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 Interpretation
The scope of the pending claims is interpreted as follows:
Claims 11-12 are 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.
Claims 1-10 are given their broadest reasonable 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.
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:
Step of … in claims 11 and 12
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.
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
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.
Use of indicates a limitation is not explicitly disclosed by the reference alone.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura (US 2020/0160055) in view of Gotoh (US 2022/0270363)
Claim 1
Nakamura discloses an information processing device (Fig. 1) comprising:
a processor, wherein the processor is configured to (device 1 and server 3 include processors):
acquire first information related to an environment of a space in which an object is caused to appear (e.g. camera capture of real environment; Nakamura, ¶ 5: “Through such an augmented reality display function, the scenery around the current location of the user is imaged by a camera that is provided in a smartphone or a game machine, and an image rendered in computer graphics is composited onto the captured real image to provide an image as if the characters”);
acquire second information related to a behavior history of a user (Nakamura, ¶ 48: “where the location information controlling portion 32 stores, as use history, the identifier of the user or user terminal device that is identified by the authentication process by the authenticating portion 33 (the user ID, terminal ID, or the like), linked to the location information, in the user database 35b. The location information acquired here includes the coordinates (latitude, longitude, and altitude, and imaging on the real map and the virtual map), and imaging orientation, from when the image was taken by the imaging portion, and also the date and time at that moment.”);
determine a second element related to the object based on the second information; and
determine the object to be caused to appear in the space based on the (Nakamura, ¶ 95: “virtual display data, such as computer graphics, and the like, generated by the virtual display data generating portion 145b, are composited with the real image that is captured by the camera 121 of the smartphone 1”).
Nakamura does not explicitly disclose, but Gotoh discloses determine a first element related to the object based on the first information (Gotoh, ¶¶ 99-103: “possible to identify types of various objects included in the camera-captured image…In the example illustrated in FIG. 2, the image analysis unit of the light transmission type AR image display device 10 determines that an object in the target area 11 in the pointing direction of the user is a “pond” on the basis of the camera-captured image…. display an image of a “water fairy character” as the virtual object image 22.”)
Before the effective filing date of this application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform object recognition as claimed.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have motivation to improve interactivity by providing context specific augmentations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success because both references consider superimposition of relevant virtual content in the user’s surroundings.
Claim 2
Nakamura as modified by Gotoh discloses wherein the processor is configured to: acquire a first image obtained by imaging the space in which the object is caused to appear; and generate a second image in which the object is superimposed on the first image (Nakamura, ¶ 95: “virtual display data, such as computer graphics, and the like, generated by the virtual display data generating portion 145b, are composited with the real image that is captured by the camera 121 of the smartphone 1”).
Claim 3
Nakamura does not disclose, but Gotoh discloses wherein the processor is configured to: process the first image to recognize an object in the first image or a scene of the first image and acquire the first information (Gotoh, ¶¶ 99-103: “possible to identify types of various objects included in the camera-captured image…In the example illustrated in FIG. 2, the image analysis unit of the light transmission type AR image display device 10 determines that an object in the target area 11 in the pointing direction of the user is a “pond” on the basis of the camera-captured image…. display an image of a “water fairy character” as the virtual object image 22.”)
Before the effective filing date of this application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform object recognition as claimed.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have motivation to improve interactivity by providing context specific augmentations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success because both references consider superimposition of relevant virtual content in the user’s surroundings.
Claim 4
Nakamura as modified by Gotoh discloses wherein the processor is configured to: acquire information on a position of the user; and recognize the object in the first image or the scene of the first image and acquire the first information in a case in which the user exists in a specific area (Nakamura, ¶ 87: “In the location-based game according to the present embodiment, the basic concept of the game is that a character is caused to travel in a virtual world, by the object controlling function, linked to travel of the user in the real world, and blocks corresponding to the track of this travel are fantasyized. Given this, in the location-based game according to the present system, points Tp are issued in accordance with the travel distance of the user in the real world, where these points Tp are spent to move, in an augmented reality world or in a virtual world, the character C1 that corresponds to the user, or to fantasyize blocks that correspond to city blocks, or to generate events such as battles or the appearance of monsters in the fantasyized blocks, to thereby cause the game to progress.”)
Claim 5
Nakamura as modified by Gotoh discloses wherein the second information includes information on a history of movement of the user or information on a history of the object caused to appear (Nakamura, ¶ 72: “Moreover, in the present embodiment the location information acquiring portion 144 is provided with a travel path recording portion 144a, where this travel path recording portion 144a is a module that calculates and records the travel path and travel speed based on the travel history of individual users or objects, such as the current location of the user, the current location of another user, the coordinate location of an arbitrary object, and the like, acquired from the location information acquiring portion 144.”)
