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 .
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 1-3, 5, 8-10, 12, 15-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramamurthy et al. US-PGPUB No. 2023/0328329 (hereinafter Ramamurthy) in view of Hutsler et al. US-PGPUB No. 2020/0336668 (hereinafter Hutsler) and Gibbon et al. US-PGPUB No. 2020/0334833 (hereinafter Gibbon).
Re Claim 1:
Ramamurthy teaches a computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving a request for a video from a viewer (Ramamurthy teaches at Paragraph 0027 receiving video frames associated with a first video stream from a source such as a media player (media play request) which implicitly requires a user of the client device to request playing the video on the media player application and at Paragraph 0034 that the application may be a video player);
determining at least one object of viewer's interest (
Ramamurthy teaches at Paragraph 0049 that deep learning tools can be used for identification and tracking of objects and also determining the exact window that covers the object of interest and at Paragraph 0121 that object detection module 918 may use view 1 for object selection by the end user and may perform the object detection in view 1 which identifies the object associated with that region chosen by the user.
Ramamurthy teaches at Paragraph 0026 that video processing system 100A may provide object of interest processing for video playback and at Paragraph 0033 user interface 102 may receive a command from the user to start an object of interest selection process on a set top box unit or recorder and at Paragraph 0035 that object-based video processing module 112 may receive a selection of an object of interest and at Paragraph 0042 that enabling viewers of video streams to select one or more particular objects of interest and at Paragraph 0036 in response to the selection, object-based video processing module 112 may provide additional visual information corresponding to the object of interest where the additional visual information may include metadata associated with the object and at Paragraph 0037 the object-based video processing module 112 may render the region of interest on display panel 106 using the additional information and may track movements of the object contained in the region of interest across video frames…may automatically track (determine) the selected object of interest in subsequent frames during video play);
receiving the video and object metadata associated with objects rendered in the video (Ramamurthy teaches at Paragraph 0095 that the streaming server streams the metadata about locations of objects of interest along with the video stream and the metadata generated by ROI processing module 406 carries the object position information across video frames for objects in a frame that can be tracked as region of interest by client device 412 and client device 412 continuously receives the updated location information through the metadata.
Ramamurthy teaches at Paragraph 0036 in response to the selection, object-based video processing module 112 may provide additional visual information corresponding to the object of interest where the additional visual information may include metadata associated with the object and at Paragraph 0037 the object-based video processing module 112 may render the region of interest on display panel 106 using the additional information and may track movements of the object contained in the region of interest across video frames…may automatically track (determine) the selected object of interest in subsequent frames during video play);
based on the object metadata, identifying a position of the at least one object of viewer's interest in the received video (Ramamurthy teaches at Paragraph 0036 that an object mask identifying the object, metadata associated with the object and at Paragraph 0049 that deep learning tools can be used for identification and tracking of objects and also determining the exact window that covers the object of interest.
Ramamurthy teaches at Paragraph 0095 that the streaming server streams the metadata about locations of objects of interest along with the video stream and the metadata generated by ROI processing module 406 carries the object position information across video frames for objects in a frame that can be tracked as region of interest by client device 412 and client device 412 continuously receives the updated location information through the metadata.
Ramamurthy teaches at Paragraph 0065-0069 that the additional visual information may include the metadata including a position information of the objects across video frames of the first video stream that can be used to track the movement of the object).
Ramamurthy at least implicitly teaches the claim limitation:
guiding the viewer's view to the position as the video plays on a device of the viewer (Ramamurthy teaches at Paragraph 0089 that the rendered video stream with focus on the object of interest is depicted in 316B and at Paragraph 0096 that in accordance with the user selection of object, includes higher quality/resolution as well as customized ‘object’ variants corresponding to streams that focus on the objects of interest that can be selected by users on the client device. Once the object of interest is selected by the user at client device 412, with the help of the metadata which provides information for bounding the object, ROI processing and control module 416 forms the boundary (e.g., a bounding box, circle, or ellipse) of the selected object of interest, and can further support zoom and pan for the region of interest. In an example, rendering module 418 may receive the video stream from the client buffering and decide module 414 and receive the boundary information from the ROI processing and control module 416 and then crop and scale the region of interest to focus on the region of interest around the selected object.
