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 .
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) 1-4, 6, 8 and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Ofek; Eyal et al., US 20180232050 A1] in view of [Harviainen; Tatu V.J., US 20240427419 A1].
Regarding claim 1:
Ofek discloses:
1. An information processing apparatus (100) [Ofek: Fig.1: computing system 10; ¶ 0016: “The computing system 10 includes a haptic feedback system 12, and a head mounted display device 14 including a processor 16 and an associated display 18”] comprising:
a processor (101) [Ofek: Fig.1: processor 16];
and a memory (104, 105) [Ofek: Fig.1: memory 82] storing a program [Ofek: Fig.1: virtual reality program 84 and retargeting program 86] which, when executed by the processor (101) [Ofek: Fig.1: processor 16; ¶ 0016: “The processor is configured to execute software programs stored in memory 82”], causes the information processing apparatus [Ofek: Fig.1: computing system 10] to execute control processing of controlling display of a virtual space [Ofek: ¶ 0026: “compute a spatial warping pattern to warp an image displayed on the display 18 … display the virtual 3D space 42 and the virtual reality representation 44 according to the spatial warping pattern”] such that a predetermined touch [Ofek: ¶ 0024: “determine, from among a plurality of virtual targets 46 in the virtual 3D space 42 and a detected motion of the movable body part 22, an estimated intended virtual target 48 of the movable body part 22”; Examiner: The predicted intended target is the “predetermined touch”.] corresponding to a haptic sensation [Ofek: ¶ 0016: “virtual objects”; ¶ 0025-0026: the spatial warping pattern alters :the path 52 of the movable body part 22” so the user “interact[s] with the virtual target 46 while sensing haptic feedback from an appropriately selected target physical structure 50”; Examiner: Warping redirects the predicted reach so the touch on a non-matching structure does not occur and a matching, presentable touch occurs instead.].
However, Ofek does not expressly disclose:
the predetermined touch corresponding to a haptic sensation that is not presentable to a user from a haptic device to be used.
Harviainen discloses:
a haptic sensation that is not presentable to a user from a haptic device (200) to be used [Harviainen: ¶ 0003: “Where a device has limited haptics feedback capabilities, audio and visual output generated for the user should be adapted to match the limitations of the haptics feedback”; ¶ 0011: determining “whether the haptic enabled device satisfies a minimum requirement of haptic feedback capabilities”; Examiner: A need sensation exceeding or not compatible with the haptic enabled device’s capabilities is ”not presentable” from that device.].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ofek such that the touch avoided by the spatial-warping control of the display is one corresponding to a haptic sensation not presentable from the haptic device to be used, as taught by Harviainen. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification in order to adapt the displayed output to the limitations of the haptic device and thereby maintain consistency between the visual and haptic channels, as expressly taught by Harviainen [¶ 0003]. The modification amounts to applying Harviainen’s known device-capability/presentability determination to Ofek’s display-warping system to yield the predictable result of suppressing visual-haptic mismatch, with a reasonable expectation of success, as both references are directed to haptic feedback during user interaction with virtual objects in a virtual/augmented reality environment.
Regarding claim 2:
Ofek discloses:
2. The information processing apparatus [Ofek: Fig.1: computing system 10] according to claim 1,
wherein the program, when executed by the processor (101) [Ofek: Fig.1: processor 16], further causes the information processing apparatus to [Ofek: Fig.1: computing system 10; ¶ 0020: “ A virtual reality program 84 and retargeting program 86 are stored in non-volatile memory (E.g., FLASH RAM) 82 of the HMD device 14 and executed using portions of volatile memory (E.g., RAM) of memory 82 by processor 16”] [Ofek: ¶ 0024: “ determine, from among a plurality of virtual targets 46 … an estimated intended virtual target 48 of the movable body part 22”] and estimating a haptic sensation corresponding to the touch [Ofek: ¶ 0025: “a particular target physical structure 50 that has haptic characteristics corresponding to the intended virtual target 48”; Examiner: Determining the haptic characteristics corresponding to the predicted intended target is estimating the haptic sensation corresponding to the predicted touch.],
wherein, in the control processing, the display of the virtual space is controlled on a basis of [Ofek: ¶ 0026: “compute a spatial warping pattern to warp an image displayed on the display 18. Via the display 18, the processor 16 is configured to display the virtual 3D space 42 and the virtual reality representation 44 according to the spatial warping pattern”; Examiner: The warping pattern is computed from the structure 50 selected per the estimated haptic characteristics, so the display is controlled on the basis of the estimated haptic sensation.].
