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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This non-final office action is in response to the Application filed on 10/11/2024, which is a CON of PCT/CN2023/108282 Filing Date 07/20/2023, with priority to CN202211014327.5 Filing Date 08/23/2022.
Claim(s) 1-20 are pending for examination. Claim(s) 1, 15, 20 is/are independent claim(s).
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) 1, 6, 12, 13, 15, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gal; Oded et al. US Pub. No. 20230085162 (Gal) in view of Tippana; Sreevani US Pub. No. 20190204994 (Tippana).
Claim 1:
Gal teaches:
A method for displaying virtual characters in a virtual scene [abstract] (spatial rooms for chat), comprising:
displaying the virtual scene in a first application on a first terminal… [¶ 0081] (FIG. 3A is a diagram illustrating one example embodiment of a spatial chat UI depicting an individual spatial chat session);
displaying an interaction control element in the virtual scene, wherein the interaction control element indicates interaction information between the first account and a second account in an interaction scene outside the virtual scene [¶ 0090] (FIG. 3D is a diagram illustrating one example embodiment of multiple participants interacting in a spatial chat view) [¶ 0070] (a link to join an ongoing call or meeting may be provided and upon engaging with the link, a participant is routed to that call or meeting to participate, a link would be “outside the virtual scene”); and
in response to detecting a user operation on the interaction control element, adding a second virtual character corresponding to the second account to the virtual scene [¶ 0079] (host may be allowed to reposition avatars in a certain room which may be designated as a meeting room, in order to discuss something with those participants but not other participants) [¶ 0026] (option to join a particular chat room. Upon joining, the view shifts toward a spatial chat user interface).
Gal discloses a work environment which users usually login to, however Gal does not appear to explicitly disclose “logged into”.
However, the disclosure of Tippana teaches:
… , wherein a first account corresponding to a first virtual character is logged into the first application [¶ 0025-26] (provide one or more credentials (e.g., passwords) associated with those one or more message service accounts)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of spatial chat in Gal and the method of group messaging in Tippana, with a reasonable expectation of success.
The motivation for doing so would have been the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; (See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(D)).
The known technique of user credentials in Tippana could be applied to the chat dashboard in Gal. Tippana and Gal are similar devices because each disclose chat interfaces. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would improve the similar devices and resulted in an improved system, with a reasonable expectation of success, to make the interface “more intuitive and interesting” [Tippana: ¶ 0001].
Claim 6:
Gal teaches:
The method according claim 1, wherein
the interaction control element includes a message notification control element indicating existence of a message from the second account [¶ 0071, 98] (notification); and,
the method further includes displaying information related to the message, from the second account associated with the second virtual character, in the virtual scene, wherein the information includes at least one of message content, message count, and message preview [¶ 0089] (Fig. 3C, message 310 has appeared in a chat bubble adjacent to the participant's corresponding spatial avatar within the spatial chat UI.).
Claim 12:
Gal teaches:
The method according to claim 1, further comprising:
displaying an interaction animation corresponding to the second virtual character [¶ 0091] (reaction to message); and
displaying a chat interface for the first account and the second account in response to detecting an interaction operation being performed on the interaction animation [¶ 0073] (such emojis or reactions may also be sent as replies to other messages, and may appear within a threaded reply space a message in a special way e.g., animated or with some accompanying effect).
Claim 13:
The combination of Gal and Tippana disclose the limitations recited in the parent claim(s) for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the present claim would be further obvious using the same reason, rationale and/or motivation as used above, over the disclosure of Tippana, which teaches:
The method according to claim 1, further comprising:
detecting a movement control operation is performed on the first virtual character [¶ 0031, 41] (avatar movement); and
displaying a chat interface corresponding to the first account and the second account when a distance between the first virtual character and the second virtual character in the virtual scene is less than or equal to a preset distance threshold [¶ 0044] (avatar, message, virtual space; as a virtual instance of an accessing user moves closer to a sender avatar in a virtual space, additional pieces of information associated with that avatar, a sending user associated with that avatar, and/or a corresponding electronic message, may be caused to be displayed in an area associated with the sender avatar at various virtual threshold distances).
Claim(s) 2, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gal; Oded et al. US Pub. No. 20230085162 (Gal) in view of Tippana; Sreevani US Pub. No. 20190204994 (Tippana) in view of Takahashi; Ryoji et al. US Pub. No. 20180071632 (Takahashi).
Claim 2:
Gal and Tippana teach all the elements of the claims as shown above.
Gal and Tippana do not appear to explicitly disclose “three-dimensional virtual scene”.
However, the disclosure of Takahashi teaches:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the virtual scene is a three-dimensional virtual scene, and the interaction control element is a two-dimensional control element [¶ 0041, 54-55] (three-dimensional) [¶ 0188] (dragging and dropping the player character 1000H onto a desired area of the virtual space 1000A).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of spatial chat in Gal and the method of group messaging in Tippana and the method of character control in Takahashi, with a reasonable expectation of success.
The motivation for doing so would have been the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; (See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(D)).
