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 .
DETAILED ACTION
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
112f INTERPRETATION
The examiner acknowledges the amendment of claims 1, 3, 5 & 13-18 filed 09/30/2025. After carefully reviewing applicant amendments, 35 USC 112f guidance and applicant arguments,
amendments are sufficient to overcome 112(f) interpretation.
35 USC 101 REJECTION
The examiner acknowledges the amendment of claims 1, 3, 5 & 13-18 filed 09/30/2025. After carefully reviewing applicant amendments, 35 USC 101 guidance and claim limitations, examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant Argument 1
Applicant submits independent claims scope includes “filtering object data by independently determining a spatial region for each of the first object and the second object”. Applicant concludes that this process cannot be practically performed in the human mind as this process.
In response, the claim recites steps of determining spatial regions for objects and filtering object data based on a condition. These are mathematical concepts/mental steps involving of data and application of if/then logic. The claim does not require any particular data volume or processing speed. Under current guidance, a process is a “mental process” if it can be practically performed by a human, even using pen and paper, without relying on the claimed hardware to give it meaning. A human could observe objects in a virtual scene, determine per-object regions (e.g. “near user”, “far from user”), and decide which object information to keep or discard and then communicate only the kept subset. The additional recitation of a “service device” and “processing circuitry” merely automates this abstract evaluation using a generic computer and does not remove the claim from the mental process grouping.
Applicant Argument 2
Applicant submits even if its an abstract claim, the claim integrates the claim into a practical application. Applicant submits that the specification identifies a technical problem in large scale virtual environments, sending all video/object data of all participants drastically increase traffic and can break the system. Applicant submits claim 1 contains specific architecture: (1) filtering by independently determining a spatial region for each object; and (2) sending filtered data to a distinct rendering server. Applicant submits the claim has “specific, unconventional network architecture” that reduces required bandwidth and enables massive multi user VR without failure. Applicant concludes an improvement to the functioning of distributed computing systems.
In response, examiner submits At Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B, the critical inquiry is “whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept, beyond generic computer implementation.
Claim 1 recites: (1) a generic processing circuitry of a server device (2) a broker that filters data by determining spatial regions per object and applying a filter condition, and (3) sending the filter data to a rendering server.
Examiner submits the claim does not recite any specific network protocol, data structure, compression scheme, routing mechanism, or hardware configuration that improves the functioning of the computer itself. It uses conventional components (server, processing circuitry, rendering server) in their ordinary capacities to carry out the abstract idea of selectively transmitting less data based on spatial conditions.
Any reduction in bandwidth is a mere result of the abstract idea (sending less information), not a claimed improvement to the underlying technology. Courts have held that limiting the amount of information transmitted or processed, without reciting a specific technological mechanism is still an abstract idea implemented on generic computers.
The specification’s discussion of network overload is acknowledged but the claims do not recite the level of detail necessary to amount to a technological improvement; they only implement the abstract filtering logic on generic servers. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and lacks an additional inventive concept.
Overall 101 Alice Conclusion
In view of above arguments, examiner submits rejection is sufficient and respectfully maintained.
Prior Art Rejection
The examiner acknowledges the amendment of claims 1, 3, 5 & 13-18 filed 09/30/2025. After carefully reviewing applicant amendments, 35 USC 102 guidance and claim limitations, examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner View of Applicant Amendments
Applicant amendments provide new limitations: (1) Per-object region determination “filters each of first object data that is object data of a first object and second object data that is object data of a second object by independently determining a spatial region for each of the first object and the second object based on a determined filter condition, the first object and the second object being to be displayed in a virtual space” and (2) Broker server vs. rendering server “sends the filtered first object data and the filtered second object data to a rendering server that is distinct from the server device”.
Examiner submits “independently determining a spatial region for each of the first and second object” broadly under broadest reasonable interpretation” (1) does not require the regions to be different for each object (2) only requires for each object, the system determines what region it is associated with (e.g. “inside visible region” vs. “outside visible region”).
As to defines a spatial region (“view frustum”) and “objects in a modeled world”:
Examiner submits primary reference Kirk [0026] discloses “a view frustum is the region of space in a modeled world that might appear on a screen; it is the field of view of a notional camera. View frustum culling is the process of removing objects that lie completely outside the viewing frustum from the rendering process.” Examiner relates the following: View Frustum/region of space/removing objects/outside as spatial region and “filtering object data” based on that.
