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 .
This Office Action is made in response to applicant’s preliminary amendment filed on 10/28/2025. Claims 1-18, 23 and 24 are currently pending in the application. An action follows below:
Notice to Applicant(s)
Since some U.S. applications are not properly translated from the foreign applications due to, e.g., incorrect gramma, missed punctuations, and etc., it is in the best interest of the patent community that applicant, in his/her normal review and/or rewriting of the disclosure, especially claims and, to take into consideration these editorial situations and make changes as necessary, in order to avoid at least unnecessary objections and 112 issue(s).
Specification
Upon carefully reviewed the disclosure, Examiner believes that (i) Fig. 11 is a flow chart illustrating an operation example of the control system that switches at least one of an avatar or an action of a provider, instead of “a user” in the specification at page 4, lines 13-15 and page 40, lines 21-23 (see the last step S207 of Fig. 11) and (ii) Fig. 12 is a flow chart illustrating an operation example of the control system that switches at least one of an avatar or an action of a user, instead of “a provider” in the specification at page 4, lines 16-18 and page 41, lines 20-22 (see the last step S217 of Fig. 12.) For the above reasons, the specification objection is made below.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
(i) “user” in line 15 on page 4 of the specification should be changed to -- provider --;
(ii) “provider” in line 17 on page 4 of the specification should be changed to -- user --;
(iii) “user” in line 23 on page 40 of the specification should be changed to -- provider --; and
(iv) “provider” in line 22 on page 41 of the specification should be changed to -- user --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: “output the avatar and the action of the user in the virtual reality space to the display device of the provider” in lines 3-4 should be changed to -- output an avatar and an action of the user in the virtual reality space to a display device of the provider -- because there is insufficient antecedent basis for the above bolded limitations in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the action history of the provider” in line 3 should be changed to -- an action history of the provider -- because there is insufficient antecedent basis for the above limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-18, 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Note that in order to clarify the invention and to avoid the unnecessary 112(b) issue(s), it is suggested that the Applicant clearly defines (i) an avatar of a provider or a user and (ii) an action of a provider, a user, an avatar of a provider, an avatar of a user, in the claim(s).
As per claim 1, this claim recites a limitation, “a user of the service” in line 5. Since the service is the action of helping or doing work for someone and the user, as a human in light of the disclosure, can’t be an element of the action of helping or doing work for someone, it is considered that this claim is not clearly defined.
As per claims 2-18, these claims are rejected for at least the reason set forth in claim 1 above.
In addition to claim 2, this claim further recites a limitation, “in a case where there is a plurality of the users, determine at least one of an avatar and an action visible to each of the plurality of users, based on the action history of each of the plurality of users” in lines 3-5. Since this claim recites a provider (in claim 1) and a plurality of the users in the above underlined limitation, it is not clear “an avatar” and “an action” in the above underlined limitation are of a provider, one of a plurality of users, and/or two or more of a plurality of users, it is considered that this claim is not clearly defined.
In addition to claim 2, this claim further recites a limitation, “output at least one of the avatar and the action of the user determined for each of the plurality of users” in last two lines. Since this claim recites the avatar of the provider (in claim 1) and the specification discloses the avatar of the user, it is unclear whether “the avatar” in the above underlined limitation is referred to “the avatar of the provider”, “the avatar of the user”, or “the avatar of another user of the plurality of the users”, it is considered that this claim is not clearly defined.
In addition to claim 7, this claim recites a limitation, “the provider of the service” in lines 4-5 5. Since the service is the action of helping or doing work for someone and the provider, as a human in light of the disclosure, can’t be an element of the action of helping or doing work for someone, it is considered that this claim is not clearly defined.
In addition to claim 11, this claim recites a limitation, “determine at least one of any one avatar and any one action, from a plurality of avatars and a plurality of actions” in last two lines. Since it is unclear (i) whether “any one avatar” in the above underlined limitation is referred to “any one avatar of the provider”, “any one avatar of the user”, or other; (ii) whether “any one action” in the above underlined limitation is referred to “any one action of the provider”, “any one action of the avatar of the provider”, “any one action of the user”, “any one action of the avatar of the user”, or other; (iii) whether “a plurality of avatars” in the above underlined limitation is referred to “a plurality of avatars of the provider”, “a plurality of avatars of the user”, “a plurality of avatars of the users”, “a plurality of avatars of the users and the provider”, or other; (iv) whether “a plurality of actions” in the above underlined limitation is referred to “a plurality of actions of the provider”, “a plurality of actions of the avatar of the provider”, “a plurality of actions of the user”, “a plurality of actions of the avatars of the user”, “a plurality of actions of the users”, or other, it is considered that this claim is not clearly defined.
