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 14, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite in that it fails to point out what is included or excluded by the claim language because they depend on cancelled claim 6. Claim 18 depends on claim 17, thus, rejected for the same reason. For further prosecution it will be assumed that both claims 14 and 17 depend on claim 1.
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 1-2 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 9396588) in view of Kerzner (US 20160267759) and further in view of Paulrajan (US 20160155187).
Regarding claim 1, Li teaches a method for a virtual reality memory bank, the method comprising:
Creating a 360-degree-virtual location (Column 23, lines 20-22, The theater itself may provide an extended field of view surrounding the video screen, including for example a complete 360-degree view of the theater), wherein the 360-degree virtual location is displayed on a virtual reality headset (Column 1, lines 21-24, systems generate a virtual world, examples include various types of virtual reality headsets);
Including at least one visual media outlet within the 360-degree virtual location (Column 22, lines 11-15, Because the virtual reality system creates a virtual reality environment, it may display the video in any desired surroundings. This capability provides the user with an immersive virtual experience wherein the user is viewing the video in a virtual world);
Displaying at least one desired visual media via the at least one visual media outlet (Colum 5, lines 31-33, The scene renderer may project the video frames successively from the virtual projector onto the virtual screen);
Including at least one audible media outlet within the 360-degree virtual location (Column 6, lines 14-15, One or more embodiments may incorporate one or more virtual speakers into a 3D virtual theater model);
Playing at least one desired audible media via the at least one audible media outlet (Column 6, lines 18-20, a sound renderer that obtains one or more audio tracks from a video, sends these audio tracks to one or more of the virtual speakers).
While Li fails to disclose the following, Kerzner teaches:
Access to the 360-degree virtual location is restricted and is accessible with a username and password (Kerzner, Paragraph 177, authentication credentials may include a username and password),
The 360-degree virtual location is configured to be accessed by multiple distinct users (Kerzner, Paragraph 177, other users may request may request authorization to use a virtual reality headset to access one or more components), each user having one of a plurality of different access permissions (Kerzner, Paragraph 177, a lawful occupant of property may indicate that the central operator, law enforcement officer, and/or other user may access one portions of the property such as, for example the living room, but not, for example the bedroom).
Kerzner and Li are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because
they are in the same field of virtual reality. Therefore, it would have been obvious a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li
by using Kerzner and restricting access to the virtual reality location. Doing so would protect the
privacy of anyone who has access to the virtual environment (Kerzner, Paragraph 177).
While the combination of Li and Kerzner fails to disclose the following, Paulrajan teaches:
One access permission of the plurality of different access permissions allows adding media assets to the 360-degree virtual location (Paragraph 62, a pre-recorded video shared by another user… the first user could share an image, text, an audio file, or the like),
Media assets are configured to be added, by a distinct user with access permission to add media assets, to a virtual database for display via the at least one visual media outlet and/or the at least one audible media outlet (Paragraph 52, For example, virtual reality control device 230 may request that a cloud storage device allocate a particular quantity of storage space for virtual reality control device 230 to store videos to be shared with other users (e.g., friends, family, etc.)), and
The added media assets are configured to be selectively playable by the multiple distinct users (Paragraph 62, the user has selected to view a pre-recorded video shared by another user).
Paulrajan and the combination of Li and Kerzner are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of virtual reality. Therefore, it would have been obvious a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Li and Kerzner by using Paulrajan and allowing a user to upload and store media and allow another user to selectively play the media. Doing so would permit a user to share a virtual reality experience, or other content, with another user (Paulrajan, Paragraph 10).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Li, Kerzner, and Paulrajan teaches the method for a virtual reality memory bank of claim 1, wherein the 360-degree virtual location is a replication of a physical location (Li, Column 1, lines 63-64, virtual reality content may provide complete 360-degree views of a real or computer-generated scene).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Li, Kerzner, and Paulrajan teaches the method for a virtual reality memory bank of claim 1, further comprising: selecting at least one virtual item displaying within the 360-degree virtual location to be interactive (Li, Column 5, lines 60-61, a user may select his or her location in the virtual theater, for example by choosing a seat from a seat map).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Li, Kerzner, and Paulrajan teaches the method for a virtual reality memory bank of claim 11, further comprising: selecting a desired action to be performed when the at least one virtual item is selected (Li, Column 5, lines 61-63, the scene renderer may for example render views of the virtual theater from the user’s selected location).
Claims 3-4 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Kerzner and further in view of Paulrajan as applied to claims 1-2 and 11-12 and further in view of Benzies (US 20210308578).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Li, Kerzner, and Paulrajan teaches a method for a virtual reality memory bank of claim 1. While the combination fails to disclose the following, Benzies teaches:
Wherein the at least one visual media outlet is a television (Paragraph 28, the image display area may be provided on a surface of a virtual object in the computer generated three dimensional environment; Paragraph 29-30, the virtual object may comprise one or more of: a screen or other display, a billboard, a television…).
