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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Examiner cites particular columns or paragraphs, and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “operating object” in line 5, which appears to be “operation object”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-20 are objected based on their dependence from claim 1.
In addition, claims 6-8 are objected to because these claims explicitly recite “operating object” in respective lines 1, which appears to be “operation object”. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “operating object” in line 6, which appears to be “operation object”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 22-23 are objected based on their dependence from claim 21.
Claim 24 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “operating object” in line 6, which appears to be “operation object”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim recites a program stored on a computer readable medium. While the broadest reasonable interpretation of a computer readable medium typically covers forms of non-transitory computer readable medium and transitory propagating signals per se, in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of a computer readable medium, when the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal, per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter (see MPEP § 2106).
The Examiner respectfully submits that a claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in this regard by adding the limitation “non-transitory” to precede the limitation “computer readable medium”. Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even if the specification is silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable medium.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are:
The claim recites “determining a plurality of states of an operation object in relation to a target object in a virtual space”, but it is unclear what structural element determines the states, and where or how is the virtual space presented. As disclosed in the specification (Fig. 2) it seems that a processor performs the determining and the virtual space is presented on a video display. Appropriate corrections are required.
The claim recites “determining distances between the operation object and the target object in the virtual space”, but it is unclear what structural element determines the distances. As disclosed in the specification (Fig. 2) it seems that the processor performs the determining based on tracking information from a tracking device, as provided from a tracking information processing unit to the processor. Appropriate corrections are required.
The claim recites “transitioning from the third state to the first state”, but it is unclear what structural element executes the transitioning. As disclosed in the specification (Fig. 2) it seems that the processor executes the transitioning. Appropriate corrections are required.
The claim recites “generating haptic sensation signals”, but it is unclear what structural element generates the haptic sensation signals. As disclosed in the specification (Fig. 2) it seems that the processor generates the haptic sensation signals, provides these to a haptic sensation data generation unit, which generates haptic sensation data to be received by a haptic sensation data processing unit, which outputs the haptic sensation data to a haptic sensation feedback device. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claims 2-20 are rejected based on their dependence from claim 1.
In addition, regarding claim 2 introduces the limitation "the fourth state " in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 8 and 11-12 are additionally rejected based on their dependence from claim 2.
In addition, regarding claim 10, it recites the limitation “the second distance is zero or negative”. However, the meaning of negative distance is unclear, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Appropriate corrections are required. The claims will be interpreted as best understood.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-12, 16-17, 19-22 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fukuma et al. (WO 2021095493 A1), provided on the record by the applicant, Tajima et al. (US 20220374083 A1) used as translation and referenced throughout the rejection.
Regarding claim 1, Tajima discloses an information processing method (see Figs. 1 and 14-15) comprising:
determining a plurality of states of an operation object in relation to a target object in a virtual space (see Figs. 1-2 and 10-15; see s101 to S106 in Fig. 14; regarding Figs. 2 and 13, in the virtual space VS, a virtual hand VH represents a hand on which force sense presentation apparatus 2 is worn (claimed operation object), and the motion and displacement of the virtual hand VH in the virtual space VS reflect the actual motion and displacement of the hand recognized by the finger recognition device 4; accordingly, different modes of the virtual hand VH in relation to virtual object(s) VO (claimed target object) are determined, as shown in 12-13; para[0090]; para[0157]-para[0158]; para[0174]-para[0184]), the states including a first state in which the operation object takes a first action on the target object (see “the contact reproduction mode illustrated in FIG. 13C”, S106 and S109 in Fig. 14, and Fig. 15C; para[0176]; para[0183]; para[0197]), a second state in which the operating object maintains the first action on the target object, the second state occurring after the first state (see “the reaction force application mode illustrated in FIG. 13D”, S106 and S110 in Fig. 14, and Fig. 15D; para[0176]; para[0184]; para[0201]), and a third state prior to the first state (see “the preparation mode illustrated in FIG. 13B”, S105 and S108 in Fig. 14, and Fig. 15B; para[0175]; para[0182]; para[0192]);
