DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. 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.
Priority
3. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The Information Disclosure Statement filed 15 January 2025 has been fully considered by Examiner. An annotated copy is included herewith.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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.
6. Claims 3 and 5 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 2 recites “the stable state indicates a state where the worker is not accelerating or decelerating.” In other words, a worker is in a stable state is when the acceleration is zero.
However, claim 3, which depends from claim 2, recites “determining that the worker is not in the stable state when an absolute value of the acceleration exceeds a reference acceleration level; and determining that the worker is in the stable state when an absolute value of the acceleration is less than reference acceleration level.” In other words, a worker is not in a stable state when the magnitude of the acceleration is greater than a non-zero value and is in a stable state when the magnitude of the acceleration is less than a non-zero value, the non-zero value being the reference acceleration level. If the reference acceleration level is zero, which is the condition for a stable state in claim 2, then the magnitude of the acceleration cannot be less than the reference acceleration value.
Thus, claim 3 directly contradicts claim 2, which claim 3 further limits. Therefore, claim 3 is indefinite.
Claim 4 recites “the stable state indicates a state where the worker is stopped.” In other words, a stable state is when the worker’s speed is zero.
However, claim 5, which depends from claim 4, recites “determining that the worker is not in the stable state when the speed exceeds a reference level; and determining that the worker is in the stable state when the speed is less than a reference level.” In other words, a worker is not in a stable state when the speed is greater than a non-zero value and is in a stable state when the speed is less than a non-zero value, the non-zero value being the reference level. If the reference level is zero, which is the condition for a stable state in claim 4, then the speed cannot be less than the reference value.
Thus, claim 5 directly contradicts claim 4, which claim 5 further limits. Therefore, claim 5 is indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
7. Claims 1, 2, 4, 8, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa (US-11,480,787) in view of Naka (US-2025/0104369), and in further view of Kasahara (US-2014/0240552).
Regarding claim 1: Ishikawa discloses an information processing method in an information processing device (fig 2; fig 3; column 5, lines 49-67; and column 6, lines 3-9 of Ishikawa), the information processing method comprising: acquiring positional information and posture information of a person in a real space, the positional information and the posture information being used to update a position and posture of a virtual camera installed in a virtual space imitating the real space (figs 1A-1C and column 3, line 39 to column 4, line 9 of Ishikawa – acquire position, posture, velocity, and acceleration of person in the real space and analyze for providing video of virtual camera in virtual space); and determining whether the person is in a stable state based on the positional information (figs 1A-1C; column 4, lines 46-65; and column 5, lines 20-28 of Ishikawa – determines if the person is in a non-acceleration (stable) state or in an starting acceleration or acceleration state).
Ishikawa does not disclose the method is for supporting work of a worker; that the person is specifically a worker; and reducing an updating frequency of the positional information and the posture information when it is determined that the worker is not in the stable state, rather than when it is determined that the worker is in the stable state.
Naka discloses the method is for supporting work of a worker; and that the person is specifically a worker ([0035]-[0036] of Naka).
Ishikawa and Naka are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely 3D modeling in a 3D virtual environment. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the method be for supporting a worker, and the person be specifically a worker, as taught by Naka. The suggestion for doing so would have been that one can use the system at a worksite with a worker, thus making the system practically useful. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ishikawa according to the relied-upon teachings of Naka.
Ishikawa in view of Naka does not disclose reducing an updating frequency of the positional information and the posture information when it is determined that the worker is not in the stable state, rather than when it is determined that the worker is in the stable state.
Kasahara discloses reducing an updating frequency of the positional information and the posture information when it is determined that the worker is not in the stable state, rather than when it is determined that the worker is in the stable state ([0086], and [0133] of Kasahara – update rate increases with decreasing distance, and thus decreases with increasing distance; in the context of Ishikawa, the updating frequency would thus be reduced when the worker is not in the stable state (accelerating)).
Ishikawa and Kasahara are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely 3D modeling in a 3D virtual environment. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to reduce an updating frequency of the positional information and the posture information when it is determined that the worker is not in the stable state, rather than when it is determined that the worker is in the stable state, as taught by Kasahara. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve efficiency by updating less often when fewer updates are needed. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ishikawa further according to the relied-upon teachings of Kasahara to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2: Ishikawa in view of Naka, and in further view of Kasahara, discloses the information processing method according to claim 1 (as rejected above), wherein the stable state indicates a state where the worker is not accelerating or decelerating (fig 1A and column 4, lines 46-54 of Ishikawa).
Regarding claim 4: Ishikawa in view of Naka, and in further view of Kasahara, discloses the information processing method according to claim 1 (as rejected above), wherein the stable state indicates a state where the worker is stopped (column 4, lines 4-9 of Ishikawa).
