DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 12, the limitation “world view of a work” is highly subjective and lacks an objective standard. With out a defined standard for determining this view, the limitation is purely subjective and fails to distinctly point out the claimed subject matter.
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 of this title, 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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Canberk (US 11,089,427) in view of Krishnaswamy (US 2011/0282964)
With respect to Claim 1, Canberk teaches an information processing device (Canberk: Col. 2, lines 17-20)
Canberk fails to expressly disclose:
in which behavioral patterns indicating behaviors of users are set in advance;
setting the behavior pattern according to the specific user; and
setting the specific content according to the set behavior pattern.
However, Krishnaswamy discloses:
in which behavioral patterns indicating behaviors of users are set in advance (Krishnaswamy: Para. [0049], [0096]-[0105]);
setting the behavior pattern according to the specific user (Krishnaswamy: Para. [0096], [0139]); and
setting the specific content according to the set behavior pattern (Krishnaswamy: Para. [0142]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device, as taught by Canberk, to incorporate pre-set behavior patterns for selecting content, as taught by Krishnaswamy, in order to filter spatial AR content and present only the elements most relevant to the user’s interest and historical behavior, thereby providing presenting non-intrusive content that is likely to be of interest (Krishnaswamy: Para [0004], [0070]).
With respect to Claim 2, the combination of Canberk as modified by Krishnaswamy teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the behavioral pattern is assigned meta information adapted to meta information indicating characteristics of a location and meta information indicating characteristics of content, and the specific location is associated with the specific content through the meta information assigned to the behavioral pattern (Krishnaswamy: Para. [0142], [0173]).
With respect to Claim 3, the combination of Canberk as modified by Krishnaswamy teaches the information processing device according to claim 2, wherein the control unit places the specific content in the specific location according to an association between the behavioral pattern and the characteristics of the content (Krishnaswamy: Para. [0147]).
With respect to Claim 4, the combination of Canberk as modified by Krishnaswamy teaches the information processing device according to claim 2, wherein the control unit selects the specific content to be placed in the specific location according to an association between the behavioral pattern and the characteristics of the location (Krishnaswamy: Para. [0139]).
With respect to Claim 5, the combination of Canberk as modified by Krishnaswamy teaches the information processing device according to claim 2, wherein the behavioral pattern is assigned meta information intended by a creator who produces the content or a provider who provides the content by matching with the meta information indicating the characteristics of the content (Krishnaswamy: Para. [0043], [0193]).
With respect to Claim 6, the combination of Canberk as modified by Krishnaswamy teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the control unit adjusts at least one of settings of the specific location and the specific content in response to an operation of the specific user (Canberk: Col. 2, lines 27-30; Krishnaswamy: Para. [0151]).
With respect to Claim 7, the combination of Canberk as modified by Krishnaswamy teaches the information processing device according to claim 6, wherein the control unit performs machine learning using data on the settings of the specific location and the specific content and data on adjustments made in response to an operation of the user as learning data, and generates a learned model (Canberk: Col. 2, 27-30; Krishnaswamy: Para. [0151]).
With respect to Claim 8, the combination of Canberk as modified by Krishnaswamy teaches the information processing device according to claim 7, wherein the learned model is a DNN learned with the data on the settings and the adjustments as input and data on corrected settings as output, and the control unit corrects at least one of the settings of the specific location and the specific content by using the learned model (Krishnaswamy: Para. [0132], [0151]).
With respect to Claim 9, the combination of Canberk as modified by Krishnaswamy teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the control unit replays the specific content when a replay condition for the specific location is satisfied (Canberk: Col. 2, lines 27-30).
With respect to Claim 10, the combination of Canberk as modified by Krishnaswamy teaches the information processing device according to claim 9, wherein the control unit replays the specific content when the user is within a range corresponding to the specific location and a setting condition set in advance is satisfied (Canberk: Col. 2, lines 21-30; Krishnaswamy: Para. [0143])
With respect to Claim 11, the combination of Canberk as modified by Krishnaswamy teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of contents include spatial element contents classified by spatial contents, and the control unit selects the spatial content in response to an operation of the user, and places the spatial element content included in the selected spatial content as the specific content associated with the specific location (Canberk: Col. 2, lines 21-30).
With respect to Claim 12, the combination of Canberk as modified by Krishnaswamy teaches the information processing device according to claim 11, wherein the spatial content is a spatial sound that provides a space based on world view of a work through sound, and the spatial element content is music content (Canberk: Col. 2, lines 21-30; Krishnaswamy: Para. [0102], [0174])).
With respect to Claim 13, the combination of Canberk as modified by Krishnaswamy teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the target is specified by an area set on a map or a recognition object that is a recognized object existing in real space (Canberk: Col. 2, lines 21-30).
With respect to Claim 14, this method is the method of using the apparatus as claimed in Claim 1. Therefore, Claim 14 is rendered obvious by the combination of Canberk as modified by Krishnaswamy as used for Claim 1.
With respect to Claim 15, this program is the program causing a computer to function as the apparatus as claimed in Claim 1. Therefore, Claim 15 is rendered obvious by the combination of Canberk as modified by Krishnaswamy as used for Claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2022/0335476 – Method and system for providing interactive personalized immersive content.
US 2023/0059399 – Dynamic triggering of augmented reality assistance mode functionalities.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN EARLES whose telephone number is (571)272-4628. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday at 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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, William Boddie can be reached on 571-272-0666. 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.
/BRYAN EARLES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2625
Prosecution Insights