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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are 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.
The applicant argues “Atluru never mentions or even hints at aggregating the at least one received field-of-view report into a spatial data structure in which each portion of the full area identified as having been selected for viewing on at least one client device is associated with a number of the at least one client device on which that portion of the full area has been selected for viewing, and then identifying at least one common area of interest within the media content for which the number associated with the portion of the full area identified as having been selected for viewing exceeds a threshold value”. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Atluru et al teaches aggregating the at least one received field-of-view report into a spatial data structure in which each portion of the full area identified as having been selected for viewing on at least one client device (i.e. individual ROI determinations of the content viewers may be collected as input data) (Para. 0059) is associated with a number of the at least one client device on which that portion of the full area has been selected for viewing (i.e. ROI as described refers to a spatial region of video image that is determined or predicted to be of interest to an individual content viewer or to a user population that comprises a plurality of content viewers) (Figures 1B-1E; Para. 0059-61); identifying at least one common area of interest within the media content for which the portion of the full area identified as having been selected for viewing (i.e. the ROI prediction system determines, predicts, verifies, modifies, and/or refines, at least some of the ROIs in the video images through machine learning (ML) based ROI prediction techniques) (Figure 4; Para. 0052).
The reference teaches FIG. 1B illustrates a first example ROI 102-1 as chosen by a first content viewer. FIG. 1C illustrates a second example ROI 102-2 as chosen by a second content viewer. FIG. 1D illustrates a third example ROI 102-3 as chosen by a third content viewer. FIG. 1E illustrates a fourth example ROI 102-4 as chosen by a fourth content viewer. The individual ROI determinations of the content viewers may be collected (e.g., in a user viewing behavior data flow 326 by a user viewing behavior data collector 328 of FIG. 3A or FIG. 3C, etc.) as input data or user viewing behavior data of the video image (100). The user viewing behavior data of the video image (100) can be analyzed to determine a predicted ROI 104 (in FIG. 1F) where the next user (e.g., a fifth user, etc.) would probably look. In some embodiments, the predicted ROI (104) may be generated as an intersection, as a union, etc., by overlaying the individual ROIs in the user viewing behavior data (Figures 1B-1E; Para. 0059-61). The examiner relied on Hu to meet limitations of the number associated exceed a threshold value, as discussed below.
With respect to claim 9, applicant cannot find the term "seasonable challenge" anywhere in the MPEP (including in MPEP § 2144.03 in or In re Chevenard, both cited by the Office on page 4) and respectfully requests a specific citation to where this term can be found and is defined.
MPEP 2144.03 Section C clearly states “If applicant does not traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice or applicant’s traverse is not adequate, the examiner should clearly indicate in the next Office action that the common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art because applicant either failed to traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice or that the traverse was inadequate. See Ahlert, 424 F.2d at 1091, 165 USPQ at 420. If the traverse was inadequate, the examiner should include an explanation as to why it was inadequate.”
To advance prosecution, the examiner has provided factual evidence, please see rejection.
The examiner notes that Claims 1, 14 and 15 disclose a conditional statement “when displayed as a video presentation on the one or more client devices, and if so”. Even though all of the limitations have been addressed (see rejections below), since only one of the “when” conditions have been claimed, the Examiner notes that the limitations and claims that depend on when displayed as a video presentation on the one or more client devices, and if so, could be rendered moot if the Examiner finds prior art that discloses when not displayed as a video presentation on the one or more client devices, and if so. The Examiner requests that applicant either (1) claim both conditions or (2) positively claims all limitations and removes conditional clauses.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 10-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atluru et al (US PG Pub No. 2018/0146198) in view of Hu et al (US PG Pub No. 2016/0073166).
Regarding claims 1, 14 and 15, Atluru et al teaches a method of providing media content to client devices configured to render received media content for displaying as a video presentation (Abstract), the method comprising:
providing a primary stream to the client devices, the primary stream comprising data corresponding to a full area of the media content when displayed as a video presentation on a client device (Abstract, Para. 0028, 0036-37, 0128);
receiving at least one field-of-view report from at least one client device (i.e. collect user viewing behavior data for video images from a user population or a plurality of media streaming client devices thereof) (Para. 0049), the at least one field-of-view report from the at least one client device indicating a portion of the full area identified as having been selected for viewing by a viewer of the media content via the at least one client device (i.e. the ROI prediction system determines or predicts, based on the user viewing patterns or user viewing consensus, ROIs in the video images) (Figure 4A; Para. 0033, 0049 and 0052);
aggregating the at least one received field-of-view report into a spatial data structure in which each portion of the full area identified as having been selected for viewing on at least one client device (i.e. individual ROI determinations of the content viewers may be collected as input data) (Para. 0059) is associated with a number of the at least one client device on which that portion of the full area has been selected for viewing (i.e. ROI as described refers to a spatial region of video image that is determined or predicted to be of interest to an individual content viewer or to a user population that comprises a plurality of content viewers) (Figures 1B-1E; Para. 0059-61);
identifying at least one common area of interest within the media content for which the portion of the full area identified as having been selected for viewing (i.e. the ROI prediction system determines, predicts, verifies, modifies, and/or refines, at least some of the ROIs in the video images through machine learning (ML) based ROI prediction techniques) (Figure 4; Para. 0052);
providing a supplementary stream, separate from the primary stream, to one or more of the client devices, the supplementary stream being configured to include a subset of the primary stream in which the subset is a region, less than the full area (i.e. prebuffering/caching, the image portions within the one or more ROIs can be sent to requesting content clients relatively expeditiously as compared with the other image portions outside the one or more ROIs), selected based on the field-of-view reports from the plurality of the client devices (i.e. real-time user viewing behavior data, non-real-time user viewing behavior data, past histories of user viewing behavior data, etc., to determine or predict the ROIs in the video image at any given time point for content viewers in a user population), in which the subset is selected in dependence on the at least one common area of interest (Para. 0039, 0054, 0128, 0140-142); and
determining from the field-of-view reports whether the at least one common area of interest corresponds to a variable spatial area of the media content when displayed as a video presentation on the one or more client devices, and if so, providing as the supplementary stream to the one or more client devices, a supplementary stream comprising data corresponding to the variable spatial area (i.e. determining and predicting ROIs in a video image as described herein is not static and uses a combination of artistic intent expressed by content creators, real-time user viewing behavior data, non-real-time user viewing behavior data, past histories of user viewing behavior data, etc., to determine or predict the ROIs in the video image at any given time point for content viewers in a user population) (Para. 0003, 0054, 0084, 0122, 0128, 0140-142). The reference is unclear with respect to the number associated exceed a threshold value.