Benzies and the combination of Li, Kerzner, and Paulrajan are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of virtual reality. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Li, Kerzner, and Paulrajan by using Benzies to create a television as a visual media outlet in a virtual reality environment. Doing so would allow the virtual reality to simulate a desired environment and create an immersive experience through graphical appearance (Benzies, Paragraph 6).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Li, Kerzner, and Paulrajan teaches the method for a virtual reality memory bank of claim 1. While the combination of Li, Kerzner, and Paulrajan fails to disclose the following, Benzies teaches:
Wherein the audible media outlet is a radio (Paragraph 410, audio rendering process is performed so that the at least part of the produced output audio sounds as if it is being produced at the audio source area; Paragraph 412, the audio data may be radio stream… the audio source area may correspond to a virtual object that produces sound and not images, for example, a radio or a speaker).
Benzies and the combination of Li, Kerzner, and Paulrajan are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of virtual reality. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Li, Kerzner, and Paulrajan by using Benzies to create a radio as an audio media outlet in a virtual reality environment. Doing so would allow the virtual reality to simulate a desired environment and create an immersive experience (Benzies, Paragraph 6) through the appearance of a radio emitting audio.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Li, Kerzner, and Paulrajan teaches the method for a virtual reality memory bank of claim 1. While the combination fails to disclose the following, Benzies teaches:
Creating a second 360-degree virtual location, wherein the second 360-degree virtual location is accessible via the 360-degree virtual location (Paragraph 75, a user controlling a character to move from a first environment, for example, an interior environment, to a second environment, for example, an exterior environment).
Benzies and the combination of Li, Kerzner, and Paulrajan are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of virtual reality. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Li, Kerzner, and Paulrajan by using Benzies to create a second 360-degree virtual location accessible via the 360-degree virtual location. Doing so would allow the virtual reality to simulate a desired environment and create an immersive experience (Benzies, Paragraph 6) by simulating traveling from one location to another.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Li, Kerzner, and Paulrajan teaches the method for a virtual reality memory bank of claim 1. While the combination fails to disclose the following, Benzies teaches:
Creating a second 360-degree virtual location, wherein the second 360-degree virtual location is accessible via the 360-degree virtual location (Paragraph 75, a user controlling a character to move from a first environment, for example, an interior environment, to a second environment, for example, an exterior environment).
Benzies and the combination of Li, Kerzner, and Paulrajan are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of virtual reality. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Li, Kerzner, and Paulrajan by using Benzies to create a second 360-degree virtual location accessible via the 360-degree virtual location. Doing so would allow the virtual reality to simulate a desired environment and create an immersive experience (Benzies, Paragraph 6) by simulating traveling from one location to another.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Kerzner and further in view of Paulrajan as applied to claims 1-2 and 11-12 and further in view of Lee (KR 20180120456).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Li, Kerzner, and Paulrajan teaches a method for a virtual reality memory bank of claim 1. While the combination fails to disclose the following, Lee teaches:
Taking a 360-degree photograph of a physical location (Page 2, Background Art, 360 degree panoramic images were based on live-action, which combines images acquired from a large number of cameras), wherein the 360-degree virtual location is created based on the 360-degree photograph (Page 3, paragraph 4, providing a virtual reality content based on a panoramic image).
Lee and the combination of Li, Kerzner, and Paulrajan are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of virtual reality. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Li, Kerzner, and Paulrajan by using Lee take a 360-degree photograph and use it to create a 360-degree virtual
environment. Doing so would allow the virtual reality to simulate a desired environment and
create a realistic and immersive experience.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Kerzner and further in view of Paulrajan as applied to claims 1-2 and 11-12 and further in view of Wu (CN 110163392).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Li, Kerzner, and Paulrajan teaches the method for a virtual reality memory bank of claim 12. While the combination fails to disclose the following, Wu teaches:
Wherein the desired action comprises ordering food (Page 4, Paragraph 2, sending the food purchase request information of binding purchase confirmation information, and when the user terminal sends the food purchase confirmation information after the food purchase confirmation information sent to menu sending module).
