Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
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.
Claims 22, 24, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 22, 24, and 26 recite “wherein the motion parallax results in rendering of the NFT appearing similar to a window into a three-dimensional space behind the NFT”, which is a subjective limitation, i.e. “appearing similar to” the window leaves the scope open to subjective interpretation of how similar to the recited window the rendering must appear to be, resulting in an indefinite scope.
For purposes of applying prior art the claim will be interpreted as reciting “wherein the motion parallax results in rendering of the NFT as a window into a three-dimensional space behind the NFT”.
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.
Claims 1-8, 12-16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Interactive 360° Video and Storytelling Tool” by Louay Bassbouss, et al. (hereinafter Bassbouss) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0279695 A1 (hereinafter Rice)
Regarding claim 1, the limitations “A method comprising: receiving, from a recording device, compressed video data, receiving, from the recording device, metadata associated with the compressed video data, wherein the metadata includes frame-specific metadata associated with frames in the compressed video data, receiving an application program configured to generate a real-time interactive experience for a user based on the compressed video data and the metadata associated with the compressed video data” are taught by Bassbouss (Bassbouss, e.g. abstract, sections I, III, IV, describes an interactive 360° storytelling platform, which supports authoring/editing and playback of immersive interactive video experiences combining captured 360° video with web browser based rendering models to generate an interface specific to the story being told by the author. In particular, Bassbouss’ system provides editing tools, e.g. section IV A, allowing an author to combine captured video content with other audio/visual media using a combination of models, where the models are applications, i.e. microapps, made up of HTML, WebGL, layout description, and inner logic, corresponding to the claimed receipt of compressed video data, and the application program configured to generate a real-time interactive experience for a user based on the compressed video data. Further, Bassbouss, sections III, A-H, describes the elements used to create the immersive interactive video experiences, i.e. each of the subsections A-H describes a tool available to the author using the editing tools of section IV A, which includes display of interactive or informational elements associated with particular times/frames of the video, e.g. A, B, E, as well as viewpoint, i.e. FOV, control metadata that is associated with particular times/frames of the video, e.g. C, D, E, i.e. the author uses the editing tools to define the claimed metadata associated with the compressed video data, including frame-specific metadata, which is used by the application program, i.e. Bassbouss’ microapps, to generate the real-time interactive experience based on the compressed video data.)
The limitation “generating a non-fungible token (NFT) that includes the compressed video data, the metadata associated with the compressed video data, and the application program” is not explicitly taught by Bassbouss (Bassbouss, e.g. section IV C, teaches that the interactive 360° storytelling platform is deployed in the Amazon Web Services infrastructure, including hosting of the metadata, interactive object microapps, and media content, and supports the use of authentication and user identity based access management, but does not explicitly address the use of an NFT including the video data, metadata, and interactive object microapps for authentication and/or user identity based access management.) However, this limitation is taught by Rice (Rice, e.g. abstract, paragraphs 29-232, describes a system for acquisition and usage of virtual good objects, e.g. paragraphs 36, 42-79, which may take the form of a 3D object which is also an NFT, e.g. paragraphs 44, 49, 60, 68, 69, 100, i.e. the 3D object which is an NFT token which comprises media assets, metadata, and scripting for interactive behavior, where the 3D object may be a digital media object written for an internet browser, i.e. Bassbouss’ immersive interactive video experiences could be represented by Rice’s 3D virtual good object NFT combining the existing file format with the additional functions and metadata required for an NFT. Rice further teaches that the use of the NFT format provides advantages including user authentication/access control and authenticated tracking of acquisition/transfer/sale/redeeming/etc of the real good(s) linked to the 3D virtual good object NFT(s), e.g. paragraphs 38, 39, 42-66. Finally, Rice also teaches that the 3D virtual good object NFTs can be experienced in different environments such as augmented reality, virtual reality, virtual online worlds, and more conventional interfaces like web browsers, e.g. paragraphs 35, 36, 43, 44, 59, 65, 72, 74, 75.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bassbouss’ interactive 360° storytelling platform to generate Rice’s 3D virtual good object NFTs by combining Bassbouss’ existing immersive interactive video experience with the additional functions and metadata required for an NFT in order to gain the advantages taught by Rice, i.e. in addition to user authentication/access control functionality analogous to Bassbouss’ system, section IV C, Rice’s 3D virtual good object NFT can facilitate the acquisition/sale/etc of a real good associated with the virtual good object, e.g. analogous to Rice’s real-estate example of paragraph 53, an immersive virtual tour of the building authored in Bassbouss’ immersive interactive video experience format could be used to represent the sale or rental of the real building. Additionally, Rice’s 3D virtual good object NFTs support display using a variety of techniques, i.e. AR, VR, virtual online worlds, and analogously Bassbouss, e.g. section IV B teaches that the immersive interactive video experience format can support playback on a variety of devices. In Bassbouss’ modified interactive 360° storytelling platform, as taught by Rice, e.g. paragraphs 68, 69, the immersive interactive video experience format would be combined with the additional functions and metadata required for an NFT, creating the claimed NFT including the video data, metadata, and interactive object microapps corresponding to the claimed application program.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation “wherein the NFT represents an immersive scene that includes a plurality of images and sounds associated with a first-person perspective” is taught by Bassbouss (Bassbouss, e.g. section I B, indicates that the captured video may be either third-person or first-person point of view (POV), i.e. the input video may be captured by a camera maintained at a viewpoint similar to the perspective of a first person acting as a videographer. Further, the immersive interactive video experience generated using Bassbouss’ editing tools based on the captured first-person video is generated by a first person acting as an author, e.g. section IV A.)
Regarding claim 3, the limitation “wherein the immersive scene is captured by a first person at a particular time in a particular environment” is taught by Bassbouss (As discussed in the claim 2 rejection, the video used in the immersive scene may be captured from the first person perspective of a videographer, and the immersive interactive video experience is generated by an author. In at least some instances, this could be the same person, i.e. a single person could capture video and then later author an immersive interactive video experience using said captured video. It is additionally noted that Bassbouss’ system inherently supports this possibility, i.e. there is no disclosure suggesting a single person cannot perform both functions.)
Regarding claim 4, the limitation “wherein the user is presented with the immersive scene comprising the same images and sounds as the first person” is taught by Bassbouss (Bassbouss, e.g. section IV B, describes exemplary playback on different devices, where the immersive scene is displayed using the captured video as discussed in the claim 1 rejection above. It is additionally noted that the video playback includes audio, e.g. the abstract and section I C indicate the importance of sound, and section III E indicates that subtitles are displayed based on the position of the corresponding speaker.)
Regarding claim 5, the limitation “wherein the NFT is configured to be used in at least one of a virtual reality environment, an augmented reality environment, a mixed reality environment, or a metaverse environment” is taught by Bassbouss in view of Rice (As discussed in the claim 1 rejection above, in Bassbouss’ modified interactive 360° storytelling platform, as taught by Rice, e.g. paragraphs 68, 69, the immersive interactive video experience format is combined with the additional functions and metadata required for an NFT, where analogous to Bassbouss, e.g. section IV B teaching that the immersive interactive video experience format can support playback on a variety of devices, Rice’s 3D virtual good object NFTs support display using a variety of techniques including the claimed augmented reality, virtual reality, and metaverse environments, e.g. paragraphs 35, 36, 43, 44, 59, 65, 72, 74, 75, such that the 3D virtual good object NFT(s) comprising Bassbouss’ immersive interactive video experience(s) are used in augmented reality, virtual reality, and/or metaverse environments. It is noted that Rice’s virtual online/game worlds correspond to the claimed metaverse environment, e.g. as in Applicant’s disclosure paragraph 24, a metaverse is a shared virtual space where the users can interact with virtual objects using metaphors inspired by physical reality, analogous to Rice’s virtual online/game worlds which are shared virtual spaces with users interacting with virtual objects.)
Regarding claim 6, the limitation “wherein the NFT represents a region of space-time in a metaverse environment” is taught by Bassbouss in view of Rice (As discussed in the claim 5 rejection above, in Bassbouss’ modified interactive 360° storytelling platform, the 3D virtual good object NFT(s) comprising Bassbouss’ immersive interactive video experience(s) are used in augmented reality, virtual reality, and/or metaverse environments. Further, Rice, e.g. paragraphs 53, 56, 57, 58, 75, 79, teaches that the 3D virtual good object NFT(s) may be associated with a spatial region within the virtual/metaverse environments, an may be limited to a particular time period depending on the real good associated with the 3D virtual good object NFT, e.g. paragraph 56. That is, the 3D virtual good object NFTs may be associated with a region of space and a period of time within the metaverse environment, corresponding to the claimed space-time region.)
Regarding claim 7, the limitation “wherein the NFT is available for purchase in an NFT marketplace” is taught by Bassbouss in view of Rice (Rice, e.g. paragraphs 38, 46, 61-66, teaches that the 3D virtual good object NFTs can be purchased/sold through NFT marketplaces.)
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “wherein playback of the NFT is initiated based on at least one of another object, a link, or a trigger within an environment” is taught by Bassbouss in view of Rice (Rice, e.g. paragraph 72, indicates that there are multiple triggers for causing display of the 3D virtual good object NFTs, which would correspond to initiating playback in the case of the 3D virtual good object NFT(s) comprising Bassbouss’ immersive interactive video experience(s). Rice teaches that the trigger may be based on a recognized object, such as a QR code or barcode, as well as based on the GPS location of the user’s device, corresponding to at least an object and a trigger position within the real-world environment.)
Regarding claims 12 and 19, the limitations are similar to those treated in the above rejection(s) and are met by the references as discussed in claim 1 above, with Bassbouss section IV C indicating implementation using programmed processors executing stored instructions.
Regarding claim 13, the limitations are similar to those treated in the above rejection(s) and are met by the references as discussed in claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 14, the limitations are similar to those treated in the above rejection(s) and are met by the references as discussed in claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 15, the limitations are similar to those treated in the above rejection(s) and are met by the references as discussed in claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 16, the limitations are similar to those treated in the above rejection(s) and are met by the references as discussed in claim 5 above.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Interactive 360° Video and Storytelling Tool” by Louay Bassbouss, et al. (hereinafter Bassbouss) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0279695 A1 (hereinafter Rice) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application 2020/0027261 A1 (hereinafter Briggs).
Regarding claim 9, the limitation “wherein the compressed video data represents three-dimensional (3D) image data or 3D photo data” is implicitly taught by Bassbouss (Bassbouss, e.g. section IV A, teaches that the editing tools support writing models using web technologies such as HTML, JavaScript, and WebGL, including performing 3D rendering. While one of ordinary skill in the art would understand this implicitly includes using or rendering from 3D video data, i.e. Bassbouss does not exclude the use of 3D video data, Bassbouss also does not explicitly teach the use of 3D video/image data.) However, this limitation is taught by Briggs (Briggs, e.g. abstract, paragraphs 1-80, discloses a system for rendering 360 degree videos with depth content, i.e. 3D video/image data, where the rendering performed using 3D rendering techniques applied to the 3D image data, e.g. paragraphs 22, 32-76. As one of ordinary skill in the art would understand, rendering 3D images from 3D content may produce a more immersive effect, e.g. Briggs, paragraphs 1-2.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bassbouss’ interactive 360° storytelling platform, generating Rice’s 3D virtual good object NFT(s) comprising Bassbouss’ immersive interactive video experience(s), to use Brigg’s 360 degree videos with depth content for creating the immersive interactive experience(s) in order to produce a more immersive effect. As noted above, Bassbouss does not exclude the use of 3D video data, and Bassbouss’ editing tools include the use of WebGL for 3D rendering, such that in Bassbouss’ modified system using 360 degree videos with depth content, Bassbouss’ editing tools would enable the author to write/use a model for rendering 3D images from 3D video data, i.e. performing Briggs’ 3D rendering techniques applied to the 3D image data of a 360 degree video with depth.
Claims 10, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Interactive 360° Video and Storytelling Tool” by Louay Bassbouss, et al. (hereinafter Bassbouss) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0279695 A1 (hereinafter Rice) as applied to claims 1, 12, and 19 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0332267 A1 (hereinafter Hesla).
Regarding claim 10, the limitations “wherein the metadata associated with the compressed video data includes at least one of a rotation matrix, a 4x4 transformation matrix, or other parameterization of pose used to transform the 3D geometry of a scene to counteract motion of the recording device and minimize vestibulo-ocular conflict” are not explicitly taught by Bassbouss (Bassbouss, e.g. section III, describes exemplary metadata associated with the compressed video, including overlays that are specific to pose, such as the sections describing interactive overlays, sticky marker, auto follow, and captioning and sectioning, which are tied the position of an object or marker within the video content, as well as that the metadata may define one or more fields of view for each video section used to automatically set the user’s viewpoint. Bassbouss does not explicitly indicate the metadata received from the recording device includes a parameterization of the pose/motion of the recording device, or indicate that the parameterization of pose is used to counteract recording device motion and minimize vestibulo-ocular conflict.) However, this limitation is taught by Hesla (Hesla describes an omnidirectional camera for capturing 360 degree videos from the perspective of a person wearing the camera, e.g. abstract, paragraphs 2-117. Hesla teaches that the recording device includes cameras for capturing the 360 degree videos, e.g. paragraphs 23-30, 34, 35, 42-55, and location and orientation sensors for capturing motion data characterizing the motion of the camera in correspondence to the 360 degree video frames, e.g. paragraphs 32, 33, 38, 40, 49, 50, 58-60, 68-73, where the location and orientation data is stored along with the 360 degree video data, e.g. paragraphs 38, 39, i.e. the claimed metadata including motion data associated with 3D motion of the recording device. Hesla further teaches that the location/orientation data can be used to stabilize the 360 degree video by removing transient motions identified from the location/orientation data, e.g. paragraphs 38, 41, 58-67, 74-81, i.e. as claimed, the motion data is used to counteract motion of the recording device. Finally, Hesla teaches that the processing to calculate the stabilized trajectory used to playback the recorded 360 degree video in a stabilized manner may be performed by an external device, e.g. paragraphs 41, 64, 74, 75, 79-81, i.e. as claimed, the external device receives the video data and metadata including the motion data of the recording device, and processes the motion data to determine a stabilized trajectory counteracting the transient motions of the recording device, and the external device uses the stabilized trajectory during playback of the video data to present the stabilized 360 degree video.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bassbouss’ interactive 360° storytelling platform, generating Rice’s 3D virtual good object NFT(s) comprising Bassbouss’ immersive interactive video experience(s), to perform Hesla’s video stabilization technique for 360 degree videos captured using Hesla’s omnidirectional camera in order to present stabilized 360 degree videos to the user, i.e. one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Bassbouss’ platform is compatible with 360 degree videos captured by a variety of camera systems, including Hesla’s omnidirectional cameras, and Hesla teaches that the video stabilization can be performed by an external processing system such as Bassbouss’ platform, e.g. paragraphs 41, 64, 74, 75, 79-81, where one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to ensure that Bassbouss’ platform performs the video stabilization because unstabilized videos may have various drawbacks such as important footage being out of view, sudden movements and/or vibrations, noted by Hesla, e.g. paragraphs 5, 38, 76, 77. In the modified Bassbouss system, as discussed above with respect to Hesla’s omnidirectional camera and 360 degree videos, the received video metadata would include the claimed parameterization of pose of the recording device used to counteract motion thereof, and Bassbouss’ platform would perform the video stabilization by calculating a stabilized trajectory for use during playback of corresponding 360 degree videos captured by Hesla’s omnidirectional camera, corresponding to the claimed counteracting of the motion of the recording device during playback using the parameterization of pose of the recording device received in the metadata associated with the compressed video.
Regarding claims 17 and 20, the limitations are similar to those treated in the above rejection(s) and are met by the references as discussed in claim 10 above.
Claims 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Interactive 360° Video and Storytelling Tool” by Louay Bassbouss, et al. (hereinafter Bassbouss) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0279695 A1 (hereinafter Rice) as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of “Streaming 360-Degree Videos Using Super-Resolution” by Mallesham Dasari, et al. (hereinafter Dasari).