determining distances between the operation object and the target object in the virtual space in the third state, the determined distances including a first distance and a second distance which is less than the first distance (see Figs. 12-14; “each threshold d for the separation distance D as illustrated in FIG. 12B is set in order to switch the control mode according to the separation distance D”; see in Fig. 14, “a threshold d1 is the threshold d referred to for switching between the idling mode and the preparation mode, and a threshold d2 is the threshold d referred to for switching between the preparation mode and the contact reproduction mode”, wherein “d2<d1”; para[0160]-para[0161]);
transitioning from the third state to the first state in response to determining the second distance (see Figs. 12-14; after “the CPU 11 proceeds to step S108 and performs a process of instructing the preparation mode”, “In a case where it is determined in step S111 that the processing is not ended, the CPU 11 returns to step S101”, and “in a case where it is determined in step S105 that the separation distance D is not larger than the threshold d2 (that is, the case of separation distance D ≤ threshold d2), the CPU 11 proceeds to step S106”, after which “In a case where it is determined that the separation distance D is larger than… threshold d3 (that is, the case of threshold d3<separation distance D≤threshold d2), the CPU 11 proceeds to step S109 and performs a process of instructing the contact reproduction mode”; para[0182]-para[0183]; para[0186]);
transitioning from the first state to the second state (see Figs. 12-14; after “the CPU 11 proceeds to step S109 and performs a process of instructing the contact reproduction mode”, “In a case where it is determined in step S111 that the processing is not ended, the CPU 11 returns to step S101”, and “in a case where it is determined in step S106 that the separation distance D is not larger than the threshold d3 (that is, the case of separation distance D≤threshold d3), the CPU 11 proceeds to step S110 and performs a process of instructing the reaction force application mode”; para[0183]-para[0184]; para[0186]); and
generating haptic sensation signals corresponding to each of the first state, the second state, and the third state (see Figs. 9-15; “the control unit 35 performs drive control of the motor 27 on the basis of an instruction from the control device 1”; "The CPU 11 can perform data communication with the control unit 35 of the force sense presentation apparatus 2 via the communication unit 19”; see e.g. when “the CPU 11 proceeds to step S109 and performs a process of instructing the contact reproduction mode” (claimed first state), when “the CPU 11 proceeds to step S110 and performs a process of instructing the reaction force application mode” (claimed second state), and when “the CPU 11 proceeds to step S108 and performs a process of instructing the preparation mode” (claimed third state); “In a case where the contact reproduction mode is instructed, the control unit 35 executes the process illustrated in FIG. 15C”; “In a case where the reaction force application mode is instructed, the control unit 35 executes the process illustrated in FIG. 15D”; “ in a case where the preparation mode is instructed, the control unit 35 executes the process illustrated in FIG. 15B”; para[0132]-para[0133]; para[0142]; para[0182]-para[0184]; para[0192]; para[0197]; para[0201]).
Regarding claim 2, Tajima discloses all the claim limitations as applied above (see claim 1). In addition, Tajima discloses transitioning from the second state to the fourth state (see Figs. 12-14; after “the CPU 11 proceeds to step S110 and performs a process of instructing the reaction force application mode”, “In a case where it is determined in step S111 that the processing is not ended, the CPU 11 returns to step S101”, and “When the separation distance D is larger than the threshold d1, the CPU 11 proceeds to step S107 and executes a process of instructing the idling mode” (possible claimed fourth state), or “in a case where it is determined in step S104 that the separation distance D is not larger than the threshold d1, the CPU 11 proceeds to step S105 and determines whether or not the separation distance D is larger than the threshold d2”, and “it is determined that the separation distance D is larger than the threshold d2 (that is, the case of threshold d2<separation distance D threshold d1), the CPU 11 proceeds to step S108 and performs a process of instructing the preparation mode” (also possible claimed fourth state), based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed limitations; para[0181]-para[0182]; para[0184]; para[0186]); and generating a haptic sensation signal corresponding to the fourth state (see Figs. 9-15; “the control unit 35 performs drive control of the motor 27 on the basis of an instruction from the control device 1”; "The CPU 11 can perform data communication with the control unit 35 of the force sense presentation apparatus 2 via the communication unit 19”; see e.g. when “the CPU 11 proceeds to step S107 and executes a process of instructing the idling mode” (possible claimed fourth state), or when “the CPU 11 proceeds to step S108 and performs a process of instructing the preparation mode” (also possible claimed fourth state); “in a case where the idling mode is instructed, the control unit 35 executes a process… illustrated in FIG. 15A”; “in a case where the preparation mode is instructed, the control unit 35 executes the process illustrated in FIG. 15B”; para[0132]-para[0133]; para[0142]; para[0181]-para[0182]; para[0191]-para[0192]).