The known technique of dropping a character in a three-dimensional space in Takahashi could be applied to the user credentials in Tippana and chat dashboard in Gal. Takahashi, Tippana and Gal are similar devices because each disclose chat interfaces. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would improve the similar devices and resulted in an improved system, with a reasonable expectation of success, for “improving the ambience” [Takahashi: ¶ 0267].
Claim(s) 3, 4, 17, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gal; Oded et al. US Pub. No. 20230085162 (Gal) in view of Tippana; Sreevani US Pub. No. 20190204994 (Tippana) in view of Pitts; Colvin et al. US Pub. No. US 20230045116 (Pitts).
Claim 3:
Gal and Tippana teach all the elements of the claims as shown above.
Takahashi also teaches: [¶ 0188] (dragging and dropping the player character 1000H onto a desired area of the virtual space 1000A).
Gal also teaches: [¶ 0064] (then drag the avatar to a desired new location within the virtual background).
Gal and Tippana do not appear to explicitly disclose “adding the second virtual character to the virtual scene in response to detecting the drag operation”.
However, the disclosure of Pitts teaches:
The method according to claim 1, wherein
the user operation is a dragging operation; and
the adding the second virtual character includes adding the second virtual character to the virtual scene in response to detecting the drag operation being performed on the interaction control element toward the virtual scene [¶ 0032, 72] (drag and drop or otherwise manipulate their respective avatar to the new location in the virtual meeting space).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of spatial chat in Gal and the method of group messaging in Tippana and the method of conferencing in Pitts, with a reasonable expectation of success.
The motivation for doing so would have been the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; (See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(D)).
The known technique of dragging avatars in Pitts could be applied to the user credentials in Tippana and the chat dashboard in Gal. Tippana and Gal are similar devices because each disclose chat interfaces. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would improve the similar devices and resulted in an improved system, with a reasonable expectation of success, to “provide a user experience that is more understandable and consistent” [Pitts: ¶ 0052].
Claim 4:
The combination of Gal, Tippana and Pitts discloses the limitations recited in the parent claim(s) for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the present claim would be further obvious using the same reason, rationale and/or motivation as used above, over the disclosure of Pitts, which teaches:
The method according to claim 3, wherein the adding the second virtual character comprises:
adding the second virtual character to the virtual scene in response to detecting the interaction control element is dragged to a designated region of the virtual scene, wherein the designated region is either visible or invisible in the virtual scene [¶ 0032, 72] (drag and drop or otherwise manipulate their respective avatar to the new location in the virtual meeting space).
Claim(s) 5, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gal; Oded et al. US Pub. No. 20230085162 (Gal) in view of Tippana; Sreevani US Pub. No. 20190204994 (Tippana) in view of Taing; Len Bou US Pat. No. 7958453 (Taing).
Claim 5:
Gal and Tippana teach all the elements of the claims as shown above.
Gal and Tippana do not appear to explicitly disclose “animating a transition”.
However, the disclosure of Taing teaches:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the interaction control element includes an avatar of the second account [Col. 16, Ln. 17-25] (user A moves towards user B by clicking-and-dragging his avatar); and
the adding the second virtual character includes animating a transition from the avatar in a designated region to the second virtual character in the virtual scene [Col. 16, Ln. 26-40] (FIG. 11. In this example, user A moves towards user B by clicking-and-dragging his avatar to the location; avatars perform an animated movement to the new location).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of spatial chat in Gal and the method of group messaging in Tippana and the method of controlling avatars in Taing, with a reasonable expectation of success.
The motivation for doing so would have been the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; (See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(D)).
The known technique of avatar animation could be applied to the user credentials in Tippana and the chat dashboard in Gal. Taing, Tippana and Gal are similar devices because each disclose chat interfaces. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would improve the similar devices and resulted in an improved system, with a reasonable expectation of success, for “each user is given full control over his interaction space” [Taing: Col. 13, Ln. 10-19].
Claim(s) 7-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gal; Oded et al. US Pub. No. 20230085162 (Gal) in view of Tippana; Sreevani US Pub. No. 20190204994 (Tippana) in view of Sawato; Hiroaki US Pub. No. US 20160021047 (Sawato).
Claim 7:
Gal and Tippana teach all the elements of the claims as shown above.
Gal and Tippana do not appear to explicitly disclose “in response to detecting a view operation”.
However, the disclosure of Sawato teaches:
The method according to claim 1, wherein
the interaction control element comprises a chat control element; and
the adding the second virtual character comprises:
adding the second virtual character in response to detecting a view operation being performed on the chat control element to view a first message from the second account [¶ 0064, 176, 301, 338, 345-346] (new member participating in a chat, an atmosphere in which the new member is also naturally added into the loop of the story is made) [¶ 0353-371] (Figs 7A-7H, avatar on a map, switch menus); or
adding the second virtual character in response to detecting a send operation being performed on the chat control element to send a second message to the second account [¶ 0162] (member icon added when sent).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of spatial chat in Gal and the method of group messaging in Tippana and the method of message exchange in Sawato, with a reasonable expectation of success.
The motivation for doing so would have been the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; (See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(D)).