As to only geometry/texture for objects that satisfy a spatial condition (object whose data is needed for that frustum),
Examiner submits primary reference Kirk [0031] discloses only the 3D geometry data and texture data necessary to render a specific viewpoint or view frustum from the server to the client. The synthetic viewpoint is then rendered by the client using the received 3D geometry and texture data. This approach has the advantage of providing a consistent and manageable amount of data to a client, or several clients, because only the geometric data and texture data necessary to display a specific viewpoint or view frustum desired by a user of the client are sent to the client. Examiner related the following: “only the geometric data and texture data necessary are sent as filters object data based on a filter condition and send filtered object data.
As to stores data in spatial cells, which are per-object spatial regions, and selects cell matching the filter condition (viewpoint/frustum):
Examiner submits primary reference Kirk [0041] discloses in some embodiments of the technique, the geometric data and texture data is stored as a spatial representation of all viewpoints possible. For example, the spatial representation of all viewpoints possible can be defined by three dimensional cells as shown in FIG. 4. A large three-dimensional cell 402 can be sub-divided into smaller three-dimensional cells 404 and these smaller three-dimensional cells can further be sub-divided into even smaller three-dimensional cells 406. The server can store the geometric data and texture data of the FVV in the increasingly sub-divided three-dimensional cells and the client can request specific cells corresponding to a desired viewpoint or view frustum to be rendered.
As to independently determining a spatial region for each object, examiner submits Kirk discloses each object geometry is associated with one or more of the 3D cells (a spatial region). For each object (claimed “first” and “second”), the server determines whether its associated cell(s) intersect the current view frustum -> if yes, its geometry/texture is sent; if not -> its culled. The “filter condition” is the current viewpoint/view frustum provided by the client (and predicted viewpoint, where used). The “filter condition” correspondence is based on: [0028] disclosing In general, the view frustum culling technique described herein transfers Free Viewpoint Video (FVV) from a server to a client over a network, such as, for example, the Internet, or over a proprietary intranet. [0029] discloses next, a current synthetic viewpoint of the scene is received from a client computing device via a data communication network. [0030] discloses whenever an end user viewpoint navigation input is received, it is transmitted to the server via the data communication network. FVV geometric proxies and texture data to render the requested viewpoint or view frustum are then received from the server.
In view of above arguments, examiner submits rejection is sufficient and maintained. Due to the variation in claim scope via amendments a new ground of rejection is proper. See examiner 102/103 new grounds of rejection below.
CLAIM REJECTIONS - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to as ineligible under subject eligibility test. In the Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes (Federal Register, Vol. 79, No. 241, dated Tuesday, December 16, 2014, page 74621), The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional device elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
Claims 1 & 18
Step 1
This step inquires “is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes,
Claim 1 - “Devices” are machines.
Claim 18 – “Method” is a process.
Step 2A - Prong 1
This step inquires “does the claim recite an abstract idea, law or natural phenomenon”. This claim appears to directed to an abstract idea.
The limitation of “a broker that filters each of first object data that is object data of a first object and second object data that is object data of a second object based on a determined filter condition, the first object and the second object being to be displayed in a virtual space, and sends the filtered object data to a rendering server.”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (e.g. mathematical concepts, mental processes or certain methods of organizing human activity) but for the recitation of generic computer components.
STEP 2A – PRONG 1 - CONCLUSION
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2
This step inquires “does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
STEP 2A – PRONG 2 - CONCLUSION
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The critical inquiry here is does the claim recite additional elements that amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception? The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims
As to claim 2, this claim is directed to generic computer components (“client device”), mental process (“generating object data based on sensor data”) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“two data streams come from different locations”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 3, this claim is directed to generic computer components (“determination unit” and “filter”), mental process (“negotiates and determines a filter condition”) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“splitting functionality into named units”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 4, this claim is directed to generic computer components (“cloud” and “rendering server”) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“components running”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 5, this claim is directed to generic computer components (“cloud” and “server”), and insignificant extra-solution activity (“deployment split”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 6, this claim is directed to mental process (“defining a filter by viewer scope”) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“filtering criterion”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 7, this claim is directed to mental process (“filtering based on spatial distance”) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“addition of another common selection rule”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 8, this claim is directed to mental process (“filtering by data attributes (visual/aural)”) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“filter condition”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 9, this claim is directed to mental process (“abstract filtering by data attributes (visual/aural)”) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“filter condition”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 10, this claim is directed to mental process (“filters by semantic content (action or speech)”) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“data-attribute filter”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 11, this claim is directed to mental process (“degree of interest”) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“filter condition”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 12, this claim is directed to mental process (“environmental factor”) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“filtering dimensions”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 13, this claim is directed to generic computer components (“object data server”, “rendering server” with n:m relationship) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“stating a multi-tenant relationship”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 14, this claim is directed to generic computer components (“cloud”, “client device” and “rendering server”), mental process (“selecting based on load or traffic”) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“load balancing or network management detail”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 15, this claim is directed to generic computer components (“deployment term”), mental process (“if data Type A then cloud; else device”) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“deployed on the cloud or in the client device is selected depending on type of the object data.”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 16, this claim is directed to generic computer components (“rendering server” and “client devices”) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“standard multi-client setup”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
As to claim 17, this claim is directed to generic computer components (“rendering server”), mental process (“if data type B then share; else don’t share”) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“conventional configuration device”). Thus, this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or constitute significantly more than the abstract.