In addition to claim 13, this claim recites a limitation, “generate the model that has learned the relationship between the action history of the user and the avatar of the provider and the action of the avatar, based on the past action histories of the plurality of users and the avatar of the provider and the action of the avatar at the time when each of the plurality of users uses the service” in lines 3-7. First, since it is unclear “the relationship between [[i]] the action history of the user and [[ii]] the avatar of the provider and [[iii]] the action of the avatar” of the above underlined limitation requires, (a) “the relationship between the action history of the user and the avatar of the provider; the relationship between the action history of the user and the action of the avatar; and the relationship between the avatar of the provider and the action of the avatar”, (b) “the relationship between (b1) the action history of the user and the avatar of the provider and (b2) the action of the avatar”, (c) “the relationship between (c1) the action history of the user and (c2) the avatar of the provider and the action of the avatar”, or (d) other, it is considered that this claim is not clearly defined. Second, since it is unclear “the past action histories of the plurality of users and the avatar of the provider and the action of the avatar” of the above underlined limitation requires (a) “(i) the past action histories of the plurality of users, (ii) the avatar of the provider, and (iii) the action of the avatar”, (b) “(i) the past action histories of the plurality of users, (ii) the past histories of the avatar of the provider, and (iii) the action of the avatar”, (c) “(i) the past action history of the plurality of users, (ii) the past history of the avatar of the provider, and (iii) the action of the avatar”, (d) “(i) the past action histories of the plurality of users, (ii) the past history of the avatar of the provider, and (iii) the action of the avatar”, or (e) other, it is considered that this claim is not clearly defined.
In addition to claim 14, this claim recites a limitation, “determine at least one of an avatar of a provider different from the provider who is providing the service to the user and an action of the avatar” in last 3 lines. Since it is unclear whether the above underlined limitation requires: (i) “determine at least one of an avatar of a provider different from at least one of other avatar of the provider who is providing the service to the user and an action of the avatar”, (ii) “determine at least one of an avatar of another provider, the another provider different from the provider who is providing the service to the user and an action of the avatar”, (iii) other, it is considered that this claim is not clearly defined.
In addition to claim 15, this claim recites a limitation, “determine at least one of an avatar of the provider same as the provider who is providing the service to the user and an action of the avatar” in last 3 lines. Since it is unclear whether the above underlined limitation requires: (i) “determine at least one of an avatar of a provider same as at least one of another avatar of the same provider who is providing the service to the user and an action of the avatar”, (ii) “determine at least one of an avatar of the provider and the provider being same as the provider who is providing the service to the user and an action of the avatar”, (iii) other, it is considered that this claim is not clearly defined.
As per claim 23, this claim recites a limitation, “a user of the service” in line 2. Since the service is the action of helping or doing work for someone and the user, as a human in light of the disclosure, can’t be an element of the action of helping or doing work for someone, it is considered that this claim is not clearly defined.
In addition to claim 23, this claim further recites the limitation “the outputting processing” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
As per claim 24, see the rejection of claim 23 for similar limitations.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-18, 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Note that, in order to satisfy its burden under the written description requirement, a patent application must disclose the full scope of the claim. Univ. of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., 358 F.3d 916, 920 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (The purpose of the written description requirement is to “ensure that the scope of the right to exclude, as set forth in the claims, does not overreach the scope of the inventor’s contribution to the field of art as described in the patent specification.”.)
Note that the Federal Circuit found that the meaning of “at least one of A and B” is “at least one of A and at least one of B.” See the decisions of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc. (358 F.3d 870 (Fed. Cir. 2004)) and of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) in Ex parte Jung (Appeal No. 2016-008290 (PTAB March 22, 2017)) are frequently cited for guidance on the use of conjunctive and disjunctive claim language.
Further, note that since the term, “at least one,” includes “one, two, three, more, or all,” the Applicant should carefully consider the plain and ordinary meaning of “at least one” and to make sure the original disclosure fully providing in detail all possible scenarios when drafting or amending claims. Further, note that the specification is not the measure of invention and limitations contained therein can’t be read into the claims. Therefore, when drafting and amending claims in a patent application, the use of the conjunctive “and” or the disjunctive “or” should be carefully considered, as each word of a claim can affect its interpretation and the ultimate validity of the patent. In particular, in claims reciting a selection from a list of elements that follows the phrase “at least one of,” one should consider how to encompass the claim scope intended.
As per claim 1, this claim recites a limitation, “determine at least one of the avatar of the provider of the service and the action of the avatar in the virtual reality space, based on the action history of the user” in lines 9-11. This underlined limitation is construed as “determine at least one of the avatar of the provider of the service and at least one of the action of the avatar in the virtual reality space, based on the action history of the user” which includes at least feature, “determine two, three or more avatars of the provider of the service and two, three, or more actions of the avatar in the virtual reality space, based on the action history of the user”, which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The original disclosure, specifically ¶¶ 61-63 of the specification, discloses to determine the avatar of the provider of the service and the action of the avatar of the provider in the virtual reality space, based on the action history of the user, but does not explicitly discuss in detail the above feature of the above underlined limitation, so as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Further, see the above bolded note. Accordingly, the original disclosure does not contain such description and details regarding to the above underlined limitation of this claim, so as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In addition to claim 1, this claim further recites limitations, “switch at least one of the avatar and the action of the provider of the service to at least one of the determined avatar and action of the provider and outputs at least one of the determined avatar and action” in last 3 lines. This underlined limitations are construed as “switch at least one of the avatar and at least one of the action of the provider of the service to at least one of the determined avatar and at least one of action of the provider and outputs at least one of the determined avatar and at least one of the determined action” which include at least features, “switch two, three, or more avatars and two, three, or more actions of the provider of the service to two, three, or more determined avatars and two, three, or more actions of the provider and outputs two, three, or more determined avatar and two, three, or more determined actions”, which were not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The original disclosure, specifically Fig. 7 and ¶¶ 76-78 of the specification, discloses to respectively switch the avatar and the action of the provider of the service to the determined avatar of the provider and the determined action of the provider and to output the determined avatar of the provider and the determined action of the provider. However, the original disclosure does not explicitly discuss in detail the above features of the above underlined limitations, so as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Further, see the above bolded note. Accordingly, the original disclosure does not contain such description and details regarding to the above underlined limitations of this claim, so as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As per claims 2-18, these claims are therefore rejected for at least the reasons set forth in claim 1 above.