Claim 6
Nakamura does not disclose, but Gotoh discloses wherein the first element is a type of the object to be caused to appear, and the second element is a display form or an attribute of the object to be caused to appear (Gotoh, ¶¶ 99-103, 239: “possible to identify types of various objects included in the camera-captured image…In the example illustrated in FIG. 2, the image analysis unit of the light transmission type AR image display device 10 determines that an object in the target area 11 in the pointing direction of the user is a “pond” on the basis of the camera-captured image…. display an image of a “water fairy character” as the virtual object image 22….On the other hand, for example, in a case of the class (object type) of ID=004=shadow, the update time is 2 sec. In an object such as the shadow, a change with a lapse of time is large, so that the update time is set to be short.”)
Before the effective filing date of this application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform object recognition as claimed.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have motivation to improve interactivity by providing context specific augmentations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success because both references consider superimposition of relevant virtual content in the user’s surroundings.
Claim 7
Nakamura does not disclose, but Gotoh discloses wherein the processor is configured to: process an image obtained by imaging the space in which the object is caused to appear, to recognize a main subject (Gotoh, ¶¶ 99-103: “possible to identify types of various objects included in the camera-captured image…In the example illustrated in FIG. 2, the image analysis unit of the light transmission type AR image display device 10 determines that an object in the target area 11 in the pointing direction of the user is a “pond” on the basis of the camera-captured image…. display an image of a “water fairy character” as the virtual object image 22.”); and
determine a disposition region of the object to be caused to appear in the space based on a position of the main subject in the space (Gotoh, ¶ 86: “) Processing of generating a three-dimensional map of the real world observed by the user via the light transmission type AR image display device 10 by applying simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM) processing or the like that performs self-position estimation and environment three-dimensional map generation…”).
Before the effective filing date of this application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform object recognition as claimed.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have motivation to improve interactivity by providing context specific augmentations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success because both references consider superimposition of relevant virtual content in the user’s surroundings.
Claim 8
Nakamura does not disclose, but Gotoh discloses wherein the processor is configured to: determine the type of the object to be caused to appear based on the first information in the disposition region (Gotoh, ¶ 105: “That is, the content display control unit performs processing of selecting and displaying the “water fairy character” as an optimal virtual object according to the object identification result=“pond” for the target area”).
Before the effective filing date of this application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform object recognition as claimed.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have motivation to improve interactivity by providing context specific augmentations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success because both references consider superimposition of relevant virtual content in the user’s surroundings.
Claim 10
Nakamura as modified by Gotoh discloses wherein the processor is configured to: change a display form or an attribute of the object in response to an instruction to output the second image (e.g. game process; movement; etc.; Nakamura, ¶ 87: “In the location-based game according to the present embodiment, the basic concept of the game is that a character is caused to travel in a virtual world, by the object controlling function, linked to travel of the user in the real world, and blocks corresponding to the track of this travel are fantasyized. Given this, in the location-based game according to the present system, points Tp are issued in accordance with the travel distance of the user in the real world, where these points Tp are spent to move, in an augmented reality world or in a virtual world, the character C1 that corresponds to the user, or to fantasyize blocks that correspond to city blocks, or to generate events such as battles or the appearance of monsters in the fantasyized blocks, to thereby cause the game to progress.”)
Claim 11
The same teachings and rationales in claim 1 are applicable to claim 11.
Claim 12
Examiner’s Interpretation:
Machine readable media can encompass forms of signal transmission media that falls outside of the four statutory categories of invention. MPEP 2106; citing In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007). A claim whose BRI covers both statutory and non-statutory embodiments embraces subject matter that is not eligible for patent protection and therefore is directed to non-statutory subject matter. MPEP 2106.
Claim 12 as drafted recites non-transitory computer readable medium.
Because non-transitory without explicit definition otherwise excludes signal media and the like, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed medium in view of Applicant’s specification covers only eligible subject matter.
Claim Mapping:
The same teachings and rationales in claim 1 are applicable to claim 12.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura (US 2020/0160055) in view of Gotoh (US 2022/0270363) and Mine (US 2024/0370079)
Claim 9
Nakamura as modified by Gotoh does not disclose, but Mine discloses wherein the processor is configured to: randomly determine the display form of the object in a case in which the behavior history of the user satisfies a specific condition (Mine, ¶¶ 95-115: “Note that the present technology can also have the following configurations… the control unit generates the behavior of the virtual object… in which the control unit randomly selects, as the general behavior, a behavior from the candidate for the each behavior… the control unit performs control to change an appearance of the virtual object to an appearance associated with the behavior generated”)
Before the effective filing date of this application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to consider randomization.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have motivation to improve interactivity by providing unique context specific augmentations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success because both references consider superimposition of relevant virtual content in the user’s surroundings.
Additional Prior Art
Additional prior art relevant to Applicant’s disclosure but not relied upon:
Fukushige (US 2022/0233956) discloses behavior specific avatar features:
PNG
media_image1.png
325
553
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN M GRAY whose telephone number is (571)272-4582. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday, 9:00am-5:30pm (EST).
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, Kee Tung can be reached on (571)272-7794. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/RYAN M GRAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Prosecution Insights