Regarding claim 3, Tajima discloses all the claim limitations as applied above (see claim 1). In addition, Tajima discloses haptic sensations change at each transition between states (as shown in Figs. 11, 13 and 15, sensations vary according to each transition between “the idling mode, the preparation mode, the contact reproduction mode, and the reaction force application mode instructed from the control device 1 side”; e.g. in “An idling mode illustrated in FIG. 11A is a mode in which the drive part-side stopper 30a is positioned at a predetermined retraction position, and the wire-side stopper 29a which is displaced when the target finger is bent is prevented from coming into contact with the drive part-side stopper 30a, thereby preventing the hindrance to the free motion of the finger”; in the “preparation mode, even when the wire-side stopper 29a is displaced in conjunction with the motion of the finger, the interval between the wire-side stopper 29a and the drive part-side stopper 30a is maintained at a constant interval by the drive part-side stopper 30a being displaced following the movement of the wire-side stopper 29a”; in “A contact reproduction mode illustrated in FIG. 11C is a mode in which the drive part-side stopper 30a is brought into contact with the wire-side stopper 29a to restrict the displacement of the wire-side stopper 29a in the unwinding direction, that is, to restrict the motion of the target finger in the bending direction, thereby allowing the user to perceive a sensation of touching the object”; in “A reaction force application mode illustrated in FIG. 11D”, “it is possible to express the reaction force from the object when the touched object is further pushed in”; para[0147]-para[0156]; para[0190]).
Regarding claim 4, Tajima discloses all the claim limitations as applied above (see claim 1). In addition, Tajima discloses the operation object is a finger, a hand or a glove (see glove 20 worn on hand and finger(s) of a user as shown in Figs 3-4).
Regarding claim 5, Tajima discloses all the claim limitations as applied above (see claim 1). In addition, Tajima discloses the first action of the first state is touching the target object (see “the contact reproduction mode illustrated in FIG. 13C”, S106 and S109 in Fig. 14, and Fig. 15C; para[0176]; para[0183]; para[0197]).
Regarding claim 6, Tajima discloses all the claim limitations as applied above (see claim 1). In addition, Tajima discloses the operating object holds the target object during the second state (see “the reaction force application mode illustrated in FIG. 13D”, S106 and S110 in Fig. 14, and Fig. 15D; para[0176]; para[0184]; para[0201]).
Regarding claim 7, Tajima discloses all the claim limitations as applied above (see claim 1). In addition, Tajima discloses the operating object approaches the target object in the third state (see “the preparation mode illustrated in FIG. 13B”, S105 and S108 in Fig. 14, and Fig. 15B; para[0175]; para[0182]; para[0192]).
Regarding claim 8, Tajima discloses all the claim limitations as applied above (see claim 2). In addition, Tajima discloses the operating object releases the target object at the fourth state (see Figs. 12-14; after “the CPU 11 proceeds to step S110 and performs a process of instructing the reaction force application mode”, “In a case where it is determined in step S111 that the processing is not ended, the CPU 11 returns to step S101”, and “When the separation distance D is larger than the threshold d1, the CPU 11 proceeds to step S107 and executes a process of instructing the idling mode” (possible claimed fourth state), or “in a case where it is determined in step S104 that the separation distance D is not larger than the threshold d1, the CPU 11 proceeds to step S105 and determines whether or not the separation distance D is larger than the threshold d2”, and “it is determined that the separation distance D is larger than the threshold d2 (that is, the case of threshold d2<separation distance D threshold d1), the CPU 11 proceeds to step S108 and performs a process of instructing the preparation mode” (also possible claimed fourth state), based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed limitations; para[0181]-para[0182]; para[0184]; para[0186]).