In addition to claim 2, this claim further recites limitations, “in a case where there is a plurality of the users, determine at least one of an avatar and an action visible to each of the plurality of users, based on the action history of each of the plurality of users, and output at least one of the avatar and the action of the user determined for each of the plurality of users” in last 5 lines. The underlined limitations are construed as “in a case where there is a plurality of the users, determine at least one of an avatar and at least one of an action visible to each of the plurality of users, based on the action history of each of the plurality of users, and output at least one of the avatar and at least one of the action of the user determined for each of the plurality of users” which include at least features, “in a case where there is a plurality of the users, determine two, three, or more avatars and two, three, or more actions visible to each of the plurality of users, based on the action history of each of the plurality of users, and output two, three, or more avatars and two, three, or more actions of the user determined for each of the plurality of users”, which were not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The original disclosure, specifically ¶¶ 66-68 of the specification, discloses, in a case where there is a plurality of the users, to determine an avatar of a provider and an action of the avatar of the provider visible to each of the plurality of users, based on the action history of each of the plurality of users, and output the avatar and the action of the user determined for each of the plurality of users. However, the original disclosure does not explicitly discuss in detail the above features of the above underlined limitations, so as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Further, see the above bolded note. Accordingly, the original disclosure does not contain such description and details regarding to the above underlined limitations of this claim, so as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In addition to claim 3, this claim further recites limitations, “in a case where there is the plurality of users, determine at least one of the avatar of the provider and the action of the avatar visible to each of the plurality of users, based on the action history of each of the plurality of users, and perform switching to and outputs at least one of the avatar and the action of the provider determined for each of the plurality of users” in last 6 lines. The underlined limitations are construed as “in a case where there is the plurality of users, determine at least one of the avatar of the provider and at least one of the action of the avatar visible to each of the plurality of users, based on the action history of each of the plurality of users, and perform switching to and outputs at least one of the avatar and at least one of the action of the provider determined for each of the plurality of users” which include at least features, “in a case where there is the plurality of users, determine two, three, or more avatars of the provider and two, three, or more actions of the avatar visible to each of the plurality of users, based on the action history of each of the plurality of users, and perform switching to and outputs two, three, or more avatars and two, three, or more actions of the provider determined for each of the plurality of users”, which were not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The original disclosure, specifically ¶¶ 66-68 of the specification, discloses, in a case where there is a plurality of the users, to determine the avatar of the provider and the action of the avatar visible to each of the plurality of users, based on the action history of each of the plurality of users, and perform switching to and outputs the avatar and the action of the provider determined for each of the plurality of users. However, the original disclosure does not explicitly discuss in detail the above features of the above underlined limitations, so as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Further, see the above bolded note. Accordingly, the original disclosure does not contain such description and details regarding to the above underlined limitations of this claim, so as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In addition to claim 6, this claim further recites limitations, “determine at least one of the avatar of the provider of the service and the action of the avatar in the virtual reality space, based on at least one of an emotion of the user, a tension degree of the user, and a fatigue degree of the user estimated from the biometric information of the user” in last 4 lines. The underlined limitations are construed as “determine at least one of the avatar of the provider of the service and at least one of the action of the avatar in the virtual reality space, based on at least one of an emotion of the user, at least one of a tension degree of the user, and at least one of a fatigue degree of the user estimated from the biometric information of the user” which include at least features, “determine two, three, or more avatars of the provider of the service and two, three, or more actions of the avatar in the virtual reality space, based on two, three, or more emotions of the user, two, three, or more tension degrees of the user, and two, three, or more fatigue degrees of the user estimated from the biometric information of the user” which were not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The original does not explicitly discuss in detail the above features of the above underlined limitations, so as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Further, see the above bolded note. Accordingly, the original disclosure does not contain such description and details regarding to the above underlined limitations of this claim, so as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In addition to claim 8, this claim further recites limitations, “determine at least one of the avatar and the action of the user, based on the action history of the user; and switch at least one of the avatar and the action of the user to at least one of the determined avatar and action of the user and output at least one of the determined avatar and action” in last 5 lines. The underlined limitations are construed as “determine at least one of the avatar and at least one of the action of the user, based on the action history of the user; and switch at least one of the avatar and at least one of the action of the user to at least one of the determined avatar and at least one of the determined action of the user and output at least one of the determined avatar and at least one of the determined action” which include at least features, “determine two, three, or more avatars and two, three, or more actions of the user, based