Ramamurthy teaches at Paragraph 0037 that tracking the movements of the object may include tracking the object as the object moves or changes across the video frames and rendering the tracked objects in a zoomed-in view and at Paragraph 0103 that the multi-view video may refer to a collection of multiple videos capturing the same 3D scene at different viewpoints where viewpoint and object within viewpoint may be selected and at Paragraph 0119 that the viewpoint is adapted according to head moments of the user in a head mounted display and a user can also lock a specific object of interest by an appropriate interface.
Ramamurthy teaches at Paragraph 0095 that the metadata generated by ROI processing module 406 carries the object position information across video frames for objects in a frame that can be tracked as region of interest by client device 412 and client device 412 continuously receives the updated location information through the metadata).
Hutsler/Gibbon teaches the claim limitation:
guiding the viewer's view to the position as the video plays on a device of the viewer (Hutsler teaches at Paragraph 0012 that alert the viewer that will allow the viewer to view targets and alert the viewer to the location at which the ball is predicted to land and at Paragraph 0027 that the AS 104 may track the targets through the videos and may predict where the targets will be in future frames of the videos and may present a particular traversal (direction), a continuous sequence of viewpoints through the volumetric video to the viewer and the AS 104 may also present a traversal (direction) through the volumetric video in response to a viewer request, where the viewer request identifies the traversal the viewer wishes to see. It is noted that traversing from one viewpoint to another viewpoint means a traversal direction from one viewpoint to another viewpoint.
Hutsler teaches at Paragraph 0012 that the present disclosure may alert the viewer to viewpoints that will allow the viewer to view targets during predicted periods of action. For instance, if the viewer is watching a volumetric video presentation of a golf tournament, the examples of the present disclosure may track the trajectory of a ball that has been hit and alert the viewer to the location at which the ball is predicted to land and at Paragraph 0018 that the profiles may identify objects and the DB 106 may store information about objects that may appear in a volumetric video presentation such as identifying information, physical appearance or characteristics and statistics for the participating golfers and at Paragraph 0044 that the processor may send an alert to a viewer where the alert informs the viewer of an event that the viewer may wish to view and knowledge of the event may be based on the target’s predicted position.
Gibbon teaches at Paragraph 0031 that the viewer may select one or more perspectives within the space of the volumetric video and a user interface of the UEs may enable the viewer to move a viewpoint left/right/up/down/forward/background to select coordinates or define a position with respect to a reference point in the scene 150).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to have incorporated Hutsler/Gibbon’s guiding the viewer’s viewpoint by traversing through the volumetric video into Ramamurthy’s video viewing system to have provided an indicator/alert by presenting an alert/transversal of the viewpoints on the user interface to have allowed the viewer to follow a particular object of interest. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have guided the viewer to a viewpoint via a traversal directional icon or via selection of viewpoint on the space of the volumetric video to see the object of interest in volumetric video presentation.
Re Claim 2:
The claim 2 encompasses the same scope of invention as that of the claim 1 except additional claim imitation that the determining of the at least one object of viewer's interest includes receiving the at least one object of viewer's interest specified by the viewer.
Ramamurthy further teaches the claim limitation that the determining of the at least one object of viewer's interest includes receiving the at least one object of viewer's interest specified by the viewer (
Ramamurthy teaches at Paragraph 0121 that object detection module 918 may use view 1 for object selection by the end user and may perform the object detection in view 1 which identifies the object associated with that region chosen by the user.
Ramamurthy teaches at Paragraph 0033 user interface 102 may receive a command from the user to start an object of interest selection process on a set top box unit or recorder and at Paragraph 0035 that object-based video processing module 112 may receive a selection of an object of interest and at Paragraph 0042 that enabling viewers of video streams to select one or more particular objects of interest and at Paragraph 0036 in response to the selection, object-based video processing module 112 may provide additional visual information corresponding to the object of interest where the additional visual information may include metadata associated with the object and at Paragraph 0037 the object-based video processing module 112 may render the region of interest on display panel 106 using the additional information and may track movements of the object contained in the region of interest across video frames…may automatically track (determine) the selected object of interest in subsequent frames during video play).
