DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 10, 2026 (hereinafter "Remarks”) have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
However, in the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner is responding to some of the arguments directed to the prior art references that remain in the rejection.
On pages 11-12 of the Remarks, Applicant argues “[t]he size of the avatar may be proportional to a distance between avatars respectively corresponding to the first user and the second user. In other words, if the size of the avatar which is display through the head-wearable electronic device (as recited in claim 1) is getting smaller, the size of the another avatar, which is displayed through another head-wearable electronic device of the second user, may also be reduced. Claim 1, as amended, recites an identification of the first avatar with respect to the reference size and transmissions of two different information” (emphasis added). Examiner is not persuaded.
In response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., changing the display information based on the size of the avatar) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Examiner notes the claim as currently presented broadly recites first/second “displaying information” and does not require any specific change to the displayed avatar size as argued above.
Applicant's remaining arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and/or moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-10, 13-17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakashima et al. (USPN 2018/0247453).
With respect to claim 1, Nakashima teaches a head-wearable electronic device (Figs. 1-21) comprising:
communication circuitry (Figs. 1-21. At least Fig. 2, item 250 and paragraph [0059]);
at least one display configured to be positioned in front of eyes of a user wearing the head-wearable electronic device (Figs. 1-21. At least Fig. 1, item 120 and paragraph [0035] teach a HMD);
at least one camera (Figs. 1-21. At least Fig. 1, items 150 and 160 and paragraphs [0040], [0046], [0047], [0099], [0119] and [0143] teach a camera detecting user motion and paragraphs [0121], [0122] and [0185] teach modifying the avatar based on user detected motion);
memory comprising one or more storage media storing instructions (Figs. 1-21. At least Fig. 2, item 220 and paragraphs [0053]-[0056] teach memory); and
at least one processor comprising processing circuitry (Figs. 1-21. At least Fig. 2, item 210 and paragraph [0053]), wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the head-wearable electronic device to:
display, via the at least one display, a first avatar corresponding to another user different from the user of the head-wearable electronic device (Figs. 1-21. At least Figs. 16-20 and paragraphs [0184]-[0207] teach avatars 6B and 6C corresponding to another user. Examiner notes either avatar reads on “a first avatar”);
identify a size of the first avatar displayed in the at least one display (Figs. 1-21. Claim 5 and Figs. 16-20 and paragraphs [0191] and [0198] teach avatar information including size);
based on the size of the first avatar being identified as larger than a reference size (Figs. 1-21. At least Figs. 16-20 and paragraphs [0198]-[0207] teach detecting a difference in avatar size and adjusting the display based on the result. Fig. 21 and paragraphs [0200], [0204] and [0207] teach a situation where an avatar is larger than another avatar and a chair is used to bring the smaller avatar to the same eye height. Paragraph [0185] teaches the second avatar represents user gesture/movement);
control the at least one camera to obtain at least one image (Figs. 1-21. At least Fig. 1, items 150 and 160 and paragraphs [0040], [0046], [0047], [0099], [0119] and [0143] teach a camera detecting user motion and paragraphs [0121], [0122] and [0185] teach modifying the avatar based on user detected motion);
identify first displaying information of a second avatar corresponding to the user, using the obtained at least one image (Figs. 1-21. At least Fig. 1, items 150 and 160 and paragraphs [0040], [0046], [0047], [0099], [0119] and [0143] teach a camera detecting user motion and paragraphs [0121], [0122] and [0185] teach modifying the avatar based on user detected motion. Examiner notes the first displaying information of a second avatar includes user detected motion that modifies the display of the user avatar in the virtual space); and
transmit the first displaying information to an electronic device of the other user (Figs. 1-21. At least Figs. 16-20 and paragraphs [0198]-[0207] teach detecting a difference in avatar size and adjusting the display based on the result. Fig. 21 and paragraphs [0200], [0204] and [0207] teach a situation where an avatar is larger than another avatar and a chair is used to bring the smaller avatar to the same eye height. Paragraph [0185] teaches the second avatar represents user gesture/movement); and
based on the size of the first avatar being identified as smaller than the reference size (Figs. 1-21. At least Claim 5 and Figs. 16-20 and paragraphs [0198]-[0207] teach detecting a difference in avatar size and adjusting the display based on the result. Paragraphs [0200], [0204] and [0207] teach a situation where an avatar is smaller than another avatar and the larger avatar eye height is adjusted. Paragraphs [0045]-[0047], [0185] and [0212] teach the second avatar represents user gesture/movement including attached controller motion):
identify movement information of the second avatar using a controller coupled through the communication circuitry (Figs. 1-21. At least Claim 5 and Figs. 16-20 and paragraphs [0198]-[0207] teach detecting a difference in avatar size and adjusting the display based on the result. Paragraphs [0200], [0204] and [0207] teach a situation where an avatar is smaller than another avatar and the larger avatar eye height is adjusted. Paragraphs [0045]-[0047], [0185] and [0212] teach the second avatar represents user gesture/movement including attached controller motion);
based on the identified movement information, identify second displaying information of the second avatar (Figs. 1-21. At least Claim 5 and Figs. 16-20 and paragraphs [0198]-[0207] teach detecting a difference in avatar size and adjusting the display based on the result. Paragraphs [0200], [0204] and [0207] teach a situation where an avatar is smaller than another avatar and the larger avatar eye height is adjusted. Paragraphs [0045]-[0047], [0185] and [0212] teach the second avatar represents user gesture/movement including attached controller motion. Examiner notes the second displaying information of a second avatar includes user detected movement using controller motion that modifies the display of the user avatar in the virtual space); and
transmit the second displaying information to the electronic device of the other user (Figs. 1-21. At least Claim 5 and Figs. 16-20 and paragraphs [0198]-[0207] teach detecting a difference in avatar size and adjusting the display based on the result. Paragraphs [0200], [0204] and [0207] teach a situation where an avatar is smaller than another avatar and the larger avatar eye height is adjusted. Paragraphs [0045]-[0047], [0185] and [0212] teach the second avatar represents user gesture/movement including attached controller motion).