Wu and the combination of Li, Kerzner, and Paulrajan are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of virtual reality. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Li, Kerzner, and Paulrajan by using Wu and incorporating a food ordering system into virtual reality. Doing so would allow users to obtain food in a virtual reality experience with vivid visual, audible, olfactory sensation and can immediately carry out complex operation (Page 2, paragraph 1) without having to go to a store and wait in line.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Kerzner and further in view of Paulrajan as applied to claims 1-2 and 11-12 and further in view of Trairattanapa (US 20210182918).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Li, Kerzner, and Paulrajan teaches the method for a virtual reality memory bank of claim 12. While the combination fails to disclose the following, Trairattanapa teaches:
Wherein a desired action includes directing a user of the virtual reality memory bank to an online shop (Paragraph 32, selected objects or hotspots may link to another 2D image/video, slideshow, additional 360 degree VR experience, URL redirects). See paragraph 35 of the claimed invention’s specification detailing that interacting with an object in virtual reality redirects a user to a predefined URL.
Trairattanapa and the combination of Li, Kerzner, and Paulrajan are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of virtual reality. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Li, Kerzner, and Paulrajan by using Trairattanapa and incorporating directing a user to an online shop. Doing so would allow users to easily purchase items within the virtual reality and bring them into their own lives while simultaneously bringing customers to the predetermined URL’s businesses.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Kerzner and further in view of Paulrajan as applied to claims 1-2 and 11-12 and further in view of Frederic (DE 102019125609).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Li, Kerzner, and Paulrajan teach the method for a virtual reality memory bank of claim 1. While the combination fails to disclose the following, Frederic teaches:
Wherein a single user monitors and controls access to the restricted 360-degree virtual location (Page 4, paragraph 6, user data ND can also create a list of invited users).
Frederic and the combination of Li, Kerzner, and Paulrajan are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of virtual reality. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Li, Kerzner, and Paulrajan by using Frederic and allowing a single user to grant permission to access the 360-degree virtual location. Doing so would allow the single user to protect the privacy of the virtual location.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Li, Kerzner, Paulrajan, and Frederic teaches the method for a virtual reality memory bank of claim 17, wherein the single user grants access to additional distinct users to the restricted 360-degree virtual location (Page 4, paragraph 6, user data ND can also create a list of invited users).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 9396588) in view of Wu (CN 110163392).
Regarding claim 19, Li teaches a method for a virtual reality memory bank, the method comprising:
Creating a 360-degree virtual location (Column 23, lines 20-22, The theater itself may provide an extended field of view surrounding the video screen, including for example a complete 360-degree view of the theater), wherein the 360-degree virtual location is displayed on a virtual reality headset (Column 1, lines 21-24, systems generate a virtual world, examples include various types of virtual reality headsets);
Including at least one visual media outlet within the 360-degree virtual location (Column 22, lines 11-15, Because the virtual reality system creates a virtual reality environment, it may display the video in any desired surroundings. This capability provides the user with an immersive virtual experience wherein the user is viewing the video in a virtual world);
Displaying at least one desired visual media via the at least one visual media outlet (Colum 5, lines 31-33, The scene renderer may project the video frames successively from the virtual projector onto the virtual screen);
Including at least one audible media outlet within the 360-degree virtual location (Column 6, lines 14-15, One or more embodiments may incorporate one or more virtual speakers into a 3D virtual theater model);
Playing at least one desired audible media via the at least one audible media outlet (Column 6, lines 18-20, a sound renderer that obtains one or more audio tracks from a video, sends these audio tracks to one or more of the virtual speakers);
Selecting at least one virtual item displaying within the 360-degree virtual location to be interactive (Column 5, lines 60-61, a user may select his or her location in the virtual theater, for example by choosing a seat from a seat map); and
Selecting a desired action to be performed when the at least one virtual item is selected (Column 5, lines 61-63, the scene renderer may for example render views of the virtual theater from the user’s selected location).
While Li fails to disclose the following, Wu teaches:
Wherein the desired action comprises ordering food (Page 4, Paragraph 2, sending the food purchase request information of binding purchase confirmation information, and when the user terminal sends the food purchase confirmation information after the food purchase confirmation information sent to menu sending module).
Wu and Li are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of virtual reality. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li by using Wu and incorporating a food ordering system into virtual reality. Doing so would allow users to obtain food in a virtual reality experience with vivid visual, audible, olfactory sensation and can immediately carry out complex operation (Page 2, paragraph 1) without having to go to a store and wait in line.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but is moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim 19 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Li teaches selecting at least one virtual item displaying within the 360-degree virtual location to be interactive, and selecting a desired action to be performed when the at least one virtual item is selected (changing a viewpoint when selecting a seat within a virtual reality environment). Wu teaches when the desired action comprises ordering food (purchasing food in a marketplace in a virtual reality environment). Both Li and Wu teach performing actions in a virtual reality environment. Accordingly, the rejections under 103 are maintained.
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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SNIGDHA SINHA whose telephone number is (571)272-6618. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8am-5pm.
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, Jason Chan can be reached at 571-272-3022. 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.
/SNIGDHA SINHA/Examiner, Art Unit 2617
/JASON CHAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2611