The known technique of adding members to a chat in Sawato could be applied to the user credentials in Tippana and the chat dashboard in Gal. Sawato, Tippana and Gal are similar devices because each disclose chat interfaces. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would improve the similar devices and resulted in an improved system, with a reasonable expectation of success, because “convenience for the user is improved” [Sawato: ¶ 0400].
Claim 8:
The combination of Gal, Tippana and Sawato discloses the limitations recited in the parent claim(s) for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the present claim would be further obvious using the same reason, rationale and/or motivation as used above, over the disclosure of Sawato, which teaches:
The method according to claim 7, wherein
the adding the second virtual character, in response to the view operation being performed, includes adding the second virtual character in response to detecting the chat control element is closed after the view operation is performed [¶ 0064, 176, 301, 338, 345-346] (new member participating in a chat, an atmosphere in which the new member is also naturally added into the loop of the story is made); and
the adding the second virtual character, in response to the send operation being performed, includes adding the second virtual character in response to detecting the chat control element is closed after the send operation is performed [¶ 0326] (closed envelope).
Claim 9:
The combination of Gal, Tippana and Sawato discloses the limitations recited in the parent claim(s) for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the present claim would be further obvious using the same reason, rationale and/or motivation as used above, over the disclosure of Sawato, which teaches:
The method according to claim 8, wherein the adding the second virtual character in response to detecting the chat control element is closed comprises:
animating a transition from the chat control element to an avatar of the second account [¶ 0324] (animation); and
adding the second virtual character in response to detecting a user selection of the avatar [¶ 0064, 176, 301, 338, 345-346] (new member participating in a chat, an atmosphere in which the new member is also naturally added into the loop of the story is made).
Claim 10:
The combination of Gal, Tippana and Sawato discloses the limitations recited in the parent claim(s) for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the present claim would be further obvious using the same reason, rationale and/or motivation as used above, over the disclosure of Sawato, which teaches:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the adding the second virtual character comprises:
adding the second virtual character in response to detecting the user operation being performed on the interaction control element when the second account is logged into the first application and is not included in the virtual scene [¶ 0064, 176, 301, 338, 345-346] (new member participating in a chat, an atmosphere in which the new member is also naturally added into the loop of the story is made).
Claim 11:
The combination of Gal, Tippana and Sawato discloses the limitations recited in the parent claim(s) for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the present claim would be further obvious using the same reason, rationale and/or motivation as used above, over the disclosure of Sawato, which teaches:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the interaction control element indicates first interaction information for a plurality of second accounts; and
the adding the second virtual character comprises:
simultaneously adding a plurality of second virtual characters respectively corresponding to the plurality of second accounts to the virtual scene; or
successively adding the plurality of second virtual characters respectively corresponding to the plurality of second accounts to the virtual scene [¶ 0064, 176, 301, 338, 345-346] (new member participating in a chat, an atmosphere in which the new member is also naturally added into the loop of the story is made).
Claims 15-20:
Claim(s) 15, 20 is/are substantially similar to claim 1 and is/are rejected using the same prior art and the same reason, rationale and/or motivation as used above.
Claim 1 is a “method” claim, claim 15 is a “system” claim and claim 20 is a “medium” claim, but the steps or elements of each claim are essentially the same.
Claim(s) 16 is/are substantially similar to claim 2 and is/are rejected using the same prior art and the same reason, rationale and/or motivation as used above.
Claim(s) 17 is/are substantially similar to claim 3 and is/are rejected using the same prior art and the same reason, rationale and/or motivation as used above.
Claim(s) 18 is/are substantially similar to claim 4 and is/are rejected using the same prior art and the same reason, rationale and/or motivation as used above.
Claim(s) 19 is/are substantially similar to claim 5 and is/are rejected using the same prior art and the same reason, rationale and/or motivation as used above.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Please See PTO-892: Notice of References Cited.
Evidence of the level skill of an ordinary person in the art for Claim 1:
Atlas; Charlene Mary et al. US 20220005275 extended-reality lobby that comprises a digital three-dimensional space.
Gueye; Mamadou Mande US 20190303807 player can back out and view the world map therefrom dropping their avatar into a location.
Citations to Prior Art
A reference to specific paragraphs, columns, pages, or figures in a cited prior art reference is not limited to preferred embodiments or any specific examples. It is well settled that a prior art reference, in its entirety, must be considered for all that it expressly teaches and fairly suggests to one having ordinary skill in the art. Stated differently, a prior art disclosure reading on a limitation of Applicant's claim cannot be ignored on the ground that other embodiments disclosed were instead cited. Therefore, the Examiner's citation to a specific portion of a single prior art reference is not intended to exclusively dictate, but rather, to demonstrate an exemplary disclosure commensurate with the specific limitations being addressed. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968". In re: Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323,75 USPQ2d 1213,1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264,23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807,10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792,794 n.1, 215 USPQ 569, 570 n.1 (CCPA 1982); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385,1390,163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN J SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-3825. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11:00 - 7:30 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, ADAM QUELER can be reached at (571) 272-4140. 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.
/Benjamin Smith/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172 Direct Phone: 571-270-3825
Direct Fax: 571-270-4825
Email: benjamin.smith@uspto.gov
Prosecution Insights