Re Claim 3:
The claim 3 encompasses the same scope of invention as that of the claim 1 except additional claim limitation that the determining of the at least one object of viewer's interest includes using a trained machine learning model to predict the at least one object of viewer's interest.
Ramamurthy further teaches the claim limitation that the determining of the at least one object of viewer's interest includes using a trained machine learning model to predict the at least one object of viewer's interest (
Ramamurthy teaches at Paragraph 0036 that an object mask identifying the object, metadata associated with the object and at Paragraph 0049 that deep learning tools can be used for identification and tracking of objects and also determining the exact window that covers the object of interest).
Re Claim 5:
The claim 5 encompasses the same scope of invention as that of the claim 1 except additional claim limitation that the guiding of the viewer's view includes automatically moving a view of the video and focusing in an area of the identified position in the video as the video is playing.
Hutsler and Ramamurthy further teach the claim limitation that the guiding of the viewer's view includes automatically moving a view of the video and focusing in an area of the identified position in the video as the video is playing (
Hutsler teaches at Paragraph 0027 that the viewer may wish to follow a particular golfer, caddy, celebrity spectator, golf ball, or the like. Alternatively, the viewer may wish to view all instances of a certain action, such as putting, driving, clapping, running, or the like. The AS 104 may track the targets through the videos obtained from the cameras 130 and may predict where the targets will be in future frames of the videos. Based on the prediction, the AS 104 may present a particular traversal (e.g., a continuous sequence of viewpoints) through the volumetric video to the viewer, so that the viewer does not miss the opportunity to view action involving the targets. Hutsler teaches at Paragraph 0041 that he target may be a golf ball belonging to a specific golfer. In this case, knowing the average distance of the golfer's drive may allow the processor to predict where the ball will land (within some range) on the golfer's next drive. In another example, the position of the target may be predicted based on patterns that are dynamically learned by the processor. For instance, the processor may compute the average distance of the golfer's drive over a set of observed drives (which may be observed in the course of tracking the golfer and/or the golfer's ball). The processor may also observe how real-time environmental conditions (e.g., wind) may affect the movement of balls.
Ramamurthy teaches at Paragraph 0089 that the rendered video stream with focus on the object of interest is depicted in 316B and at Paragraph 0096 that in accordance with the user selection of object, includes higher quality/resolution as well as customized ‘object’ variants corresponding to streams that focus on the objects of interest that can be selected by users on the client device. Once the object of interest is selected by the user at client device 412, with the help of the metadata which provides information for bounding the object, ROI processing and control module 416 forms the boundary (e.g., a bounding box, circle, or ellipse) of the selected object of interest, and can further support zoom and pan for the region of interest. In an example, rendering module 418 may receive the video stream from the client buffering and decide module 414 and receive the boundary information from the ROI processing and control module 416 and then crop and scale the region of interest to focus on the region of interest around the selected object).
Re Claim 8:
The claim 8 recites a computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions readable by a device to cause the device to:
receive a request for a video from a viewer;
determine at least one object of viewer's interest;
receive the video and object metadata associated with objects rendered in the video; based on the object metadata, identify a position of the at least one object of viewer's interest in the received video; and guide the viewer's view to the position as the video plays on a device of the viewer.
The claim 8 is in parallel with the claim 1 in the form of a computer program product. The claim 8 is subject to the same rationale of rejection as the claim 1.
Moreover, Ramamurthy further teaches the claim limitation of a computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions readable by a device to cause the device to [perform the method steps of the claim 1] (Ramamurthy teaches at Paragraph 0030 that video processing device 104 can include one or more processors (e.g., processor 108) that can execute instructions stored in memory 110 for performing the functions described herein and at Paragraph 0038 that the functionalities described in FIG. 1A, in relation to instructions to implement functions of object-based video processing module 112 and any additional instructions described herein in relation to the storage medium, may be implemented as engines or modules including any combination of hardware and programming to implement the functionalities of the modules or engines described herein. The functions of object-based video processing module 112 may also be implemented by a processor. In examples described herein, the processor may include, for example, one processor or multiple processors included in a single device or distributed across multiple devices).
