DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/29/2025 has been entered.
Following prior arts are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20170347026 A1 (hereinafter Hannuksela)
US 20160260196 A1 (hereinafter Roimela)
US 20160048964 A1 (para 43)
Martens, Geoffrey “Bandwidth management for ODV tiled streaming with MPEG-DASH” Masters thesis, Universiteit Hasselt, 01 January 2015 (hereinafter Martens)
US 20160150212 A1 (360 video with adaptive resolutions; the abstract , Fig.6)
CORBILLON, XAVIER et al., "Viewport-Adaptive Navigable 360-Degree
Video Delivery", Telecom Bretagne, France, September 26, 2016 (The Abstract, Fig.1)
Claim Objection (Allowable Subject Matter)
Claims 38 & 44 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.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for following reason.
Re: Prior art rejection of independent claims
Applicant argued in substance that the prior art does not teach the limitation ““a frequency measure associated with a frequency of the user changing the viewing direction”.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees and argues that Roimela teaches this in the following paragraphs. Also angular velocity is directly proportional to the frequency.
[0041] The head-tracking data may be used to predict view motion in the near future. Angular speed of the user' s head and variance thereof may be measured, and then it may be possible to estimate where the user's head will likely be pointing after a short time. For example, if the angular speed of the user's head remains mostly constant, it may be estimated where the user's head will be pointing after a certain time.
[0051] Confidence of the head-tracking data may be considered high if the angular velocity of the user's head remains more or less constant over a certain time interval. If the user's head is moving erratically, i.e. the confidence of the head-tracking data is low, the sub-streams residing in the current field of view may be streamed in reduced resolution. When the head motion is stable enough, i.e. the confidence of the head-tracking data is high, the streaming resolution is adapted and the sub-streams residing in the current field of view may be streamed in high resolution.
[0052] Signal processing of the head orientation signal and angular speed signal may comprise filtering, for example low-pass filtering with different cut-off frequencies. Thus, it may be possible to estimate certain trends in the user's head motion. For example, it may be possible to estimate short-term and medium-term trends for view prediction. These trends may be compared, and the similarity between the short-term and medium-term view predictions may be used to estimate the confidence of the view prediction. When the confidence of the view prediction is high, the predicted field of view may be narrower compared to the situation when the confidence of the view prediction is low. Further, the predicted field of view may be streamed in high resolution when the confidence of the predicted field of view is high, and the predicted field of view may be streamed at low resolution when the confidence of the predicted field of view is low. This way it may be possible to account for the uncertainty of the view prediction.
Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive
Re: Prior art rejection of dependent claims
Applicant has presented no additional argument, other than arguments already presented with respect to independent claims. Therefore, the arguments are similarly not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph 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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 25-26, 31-32, 37-48 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The independent claim 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, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. For instance, claim 25 recites “a frequency measure associated with a frequency of the user changing the viewing direction”. This is not supported by applicant’s specification . For instance applicant specification para 126, 130, 146, recites frequency that is unrelated to claimed frequency. Further applicant argued (page 7 of the remarks) and is quoted here “However, an "angular velocity" is merely a speed metric, which is unrelated to measuring the frequency of an event. A speed metric such as angular velocity cannot be said to be the same as a "frequency measure associated with the frequency of the user changing the viewing direction,”
It appears, applicant is trying to claim specific or explicit “frequency …..” that is not supported by the specification.
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 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.
Claims 25-26, 31-32, 37, 39-43, 45-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hannuksela in view of Roimela.