Regarding claim 8: Ishikawa in view of Naka, and in further view of Kasahara, discloses the information processing method according to claim 1 (as rejected above), further comprising: updating the position and posture of the virtual camera by using the positional information and the posture information; generating a virtual camera video by capturing the virtual space with the virtual camera; and displaying the virtual camera video on a display (fig 10, figs 11-12, and [0126]-[0136] of Naka – updates position and orientation (posture) of virtual camera to display updated synchronized video of the virtual camera). Ishikawa and Naka are combined for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 10: Ishikawa discloses an information processing device including a processor and supporting work of a worker, wherein the processor performs processing (fig 2; fig 3; column 5, lines 49-67; and column 6, lines 3-9 of Ishikawa) of: acquiring positional information and posture information of a person in a real space, the positional information and the posture information being used to update a position and posture of a virtual camera installed in a virtual space imitating the real space (figs 1A-1C and column 3, line 39 to column 4, line 9 of Ishikawa – acquire position, posture, velocity, and acceleration of person in the real space and analyze for providing video of virtual camera in virtual space); and determining whether the person is in a stable state based on the positional information (figs 1A-1C; column 4, lines 46-65; and column 5, lines 20-28 of Ishikawa – determines if the person is in a non-acceleration (stable) state or in an starting acceleration or acceleration state).
Ishikawa does not disclose supporting work of a worker; that the person is specifically a worker; and reducing an updating frequency of the positional information and the posture information when it is determined that the worker is not in the stable state, rather than when it is determined that the worker is in the stable state.
Naka discloses supporting work of a worker; and that the person is specifically a worker ([0035]-[0036] of Naka).
Ishikawa and Naka are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely 3D modeling in a 3D virtual environment. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to support a worker, and the person be specifically a worker, as taught by Naka. The suggestion for doing so would have been that one can use the system at a worksite with a worker, thus making the system practically useful. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ishikawa according to the relied-upon teachings of Naka.
Ishikawa in view of Naka does not disclose reducing an updating frequency of the positional information and the posture information when it is determined that the worker is not in the stable state, rather than when it is determined that the worker is in the stable state.
Kasahara discloses reducing an updating frequency of the positional information and the posture information when it is determined that the worker is not in the stable state, rather than when it is determined that the worker is in the stable state ([0086], and [0133] of Kasahara – update rate increases with decreasing distance, and thus decreases with increasing distance; in the context of Ishikawa, the updating frequency would thus be reduced when the worker is not in the stable state (accelerating)).
Ishikawa and Kasahara are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely 3D modeling in a 3D virtual environment. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to reduce an updating frequency of the positional information and the posture information when it is determined that the worker is not in the stable state, rather than when it is determined that the worker is in the stable state, as taught by Kasahara. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve efficiency by updating less often when fewer updates are needed. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ishikawa further according to the relied-upon teachings of Kasahara to obtain the invention as specified in claim 10.
Regarding claim 11: Ishikawa discloses a non-transitory computer readable recording medium storing an information processing program for causing a computer to execute an information processing method, the information processing program causing the computer to perform processing (fig 2; fig 3; column 5, lines 49-67; and column 6, lines 3-9 of Ishikawa) of: acquiring positional information and posture information of a person in a real space, the positional information and the posture information being used to update a position and posture of a virtual camera installed in a virtual space imitating the real space (figs 1A-1C and column 3, line 39 to column 4, line 9 of Ishikawa – acquire position, posture, velocity, and acceleration of person in the real space and analyze for providing video of virtual camera in virtual space); and determining whether the person is in a stable state based on the positional information (figs 1A-1C; column 4, lines 46-65; and column 5, lines 20-28 of Ishikawa – determines if the person is in a non-acceleration (stable) state or in an starting acceleration or acceleration state).
Ishikawa does not disclose the method is for supporting work of a worker; that the person is specifically a worker; and reducing an updating frequency of the positional information and the posture information when it is determined that the worker is not in the stable state, rather than when it is determined that the worker is in the stable state.
Naka discloses the method is for supporting work of a worker; and that the person is specifically a worker ([0035]-[0036] of Naka).
Ishikawa and Naka are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely 3D modeling in a 3D virtual environment. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the method be for supporting a worker, and the person be specifically a worker, as taught by Naka. The suggestion for doing so would have been that one can use the system at a worksite with a worker, thus making the system practically useful. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ishikawa according to the relied-upon teachings of Naka.
Ishikawa in view of Naka does not disclose reducing an updating frequency of the positional information and the posture information when it is determined that the worker is not in the stable state, rather than when it is determined that the worker is in the stable state.
Kasahara discloses reducing an updating frequency of the positional information and the posture information when it is determined that the worker is not in the stable state, rather than when it is determined that the worker is in the stable state ([0086], and [0133] of Kasahara – update rate increases with decreasing distance, and thus decreases with increasing distance; in the context of Ishikawa, the updating frequency would thus be reduced when the worker is not in the stable state (accelerating)).
Ishikawa and Kasahara are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely 3D modeling in a 3D virtual environment. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to reduce an updating frequency of the positional information and the posture information when it is determined that the worker is not in the stable state, rather than when it is determined that the worker is in the stable state, as taught by Kasahara. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve efficiency by updating less often when fewer updates are needed. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Ishikawa further according to the relied-upon teachings of Kasahara to obtain the invention as specified in claim 11.
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 6, 7 and 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Furthermore, Examiner has not discovered claims 3 and 5, including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, in the prior art. However, claims 3 and 5 are rejected above under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James A Thompson whose telephone number is (571)272-7441. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-6pm.
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, Alicia Harrington can be reached at 571-272-2330. 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.
/JAMES A THOMPSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2615
Prosecution Insights