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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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 1-3, 7, 9-13, 17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Assouline et al., US 2022/0327608.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Assouline discloses a system comprising: a memory; a control circuitry; and an input/output (I/O) circuitry configured to:
generate for display, on a display device, a segment of 360-degree content, wherein the segment of 360-degree content comprises a plurality of concurrently displayed objects (figures 6-9, paragraph 9);
wherein the control circuitry is configured to: based at least in part on comparing each object of the plurality of concurrently displayed objects to retrieved user information (paragraph 57, 98, 103, 109 and 124):
select a subset of the plurality of concurrently displayed objects to be made user-modifiable (paragraph 106-113); and
for each object in the subset, select a respective permitted manner of user modification, wherein the respective permitted manner of user modification is stored in the memory (paragraph 26, 37, 64-68 and 73-74);
wherein the I/O circuitry is configured to: modify the segment of 360-degree content to display at least one message indicating the respective permitted manner of user modification for an object in the subset (figures 6-9, paragraph 115-118 and 14-126); and
based at least in part on a user-interface interaction with a particular object in the subset, perform the respective permitted manner of user modification on the particular object (figures 6-9, paragraph 26, 37, 64-68 and 73-74).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Assouline discloses the system of claim 11, wherein the control circuitry is further configured to: identify an object type corresponding to the particular object based at least in part on analyzing the particular object in the segment of 360-degree content (Assouline paragraph 51, 96-98 and 108-110); and determine the respective permitted manner of user modification based at least in part on the identified object type (Assouline paragraph 51, 96-98 and 108-110).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Assouline discloses the system of claim 12, wherein the I/O circuitry is further configured to: cause an appearance or visual representation of the particular object to be altered based at least in part on the identified object type (Assouline paragraph 51, 96-98 and 108-110).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Assouline discloses the system of claim 12, wherein: the identified object type is an object suitable for color modification (Assouline paragraph 37 and 68); and
the respective permitted manner of user modification to the particular object is modifying the color or shading of the object suitable for color modification (Assouline paragraph 37 and 68).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Assouline discloses the system of claim 11, wherein the respective permitted manner of user modification to the particular object is placing a virtual object on top of a portion of the particular object in the segment of 360-degree content (Assouline figures 6-9, paragraph 37-39).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Assouline discloses the system of claim 11, wherein the respective permitted manner of user modification is one permitted manner of user modification of a plurality of permitted manners of user modifications to objects, and wherein each permitted manner of user modification of the plurality of permitted manners of user modifications is a different permitted manner of user modification (Assouline figures 6-9).
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 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 4-5 and 5-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Assouline et al., US 2022/0327608 in view of Kusakabe et al., US 2021/0019911.
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Assouline discloses the system of claim 12, wherein: the identified object type is a space suitable for writing (Assouline paragraph 81 and 105).
Assouline is silent about the respective permitted manner of user modification is writing on the space suitable for writing.
In an analogous art, Kusakabe discloses the respective permitted manner of user modification is writing on the space suitable for writing (paragraph 179, 193 and 208).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Assouline’s system with the teachings of Kusakabe. The motivation would have been to write all the tasks on the wall for the benefit of grasping the number of tasks currently held at a glance.
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Assouline and Kusakabe disclose the system of claim 14, wherein the space suitable for writing is a wall in the segment of 360-degree content (paragraph 179, 193 and 208).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 8, 16 and 18 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.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OSCHTA I MONTOYA whose telephone number is (571)270-1192. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8 am - 5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nathan Flynn can be reached on 571-272-1915. 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.
OM
Oschta Montoya
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2421
/OSCHTA I MONTOYA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421
Prosecution Insights