Re Claim 9:
The claim 9 encompasses the same scope of invention as that of the claim 8 except additional claim limitation that the at least one object of viewer's interest is specified by the viewer.
The claim 9 is in parallel with the claim 2 in the form of a computer program product. The claim 9 is subject to the same rationale of rejection as the claim 2.
Re Claim 10:
The claim 10 encompasses the same scope of invention as that of the claim 8 except additional claim limitation that the at least one object of viewer's interest is learned using a trained machine learning model trained to predict the at least one object of interest.
The claim 10 is in parallel with the claim 3 in the form of a computer program product. The claim 10 is subject to the same rationale of rejection as the claim 3.
Re Claim 12:
The claim 12 encompasses the same scope of invention as that of the claim 8 except additional claim limitation that to guide the viewer's view, the device is caused to automatically move a view of the video and focus in an area of the identified position in the video as the video is playing.
The claim 12 is in parallel with the claim 5 in the form of a computer program product. The claim 12 is subject to the same rationale of rejection as the claim 5.
Re Claim 15:
The claim 15 recites a system comprising:
at least one computer processor;
at least one memory device coupled with the at least one computer processor; the at least one computer processor configured to at least:
receive a request for a video from a viewer;
determine at least one object of viewer's interest;
receive the video and object metadata associated with objects rendered in the video;
based on the object metadata, identify a position of the at least one object of viewer's interest in the received video; and
guide the viewer's view to the position as the video plays on a device of the viewer.
The claim 15 is in parallel with the claim 1 in the form of an apparatus claim. The claim 15 is subject to the same rationale of rejection as the claim 1.
Moreover, Ramamurthy further teaches the claim limitation of a system comprising:
at least one computer processor;
at least one memory device coupled with the at least one computer processor; the at least one computer processor configured to at least [perform the method steps of the claim 1] (Ramamurthy teaches at Paragraph 0030 that video processing device 104 can include one or more processors (e.g., processor 108) that can execute instructions stored in memory 110 for performing the functions described herein and at Paragraph 0038 that the functionalities described in FIG. 1A, in relation to instructions to implement functions of object-based video processing module 112 and any additional instructions described herein in relation to the storage medium, may be implemented as engines or modules including any combination of hardware and programming to implement the functionalities of the modules or engines described herein. The functions of object-based video processing module 112 may also be implemented by a processor. In examples described herein, the processor may include, for example, one processor or multiple processors included in a single device or distributed across multiple devices).
Re Claim 16.
The claim 16 encompasses the same scope of invention as that of the claim 15 except additional claim limitation that the at least one object of viewer's interest is specified by the viewer.
The claim 16 is in parallel with the claim 2 in the form of an apparatus claim. The claim 16 is subject to the same rationale of rejection as the claim 2.
Re Claim 17:
The claim 17 encompasses the same scope of inventio as that of the claim 15 except additional claim limitation that the at least one object of viewer's interest is learned using a trained machine learning model trained to predict the at least one object of interest.
The claim 17 is in parallel with the claim 3 in the form of an apparatus claim. The claim 17 is subject to the same rationale of rejection as the claim 3.
Re Claim 19:
The claim 19 encompasses the same scope of invention as that of the claim 15 except additional claim limitation that to guide the viewer's view, the computer processor is configured to automatically move a view of the video and focus in an area of the identified position in the video as the video is playing.
The claim 19 is in parallel with the claim 5 in the form of an apparatus claim. The claim 19 is subject to the same rationale of rejection as the claim 5.
Claims 4, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramamurthy et al. US-PGPUB No. 2023/0328329 (hereinafter Ramamurthy) in view of Hutsler et al. US-PGPUB No. 2020/0336668 (hereinafter Hutsler); Gibbon et al. US-PGPUB No. 2020/0334833 (hereinafter Gibbon) and Yang et al. US-PGPUB No. 2023/0010078 (hereinafter Yang).
