 602a as a result of executing steps 616a through 630a are played on the second client 602b as a result of executing the similar steps 616b through 630b.”); target scene when the processing of the action data is completed.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Allen discloses displaying the target scene when the processing of the action data is completed (col 7, “processing logic provides the identified game characters, the corresponding assigned animation roles, and the selected interaction scenario for display in the game”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Blattner in view of Hudson and Malamud, in which a client asks a host system for the data that drives a paired avatar animation and then plays that animation, with the features of Allen's invention of a processing block that, having identified the characters and settled which interaction scenario applies, hands the characters, their assigned roles, and the chosen scenario onward for display. The combination would have been obvious because Blattner says what is fetched and what is played but not at what point the display happens, and Allen sequences that step expressly as the last block after the selection work is done. The predictable result is that the paired avatar scene is put on screen once the fetched action data has been resolved rather than while it is still being assembled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 7 and 8 of the Applicant's Remarks, with respect to the rejection of claim 1, the Applicant argues that Blattner and Hudson fail to disclose "displaying an interaction action selection interface with a plurality of candidate interaction actions based on a first operation being performed on the second virtual object to drag the second virtual object to a region of the first virtual object," and that Claim 1 and all associated dependent claims therefore patentably define over Blattner and Hudson. This argument has been considered but is moot because it does not apply to the new combination of references being used in the current rejection. The recitation "to drag the second virtual object to a region of the first virtual object" was added by the present Amendment and was not present in the claim as examined in the Office action mailed 4/20/2026. The rejection of claim 1 set forth above relies on Malamud, not on Blattner or Hudson, for that recitation. As shown in the citations above, Malamud discloses "While keeping the button 12 depressed, the user drags the source-visual element 20 (FIG. 2) across the video display 18 until the source-visual element 20 is positioned over a target visual element 22 that is associated with the target object (step 128 in FIG. 12)," and further discloses that "A context menu 163, such as shown in FIG. 14, is then displayed to show the possible operations that a user may perform (step 158 in FIG. 13). The operations listed on the context menu may include operations such as "move," "copy," and "link."" Malamud therefore discloses an operation performed on a first displayed element that drags that element until it is positioned over a second displayed element, and the display, on that drop, of a menu carrying a plurality of candidate operations, which Malamud further states "depend upon the nature of the target object and the source object."
To the extent the Applicant intends by "a region of the first virtual object" something narrower than the area of the display that the first virtual object occupies, the Specification does not support that reading. Paragraph [0054] of the Specification states that "the range bounding box of the first virtual object is configured for indicating an area covering the first virtual object," and paragraph [0058] states that "A shape of the reference area is not limited in the embodiments of this disclosure, and the shape of the reference area may alternatively be another possible shape, for example, a triangle." The Specification therefore uses the area associated with the first virtual object to mean an area covering that object, of unrestricted shape, which is the area a dragged element occupies when it is, in the words of Malamud, "positioned over the target-visual element 22."
On page 8 of the Applicant's Remarks, with respect to the rejections of claims 12 and 17, the Applicant argues that these claims patentably define over Blattner and Hudson for reasons analogous to those stated for claim 1. This argument is not persuasive for the same reasons given above with respect to claim 1. Claims 12 and 17 recite the same limitation, "to drag the second virtual object to a region of the first virtual object," in apparatus and computer-readable-medium form, and that limitation is met by Malamud in the rejections set forth above.
On page 8 of the Applicant's Remarks, with respect to the rejections of claims 2-7, 9, 13-15, and 18-19, the Applicant argues that these claims patentably define over Blattner and Hudson for the reasons stated for claims 1, 12, and 17, from which they depend, that "the Office Action does not cite Allen for such teachings," and that the claims accordingly "patentably define over Blattner, Hudson, and Allen."
This argument has been considered but is moot because it does not apply to the new combination of references being used in the current rejection. The argument rests on the patentability of claims 1, 12, and 17 over Blattner and Hudson, and those claims are rejected above over Blattner in view of Hudson and further in view of Malamud, with Malamud supplying the limitation the Applicant identifies. Allen is not relied upon for that limitation and is not required to be. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on a combination of references. The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art.
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 replying 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 Jai Li whose telephone number is (571)272-1170. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu between 06:00-16:00 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, Xiao Wu can be reached at (571)272-7761. 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.
/JAI W LI/Junior Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2613
/XIAO M WU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2613
Prosecution Insights