However, Ofek does not expressly disclose:
execute acquisition processing of acquiring information of the haptic device, and, in the control processing, the display being controlled on a basis of the information acquired by the acquisition processing.
Harviainen discloses:
acquisition processing of acquiring information of the haptic device (200) [Harviainen: ¶ 0007: “haptic feedback capabilities of the haptic enabled device associated with the request are determined”; Examiner: Determining the device’s haptic feedback capabilities is acquiring information of the haptic device.]
and controlling the display on a basis of the information acquired [Harviainen: ¶ 0003: “Where a device has limited haptics feedback capabilities, audio and visual output generated for the user should be adapted to match the limitations of the haptics feedback”].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ofek to acquire information of the haptic device and to control the display additionally on the basis of that information, as taught by Harviainen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to adapt the displayed output to the specific limitations of the haptic device being used and thereby maintain consistency between the visual and haptic channels, as expressly taught by Harviainen [¶ 0003]. The modification combines Ofek’s estimation-and-warping of the display with Harviainen’s known acquisition of device capability to yield the predictable result of controlling the display on the basis of both the estimated sensation and what the device can present, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 3:
Ofek in view of Harviainen discloses:
3. The information processing apparatus [Ofek: Fig.1: computing system 10] according to claim 2,
wherein the program, when executed by the processor (101) [Ofek: Fig.1: processor 16], further causes the information processing apparatus to [Ofek: Fig.1: computing system 10; ¶ 0020: “ A virtual reality program 84 and retargeting program 86 are stored in non-volatile memory (E.g., FLASH RAM) 82 of the HMD device 14 and executed using portions of volatile memory (E.g., RAM) of memory 82 by processor 16”] execute second acquisition processing of acquiring information of a position and an orientation of a predetermined part (11) of the user (10) [Ofek: ¶ 0017: “ In order to track the user's body orientation and anticipate user interaction with the virtual objects, one or more sensors may be in communication with the processor 16 … ”; ¶ 0018: “processor 16 calculates depth data for the surfaces … skeletal tracking techniques”; ¶ 0023: “The position of the virtual representation 44 of the movable body part 22 is displayed so as to appear to be positioned in a virtual location within the virtual 3D space 42 corresponding to the detected location in real 3D space 40”; Examiner: Skeletal tracking of the movable body part acquires its position and orientation.], and in the estimation processing, the prediction of the touch and the estimation of the haptic sensation are performed on a basis of temporal changes in the position and orientation of the predetermined part (11) [Ofek: ¶ 0024: “determine, from among a plurality of virtual targets 46 in the virtual 3D space 42 and a detected motion of the movable body part 22, an estimated intended virtual target 48 of the movable body part 22”; Examiner: A “detected motion” of the body part is temporal change in its position and orientation, on the basis of which the intended target (predicted touch) and its corresponding haptic characteristics (estimated sensation) are determined.].
Regarding claim 4:
Ofek in view of Harviainen discloses:
4. The information processing apparatus [Ofek: Fig.1: computing system 10] according to claim 3,
wherein a position and an orientation of the predetermined part (11) in the virtual space are linked with a position and an orientation of the predetermined part (11) in a real space [Ofek: ¶ 0023: “the virtual representation 44 of the movable body part 22 is displayed so as to appear to be positioned in a virtual location within the virtual 3D space 42 corresponding to the detected location in real 3D space 40”; ¶ 0018: “ track the position, motion, and gestures performed by the movable body part 22 within the real 3D space 40”; Examiner: The displayed virtual representation 44 of the body part is positioned and oriented to correspond to the tracked real-space position and orientation, i.e., the virtual-space pose is linked with real-space pose.], and in the second acquisition processing, the predetermined part (11) is detected from an image obtained by imaging the real space [Ofek: ¶ 0018: “By capturing visible light image data and depth image data in this manner, skeletal tracking techniques may be applied to identify the movable body part 22 within the images”].