Re Claim 4:
The claim 4 encompasses the same scope of invention as that of the claim 1 except additional claim limitation that the guiding of the viewer's view includes providing a directional indicator that directs the viewer to move the viewer's view in a direction of the identified position.
Hutsler/Gibbon implicitly teaches the claim limitation that the guiding of the viewer's view includes providing a directional indicator that directs the viewer to move the viewer's view in a direction of the identified position (Hutsler teaches at Paragraph 0012 that alert the viewer that will allow the viewer to view targets and alert the viewer to the location at which the ball is predicted to land and at Paragraph 0027 that the AS 104 may track the targets through the videos and may predict where the targets will be in future frames of the videos and may present a particular traversal (direction), a continuous sequence of viewpoints through the volumetric video to the viewer and the AS 104 may also present a traversal (direction) through the volumetric video in response to a viewer request, where the viewer request identifies the traversal the viewer wishes to see. It is noted that traversing from one viewpoint to another viewpoint means a traversal direction from one viewpoint to another viewpoint.
Gibbon teaches at Paragraph 0031 that the viewer may select one or more perspectives within the space of the volumetric video and a user interface of the UEs may enable the viewer to move a viewpoint left/right/up/down/forward/background to select coordinates or define a position with respect to a reference point in the scene 150)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to have incorporated Hutsler/Gibbon’s guiding the viewer’s viewpoint by traversing through the volumetric video into Ramamurthy’s video viewing system to have provided an indicator/alert by presenting an alert/transversal of the viewpoints on the user interface to have allowed the viewer to follow a particular object of interest. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have guided the viewer to a viewpoint such as a traversal directional icon to see the object of interest in volumetric video presentation.
However, Yang et al. US-PGPUB No. 2023/0010078 (hereinafter Yang) teaches the claim limitation that the guiding of the viewer's view includes providing a directional indicator that directs the viewer to move the viewer's view in a direction of the identified position (Yang teaches at Paragraph 0042 that [0042] The user can adjust the size and position of the object of interest, e.g. zoom in, zoom out, shift left/right/up/downright, enlarge or reduce the image of the object of interest through the user interface 12. A region of interest may be selected using one object or multiple objects as a group).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to have incorporated Yang’s guiding the viewer’s viewpoint by using the left/right/up/down to view the object of interest into Ramamurthy’s video viewing system to have allowed the user to change viewpoint to have traversed the video to follow a particular object of interest. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have guided the viewer to a viewpoint shift direction to see the object of interest in volumetric video presentation.
Re Claim 11:
The claim 11 encompasses the same scope of invention as that of the claim 8 except additional claim limitation that to guide the viewer's view, the device is caused to provide a directional indicator that directs the viewer to move the viewer's view in a direction of the identified position.
The claim 11 is in parallel with the claim 4 in the form of a computer program product. The claim 11 is subject to the same rationale of rejection as the claim 4.
Re Claim 18:
The claim 18 encompasses the same scope of invention as that of the claim 15 except additional claim limitation that to guide the viewer's view, the computer processor is configured to provide a directional indicator that directs the viewer to move the viewer's view in a direction of the identified position.
The claim 18 is in parallel with the claim 4 in the form of an apparatus claim. The claim 18 is subject to the same rationale of rejection as the claim 4.
Claims 6, 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramamurthy et al. US-PGPUB No. 2023/0328329 (hereinafter Ramamurthy) in view of Hutsler et al. US-PGPUB No. 2020/0336668 (hereinafter Hutsler); Gibbon et al. US-PGPUB No. 2020/0334833 (hereinafter Gibbon) and Shearer US Patent No. 7,893,936 (hereinafter Shearer).
Re Claim 6:
The claim 6 encompasses the same scope of invention as that of the claim 1 except additional claim limitation that the object metadata associated with objects rendered in the video is generated during a stage in volumetric video processing of the video, and stored as octree data structure.