Regarding Claims 25, 31. Hannuksela teaches an apparatus/method comprising: a processor [(para 6-8, 19)] configured to: receive a media presentation description (MPD) file comprising a plurality of representations associated with a 360 degree video [(para 341, 343, 231)] , the plurality of representations comprising a first representation and a second representation, wherein the first representation is associated with a first set of spatial regions of the 360 degree video at a first quality level and wherein the second representation is associated with a second spatial regions of the 360 degree video at a second quality level [(para 6-8 and 13; para 314; the second representation is the primary viewport {para 314} or the current view{para 6} which is subset of entire 360 video. The second representation is the rest of the video with lower quality )]
request first subset of spatial regions from a media server [(Hannuksela para 6; para 341, 344)]
Hannuksela, does not explicitly show monitor over a time period, at least one user parameter associated with a user changing viewing direction
determine, based on a monitored at least one user parameter, a frequency measure associated with a user changing a viewing direction
identify a viewport of a user that is expected to be viewed based on the frequency measure associated with the user changing the viewing direction;
select a first subset of spatial regions from the second set of spatial regions based on the frequency measure, wherein the first subset of spatial regions is associated with viewport,
However, in the same/related field of endeavor, Roimela teaches monitor over a time period, at least one user parameter associated with a user changing viewing direction [(“angular velocity of the user's head remains more or less constant over a certain time interval”, para 51)]
determine, based on a monitored at least one user parameter, a frequency measure associated with a user changing a viewing direction [(Roimela para 51-52; angular velocity of head-tracking indicate trends in the user’s head motion {para 52})] ;
identify a viewport of a user that is expected to be viewed based on the frequency measure associated with the user changing the viewing direction; [(Roimela para 52, 54)]
select a first subset of spatial regions from the second set of spatial regions based on the frequency measure, wherein the first subset of spatial regions is associated with viewport, [(based on gaze tracking the view/focus region is selected in high quality {para 54-55}; the viewport/ROI or viewing region includes subset of region {Hannuksela para 6}, such as tiles or blocks {Hannuksela para 5, 80}; this is determined by Hannuksela additionally teaches the client apparatus determines that the viewport suitable for displaying by tracking the viewer head orientation/direction {para 277, 278, 51})] ;
Therefore in light of above discussion it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the prior arts to enhance user experience by reducing delay [(Roimela para 42)] .
The prior arts combination additionally teaches with regards to claims 26, 32. The apparatus of claim 25, wherein the first subset of spatial regions is selected to cover a first portion of an enhanced spatial area of the 360-degree video based on the determination that the frequency measure is above a threshold and second portion of an enhanced spatial are of the 360-degree video based on the determination that the frequency measure is below the threshold, wherein the first position covers a larger enhanced area than the second portion [(Roimela teaches “When the confidence of the view prediction is high, the predicted field of view may be narrower compared to the situation when the confidence of the view prediction is low.” {para 52}; please note confidence is high when motion is low {para 51} )] .
The prior arts combination additionally teaches with regards to claims 37, 43. (New) The apparatus of claim 25, wherein the processor is further configured to: select the first subset of spatial regions to represent a single enhanced viewport of the user based on a determination that the frequency measure is below a threshold [(high confidence low motion {Roimela para 51} & Hannuksela para 6)]
The prior arts combination additionally teaches with regards to claim 39, 45. (New) The apparatus of claim 25, wherein the frequency measure characterizes the viewing habits of the user. [(Roimela para 52)]
The prior arts combination additionally teaches with regards to claim 40, 46. (New) The apparatus of claim 25, wherein the processor is configured to request a second subset of spatial regions, wherein the second subset comprises spatial regions independent from the first subset of spatial regions [(Roimela para 51, 55 )]
The prior arts combination additionally teaches with regards to claim 41, 47. (New) The apparatus of claim 25, wherein the at least one user parameter is determined based on at least one sensor comprises one or more of a gyroscope, an accelerometer, or a magnetometer. [(Roimela para 36)]
The prior arts combination additionally teaches with regards to claim 42, 48. (New) The apparatus of claim 25, wherein the second quality level is higher than the first quality level [(Roimela para 51, 55 )]
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shahan Rahaman whose telephone number is (571)270-1438. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30am - 5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-4195. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/SHAHAN UR RAHAMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426