Regarding claim 6:
Ofek discloses:
6. The information processing apparatus [Ofek: Fig.1: computing system 10] according to claim 3,
wherein the program, when executed by the processor (101) [Ofek: Fig.1: processor 16], further causes the information processing apparatus to [Ofek: Fig.1: computing system 10; ¶ 0020: “ A virtual reality program 84 and retargeting program 86 are stored in non-volatile memory (E.g., FLASH RAM) 82 of the HMD device 14 and executed using portions of volatile memory (E.g., RAM) of memory 82 by processor 16”] [Ofek: ¶ 0026: “compute a spatial warping pattern … display the virtual 3D space 42 and the virtual reality representation 44 according to the spatial warping pattern”; Examiner: Ofek’s controls the displayed virtual space (the warp) responsive to which structure is selected.].
However, Ofek does not expressly disclose:
execute determination processing of determining whether or not the estimated haptic sensation is a haptic sensation that is presentable from the haptic device to the user on a basis of the information acquired by the acquisition processing and the haptic sensation estimated by the estimation processing.
Harviainen discloses:
execute determination processing of determining whether or not the estimated haptic sensation is a haptic sensation that is presentable from the haptic device to the user on a basis of the information acquired by the acquisition processing and the haptic sensation estimated by the estimation processing [Harviainen: ¶ 0011: “ determining, based on the comparing, whether the haptic enabled device satisfies a minimum requirement of haptic feedback capabilities”; ¶ 0007: “The haptic feedback capabilities of the haptic enabled device are compared to the haptic feedback rendering criteria of one or more versions of the media asset”; Examiner: Comparing the device’s acquired capabilities against the rendering criteria of the needed (estimated) sensation, and deciding whether the device satisfies the minimum requirement, is determining whether that estimated sensation is presentable from the device on the basis of the acquired information and the estimated sensation.].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Harviainen’s determination of whether the haptic device can render the needed sensation into Ofek’s system, and to control Ofek’s display warping on the basis of that determination result. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to invoke the display adaptation only when the device cannot present the estimated sensation, thereby adapting the visual output to the device’s limitations and avoiding visual-haptic mismatch, as Harviainen teaches by comparing device capabilities to the required rendering criteria and providing compatible output based on that comparison [¶ 0007, 0011]. The combination yields predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 8:
Ofek in view of Harviainen discloses:
8. The information processing apparatus [Ofek: Fig.1: computing system 10] according to claim 2,
wherein, in the control processing, in a case where the predetermined touch is predicted [Ofek: ¶ 0024: “determine, from among a plurality of virtual targets 46 in the virtual 3D space 42 and a detected motion of the movable body part 22, an estimated intended virtual target 48 of the movable body part 22”; Examiner: The predicted intended target is the predetermined touch], the display of the virtual space is controlled such that the touch of the user with the virtual object, which is not the predetermined touch, is performed [Ofek: ¶ 0027: the spatial warping alters “the path 52 of the movable body part 22” so the user “interact[s] with the virtual target 46 while sensing haptic feedback from an appropriately selected target physical structure 50”; ¶ 0026: “display the virtual 3D space 42 and the virtual reality representation 44 according to the spatial warping pattern”; Examiner: Warping redirects the reach so that, instead of the non-matching (non-presentable) touch, a different touch with the virtual object, at the appropriately selected, presentable structure, is performed].