Ramamurthy teaches that the object metadata associated with objects rendered in the video is generated during a stage in volumetric video processing of the video (receiving the video and object metadata associated with objects rendered in the video (
Ramamurthy teaches at Paragraph 0095 that the streaming server streams the metadata about locations of objects of interest along with the video stream and the metadata generated by ROI processing module 406 carries the object position information across video frames for objects in a frame that can be tracked as region of interest by client device 412 and client device 412 continuously receives the updated location information through the metadata.
Ramamurthy teaches at Paragraph 0105 if the 3D rendering of the video is needed, analysis engine at the serving entity or the client device may detect an object boundary through metadata associated with the object and at Paragraph 0116 that examples described in FIG. 7A can be used in the context of stereo-3D and thus the object of interest is seen in complete stereo-3D where each constitutional part of the object is imparted depth).
Ramamurthy does not teach the claim limitation the object metadata is stored as octree data structure.
However, Shearer US Patent No. 7,893,936 (hereinafter Shearer) teaches that the object metadata is stored as octree data structure (Shearer teaches in claim 12 that spatial index logic configured to generate a spatial index having nodes defining bounded volumes which partition a three-dimensional scene, wherein at least one of the nodes of the spatial index defines bounding volumes containing an object in a first position within the three-dimensional scene, wherein the object moves in a predictable manner, wherein the spatial index is selected from a k-dimensional tree (kd-tree), a binary space partitioning (BSP) tree, and an octree).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to have used spatial index selected from octree or kd-tree to have indexed the bounded volumes containing an object (object positions) of Shearer to have indexed the object positions in the volumetric video presentation into Ramamurthy’s video presentation system. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have stored the object metadata (position) that can be received by a client device.
Re Claim 13:
The claim 13 encompasses the same scope of inventio as that of the claim 8 except additional claim limitation that the object metadata associated with objects rendered in the video is generated during a stage in volumetric video processing of the video, and stored as octree data structure.
The claim 13 is in parallel with the claim 6 in the form of a computer program product. The claim 13 is subject to the same rationale of rejection as the claim 6.
Re Claim 20:
The claim 20 encompasses the same scope of invention as that of the claim 15 except additional claim limitation that the object metadata associated with objects rendered in the video is generated during a stage in volumetric video processing of the video, and stored as octree data structure.
The claim 20 is in parallel with the claim 6 in the form of an apparatus claim. The claim 20 is subject to the same rationale of rejection as the claim 6.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramamurthy et al. US-PGPUB No. 2023/0328329 (hereinafter Ramamurthy) in view of Hutsler et al. US-PGPUB No. 2020/0336668 (hereinafter Hutsler); Gibbon et al. US-PGPUB No. 2020/0334833 (hereinafter Gibbon) and Chan et al. US-PGPUB No. 2019/0114485 (hereinafter Chan).
Re Claim 7:
The claim 7 encompasses the same scope of invention as that of the claim 1 except additional claim limitation that the object metadata associated with objects rendered in the video includes indices of voxels in three-dimensional rendering of the video.
However, Chan et al. US-PGPUB No. 2019/0114485 (hereinafter Chan) teaches the claim limitation that the object metadata associated with objects rendered in the video includes indices of voxels in three-dimensional rendering of the video (Chan teaches at Paragraph 0288 the spatial indexing may include indexing the pixels 3D pixels (voxels) and/or objects in the video content).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant application to have provided spatial indices for the voxels of the object according to Chan to have indexed the object voxels in the volumetric video presentation into Ramamurthy’s video presentation system. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have indexed the object voxels that can be received by a client device.
Re Claim 14:
The claim 14 encompasses the same scope of inventio as that of the claim 8 except additional claim limitation that the object metadata associated with objects rendered in the video includes indices of voxels in three-dimensional rendering of the video.
The claim 14 is in parallel with the claim 7 in the form of a computer program product. The claim 14 is subject to the same rationale of rejection as the claim 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIN CHENG WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7665. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00.
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, King Poon can be reached at 571-270-0728. 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.
/JIN CHENG WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2617
Prosecution Insights