DETAILED ACTION
Allowable Subject Matter
The indicated allowability of claim 12, now rewritten as claim 22, is withdrawn in view of the newly discovered reference(s) to [Wieczorek; Mark D., US 20220252881 A1] and [Yokoyama; Ryo et al., US 20240184368 A1]. Rejections based on the newly cited reference(s) follow.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Wieczorek; Mark D., US 20220252881 A1] in view of [Yokoyama; Ryo et al., US 20240184368 A1].
Regarding claim 22:
Wieczorek discloses:
22. (New) An information processing apparatus [Wieczorek: Fig.2: computing environment 22] comprising:
a processor (101) [Wieczorek: ¶ 0284: “these instructions are sufficient to allow a processor in the computing device to implement the method of the invention”]; and
a memory [Wieczorek: ¶ 0284: “The computer readable medium may be a hard drive or solid state storage having instructions that, when run, are loaded into random access memory”] storing a program which, when executed by the processor (101) [Wieczorek: ¶ 0284: “a processor in the computing device”], causes the information processing apparatus [Wieczorek: Fig.2: computing environment 22] to execute control processing of controlling display of a virtual space [Wieczorek: ¶ 0273: “users experiencing a virtual environment”] such that a predetermined touch corresponding to a haptic sensation that is not presentable to a user (10) [Wieczorek: Fig.2: user 18] from a haptic device (200) [Wieczorek: Fig.18: bodysuit with end effector areas 528, 532A, 532B, 534A, 534B; ¶ 0155: “a haptic device such as a haptic glove, haptic vest or haptic bodysuit”] to be used does not occur as a touch of the user (10) [Wieczorek: Fig.2: user 18] with respect to a virtual object (20) [Wieczorek: ¶ 0279: “the soft sofa”] in the virtual space [Wieczorek: ¶ 0279: “a virtual environment”; ¶ 0274: “determining that a haptic effect of touching a soft surface is unavailable”; ¶ 0274: “ visually rendering a hard surface in place of the soft surface”; Examiner: The touch of a soft surface is the predetermined touch, the soft sensation is the one the haptic device cannot present, and the display is changed so that touch that occurs is not that touch.],
However, Wieczorek does not expressly disclose:
wherein the control of the display of the virtual space includes control to add an effect to the display of the virtual space.
Yokoyama discloses:
wherein the control of the display of the virtual space [Yokoyama: Fig.6: display unit 142] includes control to add an effect to the display of the virtual space [Yokoyama: Fig.7: effect image display control unit 113b; ¶ 0103: “In a case where it is determined that tactile presentation is not possible from the tactile presentation device 200, the control unit 110 may switch to outputting only the effect image”; Examiner: The effect image is a visual effect added to the displayed scene, output where the device cannot present the tactile sensation.].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display control of Wieczorek to include adding the effect image of Yokoyama (¶ 0103) to the displayed virtual environment, because Yokoyama teaches that when the feedback is given by tactile presentation alone it is difficult for the user to perceive what relationship between the object and the user caused it (¶ 0005), and that displaying an effect image indicating the situation of the tactile presentation addresses that difficulty (¶ 0006). Wieczorek delivers a haptic effect to a user touching a virtual object, here a substitute for the effect its device cannot present (¶¶ 0273, 0274), so the same difficult arises and the same effect image would address it. Both references render a virtual environment to a user wearing a haptic device, the effect image would perform the same function in Wieczorek that it performs in Yokoyama, and the results would have been predictable.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Wieczorek; Mark D., US 20220252881 A1] in view of [Yokoyama; Ryo et al., US 20240184368 A1] and further in view of [Harviainen; Tatu V.J., US 20240427419 A1].
Regarding claim 24:
Wieczorek in view of Yokoyama discloses:
24. (New) The information processing apparatus according to claim 22,
However, Wieczorek in view of Yokoyama does not expressly disclose:
wherein the control of the display of the virtual space includes control of a material of the virtual object.
Harviainen discloses:
wherein the control of the display of the virtual space [Harviainen: ¶ 0006: “graphics content is automatically adjusted”; Examiner: The scene whose graphics content is adjusted is the displayed virtual space.] includes control of a material of the virtual object [Harviainen: ¶ 0006: “if the haptics feedback rendering lacks the simulation capabilities required for certain level of soft deformable material interaction, softness of the virtual materials in the scene could be automatically adjusted accordingly”; Examiner: Adjusting the softness of the virtual materials of the scene elements is control of a material of the virtual object.].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display control of Wieczorek in view of Yokoyama to include adjusting the virtual material of the touched object as taught by Harviainen (¶ 0006), because Wieczorek already changes a soft object into a hard one so that what is displayed matches the haptic effect the device can deliver (¶¶ 0274, 0279), and Harviainen teaches adjusting the softness of the object’s virtual material as the way to make that match when the haptic rendering lacks the capability for soft material interaction (¶ 0006). The adjustment would perform in Wieczorek the same function it performs in Harviainen, and the result would have been predictable. The combination with Yokoyama is as set forth in the rejection of claim 22.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-6, and 10-21 are allowed.
Claim 23 is 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:
Regarding claim 23:
The prior art does not teach or suggest either singularly or in combination the at least claimed “wherein the program, when executed by the processor, further causes the information processing apparatus to (1) execute acquisition processing of acquiring information of the haptic device, and (2) execute estimation processing of predicting a touch of the user with the virtual object and estimating a haptic sensation corresponding to the touch, and wherein, in the control processing, the display of the virtual space is controlled on a basis of the information acquired by the acquisition processing and the haptic sensation estimated by the estimation processing”, in combination with the other recited claim features.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Koosha Sharifi-Tafreshi whose telephone number is (571)270-5897. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8AM to 5PM 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, Nitin Patel can be reached at (571) 272-7677. 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.
/KOOSHA SHARIFI-TAFRESHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2628