on the action history of the user; and switch two, three, or more avatars and two, three, or more actions of the user to two, three, or more determined avatars and two, three, or more determined actions of the user and output two, three, or more determined avatars and two, three, or more determined actions” which were not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The original does not explicitly discuss in detail the above features of the above underlined limitations, so as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Further, see the above bolded note. Accordingly, the original disclosure does not contain such description and details regarding to the above underlined limitations of this claim, so as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In addition to claim 9, this claim further recites limitations, “determine at least one of the avatar and the action of the user, based on the action history of the provider; and switch at least one of the avatar and the action of the user to at least one of the determined avatar and action of the user and output at least one of the determined avatar and action of the user” in last 5 lines. The underlined limitations are construed as “determine at least one of the avatar and at least one of the action of the user, based on the action history of the provider; and switch at least one of the avatar and at least one of the action of the user to at least one of the determined avatar and at least one of the determined action of the user and output at least one of the determined avatar and at least one of the determined action of the user” which include at least features, “determine two, three, or more avatars and two, three, or more actions of the user, based on the action history of the provider; and switch two, three, or more avatars and two, three, or more actions of the user to two, three, or more determined avatars and two, three, or more determined actions of the user and output two, three, or more determined avatars and two, three, or more determined actions of the user” which were not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The original does not explicitly discuss in detail the above features of the above underlined limitations, so as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Further, see the above bolded note. Accordingly, the original disclosure does not contain such description and details regarding to the above underlined limitations of this claim, so as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In addition to claim 10, this claim further recites limitations, “switch at least one of the avatar and the action of the provider to at least one of the determined avatar and action of the provider and output at least one of the determined avatar and action” in last 3 lines. The underlined limitations are construed as “switch at least one of the avatar and at least one of the action of the provider to at least one of the determined avatar and at least one of the determined action of the provider and output at least one of the determined avatar and at least one of the determined action”, which include at least features, “switch two, three, or more avatars and two, three, or more actions of the provider to two, three, or more determined avatar and two, three, or more determined actions of the provider and output two, three, or more determined avatars and two, three, or more determined actions” which were not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The original does not explicitly discuss in detail the above features of the above underlined limitations, so as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Further, see the above bolded note. Accordingly, the original disclosure does not contain such description and details regarding to the above underlined limitations of this claim, so as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In addition to claim 11, this claim further recites a limitation, “determine at least one of any one avatar and any one action, from a plurality of avatars and a plurality of actions” in last 2 lines. The underlined limitation is construed as “determine at least one of any one avatar and at least one of any one action, from a plurality of avatars and a plurality of actions”, which includes at least feature, “determine two, three, or more avatars and two, three, or more actions, from a plurality of avatars and a plurality of actions”, which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The original does not explicitly discuss in detail the above features of the above underlined limitation, so as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Further, see the above bolded note. Accordingly, the original disclosure does not contain such description and details regarding to the above underlined limitation of this claim, so as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In addition to claims 12-13, these claims further recite a limitation, “where each of the determine at least one of the avatar and the action of the provider of the service” in last 2 lines of claim 12. The underlined limitation is construed as “where each of the determine at least one of the avatar and at least one of the action of the provider of the service” which includes at least feature, “where each of the determine two, three, or more avatars and two, three, or more actions of the provider of the service”, which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The original does not explicitly discuss in detail the above feature of the above underlined limitation, so as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Further, see the above bolded note. Accordingly, the original disclosure does not contain such description and details regarding to the above underlined limitation of these claims, so as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In addition to claim 13, this claim further recites a limitation, “generate the model that has learned the relationship between the action history of the user and the avatar of the provider and the action of the avatar, based on the past action histories of the plurality of users and the avatar of the provider and the action of the avatar at the time when each of the plurality of users uses the service” in lines 3-7. The original disclosure does not explicitly discuss in detail how the model, which does not include any physical structure such as a processor or the like, itself has learned the relationship between the action history of the user and the avatar of the provider and the action of the avatar, based on the past action histories of the plurality of users and the avatar of the provider and the action of the avatar at the time when each of the plurality of users uses the service, so as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Further, see the above bolded note. Accordingly, the original disclosure does