Regarding claim 13:
Ofek discloses:
13. The information processing apparatus [Ofek: Fig.1: computing system 10] according to claim 1,
wherein the control of the display of the virtual space [Ofek: ¶ 0026: “compute a spatial warping pattern to warp an image displayed on the display 18. Via the display 18, the processor 16 is configured to display the virtual 3D space 42 and the virtual reality representation 44 according to the spatial warping pattern”]
However, Ofek 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 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: Automatically adjusting the softness of a virtual material in the scene is control of a material of the virtual object.].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include, in Ofek’s control of the display of the virtual space, control of a material of the virtual object as taught by Harviainen. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification in order to adjust the object’s material to accommodate the limitations of the haptic device’s feedback rendering, as expressly taught by Harviainen [¶ 0006], thereby maintaining consistency between the visual and haptic channels. The modification combines Ofek’s display control with Harviainen’s known material adjustment to yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 14:
Ofek discloses:
14. An information processing method [Ofek: Fig.8; ¶ 0045: “ FIG. 8 is a flow chart of a method for use with a computing device, for a physical haptic feedback system with spatial warping”] comprising:
displaying a virtual space [Ofek: Fig.1: virtual 3D space 42; ¶ 0016: “to display via the display 18 a virtual 3D space 42 populated with virtual objects”];
and controlling display of the virtual space [Ofek: ¶ 0026: “compute a spatial warping pattern to warp an image displayed on the display 18 … display the virtual 3D space 42 and the virtual reality representation 44 according to the spatial warping pattern”] such that a predetermined touch [Ofek: ¶ 0024: “determine, from among a plurality of virtual targets 46 in the virtual 3D space 42 and a detected motion of the movable body part 22, an estimated intended virtual target 48 of the movable body part 22”; Examiner: The predicted intended target is the “predetermined touch”.] corresponding to a haptic sensation that is not presentable to a user from a haptic device to be used does not occur as a touch of the user with respect to a virtual object in the virtual space [Ofek: ¶ 0016: “virtual objects”; ¶ 0025-0026: the spatial warping pattern alters :the path 52 of the movable body part 22” so the user “interact[s] with the virtual target 46 while sensing haptic feedback from an appropriately selected target physical structure 50”; Examiner: Warping redirects the predicted reach so the touch on a non-matching structure does not occur and a matching, presentable touch occurs instead.].
However, Ofek does not expressly disclose:
the predetermined touch corresponding to a haptic sensation that is not presentable to a user from a haptic device to be used.
Harviainen discloses:
a haptic sensation that is not presentable to a user from a haptic device (200) to be used [Harviainen: ¶ 0003: “Where a device has limited haptics feedback capabilities, audio and visual output generated for the user should be adapted to match the limitations of the haptics feedback”; ¶ 0011: determining “whether the haptic enabled device satisfies a minimum requirement of haptic feedback capabilities”; Examiner: A need sensation exceeding or not compatible with the haptic enabled device’s capabilities is ”not presentable” from that device.].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ofek such that the touch avoided by the spatial-warping control of the display is one corresponding to a haptic sensation not presentable from the haptic device to be used, as taught by Harviainen. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification in order to adapt the displayed output to the limitations of the haptic device and thereby maintain consistency between the visual and haptic channels, as expressly taught by Harviainen [¶ 0003]. The modification amounts to applying Harviainen’s known device-capability/presentability determination to Ofek’s display-warping system to yield the predictable result of suppressing visual-haptic mismatch, with a reasonable expectation of success, as both references are directed to haptic feedback during user interaction with virtual objects in a virtual/augmented reality environment.
