Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
SUMMARY
2. The application filed on October 07, 2025, has been received and made of record. There were initially 1-10 claims in the application of which claim 1 is independent claim. A preliminary amendment was made on the same day, where applicant amended independent claim 1 and dependent claim 7. Another preliminary amendment was filed on October 23, 2025, applicant further amended independent claim 1 and dependent claim 7. Claims 2-6 and 8-10 are maintained. NO claim has been cancelled and/or added as new claims in the preliminary amendment. Therefore, claims 1-10 are pending for consideration.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement(IDS) submitted was filed along with the mailing date of the application on October 07, 2025. The IDS submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
4. 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.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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.
5. 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 limitations are: “generator(claims 1-2, 4-5, 7)”; “effect imparter (claims 1, 3, 5-6, 10)”; “similarity calculator(claims 5, 7)”; “intimacy calculator(claims 6, 8)”; and “permitter(claim 7, 9).
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
7. Claim limitations “generator(claims 1-2, 4-5, 7)”; “effect imparter (claims 1, 3, 5-6, 10)”; “similarity calculator(claims 5, 7)”; “intimacy calculator(claims 6, 8)”; and “permitter(claim 7, 9) invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claims 1-10 are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter(35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
8. 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
9. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by BRUDY et al.(US 2023/0267667 A1) (herein after BRUDY).
Regarding claim 1, BRUDY teaches a display control apparatus (Para-20: system 100 includes, without limitation, an augmented-reality (AR) computing device 102 connected to AR hardware 120 and a user computing device 130) comprising:
a display controller(AR controller 126, processor 107, 132, fig.1) configured to cause an avatar image(avatar 202(1) or avatar 202(2), fig.2, Para-52) indicative of an avatar corresponding to a user(Para-54: Avatar 202(1) corresponds to a first person whose movements were captured in motion data 110(1). Avatar 202(2) corresponds to a second person whose movements were captured in motion data 110(1)) to be displayed in a virtual space(extended reality ER scene, 3D space);
a generator(AR controller 126, processor 104, fig.1) configured to generate value information(602, 604, fig.6, Para-129) relating to a sense of values of the user(Para-129, 130); and
an effect imparter(AR controller 126, processor 104, fig.1) configured to add a visual effect to the avatar image in accordance with the value information generated by the generator(610, 612, fig.6, Para-140, 146).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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.
11. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
12. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
13. Claims 2-4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BRUDY et al.(US 2023/0267661 A1) in view of ODATE TAKASHI et al.(JP 2019/024748 A1)(herein after TAKASHI)(IDS Doc).
Regarding claim 2, BRUDY is not found to teach expressly the display control apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the generator is configured to calculate, as the value information, a vector relating to the sense of values of the user.
However, TAKASHI teaches an image generation device(fig.2), wherein the generator is configured to calculate, as the value information(correction co-efficient, fig.12), a vector relating to the sense of values of the user(Para 224-229, 232).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified BRUDY with the teaching of TAKASHI to include the features in order to provide an image generation device that reduces time delay in formation of two-dimensional or three-dimensional image.
Regarding claim 3, BRUDY as modified by TAKASHI teaches the display control apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the effect imparter is configured to add an additional image dependent on the sense of values, as the visual effect, around the avatar image(fig.3, Para 353-354, TAKASHI).
Regarding claim 4, BRUDY as modified by TAKASHI teaches the display control apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the generator is configured to calculate the vector based on a word contained in a message transmitted by the user in the virtual space(Para 184-188, TAKASHI).
Regarding claim 10, BRUDY as modified by TAKASHI teaches the display control apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the user is a first user(202(1), fig.2, first person, Para-54, BRUDY), and
wherein the effect imparter is configured to add the visual effect in a case in which it is determined that the first user is in a state in which a conversation with the second user is allowed in the virtual space(Para 339-340, TAKASHI)(for motivation see the rejection of claim 2).
14. Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BRUDY et al.(US 2023/0267667 A1) in view of ODATE TAKASHI et al.(JP 2019/024748 A1) and further in view of MASASHI et al.(WO 2022/215725 A1)(herein after MASASHI).
Regarding claim 5, BRUDY as modified by TAKASHI teaches the display control apparatus according to claim 3,
wherein the user is a first user(first person, Para-54, BRUDY), wherein the vector is a first vector(Para 224-229, 232, TAKASHI),
wherein the additional image is a first additional image(610, 612, fig.6, Para-140, 146; fig.3, TAKASHI),
wherein the display controller is configured to cause a first avatar image(202(1)), which represents a first avatar corresponding to the first user (first person), and a second avatar image(202(2)), which represents a second avatar corresponding to a second user(second person), to be displayed (fig.2, BRUDY), and
wherein the generator is configured to calculate the first vector and a second vector relating to a sense of values of the second user(Para 224-229, 232, TAKASHI),
Neither BRUDY nor TAKASHI teaches expressly the display control apparatus, the display control apparatus further comprising: a similarity calculator configured to calculate a degree of similarity between the sense of values of the first user and the sense of values of the second user, based on the first vector and the second vector, wherein the effect imparter is configured to: add a second additional image dependent on the sense of values of the second user, as the visual effect, around the second avatar image; and change the first additional image and the second additional image based on the degree of similarity.
However, MASASHI teaches an information processing device, wherein the display control apparatus further comprising:
a similarity calculator configured to calculate a degree of similarity(comparison table, fig.3, Para 43-54) between the sense of values of the first user(user A or user B) and the sense of values of the second user(user B or user A), based on the first vector(motion 2-motion 10 or motion b-motion j) and the second vector(motion b-motion j or motion 2-motion 10),
wherein the effect imparter is configured to:
add a second additional image dependent on the sense of values of the second user, as the visual effect, around the second avatar image(Para-51, 52, 54-56, 59-61); and
change the first additional image and the second additional image based on the degree of similarity(Para 72-77, 94-100).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified BRUDY further with the teaching of MASASHI to include the features in order to provide an information processing device where operation and voice of the avatar are controlled according to atmosphere of communication space, so that the communication between the users is promoted.
Regarding claim 6, BRUDY as modified by TAKASHI and MASASHI teaches the display control apparatus according to claim 5, the display control apparatus according to claim 5, further comprising: an intimacy calculator configured to calculate, based on communication between the first user and the second user, a degree of intimacy between the first user and the second user(Para 56-58, MASASHI), wherein the effect imparter is configured to change the first additional image and the second additional image based on the degree of similarity and the degree of intimacy(610, 612, fig.6, Para-140, 146, BRUDY).
Claim 7 is rejected for the same reason as mentioned in the rejection of claim 5, since both claims 5 and 7 recite same limitations except the dependency of the respective claims.
Claim 8 is rejected for the same reason as mentioned in the rejection of claim 6, since both claims 6 and 8 recite same limitations except the dependency of the respective claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
15. Claim 9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
16. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 9: None of the prior art, on record, taken alone or in combination provides a reasonable motivation to propose or suggest applicant’s claim invention, “the display control apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the permitter is configured to permit, based on a relative positional relationship between the first avatar image and the second avatar image in the virtual space in addition to the degree of similarity and the degree of intimacy, the second avatar to move to the first individual space”.
Examiner Note
17. The Examiner cites particular figures, paragraphs, columns and line numbers in the references, as applied to the claims above. Although the particular citations are representative teachings and are applied to specific limitations within the claims, other passages, internally cited references, and figures may also apply. In preparing a response, it is respectfully requested that the Applicant fully consider the references, in their entirety, as potentially disclosing or teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as fully consider the context of the passage as taught by the references or as disclosed by the Examiner.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MD SAIFUL A SIDDIQUI whose telephone number is (571)270-1530. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9:00AM - 5:30PM.
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, Temesghen Ghebretinsae, can be reached on (571)272-3017. 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.
/MD SAIFUL A SIDDIQUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2626
Prosecution Insights