Regarding claim 9, Tajima discloses all the claim limitations as applied above (see claim 1). In addition, Tajima discloses the third state is entered when the operation object is at a third distance which is a threshold, the third distance being equal or greater than the first distance (see Figs. 12-14; “each threshold d for the separation distance D as illustrated in FIG. 12B is set in order to switch the control mode according to the separation distance D”; see in Fig. 14, “a threshold d1 is the threshold d referred to for switching between the idling mode and the preparation mode”; para[0160]-para[0161]).
Regarding claim 10, Tajima discloses all the claim limitations as applied above (see claim 1). In addition, Tajima discloses the second distance is zero or negative (“Since the threshold d2 is the threshold d for switching to the contact reproduction mode, the threshold d2 is set to zero”, or “it is conceivable to set the threshold d2 to a value smaller than zero”; para[0163]; para[0168]).
Regarding claim 11, Tajima discloses all the claim limitations as applied above (see claim 2). In addition, Tajima discloses at least one of the third state or the fourth state is triggered by a gesture (e.g. “In the idling mode illustrated in FIG. 13A, the inter-stopper distance 9 is variable according to the motion of the target finger”, and after the motion of the target finger “the CPU 11 determines whether or not the separation distance D is larger than the threshold d1” to execute a process of instructing the idling mode or execute a process of instructing the preparation mode; accordingly, it is clear that the idling mode or the preparation mode is triggered by a motion gesture, based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed limitations; para[0125]; para[0172]-para[0175]; para[0178]-para[0182]).
Regarding claim 12, Tajima discloses all the claim limitations as applied above (see claim 11). In addition, Tajima discloses the gesture includes a finger bending (“the position of the wire-side stopper 29a changes in accordance with the rotation of the pulley 29 according to the motion (bending or stretching of the finger) of the finger as the target of the force sense presentation”; “the inter-stopper distance 9 is variable according to the motion of the target finger”, “even in a state where the target finger is bent maximally”; para[0125]; para[0172]-para[0175]; para[0178]-para[0182]).
Regarding claim 16, Tajima discloses all the claim limitations as applied above (see claim 1). In addition, Tajima discloses presenting haptic sensations of the operation object and second haptic sensations of a second operation object in opposite directions (see e.g. in “the contact reproduction mode illustrated in FIG. 13C and in the reaction force application mode illustrated in FIG. 13D”; para[0176]).
Regarding claim 17, Tajima discloses all the claim limitations as applied above (see claim 1). In addition, Tajima discloses the target object represents a real object, and the virtual space is presented to a user controlling a robot in a real space which includes the real object (see virtual objects VO in Fig. 2, corresponding to e.g. cubes having a soft tactile sensation such as a marshmallow; para[0089]-para[0091]; para[0168]).
Regarding claim 19, Tajima discloses all the claim limitations as applied above (see claim 1). In addition, Tajima discloses the operation object takes a second action, which is a different type of action than the first action (see Figs. 12-14; after “the CPU 11 proceeds to step S109 and performs a process of instructing the contact reproduction mode”, “In a case where it is determined in step S111 that the processing is not ended, the CPU 11 returns to step S101” and the virtual object VO is released e.g. “When the separation distance D is larger than the threshold d1, the CPU 11 proceeds to step S107 and executes a process of instructing the idling mode”; or “in a case where it is determined in step S104 that the separation distance D is not larger than the threshold d1, the CPU 11 proceeds to step S105”, and the virtual object VO is released e.g. when “it is determined that the separation distance D is larger than the threshold d2 (that is, the case of threshold d2<separation distance D threshold d1), the CPU 11 proceeds to step S108 and performs a process of instructing the preparation mode”; para[0181]-para[0183]; para[0186]).