Regarding claim 15:
Ofek discloses:
15. A non-transitory computer readable medium [Ofek: Fig.1: memory 82] that stores a program [Ofek: Fig.1: virtual reality program 84 and retargeting program 86],
wherein the program [Ofek: Fig.1: virtual reality program 84 and retargeting program 86] causes a computer [Ofek: Fig.1: computing system 10] to execute an information processing method [Ofek: Fig.8; ¶ 0045: “ FIG. 8 is a flow chart of a method for use with a computing device, for a physical haptic feedback system with spatial warping”]comprising:
displaying a virtual space [Ofek: Fig.1: virtual 3D space 42; ¶ 0016: “to display via the display 18 a virtual 3D space 42 populated with virtual objects”];
and controlling display of the virtual space [Ofek: ¶ 0026: “compute a spatial warping pattern to warp an image displayed on the display 18 … display the virtual 3D space 42 and the virtual reality representation 44 according to the spatial warping pattern”] such that a predetermined touch [Ofek: ¶ 0024: “determine, from among a plurality of virtual targets 46 in the virtual 3D space 42 and a detected motion of the movable body part 22, an estimated intended virtual target 48 of the movable body part 22”; Examiner: The predicted intended target is the “predetermined touch”.] corresponding to a haptic sensation that is not presentable to a user from a haptic device to be used does not occur as a touch of the user with respect to a virtual object in the virtual space [Ofek: ¶ 0016: “virtual objects”; ¶ 0025-0026: the spatial warping pattern alters :the path 52 of the movable body part 22” so the user “interact[s] with the virtual target 46 while sensing haptic feedback from an appropriately selected target physical structure 50”; Examiner: Warping redirects the predicted reach so the touch on a non-matching structure does not occur and a matching, presentable touch occurs instead.].
However, Ofek does not expressly disclose:
the predetermined touch corresponding to a haptic sensation that is not presentable to a user from a haptic device to be used.
Harviainen discloses:
a haptic sensation that is not presentable to a user from a haptic device (200) to be used [Harviainen: ¶ 0003: “Where a device has limited haptics feedback capabilities, audio and visual output generated for the user should be adapted to match the limitations of the haptics feedback”; ¶ 0011: determining “whether the haptic enabled device satisfies a minimum requirement of haptic feedback capabilities”; Examiner: A need sensation exceeding or not compatible with the haptic enabled device’s capabilities is ”not presentable” from that device.].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ofek such that the touch avoided by the spatial-warping control of the display is one corresponding to a haptic sensation not presentable from the haptic device to be used, as taught by Harviainen. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification in order to adapt the displayed output to the limitations of the haptic device and thereby maintain consistency between the visual and haptic channels, as expressly taught by Harviainen [¶ 0003]. The modification amounts to applying Harviainen’s known device-capability/presentability determination to Ofek’s display-warping system to yield the predictable result of suppressing visual-haptic mismatch, with a reasonable expectation of success, as both references are directed to haptic feedback during user interaction with virtual objects in a virtual/augmented reality environment.
Claim(s) 5 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over [Ofek; Eyal et al., US 20180232050 A1] in view of [Harviainen; Tatu V.J., US 20240427419 A1] and further in view of [Carter; Thomas Andrew et al., US 20180039333 A1].
Regarding claim 5:
Ofek in view of Harviainen discloses:
5. The information processing apparatus [Ofek: Fig.1: computing system 10] according to claim 3,
wherein, in the estimation processing, the prediction of the touch and the estimation of the haptic sensation are performed on a basis of temporal changes in the position and orientation of the predetermined part (11) [Ofek: ¶ 0024: “determine, from among a plurality of virtual targets 46 … and a detected motion of the movable body part 22, an estimated intended virtual target 48”; Examiner: The detected motion of the body part is a temporal change in its position and orientation, on the basis of which the predicted touch and its corresponding haptic characteristics are determined]
However, Ofek in view of Harviainen does not expressly disclose:
the prediction of the touch and the estimation of the haptic sensation being performed on a basis of temporal changes in a position and an orientation of the virtual object.