However, Nakashima fails to expressly teach all of the limitations in a single embodiment. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the various teachings of Nakashima because paragraph [0030] suggest modifications to the disclosed embodiments.
With respect to claim 2, Nakashima teaches the head-wearable electronic device of claim 1, discussed above, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the head-wearable electronic device to:
receive a user input indicating to select the first avatar (Figs. 16-20 and paragraphs [0184]-[0207] teach interaction with other avatars. At least paragraph [0187] teaches the user can select an avatar to interact with by looking at them); and
based on the user input, identify the size of the first avatar displayed in the at least one display (Figs. 16-20 and paragraphs [0184]-[0207] teach interaction with other avatars is adjusted based on size information).
With respect to claim 3, Nakashima teaches the head-wearable electronic device of claim 2, discussed above, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the head-wearable electronic device to, based on the user input indicating to select the first avatar from among a plurality of avatars, identify the size of the first avatar from among the plurality of avatars (Figs. 16-20 and paragraphs [0184]-[0207] teach interaction with other avatars is adjusted based on size information).
With respect to claim 6, Nakashima teaches the head-wearable electronic device of claim 1, discussed above, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the head-wearable electronic device to, identify the size of the first avatar displayed in the at least one display, based on a first coordinate value indicating a first location of the first avatar and a second coordinate value indicating a second location of the second avatar (Figs. 16-20 and paragraphs [0184]-[0207] teach interaction with other avatars is adjusted based on size information. Paragraphs [0073]-[0079] teach the virtual space is based on a coordinate system).
With respect to claim 7, Nakashima teaches the head-wearable electronic device of claim 1, discussed above, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the head-wearable electronic device to, based on the size of the first avatar being identified as smaller than the reference size, control the second avatar based on the controller (Figs. 1-21. At least Claim 5 and Figs. 16-20 and paragraphs [0198]-[0207] teach detecting a difference in avatar size and adjusting the display based on the result. Paragraphs [0200], [0204] and [0207] teach a situation where an avatar is smaller than another avatar and the larger avatar eye height is adjusted. Paragraph [0045]-[0047] and [0185] teach the second avatar represents user gesture/movement including attached controller motion).
Claim 8, a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions, corresponds to and is analyzed and rejected for substantially the same reasons as the device of Claim 1, discussed above.
The further limitations of claims 9-10 and 13-14 are rejected for substantially the same reasons as claims 2-3 and 6-7, discussed above.
Claim 15, a method, corresponds to and is analyzed and rejected for substantially the same reasons as the device of Claim 1, discussed above.
The further limitations of claims 16-17 and 20 are rejected for substantially the same reasons as claims 2-3 and 6, discussed above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5, 11, 12, 18 and 19 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record teaches a HMD including avatar interaction based on the sizes of the avatars (see at least Nakashima et al. USPN 2018/0247453). The prior art of record further teaches a HMD and deactivating a camera (Figs. 19 and 20 and paragraph [0194] of Lin USPN 2022/0121292 teach deactivating a camera if the distance to an object is too great and conserving power).
However, Examiner is unable to find any motivation or obviousness rationale to modify Nakashima to deactivate a camera based on the size of an avatar. To the contrary, Examiner notes paragraph [0121] and [0155] of Nakashima teach social interaction based on a camera capturing the face and body movements of the user is performed after determining avatar sizes.
Specifically, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest Applicant’s specifically claimed “head-wearable electronic device of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the head-wearable electronic device to: based on the size of the first avatar being identified as larger than the reference size, activate the at least one camera to obtain the at least one image; and based on the size of the first avatar being identified as smaller than the reference size, deactivate the at least one camera” (claim 4 – emphasis added);
Claims 11 and 18 recite similar language and are objected to as allowable for substantially the same reasons as claim 4, discussed above.
Claims 5, 12 and 19 are dependent on claims 4, 11 and 18, respectively, and are allowable for substantially the same reasons, discussed above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTONIO J XAVIER whose telephone number is (571)270-7688. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 830am-5pm PST.
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, PATRICK EDOUARD can be reached at 571-272-7603. 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.
/Antonio Xavier/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2622
Prosecution Insights