not contain such description and details regarding to the above underlined limitation of this claim, so as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In addition to claim 13, this claim further recites a limitation, “determine at least one of the avatar and the action of the provider of the service” in last two lines. The underlined limitation is construed as “determine at least one of the avatar and at least one of the action of the provider of the service”, which includes at least feature, “determine two, three, or more avatars and two, three, or more actions of the provider of the service”, which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The original does not explicitly discuss in detail the above feature of the above underlined limitation, so as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Further, see the above bolded note. Accordingly, the original disclosure does not contain such description and details regarding to the above underlined limitation of this claim, so as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In addition to claim 14, this claim further recites a limitation, “determine at least one of an avatar of a provider different from the provider who is providing the service to the user and an action of the avatar” in last 3 lines. The underlined limitation is construed as “determine at least one of an avatar of a provider different from the provider who is providing the service to the user and at least one of an action of the avatar” which includes at least feature, “determine two, three, or more avatars of a provider different from the provider who is providing the service to the user and two, three, or more actions of the avatar”, which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The original does not explicitly discuss in detail the above feature of the above underlined limitation, so as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Further, see the above bolded note. Accordingly, the original disclosure does not contain such description and details regarding to the above underlined limitation of this claim, so as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In addition to claim 15, this claim further recites a limitation, “determine at least one of an avatar of the provider same as the provider who is providing the service to the user and an action of the avatar” in last 3 lines. The underlined limitation is construed as “determine at least one of an avatar of the provider same as the provider who is providing the service to the user and at least one of an action of the avatar” which includes at least feature, “determine two, three, or more avatars of the provider same as the provider who is providing the service to the user and two, three, or more actions of the avatar”, which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The original does not explicitly discuss in detail the above feature of the above underlined limitation, so as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Further, see the above bolded note. Accordingly, the original disclosure does not contain such description and details regarding to the above underlined limitation of this claim, so as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In addition to claim 16, this claim further recites limitations, “upon receiving the switching instruction, switch at least one of the avatar and the action of the provider to at least one of the determined avatar and action of the provider and output at least one of the determined avatar and action” in last 4 lines. The underlined limitations are construed as “upon receiving the switching instruction, switch at least one of the avatar and at least one of the action of the provider to at least one of the determined avatar and at least one of the determined action of the provider and output at least one of the determined avatar and at least one of the determined action” which include at least features, “upon receiving the switching instruction, switch two, three, or more avatars and two, three, or more actions of the provider to two, three, or more determined avatars and two, three, or more determined actions of the provider and output two, three, or more determined avatars and two, three, or more determined actions”, which were not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The original does not explicitly discuss in detail the above features of the above underlined limitations, so as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Further, see the above bolded note. Accordingly, the original disclosure does not contain such description and details regarding to the above underlined limitations of this claim, so as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In addition to claim 17, this claim further recites limitations, “upon receiving the switching instruction, switch at least one of the avatar and the action of the provider to at least one of the determined avatar and action of the provider and output at least one of the determined avatar and action” in last 4 lines. See the rejection of claim 16 for similar limitations.
As per claims 23-24, see the rejection of claim 1 for similar limitations.
Notice to Applicant(s)
Examiner notes that the specification is not the measure of invention. Therefore, limitations contained therein can’t be read into the claims for the purpose of avoiding the prior art. See In re Sporck, 55 CCPA 743, 386 F.2d 924, 155 USPQ 687 (1968).
Further, the names/ terms of the features/elements used in the pending application or pending claims may be different from the names/terms of the matching features/ elements of the prior arts; however, the matching features/ elements of the prior arts contain all characteristics/ functions of the features/elements DEFINED by the pending claims.
Note that in order to avoid confusion, the below citations in the below rejection(s) are mere one or more places in the reference to disclose the "claimed" limitation(s) and/or are directed to one or more of embodiments disclosed by the cited reference(s). In other words, the “claimed” features/limitations may be read in other places in the reference or other embodiments of the reference. In order to better understand how the claimed limitations are taught by the reference(s), a review of the entire reference(s) is suggested by the examiner. Applicant is reminded a prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention as not all relevant paragraphs may have been cited in the rejection. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
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.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-18, 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirai et al. (JP 2021077257 A; hereinafter Shirai; see the corresponding English translation for the following citations) in view of Kikuchi et al. (US 10,037,342 B2; hereinafter Kikuchi.)