Carter discloses:
temporal changes in a position and an orientation of the virtual object, on the basis of which the touch is predicted and the haptic sensation is estimated [Carter: ¶ 0038: “a physics engine will generally be responsible for managing the simulated forces and torques applied to the objects in the virtual world and the resulting changes in linear, and angular, velocity and acceleration, before generating the corresponding changes in spatial transformation for each object or object part represented”; ¶ 0039: “ the physics engine will ensure virtual objects are tested for “collisions”, which is effectively testing for future situations in which objects in the virtual scene might intersect. This generates collision information which feeds the management portion of the physics engine with positions, velocities, forces and torques. This information can also be used to inform a haptics engine about what a user might feel if parts of the user extended into the virtual world”; Examiner: Changes in the virtual object’s linear (position) and angular (orientation) state over time are used to predict the future intersection (touch) and to inform what the user would feel (estimated sensation).].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform Ofek’s prediction of the touch and estimation of the haptic sensation additionally on the basis of temporal changes in the position and orientation of the virtual object, as taught by Carter. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to correctly predict contact and the resulting sensation when the virtual object itself is moving, since Carter teaches that a physics engine tests for “future” intersections between the user and dynamic virtual objects and uses the object’s positions and velocities to inform what the user would feel [Carter: ¶ 0039]. Incorporating Carter’s physics-engine treatment of moving virtual objects into Ofek’s prediction-and-estimation yields the predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 9:
Ofek in view of Harviainen discloses:
9. The information processing apparatus [Ofek: Fig.1: computing system 10] according to claim 1,
wherein the control of the display of the virtual space [Ofek: ¶ 0026: “ compute a spatial warping pattern to warp an image displayed on the display 18. Via the display 18, the processor 16 is configured to display the virtual 3D space 42 and the virtual reality representation 44 according to the spatial warping pattern”]
However, Ofek in view of Harviainen does not expressly disclose:
the control of the display of the virtual space including control of a behavior of the virtual object.
Carter discloses:
the control of the display of the virtual space including control of a behavior of the virtual object [Carter: ¶ 0035: “a physics engine to update the position and properties of the virtual content”; ¶ 0038: “a physics engine will generally be responsible for managing the simulated forces and torques applied to the objects in the virtual world and the resulting changes in linear, and angular, velocity and acceleration, before generating the corresponding changes in spatial transformation for each object or object part represented”; Examiner: Managing the object’s motion (linear/angular velocity and spatial transformation) over time is control of a behavior of the virtual object, performed as part rendering/displaying the virtual content.].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include, in Ofek’s control of the display of the virtual space, control of a behavior of the virtual objects as taught by Carter. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so in order to render virtual objects whose motion and dynamics respond realistically within the virtual scene, as Carter teaches via its physics engine managing the object’s forces, torques, and resulting motion [¶ 0035, 0038]. Incorporating Carter’s physics-engine behavior control into Ofek’s display yields predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 10-12 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:
Regarding claim 7:
The prior art does not teach or suggest either singularly or in combination the at least claimed “wherein, in the control processing, in a case where the predetermined touch is predicted, a behavior of the virtual object is controlled such that the touch of the user with the virtual object does not occur”, in combination with the other recited claim features.
Regarding claim 10:
The prior art does not teach or suggest either singularly or in combination the at least claimed “wherein the control of the behavior of the virtual object is control to cause a predetermined portion of the virtual object to touch the user”, in combination with the other recited claim features.
Regarding claim 11:
The prior art does not teach or suggest either singularly or in combination the at least claimed “wherein the control of the display of the virtual space includes control to add another virtual object to the virtual space”, in combination with the other recited claim features.
Regarding claim 12:
The prior art does not teach or suggest either singularly or in combination the at least claimed “wherein the control of the display of the virtual space includes control to add an effect to the display of the virtual space”, in combination with the other recited claim features.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
[Lee; Yong Ho et al., US 20200286302 A1] discloses:
“Disclosed are a method and apparatus for manipulating an object in virtual or augmented reality based on a hand motion capture apparatus providing haptic feedback. The method of manipulating an object in virtual or augmented reality based on a hand motion capture apparatus providing haptic feedback includes receiving a value of a sensor at a specific position in a finger from the hand motion capture apparatus, estimating a motion of the finger based on the value of the sensor and adjusting a motion of a virtual hand, detecting contact of the adjusted virtual hand with a virtual object, and upon detecting the contact with the virtual object, providing feedback to the user using the hand motion capture apparatus, wherein the virtual hand is modeled for each user,” as recited in the abstract.
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
Prosecution Insights