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 Objections
Claims 1-15 and 17 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 3, “an augmented reality environment” should read “the augmented reality environment”.
Claim 1, line 7, “the avatar representations” should read “the avatar representation”.
Claim 2, line 5, “the avatar representations” should read “the avatar representation”.
Claim 5, line 1, “at least one physical constraint” should read “the at least one physical constraint”.
Claim 5, line 3, “the area” should read “an area”.
Claim 5, line 3, “the presence” should read “a presence”.
Claim 5, line 5, “the location of the object” should read “a location of the at least one object”.
Claim 5, line 6, “the object” should read “the at least one object”.
Claim 6, line 1, “the object” should read “the at least one object”.
Claim 7, line 2, “a constraint data set” should read “the constraint data set”.
Claim 7, line 3, “the plurality of objects” should read “the plurality of physical objects”.
Claim 8, line 2, “the object” should read “the at least one object”.
Claim 9, line 2, “an augmented reality environment” should read “the augmented reality environment”.
Claim 10, line 2, “an augmented reality environment” should read “the augmented reality environment”.
Claim 10, line 3, “the physical constraint” should read “the at least one physical constraint”.
Claim 11, line 3, “the respective avatar representations” should read “the respective avatar representation”.
Claim 12, line 1, “the avatar representations” should read “the avatar representation”.
Claim 13, line 1, “the avatar representations” should read “the avatar representation”.
Claim 17, line 2, “a processing resource” should read “the processing resource”.
Claims 2-15, have multiple instances of “A method” that should read “The method”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 2-4 and 9-12 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 limitation “an augmented reality environment” in line 2. Since the claim language does not use antecedent basis (e.g. “the” or “said”), it is unclear if applicant is referring to the same ones of “an augmented reality environment” of claim 1 from which claim 2 depends or a second augmented reality environment. For purposes of examination, it is assumed that “an augmented reality environment” refers to the same ones of “an augmented reality environment” of claim 1.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the physical location” in line 2. It is unclear if applicant is referring to the same ones of “the first physical location” of claim 1 from which claim 9 depends or a different physical location. For purposes of examination, it is assumed that “the physical location” refers to “the first physical location” of claim 1.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the respective physical location” in line 2. It is unclear if applicant is referring to the same ones of “the first physical location” of claim 1 from which claim 10 or a different physical location. The main confusion comes from the fact that there is only one physical location described in claim 1. The second location is described in claim 2 but claim 10 only depends on claim 1. For purposes of examination, it is assumed that “the physical location” refers to “the first physical location” of claim 1.
Claims 3, 4, 11, and 12 are rejected for being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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.
Claims 1-4, 9-13, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KENYA ISHIMOTO (US 20220030197 A1 SEE-IDS; hereinafter Ishimoto).
Regarding claim 1, Ishimoto discloses a computer-implemented method of providing an augmented reality environment (using mixed reality in ¶17 and mixed reality is an advanced form of augmented reality), the method implemented by a processing resource (implemented using processors; ¶89), the method comprising: initialising an augmented reality environment at a first physical location (avatar being represented in another location, such as first attendee at a second location; ¶19); associating an avatar representation with each of at least two users (each attendee is represented by an avatar for interaction between the two attendees; ¶19); determining at least one physical constraint associated with the first physical location (identify the dimensions and spatial relationship between objects at each location; ¶21); and rendering the avatar representations associated with the at least two users in the augmented reality environment based on the at least one physical constraint associated with the first physical location (positions of each avatar is based on a physical layout of the real world location at which the avatar is displayed in ¶27 and it was already shown how this system identifies the dimensions and spatial relationship between objects at each location in ¶21).
Regarding claim 2, Ishimoto discloses wherein the method further comprises: initialising an augmented reality environment at a second physical location (it includes both a first location and second location; ¶19); determining at least one physical constraint associated with the second physical location (identify the dimensions and spatial relationship between objects at each location; ¶21); and rendering the avatar representations associated with the at least two users in the augmented reality environment at the second physical location based on the at least one physical constraint associated with the second physical location (positions of each avatar is based on a physical layout of the real world location at which the avatar is displayed in ¶27 and it was already shown how this system identifies the dimensions and spatial relationship between objects at each location in ¶21).
Regarding claim 3, Ishimoto discloses wherein the second physical location is distinct from the first physical location (locations are different; abstract).
Regarding claim 4, Ishimoto discloses wherein the at least one physical constraint associated with the second physical location is distinct from the at least one physical constraint associated with the first physical location (each location is different as stated in the abstract and therefore, when identifying the dimensions and spatial relationship between objects, it will be different for each location as disclosed in ¶21).
Regarding claim 9, Ishimoto discloses wherein rendering the avatar representation in an augmented reality environment comprises rendering the avatar representation at a location which does not coincide with an object in the physical location (identify the dimensions and spatial relationship between objects at each location in ¶21 and as an example avatars of the users will be placed at empty sides of a square table in ¶27, which means they do not coincide with each other).