In similar field of endeavor, Hu et al teaches concept of the number associated exceed a threshold value (i.e. a number of actual, real-time viewers that meets or exceeds a predetermined threshold) (Para. 0052). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the reference before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention for the common knowledge purpose of accurately identifying ROI for best viewing experience for plurality of viewers.
Claim 2 is rejected wherein the variable spatial area of the media content to which the subset of the primary stream corresponds is variable by virtue of the portion within the full area of the media content to which the variable spatial area of the media content corresponds being variable in position relative to the full area of the media content (i.e. spatial coordinates of an object may be tracked in a video clip) (Atluru: Para. 0080, 0122, 0135).
Claim 3 is rejected wherein the variable spatial area of the media content to which the subset of the primary stream corresponds is variable by virtue of the portion within the full area of the media content to which the variable spatial area of the media content corresponds being variable in at least one of size or shape (i.e. a spatial size of the ROI can be defined in terms of pixel numbers, spatial dimensions, portions of a content viewer's vision field) (Atluru: Para. 0061, 0122).
Claim 4 is rejected wherein the portion the primary stream comprises media content which, when displayed as a video presentation on a client device, appears as video content at least partially surrounding a viewer viewing the video presentation on the client device (i.e. media streaming clients in support of one or more of: 360-degree video applications, non-360-degree video applications, VR applications, AR applications, remote presence applications, display applications, etc.)(Atluru: Para. 0098, 0100, 0112, 01028).
Claim 5 is rejected wherein the portion of the full area indicated in a field-of-view report from a respective client device indicates a spatial area of the media content being displayed as a video presentation on the respective client device (i.e. One or more ROIs in the one or more video images are identified based on the plurality of spatial locations in the one or more video images) (Atluru: Figure 4A; Abstract, Para. 0042, 0047, 0128).
Claim 6 is rejected wherein the portion of the full area indicated in a field-of-view report from a respective client device indicates a location within a spatial area of the media content being displayed as a video presentation on the respective client device (i.e. a plurality of spatial locations is determined, in the one or more video images, to which a plurality of foveal visions of the plurality of content viewers is directed)(Atluru: Figure 4A; Para. 0033, 0042, 0049, 0052, 0128).
Claim 7 is rejected wherein the portion of the full area indicated in a field-of-view report from a respective client device is determined by monitoring where viewing by a user is directed (i.e. collect user viewing behavior data for the video clips based on eye gaze tracking, mouse cursor movement tracking, head motion tracking) (Atluru: Figure 4A; Para. 0101).
Claim 10 is rejected wherein identifying from a field-of-view report from a respective client device whether the supplementary stream corresponds with or overlaps with a subset of the primary stream indicated in the field-of-view report as having been selected for viewing by a viewer of the media content via the client device, and if so, unicasting the supplementary stream to the respective client device (Atluru: Figure 4A, C; Para. 0043, 0107, 0125-126).
Claim 11 is rejected wherein providing descriptions of a plurality of supplementary streams for selection by a client device in dependence on a portion of the full area identified as having been selected for viewing by a viewer of the media content via the client device, then providing a selected supplementary stream (Atluru: Para. 0125-128, 0132-133).
Claim 12 is rejected wherein providing a supplementary stream to a respective client device selected in dependence on one or more field-of-view reports received from the respective client device (Atluru: Para. 0125-126, 0132-133).
Claim 13 is rejected wherein providing one or more of a plurality of supplementary streams to respective client devices, the supplementary streams each being configured to include a subset of the primary stream selected in dependence on the common area of interest determined from the received field-of-view reports (Atluru: Para. 0054, 0084, 0122, 0125-126, 0133, 0140-142).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atluru et al (US PG Pub No. 2018/0146198) in view of Hu et al (US PG Pub No. 2016/0073166) further in view of Gonder et al (US PG Pub No. 2014/0282777).
Regarding claim 9, Atluru and Hu, the combination teaches limitation discussed with respect to claim 1. The combination is unclear with respect to multicasting the supplementary stream to a plurality of the client devices.
In similar field of endeavor, Gonder et al teaches multicasting the supplementary stream to a plurality of the client devices (Para. 0145). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination before the effectively filing date of the claimed invention for the common knowledge purpose of saving bandwidth in order to transmit similar content to plurality of devices.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Westphat et al (US Patent No. 10,062,414) teaches video streams are cached for the future FoVs of the future time instants, where the video streams for the future FoVs are cached prior to receiving requests for the future FoVs of the future time instants for the particular user viewing the 360 degree video stream (e.g., see step 608 of FIG. 6A) (Figures 6A-B and corresponding paragraphs).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KUNAL LANGHNOJA whose telephone number is (571)270-3583. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00AM - 5:00PM 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, Brian Pendleton can be reached at (571) 272-7527. 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.
/KUNAL LANGHNOJA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425
Prosecution Insights