Regarding claim 20, Tajima discloses all the claim limitations as applied above (see claim 1). In addition, Tajima discloses the operation object takes a second action, which is repeating the first action again (see Figs. 12-14; after “the CPU 11 proceeds to step S109 and performs a process of instructing the contact reproduction mode” (claimed first action), “In a case where it is determined in step S111 that the processing is not ended, the CPU 11 returns to step S101”; “in a case where it is determined in step S104 that the separation distance D is not larger than the threshold d1, the CPU 11 proceeds to step S105, and when “it is determined in step S105 that the separation distance D is not larger than the threshold d2 (that is, the case of separation distance D ≤ threshold d2), the CPU 11 proceeds to step S106”; “in a case where it is determined that the separation distance D is larger than the threshold d3 (that is, the case of threshold d3<separation distance D≤threshold d2), the CPU 11 proceeds to step S109 and performs a process of instructing the contact reproduction mode”, thus performing a second action which is repeating the claimed first action; para[0181]-para[0183]; para[0186]).
Regarding claim 21, it is analogous to claim 1, except it is an information processing apparatus claim comprising at least one processor (see control device 1 including CPU 11 in Figs. 1 and 10) configured to execute a method analogous to the method in claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 above
Regarding claim 22, Tajima discloses all the claim limitations as applied above (see claim 21). In addition, Tajima discloses a system (see VR system 10 in Fig. 1) comprising:
the information processing apparatus of claim 21 (see control device 1 in Figs. 1 and 10 para[0083]);
a tracking device configured to track movement of a user (see finger recognition device 4 in Fig. 1 “recognizes the position and posture of the finger of the hand of the user wearing the force sense presentation apparatus 2”; para[0083]; para[0085]);
a video display configured to display the target object and the operation object in the virtual space (see display device 3 in Fig. 1 “displays the virtual space image to the user”, including “a virtual hand VH representing the hand” and “a virtual object VO”, as shown in Fig. 2; para[0083]; para[0088]; para[0091]; para[0094]); and
a haptic device to present the haptic sensations based on the haptic sensation signal for each of the plurality of states (see force sense presentation apparatus 2 in Figs. 1, 3-9, 11 and 13, “to perform force sense presentation to the user”; para[0083]-para[0084]; para[0145]-para[0146]; para[0172]).
Regarding claim 24, it is analogous to claim 1, except it is a program stored on a computer readable medium claim, which when executed by a processor, causes the processor to execute instructions analogous to the method in claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 above.
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) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuma et al. (WO 2021095493 A1), provided on the record by the applicant, Tajima et al. (US 20220374083 A1) used as translation and referenced throughout the rejection, in view of Salter et al. (US 2014/0368534).
Regarding claim 13, Tajima discloses all the claim limitations as applied above (see claim 1). However, Tajima does not appear to expressly disclose the first distance varies based on a size of the target object.
Salter discloses a distance varies based on a size of a target object (para[0112]-para[0114]; see virtual object 1125; “ size data from the object definition, as well as any other object specific definitions are determined “, and “Size may determine an optimal distance of the object relative to the user”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings in Tajima’s invention, with the teachings in Salter’s invention, to have the first distance varies based on a size of the target object, for the advantage of determining optimal distance of the object relative to the user (para[0114]).
Claim(s) 14-15 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuma et al. (WO 2021095493 A1), provided on the record by the applicant, Tajima et al. (US 20220374083 A1) used as translation and referenced throughout the rejection, in view of Dean et al. (US 2021/0216132).
Regarding claim 14, Tajima discloses all the claim limitations as applied above (see claim 1). However, Tajima does not appear to expressly disclose a weight of the target object corresponds to a magnitude or an amount of a haptic sensation of the second state.
Dean discloses a weight of the target object corresponds to a magnitude or an amount of a haptic sensation of a second state (para[0016]; regarding Figs. 1-2, “The sensory rendering devices 122 included in the simulation system 102 can be configured to generate defined sensory inputs to simulate sensory attributes 118 of a virtual object that exists within a virtual reality environment”; “An intensity of a sensory input to be generated by a sensory rendering device can be calculated based in part on (i) a virtual distance between a virtual object and a virtual user and (ii) features of the virtual object, such as size, strength, force, weight, duration, composition, and the like”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings in Tajima’s invention, with the teachings in Dean’s invention, to have a weight of the target object corresponds to a magnitude or an amount of a haptic sensation of the second state, for the advantage of more accurately matching dynamic movement, intensity, and/or manifestation of a sensory attribute exhibited by a virtual object located in a virtual reality environment (para[0016]).
Regarding claim 15, Tajima discloses all the claim limitations as applied above (see claim 1). However, Tajima does not appear to expressly disclose when the operation object takes the first action on the target object, adding to at least one of the target object or the operation object an effect of at least one of light emission, blinking, and a color change.
Dean discloses when an operation object takes a first action on a target object, adding to at least one of the target object or the operation object an effect of at least one of light emission, blinking, and a color change (para[0016]; para[0020]; regarding Figs. 1-2, “The sensory rendering devices 122 included in the simulation system 102 can be configured to generate defined sensory inputs to simulate sensory attributes 118 of a virtual object that exists within a virtual reality environment”; “A defined sensory input can include any device generated input (e.g., heat, cold, air, sound, vibration, light, smell, taste, etc.) which can be perceived using one or more human senses as being associated with one or more sensory attributes of a virtual object”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings in Tajima’s invention, with the teachings in Dean’s invention, to have when the operation object takes the first action on the target object, adding to at least one of the target object or the operation object an effect of at least one of light emission, blinking, and a color change, for the advantage of more accurately matching dynamic movement, intensity, and/or manifestation of a sensory attribute exhibited by a virtual object located in a virtual reality environment (para[0016]).
Regarding claim 18, Tajima discloses all the claim limitations as applied above (see claim 1). In addition, Tajima discloses haptic sensations caused by the haptic sensation signals include a pressure (para[0011]; “a reaction force from the virtual object side can be applied to the first member so that it is possible to perceive not only the sensation of touching the object but also the reaction force of the object which pushes back the target part from the touched object”). However, Tajima does not appear to expressly disclose haptic sensations caused by the haptic sensation signals include at least one of a vibration or a temperature change.
Dean discloses haptic sensations caused by haptic sensation signals include at least one of a vibration or a temperature change (para[0016]; para[0020]; regarding Figs. 1-2, “The sensory rendering devices 122 included in the simulation system 102 can be configured to generate defined sensory inputs to simulate sensory attributes 118 of a virtual object that exists within a virtual reality environment”; “A sensory device can include any device that is capable of producing a sensory input (e.g., heat, cold, air current, sound, vibration, mist, etc.) detectable by human senses”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings in Tajima’s invention, with the teachings in Dean’s invention, to have haptic sensations caused by the haptic sensation signals include at least one of a vibration or a temperature change, for the advantage of more accurately matching dynamic movement, intensity, and/or manifestation of a sensory attribute exhibited by a virtual object located in a virtual reality environment (para[0016]).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuma et al. (WO 2021095493 A1), provided on the record by the applicant, Tajima et al. (US 20220374083 A1) used as translation and referenced throughout the rejection, in view of Sinko et al. (US 2017/0108929).
Regarding claim 23, Tajima discloses all the claim limitations as applied above (see claim 22). In addition, Tajima discloses a glove, which includes the haptic device (see glove 20 in Fig. 3 including force sense presentation apparatus 2), and a head-mounted display which includes the video display (see in Fig. 1, “display device 3… configured as a head mounted display (HMD) detachably worn on the head of the user”; para[0095]). However, Tajima does not appear to expressly disclose the glove includes the tracking device.
Sinko discloses a glove including a tracking device and a haptic device (see e.g. in Figs. 1 and 9, “gloves comprised of sensors for detecting motion and orientation and each glove equipped with one or more electric motors for generating haptic feedback to a user wearing the gloves”, that is, “capable of tracking a user's movements, translating them into a virtual space, and providing haptic feedback when the user comes into contact with a virtual object”; see claim 1; para[0021]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings in Tajima’s invention, with the teachings in Sinko’s invention, to have the glove includes the tracking device and the haptic device, for the advantage of detecting the user's position in a space without the traditional limits of a consumer motion capture system, to ease and improve user interaction with the virtual space (para[0022]; para[0035]-para[0036]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GLORYVID FIGUEROA-GIBSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5506. The examiner can normally be reached on 9am-5pm, Monday -Friday, Eastern Time.
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, Nitin Patel can be reached on 571-272-7677. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GLORYVID FIGUEROA-GIBSON/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2628
/NITIN PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2628
Prosecution Insights