Regarding claim 10, Ishimoto discloses wherein rendering the avatar representation in an augmented reality environment comprises rendering the avatar representation in a pose determined by the physical constraint at the respective physical location (positions of each avatar is based on a physical layout of the real world location at which the avatar is displayed in ¶27 and it gives an example of how they would be positioned if a table was there in ¶27).
Regarding claim 11, Ishimoto discloses wherein the rendering of the avatar representation in the respective first and second physical locations is adjusted (updating avatar models for both locations; ¶30) responsive to user input via user input devices associated with the respective avatar representations (user input through sensor data that is tracking what the user is doing; ¶42).
Regarding claim 12, Ishimoto discloses wherein the rendering of the avatar representations is adjusted based on the first and second physical location (positions of each avatar is based on a physical layout of the real world location at which the avatar is displayed in ¶27 and it gives an example of how they would be positioned if a table was there in ¶27).
Regarding claim 13, Ishimoto discloses wherein the avatar representations are rendered in accordance with a preset configuration (avatar selected from pre-constructed model; ¶36).
Regarding claim 16, Ishimoto discloses a system configured to implement the method of Claim 1 (¶1 and ¶3-5).
Regarding claim 17, Ishimoto discloses a non-transitory storage medium comprising instructions, which, when executed by a processing resource, cause the processing resource to implement the method of Claim 1 (¶104-105).
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.
Claims 5-8, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishimoto in view of Benedeto et al. (US 20230083302 A1; hereinafter Benedetto).
Regarding claim 5, Ishimoto discloses wherein determining at least one physical constraint associated with a physical location comprises:-scanning the area encompassed by the physical location to determine the presence of at least one object (scan the area through the use of sensor data for object detection; ¶31).
Ishimoto does not explicitly disclose -determining the location of the object; and -generating a constraint data set associated with the object. However, Benedeto teaches -determining the location of the object (location data associated with each object; ¶39); and -generating a constraint data set associated with the object (constraint data set basically identifies where in the room an object is, which is done through SLAM or GPS in ¶39).
Thus, 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 Ishimoto to implement the teachings of Benedeto because by determining the location of each object we can prevent spatial overlap between objects and find empty spaces where we can place other objects.
Regarding claim 6, Ishimoto discloses wherein the object is identified as an item of furniture (object identified can be furniture; ¶22).
Regarding claim 7, Ishimoto does not explicitly disclose wherein the determination is repeated for a plurality of physical objects at the physical location to generate a constraint data set associated with each object in the plurality of objects.
However, Benedeto teaches wherein the determination is repeated for a plurality of physical objects at the physical location to generate a constraint data set associated with each object in the plurality of objects (constraint data set basically identifies where in the room an object is, which is done through SLAM or GPS in ¶39 for each object).
Thus, 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 Ishimoto to implement the teachings of Benedeto because by determining the location of each object we can prevent spatial overlap between objects and find empty spaces where we can place other objects.
Regarding claim 8, Ishimoto does not explicitly disclose wherein the constraint data set comprises positional data associated with the object.
However, Benedeto teaches wherein the constraint data set comprises positional data associated with the object (SLAM or GPS, both provide positional data; ¶39).
Thus, 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 Ishimoto to implement the teachings of Benedeto because by determining the location of each object through positional data we can prevent spatial overlap between objects and find empty spaces where we can place other objects.
Regarding claim 14, Ishimoto does not explicitly disclose wherein the augmented reality environment comprises an augmented reality entertainment environment.
However, Benedeto teaches wherein the augmented reality environment comprises an augmented reality entertainment environment (augmented reality used for games is an entertainment environment; abstract).
Thus, 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 Ishimoto to implement the teachings of Benedeto because augmented reality environments are not exclusive to one area. They are applied to multiple areas, including gaming, in order to increase the realism of the game. Provides a more engaging gaming experience by positioning virtual characters or objects in accordance with the player’s actual physical surroundings, thereby making the virtual character or objects appear naturally integrated into the real world.
Regarding claim 15, Ishimoto does not explicitly disclose wherein the augmented reality entertainment environment is used to stream a video game.
However, Benedeto teaches wherein the augmented reality entertainment environment is used to stream a video game (augmented reality game; abstract).
Thus, 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 Ishimoto to implement the teachings of Benedeto because augmented reality environments are not exclusive to one area. They are applied to multiple areas, including gaming, in order to increase the realism of the game. Provides a more engaging gaming experience by positioning virtual characters or objects in accordance with the player’s actual physical surroundings, thereby making the virtual character or objects appear naturally integrated into the real world.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE ANGELES whose telephone number is (703)756-5338. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 8am-5pm.
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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at (571) 272-4430. 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.
/JOSE ANGELES/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/Jay Trent Liddle/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights