DETAILED ACTION
Notice relating to Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 22 DECEMBER 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new reference(s) and/or citations being used in the current rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 7-11, 22-25, and 28-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips et al., US 2018/0070113 in view of Phillips et al., US 10,440,416 (herein Phillips2) and further in view of Miller et al., US 2023/0130770.
Regarding claim 1, Phillips discloses a method for managing bandwidth in an augmented reality (AR) environment comprising a mix of physical and virtual displays (with mixed reality environment, which includes virtual televisions, i.e. displays, to be shown alongside of real televisions; page 1, paragraph 4, and with physical and virtual displays; page 5, paragraph 53), the method comprising:
providing a plurality of content streams via a plurality of displays (content streams, i.e. services, can be provided to plurality of displays; Fig. 1, elements 104 and 107, and see at least "SERVICE(N)", "SERVICE 1", and "SERVICE N", and with specific streams for content; page 6, paragraph 57) wherein: the plurality of displays comprises at least one physical display of an electronic device (including physical client device which can contain a display device; page 5, paragraph 53, and Fig. 1, element 104) and at least one virtual display provided via an extended reality (XR) device (with at least a virtual display via virtual reality apparatus; page 5, paragraph 53, and Fig. 1, elements 107 and 109, and wherein VR apparatus can include head-mounted display; page 9, paragraph 73);
assigning a bandwidth amount to each content stream of the plurality of content streams (allocation of bandwidth to the service; pages 5-6, paragraph 56, and page 6, paragraph 59);
determining a field of vision of a user of the XR device (can detect movement and point of view, FOV, of subscriber; pages 9-10, paragraph 76, and page 10, paragraph 77, and Fig. 6A, elements 602 and 604, and again with at least a virtual display via virtual reality apparatus; page 5, paragraph 53, and Fig. 1, elements 107 and 109, and wherein VR apparatus can include head-mounted display; page 9, paragraph 73);
determining a subset of the plurality of displays that are in the field of vision of the user based at least in part on spatial coordinates/positions of each of the physical displays (determining screens that are within the FOV; page 10, paragraph 77, and system can determine positions of the screen(s), with some screens being in view, some in partial view, and others out of view; Fig. 11A, elements 1004, and page 13, paragraph 93, and can determine the screens that are in the particular FOV of the subscriber; Fig. 11A, elements 1004-1 and 1004-2, and page 13, paragraph 93, and page 12, paragraph 86); and
adjusting the bandwidth amount assigned to at least one of the plurality of content streams based on the subset of the plurality of displays that are in the field of vision of the user (based on weights assigned to screens in the FOV, allocation/reallocation of bandwidth can be performed for those particular channel(s)/stream(s); page 10, paragraph 77, and Fig. 6A, element 608).
While Phillips does also disclose at least one content stream of the plurality of content streams (content streams, i.e. services, can be provided to plurality of displays; Fig. 1, elements 104 and 107, and see at least "SERVICE(N)", "SERVICE 1", and "SERVICE N", and with specific streams for content; page 6, paragraph 57), the physical displays (includes virtual televisions, i.e. displays, to be shown alongside of real televisions; page 1, paragraph 4, and with physical and virtual displays; page 5, paragraph 53), and alludes to communications via the internet (page 4, paragraph 48, and page 5, paragraph 52), Phillips does not explicitly disclose at least one content stream comprises an over- the-top (OTT) content stream; and
creating a spatial mapping of a physical space comprising a plurality of displays, wherein creation of the spatial mapping comprises assigning spatial coordinates to each display of the plurality of displays.
In a related art, Phillips2 does disclose an augmented reality (AR) environment (augmented reality; col. 8, line 66 – col. 9, line 7); and
at least one content stream comprises an over- the-top (OTT) content stream (content stream(s) provided via at least OTT streaming; col. 45, lines 14-31).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the prior art of Phillips and Phillips2 by allowing content to be delivered via different communication methods/sources, in order to provide an improved system and method for effectuating optimized 360 immersive video viewing experiences including quality control during a 360 immersive video streaming session (Phillips2; col. 1, lines 51-59).
Phillips in view of Phillips2 does not explicitly disclose creating a spatial mapping of a physical space comprising a plurality of displays, wherein creation of the spatial mapping comprises assigning spatial coordinates to each display of the plurality of displays.
In a related art, Miller does disclose creating a spatial mapping of a physical space comprising a plurality of displays (map generated that includes the spatial locations/positions, i.e. spatial map, of objects/displays in the physical environment; page 7, paragraph 42, and page 8, paragraph 43, and wherein the objects can include televisions, and other display devices; page 2, paragraph 8, and page 6, paragraph 36, and page 14, paragraph 67), wherein creation of the spatial mapping comprises assigning spatial coordinates to each display of the plurality of displays (can include coordinates in vector format, i.e. x, y, z; page 8, paragraph 43, and again the objects can include televisions, and other display devices; page 2, paragraph 8, and page 6, paragraph 36, and page 14, paragraph 67); and
determining a subset of the plurality of displays that are in the field of vision of the user based at least in part on the spatial coordinates of each of the displays (can determine the objects/displays that are within the view of the user based on the map and positioning/coordinate information; pages 18-19, paragraph 85, and again the objects can include televisions, and other display devices; page 2, paragraph 8, and page 6, paragraph 36, and page 14, paragraph 67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the prior art of Phillips, Phillips2, and Miller by allowing spatial mapping of an environment to be utilized with the already provided virtual reality system of Phillips and Phillips2, in order to provide an improved system and method representing a physical environment in a three-dimensional (3D) map for identifying physical devices/objects in the three-dimensional map and enabling an intent of a user to interact with the physical devices using eye-tracking and eye-gazing techniques (Miller; page 1, paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 2, Phillips in view of Phillips2 and Miller discloses determining an updated field of vision of the user (Phillips; determining movement of a subscribers FOV, i.e. update; page 9, paragraphs 75 and 76);
based on determining that a second subset of the plurality of displays are in the updated field of vision of the user, readjusting the bandwidth amount assigned to at least one of the plurality of content streams (Phillips; updating weights for determined screens in the FOV based on the movement, and then performing allocation/reallocation of bandwidth for those particular channel(s)/stream(s); page 9, paragraph 75, and page 10, paragraph 77, and Fig. 6A, element 608).
Regarding claim 3, Phillips in view of Phillips2 and Miller discloses the adjusting the bandwidth amount assigned to at least one of the plurality of displays comprises:
based on determining that the at least one of the plurality of content streams is provided via a display in the subset of the plurality of displays that are in the field of vision of the user, increasing the bandwidth amount assigned to the at least one of the plurality of content streams (Phillips; when particular screen(s) are in the FOV of the subscriber, bandwidth amount can be increased for those particular channels/streams; Fig. 11A, elements 1004-1 and 1004-2, and Fig. 11B, see "6 MBS MULTICAST CHANNEL 1 TO VIRTUAL TV 2" and "1.6 MBS MULTICAST CHANNEL 2 TO VIRTUAL TV 1", and page 13, paragraph 93).
Regarding claim 4, Phillips in view of Phillips2 and Miller discloses the adjusting the bandwidth amount assigned to at least one of the plurality of content streams comprises:
based on determining that the at least one of the plurality of content streams is provided via a display not in the subset of the plurality of displays that are in the field of vision of the user, decreasing the bandwidth amount assigned to the at least one of the plurality of content streams (Phillips; when particular screen(s) are not in a particular FOV of the subscriber, bandwidth amount can be decreased for those particular channels/streams; Fig. 11A, elements 1004-1 and 1004-2, and Fig. 11B, see ".8 MBS MULTICAST CHANNEL 3 TO VIRTUAL TV 3", ".8 MBS MULTICAST CHANNEL 4 TO VIRTUAL TV 4", and ".8 M BS MULTICAST CHANNEL 5 TO VIRTUAL TV 5", and page 13, paragraph 93).
Regarding claim 7, Phillips in view of Phillips2 and Miller discloses adjusting the bandwidth amount assigned to at least one of the plurality of content streams based on a distance from the XR device to each display of the plurality of displays (Phillips; adapting bandwidth based on angular distance(s) with the screens; page 2, paragraph 11, and page 10, paragraph 79).
Regarding claim 8, Phillips in view of Phillips2 and Miller discloses adjusting the bandwidth amount assigned to at least one of the plurality of content streams based on a content type of the content stream (Phillips; bandwidth can be adjusted for a particular content channel based on type of scene, i.e. action will have increased bandwidth, with calmer scenes having reduced bandwidth; page 11, paragraph 82).
Regarding claim 9, Phillips in view of Phillips2 and Miller discloses determining a position for each display of the plurality of displays (Phillips; system can determine positions of the screen(s), with some screens being in view, some in partial view, and others out of view; Fig. 11A, elements 1004, and page 13, paragraph 93, and Miller; map generated that includes the spatial locations/positions, i.e. spatial map, of objects/displays in the physical environment; page 7, paragraph 42, and page 8, paragraph 43, and wherein the objects can include televisions, and other display devices; page 2, paragraph 8, and page 6, paragraph 36, and page 14, paragraph 67);
determining coordinates for the field of vision of the user (Phillips; system can determine viewing angles, i.e. coordinates for viewing, of the subscriber; Fig. 11A, element 1104 and 1105, and page 13, paragraph 93, and page 12, paragraph 86, and Miller; can determine the objects/displays that are within the view of the user based on the map and positioning/coordinate information; pages 18-19, paragraph 85); and
determining, for each display of the plurality of displays, whether the respective position is within the coordinates for the field of vision of the user (Phillips; can determine the screens that are in the particular FOV of the subscriber; Fig. 11A, elements 1004-1 and 1004-2, and page 13, paragraph 93, and page 12, paragraph 86, and Miller; can determine the objects/displays that are within the view of the user based on the map and positioning/coordinate information; pages 18-19, paragraph 85, and again the objects can include televisions, and other display devices; page 2, paragraph 8, and page 6, paragraph 36, and page 14, paragraph 67).
Regarding claim 10, Phillips in view of Phillips2 and Miller discloses receiving an indication from the user to designate a first content stream of the plurality of content streams as a priority stream (Phillips; television being directly viewed is an indication to designate the stream to that particular tv to have increased weight/priority; page 13, paragraph 93);
wherein the adjusting the bandwidth amount assigned to at least one of the plurality of content streams further comprises adjusting a bandwidth amount assigned to a content stream other than the priority stream (Phillips; bandwidth adjustments can be performed in a way that the system does not adjust a high priority stream/channel, i.e. as indicated by the direct viewing, but rather can adjust lower priority and/or other streams/channels; page 11, paragraphs 81-82).
Regarding claim 11, Phillips in view of Phillips2 and Miller discloses the adjusting the bandwidth amount assigned to at least one of the plurality of content streams occurs at one of a gateway and content delivery network (CDN) edge (Phillips; can be with at least gateway; page 5, paragraphs 54 and 56, and page 10, paragraph 77, and Fig. 1, element 108).
Claim 22, which discloses a system, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 1. The following additional limitations are also disclosed:
a network device (Phillips; including at least networked device such as gateway for providing content and making determinations and executing operations of the system; page 5, paragraphs 54 and 56, and page 10, paragraph 77, and Fig. 1, element 108).
Claim 23, which discloses a system, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 2.
Claim 24, which discloses a system, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 3.
Claim 25, which discloses a system, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 4.
Claim 28, which discloses a system, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 7.
Claim 29, which discloses a system, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 8.
Claim 30, which discloses a system, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 9.
Claim 31, which discloses a system, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 10.
Claims 5 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips et al., US 2018/0070113 in view of Phillips et al., US 10,440,416 (herein Phillips2) and Miller et al., US 2023/0130770, and further in view of Singh, US 2022/0392170.
Regarding claim 5, Phillips in view of Phillips2 and Miller discloses all the claimed limitations of claim 1, as well as receiving, from the user, a first request to view a first content stream at the virtual display provided via the XR device (Phillips; request from client VR Device to start VR session with a designated media content channel; page 17, paragraph 111).
While Phillips in view of Phillips2 and Miller also discloses a second request to for second content stream (Phillips; can include request for second content/stream for recording and subsequent viewing; page 6, paragraph 58), and alludes to content on a second physical display (Phillips; physical client device which can contain a display device; page 5, paragraph 53, and Fig. 1, element 104), Phillips in view of Phillips2 and Miller does not explicitly disclose receiving, from a user, a request to view content at a physical display of an electronic device.
In a related art, Singh does disclose receiving, from a user, a request to view content at a physical display of an electronic device (request to change, i.e. and view, channel/content associated with a physical device such as a television or monitor; page 8, paragraphs 63-64, and from particular device; page 5, paragraph 42).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the prior art of Phillips, Phillips2, Miller, and Singh by allowing requests for content to also be associated with the physical display(s) already disclosed in Phillips in view of Phillips2 and Miller, in order to provide an improved system and method for ways in which a user of an XR environment can interact with content displayed on real-world display devices, such as monitors and televisions (Singh; page 1, paragraph 1).
Claim 26, which discloses a system, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 5.
Claims 6 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phillips et al., US 2018/0070113 in view of Phillips et al., US 10,440,416 (herein Phillips2) and Miller et al., US 2023/0130770, and further in view of Feng, US 2021/0152876.
Regarding claim 6, Phillips in view of Phillips2 and Miller discloses all the claimed limitations of claim 1, as well as adjusting the bandwidth amount assigned to at least one of the plurality of content streams (Phillips; performing allocation/reallocation of bandwidth for particular channel(s)/stream(s); page 9, paragraph 75, and page 10, paragraph 77, and Fig. 6A, element 608), and each display of a plurality of displays (Phillips; including physical client device which can contain a display device; page 5, paragraph 53, and Fig. 1, element 104, and with at least a virtual display; page 5, paragraph 53, and Fig. 1, element 107), with displays varying in size(s) (Phillips; page 9, paragraph 74).
Phillips in view of Phillips2 and Miller does not explicitly disclose adjusting based on a size of a display.
In a related art, Feng does disclose adjusting based on a size of a display (based on user indicated display positioning and size, system can adjust bandwidth; page 5, paragraphs 91 and 99).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the prior art of Phillips, Phillips2, Miller, and Feng by allowing the adjustment operations already being performed in Phillips in view of Phillips2 and Miller to also be based on other factors, including screen sizing, in order to provide an improved system and method for browsing videos flexibly and conveniently (Feng; page 1, paragraph 5).
Claim 27, which discloses a system, is analyzed with respect to the citations and/or rationale provided in the rejection of similar claim 6.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RANDY A FLYNN whose telephone number is (571)270-5680. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 6:00am - 3:00pm ET.
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, BENJAMIN BRUCKART can be reached at 571-272-3982. 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.
/RANDY A FLYNN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2424