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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. If Applicant fails to provide a sufficiently descriptive title, Examiner will do so upon allowance of the claims.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a changer”, “a mover”, “an extractor”, “a determiner”, “a manager” in claims 1, 4, 6, and 7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof (see instant specification, e.g., ¶ 86, hardware and/or software).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (US 2010/0332998) in view of Branton et al. (US 2014/0310324).
Regarding claim 1, Sun discloses an avatar moving apparatus comprising: a display controller configured to display on a display device used by the user, a display image including the two or more facility names different from each other that have been changed by the changer (abstract, figs. 1-3, ¶ 57-61, e.g., computing device 300 with CPU 302 and display 310; see also figs. 4-5, ¶ 62-69, 3D virtual world with collaborative document area 122 has rooms corresponding to folders and documents; see also ¶ 19-33, content repository 112 stores documents including meta-data, e.g., title of a document, to facilitate searching or navigating; see also ¶ 50-52);
and a mover configured to teleport, when the user has specified a first facility name included in the display image, the avatar of the user to a location corresponding to the first facility name (figs. 4-5, ¶ 62-69, 3D virtual world with collaborative document area 122 has rooms corresponding to folders; see also ¶ 19-33, content repository 112 stores documents including meta-data, e.g., title of a document, to facilitate searching or navigating; see also figs. 6-13 and ¶ 70-72, e.g., avatars can be teleported throughout collaborative document area via teleporting doors; see also ¶ 36-39).
Sun fails to explicitly disclose a changer configured to change, when two or more facilities with the same facility name exist at a place at a destination of an avatar of a user specified by the user, the same facility name corresponding to the two or more facilities to two or more facility names that correspond one-to-one to the two or more facilities and differ from each other.
Branton teaches a changer configured to change, when two or more facilities with the same facility name exist at a place at a destination of an avatar of a user specified by the user, the same facility name corresponding to the two or more facilities to two or more facility names that correspond one-to-one to the two or more facilities and differ from each other (¶ 52, computing device can resolve identical names using standard techniques, e.g., copy or number suffixes added to file names).
Sun and Branton are both directed to electronic document management systems. 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 collaborative document environment of Sun with the file naming techniques of Branton since such a modification resolves identical names using standard techniques (Branton, ¶ 52) such that no files have the same filename (Branton, ¶ 52).
Regarding claim 2, Sun discloses wherein the first facility name is specified by a voice of the user, a line of sight of the user, or an operation of the user onto a controller (¶ 36-39, avatars teleported upon entering a virtual identifier; see also ¶ 65).
Regarding claim 3, Sun discloses wherein: the display image is an image of a map, and the image of the map comprises: the two or more facility names that correspond one-to-one to the two or more facilities (figs. 4-13, see ¶ 62-72, 3D virtual world with collaborative document area 122 has rooms corresponding to folders and documents; see also ¶ 19-33, content repository 112 stores documents including meta-data, e.g., title of a document, to facilitate searching or navigating; see also ¶ 36-39, ¶ 50-52);
and two or more icons that correspond one-to-one to the two or more facilities (figs. 4-13, see ¶ 62-72, 3D virtual world with collaborative document area 122 has rooms corresponding to folders and documents, e.g., documents exhibited in gallery style scene; see also ¶ 19-33, content repository 112 stores documents including meta-data, e.g., title of a document, to facilitate searching or navigating; see also ¶ 36-39, ¶ 50-52).
Regarding claim 4, Sun discloses wherein each of the two or more facility names different from each other that have been changed by the changer includes the facility name before the change and a name of a manager of the facility (¶ 19-33, e.g., meta-data can include title and creator/owner of document; see also ¶ 50-52).
Regarding claim 5, Sun discloses wherein the display image is an image representing a list of a plurality of the facility names corresponding one-to-one to a plurality of facilities arranged at the place on the destination of the avatar of the user (figs. 4-13, see ¶ 62-72, 3D virtual world with collaborative document area 122 has rooms corresponding to folders and documents; see also ¶ 19-33, content repository 112 stores documents including meta-data, e.g., title of a document, to facilitate searching or navigating; see also ¶ 36-39, ¶ 50-52).
Regarding claim 6, Sun discloses an extractor configured to extract a plurality of facility names of a plurality of facilities associated with the place based on first facility data that associates a facility name of a facility with a location of the facility for each of the facilities located in a virtual space (figs. 4-13, see ¶ 62-72, 3D virtual world with collaborative document area 122 has rooms corresponding to folders and documents; see also ¶ 19-33, content repository 112 stores documents including meta-data, e.g., title of a document, to facilitate searching or navigating; see also ¶ 36-39, ¶ 50-52).
Branton further teaches a determiner configured to determine whether the names of the facilities extracted by the extractor include the same facility name, wherein the changer changes the same facility name to the two or more facility names that correspond one-to-one to the two or more facilities and differ from each other, when the determination result of the determiner is affirmative (¶ 52, computing device can resolve identical names using standard techniques, e.g., copy or number suffixes added to file names).
Regarding claim 7, Sun discloses a manager configured to manage second facility data and the first facility data, the second facility data associating the facility names of the two or more facilities different from each other changed by the changer with locations of the two or more facilities different from each other in a one-to-one manner (figs. 4-13, see ¶ 62-72, 3D virtual world with collaborative document area 122 has rooms corresponding to folders and documents; see also ¶ 19-33, content repository 112 stores documents including meta-data, e.g., title of a document, to facilitate searching or navigating; see also ¶ 36-39, ¶ 50-52; see also ¶ 41, collaborative document area updated to reflect updates to the corresponding documents),
wherein the mover identifies, when the first facility name is one of the two or more different facility names changed by the changer, the location of the facility corresponding to the first facility name based on the second facility data (figs. 4-5, ¶ 62-69, 3D virtual world with collaborative document area 122 has rooms corresponding to folders; see also ¶ 19-33, content repository 112 stores documents including meta-data, e.g., title of a document, to facilitate searching or navigating; see also figs. 6-13 and ¶ 70-72, e.g., avatars can be teleported throughout collaborative document area via teleporting doors; see also ¶ 36-39).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: See attached Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH L CRAWLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7616. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10-6 ET.
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, Temesghen Ghebretinsae can be reached at 571-272-3017. 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.
/KEITH L CRAWLEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2626
Prosecution Insights