As per claims 1, 11, 23 and 24, Shirai discloses a control system, a control method, and a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium [storage units 32, 142, 222] recording/ storing a program including instructions (see at least Figs. 1-2), the control system comprising:
one or more memories [storage units 32, 142, 222] storing instructions (see at least Figs. 1-2); and
one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to (see at least Fig. 2; the paragraph on pages 3-4, disclosing control units [143, 33, 226], each including plural units, each unit realized by the processor):
output an avatar of a provider who provides a service to a user of the service in a virtual reality space and an action of the avatar to a display device of the user (see at least Figs. 7A-7B and the corresponding description, disclosing: output, to a display device of a user of a service, an avatar and avatar behavior of a provider [performer] that is providing the service to the user in a virtual live venue or a virtual space; also see claim 5 “… first means of arranging a performer avatar that operates in response to a performer's movement and a plurality of user avatars that correspond to each of a plurality of users in a virtual space. …” or Abstract;)
acquire reaction data of the user who is using the service (see at least page 8 of translation “… The reaction data acquisition unit 332 acquires reaction data from the user terminal 22. The reaction data acquisition unit 332 may acquire the reaction data from the user terminals 22 of all the users participating in the virtual live, or may acquire the reaction data from the terminals of some users …”; claim 5 “… second means for acquiring reaction data related to the reaction of at least a part of the plurality of users to the effect in the virtual space …”;)
determine at least one of the avatar of the provider of the service and the action of the avatar in the virtual reality space, based on the reaction data of the user (see at least page 8 of translation “… The user identification unit 333 identifies a user whose reaction data satisfies a specific condition. The user identification unit 333 in the present embodiment identifies a user whose emotions satisfy a predetermined condition, more specifically, a user who is determined to be excited (active) based on the reaction data. As an example, the user identification unit 333 acquires the activity degree from the user's voice and the magnitude of movement grasped from the reaction data based on the reaction data, and identifies the user whose activity degree exceeds the threshold value. The degree of activity may be acquired based on the reaction data and a predetermined relational expression, or may be acquired based on the reaction data and the trained model. When a user is identified, the user identification unit 333 may acquire the number of active users. Alternatively, the user identification unit 333 may specify a predetermined number of users in descending order of activity. Further, a plurality of threshold values may be provided, and the user identification unit 333 may specify the user in a plurality of stages, such as a user having a high degree of activity and a user having a medium degree of activity. Further, the user identification unit 333 may associate the identified user with the degree of activity thereof …”; claim 5 “… Based on the reaction data, a third means for identifying a user whose emotions of at least a part of the users satisfy a predetermined condition …”;) and
switch at least one of the avatar and the action of the provider of the service to at least one of the determined avatar and action of the provider and outputs at least one of the determined avatar and action (see at least page 4 of translation “… The VR space change information acquisition unit 1435 acquires the VR space change information for changing the virtual live venue according to the reaction of the user participating in the virtual live from the server 3. The change of the virtual live venue includes a change of the mode of the user avatar, a change of the mode of the performer avatar, and execution of an effect on the virtual live venue. The VR space change unit 1436 changes the virtual live venue based on the VR space change information. As a specific example, the VR space change unit 1436 performs a predetermined effect such as changing the display mode of the performer avatar or the user avatar or causing fireworks in the virtual live venue based on the VR space change information according to the reaction of the user …”; also see “four means” and “sixth means” in claims 6-12.)
Accordingly, Shirai discloses all limitations of these claims except that for avatar control, these claims use “action history” and Shirai uses “reaction data”.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kikuchi discloses a related control system (see at least Fig. 1), wherein the object/avatar and the action of the avatar is determined and the determined object/avatar and the action of the avatar of is changed/switched, based on the action history of a user (see at least any of Figs. 2, 4-8, Col. 2:9-22; Col. 7:44-59,) thereby allowing an object/avatar reflecting the personality of each of users to represent the user (see at least Col. 1:56-62.) Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of invention of the pending application to utilize the same aforementioned technique of changing/switching the displayed avatar on the basis of the action history of a user, in the control system of Shirai in view of the Kikuchi reference, to improve the above modified control system of Shirai for the predictable result of allowing an object/avatar reflecting the personality of each of users to represent the user. Accordingly, the above modified Shira obviously renders all limitations of these claims.
As per claims 2-3, the above modified Shirai obviously renders: in a case where there is a plurality of the users, determine at least one of an avatar and an action visible to each of the plurality of users, based on the action history of each of the plurality of users, and perform switching to and output at least one of the avatar and the action of the user/provider determined for each of the plurality of users (see Shirai at least Figs. 7A, 7B, l0A, l0B and the corresponding description of translation; and paragraph on page 16 of translation “Further, the user identification unit 333 may specify the user based on the reaction data, and is not limited to the exciting user. For example, the user identification unit 333 may specify a user whose other emotions such as sadness and anger satisfy a predetermined condition. For example, when a memorial service is performed in the VR space, a user who is deeply sad may be identified and the feedback output to that user may be suppressed. As another example, when a political demonstration with a performer avatar as a caller is performed in VR space, the user identification unit 333 identifies an angry user based on data based on changes in heart rate or body temperature as reaction data. , The user avatar corresponding to the user (the user avatar that is synchronized with the caller) may be made red, and the like may be given feedback”; and paragraph on page 13 of translation “In FIGS. 10A and 10B, VR space change information including information identifying an active user is transmitted to the distributor terminal 14, and the VR space change unit 1436 of the distributor terminal 14 corresponds to the active user. This is an example of changing the display mode so that the performer avatars 92 stare at each other. Specifically, the display mode of the user avatar 94 is changed so as to receive the line of sight from the performer avatar 92. In addition, the display mode of the performer avatar 92 is changed so as to send a line of sight to the user avatar 94 corresponding to the active user.” From these disclosures, it is apparent that Shirai discloses the feature of performing respective control for the avatars of a plurality of users (correspond to the “users” of the present application) and the feature of performing respective control for the avatars of a plurality of users (correspond to the "users" of the present application) and that of a performer (corresponds to the “provider” of the present application).)