Regarding claim 11, the limitation “wherein the metadata associated with the compressed video data includes parameters of a neural network or differentiable computation graph that is responsible for at least partially rendering views of a 3D scene” is not taught by Bassbouss (Bassbouss does not explicitly address using a neural network for rendering views from the 360° video, or otherwise including the parameters thereof in the metadata associated with the video, although Bassbouss, e.g. section IV A, final paragraph, indicates compatibility with both traditional and adaptive video formats.) However, this limitation is taught by Dasari (Dasari, e.g. abstract, sections I, III-V, discloses the PARSEC system for streaming 360 degree videos using super-resolution processing performed by trained neural nets, i.e. DNNs. Dasari, e.g. section I, paragraphs 3, 4, section III, paragraphs 1, 4-8, section IV, section V, paragraphs 3, 4, teaches that the 360 degree video segments are divided into tiles, where each tile is downsampled and compressed into a low resolution representation of the tile, and a super-resolution micro-model DNN is trained for each segment tile, e.g. as shown in figure 3, where the client device selects tiles to download and/or generate based on viewport prediction, video quality of experience, network capacity, and compute capacity, e.g. figure 4, section IV A. That is, Dasari teaches, e.g. section I, paragraph 4, section IV A, paragraph 1, section V, paragraph 4, figure 4, that the client downloads a set of compressed low resolution tiles for each 360 video segment, and a subset of the compressed low resolution tiles are used to generate the high resolution version of the compressed low resolution tile using the associated super-resolution micro-model DNN downloaded with the tile, i.e. parameters representing the trained neural network for the corresponding segment tile, corresponding to the claimed parameters associated with a neural network.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bassbouss’ interactive 360° storytelling platform, generating Rice’s 3D virtual good object NFT(s) comprising Bassbouss’ immersive interactive video experience(s), to support Dasari’s 360 degree video streaming technique as an additional adaptive 360 degree video format by including the metadata required for rendering using Dasari’s super-resolution micro-model DNNs as part of the metadata stored in the 3D virtual good object NFT comprising Bassbouss’ immersive interactive video experience, in order to support additional adaptive 360 degree video formats, as suggested by Bassbouss. In the modified system, a 3D virtual good object NFT comprising Bassbouss’ immersive interactive video experience using Dasari’s 360 degree video streaming technique would include the metadata required for rendering using Dasari’s super-resolution micro-model DNNs, corresponding to the claim requirement that the metadata associated with the compressed video data included in the NFT includes parameters of a neural network.
Regarding claim 18, the limitations are similar to those treated in the above rejection(s) and are met by the references as discussed in claim 11 above.
Claims 20-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Interactive 360° Video and Storytelling Tool” by Louay Bassbouss, et al. (hereinafter Bassbouss) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0279695 A1 (hereinafter Rice) as applied to claims 1, 12, and 19 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0129988 A1 (hereinafter Liang) in view of U.S. Patent Application 2020/0027261 A1 (hereinafter Briggs).
Regarding claims 21 and 22, the limitations “further comprising rendering the NFT via a user interface as a part of the interactive experience, wherein the rendering includes motion parallax based on depth information included in the NFT” and “the motion parallax results in the rendering of the NFT as a window into a three-dimensional space behind the NFT” are partially taught by Bassbouss in view of Rice (As discussed in the claim 1 rejection above, in Bassbouss’ modified interactive 360° storytelling platform, as taught by Rice, e.g. paragraphs 68, 69, the immersive interactive video experience format is combined with the additional functions and metadata required for an NFT, where analogous to Bassbouss, e.g. section IV B teaching that the immersive interactive video experience format can support playback on a variety of devices, Rice’s 3D virtual good object NFTs support display using a variety of techniques including various 3D virtual environments, e.g. paragraphs 35, 36, 43, 44, 59, 65, 72, 74, 75, as well as being traded using conventional marketplace interfaces where the NFTs are represented using a photo or image, e.g. paragraphs 61, 65, 124, i.e. rendering the NFT via a user interface as claimed. Bassbouss and Rice do not address rendering using motion parallax based on depth information included in the NFT by rendering the NFT as a window into a three-dimensional space behind the window/NFT.) However, this limitation is taught by Liang in view of Briggs (Liang, e.g. abstract, paragraphs 7-9, 37-132, describes a system for presenting thumbnails using parallax effects based on depth information included in the image file represented by the thumbnail. Liang, e.g. paragraphs 7-9, 58, 59, teaches that the thumbnail images are displayed in conventional prior art menu interfaces, i.e. analogous to Rice’s conventional marketplace interface where the NFTs are represented using a photo or image, wherein Liang’s thumbnail parallax effect can be applied to any image content with depth information, e.g. paragraphs 46, 119. Liang further teaches that based on trigger events such as cursor