As per claim 4, the above modified Shirai obviously renders: wherein the action history is a degree of attentive listening of the user in a conversation with the provider (see Shirai at least paragraph on page 16 of translation “Further, the user identification unit 333 may specify the user based on the reaction data, and is not limited to the exciting user. For example, the user identification unit 333 may specify a user whose other emotions such as sadness and anger satisfy a predetermined condition. For example, when a memorial service is performed in the VR space, a user who is deeply sad may be identified and the feedback output to that user may be suppressed. As another example, when a political demonstration with a performer avatar as a caller is performed in VR space, the user identification unit 333 identifies an angry user based on data based on changes in heart rate or body temperature as reaction data. The user avatar corresponding to the user (the user avatar that is synchronized with the caller) may be made red, and the like may be given feedback.” From this disclosure, it is apparent that in Shirai 1, being "in sync with the speaker" is used as user information. Therefore, it is found that a person skilled in the art could have easily conceived of using a "degree of attentiveness" in the information for controlling avatars (action/behavior history).)
As per claims 5-7, the above modified Shirai obviously renders: wherein the action history is biometric information of the user; wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to: determine at least one of the avatar of the provider of the service and the action of the avatar in the virtual reality space, based on at least one of an emotion of the user, a tension degree of the user, and a fatigue degree of the user estimated from the biometric information of the user; and wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to: acquire a past action history of the user; determine the avatar of the provider of the service, based on the past action history of the user, before start of the service; and output the determined avatar of the provider (see Shirai at least paragraph on page 16 of translation “Further, the user identification unit 333 may specify the user based on the reaction data, and is not limited to the exciting user. For example, the user identification unit 333 may specify a user whose other emotions such as sadness and anger satisfy a predetermined condition. For example, when a memorial service is performed in the VR space, a user who is deeply sad may be identified and the feedback output to that user may be suppressed. As another example, when a political demonstration with a performer avatar as a caller is performed in VR space, the user identification unit 333 identifies an angry user based on data based on changes in heart rate or body temperature as reaction data. The user avatar corresponding to the user (the user avatar that is synchronized with the caller) may be made red, and the like may be given feedback.” From this disclosure, it is apparent that in document 1, bio-information ( heart rate or body temperature) and emotion ( another emotion such as sadness or anger) are used as user information. Therefore, it is found that a person skilled in the art could have easily conceived of using a "degree of tension and degree of fatigue" in the information for controlling avatars (behavior/action history).)
As per claim 8, the above modified Shirai obviously renders: wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to: output an avatar and an action of the user in the virtual reality space to a display device of the provider; determine at least one of the avatar and the action of the user, based on the action history of the user; and switch at least one of the avatar and the action of the user to at least one of the determined avatar and action of the user and output at least one of the determined avatar and action (see at least Fig. 1; the paragraph on page 12 of the translation “The playback device 12 for the performer includes a display 121 and a speaker 122. An image (video) of a virtual live venue generated by the distributor terminal 14 is displayed on the display 121 of the playback device 12. From the speaker 122, the sound of the virtual live venue generated by the distributor terminal 14 is output.” From this disclosure, it is apparent that an image (video) of the virtual live event venue is displayed on a display for the performer as the provider.)
As per claim 9, the above modified Shirai obviously renders: wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to: output the avatar and the action of the user in the virtual reality space to the display device of the provider; acquire an action history of the provider who is providing the service; determine at least one of the avatar and the action of the user, based on the action history of the provider; and switch at least one of the avatar and the action of the user to at least one of the determined avatar and action of the user and output at least one of the determined avatar and action of the user (see the discussion in the rejection of claim 1 for the change of the user and the provider, as Shirai at least Figs. 7A, 7B, 9A, 9B, 10A, 10B, discloses a plurality of avatars representing for a plurality of users and an avatar of the performer/provider; and Shirai claim 5 disclosing that “reaction data” [[modified to “action history” of Kikuchi]] is used for avatar control.)
As per claim 10, the above modified Shirai obviously renders: wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to: acquire the action history of the provider who is providing the service; determine the avatar and the action of the provider, based on the action history of the provider and the action history of the user; and switch at least one of the avatar and the action of the provider to at least one of the determined avatar and action of the provider and output at least one of the determined avatar and action (see the discussion in the rejection of claim 1 for the change of the user and the provider, as Shirai at least Figs. 7A, 7B, 9A, 9B, 10A, 10B, discloses a plurality of avatars representing for a plurality of users and an avatar of the performer/provider; and Shirai claim 5 disclosing that “reaction data” [[modified to “action history” of Kikuchi]] is used for avatar control.)
As per claims 12-13, Shirai discloses at the paragraph on page 19 of the translation “In this case, when the user avatar corresponding to the user U12 receives feedback according to the reaction of the user U12 (to be exact, the reaction data transmitted from the user terminal 22 of the user U12 to the server 3), the state of the feedback is different. It is also output to the screen 42 of the above. In particular, when the feedback (change of display mode) such that the performer avatar and the user avatar interact with each other such as hugging, no contradiction occurs. Therefore, one. The VR space change unit 1436 may allow the performer avatar and the user avatar to interact with each other, provided that the virtual seat is exclusively set for one user.” From this disclosure, it is apparent that Shirai discloses feedback in which a reciprocal action such as a hug is performed. Furthermore, Official Notice is taken that both the concept and the advantages of using machine learning when performing control using a history (i.e., past data) to simplify the process are well-known and expected in the art. Therefore, it is found that it would have been easy to conceive of “learning a relationship to the avatar and avatar behavior of the provider” in the above modified control system of Shirai, to obtain the same predictable result. Accordingly, the above modified control system of Shirai in view of Kikuchi obviously renders all limitations of these claims.
As per claims 14-15, since Shirai discloses avatar control for multiple users and the performer/provider (see at least Figs. 7A, 7B, 9A, 9B, 10A, 10B) and a section of configuration of each device for performers/providers (see at least pages 2-3 of the translation), having avatar control for multiple performers/providers would be merely a design matter for a person skilled in the art in accordance to a particular application. Therefore, while Shirai may not exemplify in detail avatar control for multiple performers/providers, as presently claimed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the control system of Shirai to perform avatar control for multiple performers/providers, as desired as claimed, in accordance to a particular application. Accordingly, the above modified control system of Shirai in view of Kikuchi obviously renders all limitations of these claims.
As per claim 16, Shirai discloses: wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to: receive a switching instruction of an avatar from the provider; upon receiving the switching instruction, switch at least one of the avatar and the action of the provider to at least one of the determined avatar and action of the provider and output at least one of the determined avatar and action (see Shirai at least the section “Configuration of each device for performers” on pages 2-3 of the translation, disclosing “The motion detection device 11 for the performer detects the actual motion (including vocalization) of the performer in the studio in real time, and transmits the motion information indicating the detected motion to the distributor terminal 14 … to display the output presentation device 13 …” From at least this disclosure, it is apparent that Shirai discloses to: receive the performer’s motion instruction or voice instruction, as a switching instruction of an avatar from the provider; and upon receiving the switching instruction, switch at least one of the avatar and the action of the provider to at least one of the determined avatar and action of the provider and output at least one of the determined avatar and action; also see the rejection of claim 1 for detail switching at least one of the avatar and the action of the provider to at least one of the determined avatar and action of the provider.)
As per claim 17, Shirai discloses: wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to: receive a switching instruction of an avatar from the user; and upon receiving the switching instruction, switch at least one of the avatar and the action of the provider to at least one of the determined avatar and action of the provider and output at least one of the determined avatar and action (see Shirai at least the section “Configuration of each device for the user” on pages 5-7 of the translation, disclosing “… The sensor 223 is built in or externally attached to the user terminal 22 to detect the user's movement ... The touch panel 224 also serves as an input interface and an output interface, accepts operations such as tapping, swiping, and long-pressing from the user, and displays an image according to the control from the control unit 226 … The user may be able to select whether or not to send the reaction data …the virtual live venue is output to the user terminal 22, but the same can be considered when the virtual live venue is output to the HMD 21.” From at least this disclosure, it is apparent that Shirai discloses to: receive the user’s movement, voice, or touch operations, as a switching instruction of an avatar from the user; and upon receiving the switching instruction, switch at least one of the avatar and the action of the provider to at least one of the determined avatar and action of the provider and output at least one of the determined avatar and action; also see the rejection of claim 1 for detail switching at least one of the avatar and the action of the provider to at least one of the determined avatar and action of the provider.)
As per claim 18, Shirai discloses: wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to: determine a sound effect according to a state of the user estimated from the biometric information of the user; and output the determined sound effect (see Shirai at least the paragraph on page 16 of the translation, disclosing “Further, the user identification unit 333 may specify the user based on the reaction data, and is not limited to the exciting user. For example, the user identification unit 333 may specify a user whose other emotions such as sadness and anger satisfy a predetermined condition. For example, when a memorial service is performed in the VR space, a user who is deeply sad may be identified and the feedback output to that user may be suppressed. As another example, when a political demonstration with a performer avatar as a caller is performed in VR space, the user identification unit 333 identifies an angry user based on data based on changes in heart rate or body temperature as reaction data. , The user avatar corresponding to the user (the user avatar that is synchronized with the caller) may be made red, and the like may be given feedback.” From at least this disclosure, it is apparent that Shirai discloses to: determine a sound effect according to a state of the user estimated from the biometric information of the user; and output the determined sound effect.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Shimizu et al. (US 2020/0342648 A1) discloses a related control system, wherein an avatar is changed corresponding to the emotion of the user (see at least Abstract) and a character/avatar changed based on the user’s action history is well-known in the art (see at least ¶ 10.) Kurata et al. (US 2015/0365449 A1; see at least Figs. 4-7), Hayashida (US 2017/0102766 A1; see at least Figs. 1-2; Abstract), and Funazukuri et al. (US 2022/0277528 A1; see at least Figs. 1, 6-8) all disclose a related control system for avatar control of the user and other people.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jimmy H Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-7675. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30AM-6PM.
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 at (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 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/Jimmy H Nguyen/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2626
Prosecution Insights