motion or device orientation, e.g. paragraphs 58, 60, 61, 79, the parallax effect is applied to cause the thumbnail image to appear to shift based on the trigger event motion based on a shifted viewpoint used to render the thumbnail, e.g. paragraphs 61-78, figures 4A, 4B. Finally, Liang, e.g. paragraphs 119-124, figure 10, thumbnail 301E, teaches that the parallax effect may be implemented such that the 3D volume represented by the thumbnail appears as a window frame that is coplanar with the monitor display having the 3D volume behind the monitor, i.e. the claimed rendering as a window into a three-dimensional space behind the NFT/window. As noted, Liang teaches that the thumbnail parallax effect can be applied to any image content with depth information, and as discussed in the claim 9 rejection above, although Bassbouss also does not explicitly teach the use of 3D video/image data, i.e. depth information, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify Bassbouss’ system to use Brigg’s 360 degree videos with depth content for creating the immersive interactive experience(s) in order to produce a more immersive effect, wherein a 3D virtual good object NFT(s) comprising one of Bassbouss’ immersive interactive video experiences using one of Briggs’ 360 degree videos with depth content would be compatible with Liang’s thumbnail parallax effect, i.e. by performing Briggs’ 3D rendering techniques applied to the 3D image data of the 360 degree video with depth using the viewpoint shifts caused by trigger events as taught by Liang.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bassbouss’ interactive 360° storytelling platform, generating Rice’s 3D virtual good object NFT(s) comprising Bassbouss’ immersive interactive video experience(s), to use Brigg’s 360 degree videos with depth content for creating the immersive interactive experience(s) in order to produce a more immersive effect as discussed in the claim 9 rejection above, and to use Liang’s thumbnail parallax effect for rendering thumbnails for 3D virtual good object NFT(s) comprising Bassbouss’ immersive interactive video experiences using Briggs’ 360 degree videos with depth content in Rice’s conventional NFT marketplace interface in order to provide a more enriching experience and provide additional feedback regarding user input as taught by Liang, e.g. paragraph 14. As discussed in the claim 9 rejection above, in Bassbouss’ modified system using 360 degree videos with depth content, Bassbouss’ editing tools would enable the author to write/use a model for rendering 3D images from 3D video data, i.e. performing Briggs’ 3D rendering techniques applied to the 3D image data of a 360 degree video with depth. Further, Liang, e.g. paragraph 122, figure 12, teaches that conventional 2D thumbnails can be also be displayed with the parallax effect thumbnails, i.e. in Rice’s modified NFT marketplace interface using Liang’s thumbnail parallax effect for 3D virtual good object NFT(s) comprising Bassbouss’ immersive interactive video experiences using Briggs’ 360 degree videos with depth content, the 3D virtual good object NFT(s) could be displayed with conventional 2D thumbnails for NFT(s) not comprising 360 degree videos with depth content and parallax effect thumbnails for NFT(s) comprising 360 degree videos with depth content, thereby visually indicating to the user which NFT(s) comprise images with depth content and which do not.
Regarding claims 23-26, the limitations are similar to those treated in the above rejection(s) and are met by the references as discussed in claims 21 and 22 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/6/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that “the metadata associated with the video in Bassbouss is not received from a recording device, but is author-derived”. Applicant’s assertion appears to interpret the recording device recited by claim 1 as something more than a storage device from which the claimed data is received, despite there being no limitations in claim 1 regarding the recording device beyond it being the source of the received data. Applicant asserts that claims 12 and 19 are similar in scope to claim 1, yet claims 12 and 19 do not even introduce the “recording device” as the source of the received data. As Applicant’s assertion regarding claim 1 is not persuasive because there are no claim limitations requiring the recording device to be anything more than a storage device from which the data is received, and claims 12 and 19 do not even include the recording device, this argument cannot be considered persuasive.
With respect to the claim 10 rejection, Applicant asserts that because one sentence in paragraph 59 of Hesla describes a processor using sensor-derived data, Hesla does not teach the features for which Hesla is cited. Applicant is reminded that the rejection based on Hesla cites more than just paragraph 59, i.e. in particular paragraphs 23-30, 32-35, 38-55, 58-81 are all referenced as part of the mapping of the rejection, such that Applicant’s argument regarding Hesla is, at best, incomplete. As Applicant’s argument fails to actually dispute the mapping and explanation of the rejection, and instead only argues that a single sentence in a single paragraph of Hesla does not teach the claim limitation, Applicant’s argument cannot be considered persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT BADER whose telephone number is (571)270-3335. The examiner can normally be reached 11-7 m-f.
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, Tammy Goddard can be reached at 571-272-7773. 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.
/ROBERT BADER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Prosecution Insights