CLAIM REJECTIONS - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 of this title, 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, 6, 16 & 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by
Kirk et al. (U.S. Publication 2013/0321593) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Leahy et al. (U.S. Publication 2007/0050716).
As to claims 1 & 18, Kirk discloses a server device (502, Fig. 5 & [0044] discloses a server) comprising: processing circuitry configured to implement a broker (510, Fig. 5 & [0044] discloses computing the view frustum for a given synthetic viewpoint. [0025] discloses ‘server’ is used herein to refer to one or more server computing device either operating in a stand-alone server client mode or operating in a computing cloud infrastructure. [0067] discloses the computational capability is generally illustrated by one or more processing units 710, and may also include one or more GPUs 715) that filters each of first object data (Abstract & [0008, 0039-0040] discloses only the 3D geometry and texture (e.g. RGB) data necessary for a specific viewpoint or view frustum from a server to the rendering client. ) that is object data of a first object and second object data ([0007] discloses embodiments of the view frustum culling technique described herein transfer data necessary to render a given viewpoint or view frustum of a FVV from one or more servers to a client. [0035] discloses only texture data (e.g. RGB data) and geometric data for a given view frustum is received at a client from a server. [0036] discloses texture data or geometric data which has not changed on the client does not have to be downloaded again.) by independently determining a spatial region for each (Abstract, [0010, 0032, 0037, 0040], Additional Spatial and Temporal Data can be sent to the client to support changes in the view frustum by providing additional geometry and texture data that will likely be immediately used if the viewpoint is changed either spatially or temporally) that is object data of a second object based on a determined filter condition (510, Fig. 5 discloses computation of view frustum for viewpoint “spatial boundary”), the first object and the second object being to be displayed in a virtual space (212, Fig. 2 & [0038] discloses retrieving the stored geometric data and texture data necessary to render the current synthetic viewpoint or view frustum. Transmitting the geometric and texture data to the client computing device for render and displaying to an end user. [0026] discloses a view frustum is the region of space in a modeled world that might appear on screen; View frustum culling is the process of removing objects that lie completely outside the viewing frustum. [0041] discloses the geometric data and texture data is stored as a spatial representation of all viewpoints possible. For example, the spatial representation of all viewpoints possible can be defined by three dimensional cells; the server can store the geometric data and texture data; in the increasingly sub-divided three dimensional cells and the client can request specific cells corresponding to a desired viewpoint or view frustum. [0028] discloses the view frustum culling technique described herein transfers free viewpoint video (FVV) from a server to a client over a network.), and sends the first filtered object data and the filtered second object data to a rendering server that is distinct from the server device (212, Fig. 2 & [0038] discloses retrieving the stored geometric data and texture data necessary to render the current synthetic viewpoint or view frustum. Transmitting the geometric and texture data to the client computing device for render and displaying to an end user. [0007] discloses transfer data necessary to render a given viewpoint or view frustum of a FVV over a network from one or more servers to a client that renders the FVV or spatial video. [0044] & Fig. 5 discloses shows an exemplary architecture 500, the server 502 includes a database 504, only the texture data and geometric data necessary to render a desired viewpoint or view frustum at the client is sent to the client. [0045] discloses the client 508 includes a FVV or spatial video player 516; The client 508 also has a 3D renderer 522 that can render the given viewpoint of the desired free viewpoint video 506 at the client 508 using the downloaded texture and geometric data.).
In the alternative, Kirk determines spatial regions (cells/frustum) and culls objects per region, but it doesn’t spell out the server computes a distinct region for each individual object as a part of a filtering; rather it describes culling based on the region with objects already associated. Also, this claim recites that the filtered first/second object data is sent “to a rendering server that is distinct from the server device”. Kirk has separate devices (server vs. client but discloses the rendering device as a “client”.
However, Leahy discloses spatial regions (cells) and nearest neighbors for each individual user/object. (1. Computes a bounding box and subdivides into cells [0112-0113]. 2. Places each user in a specific cell ([0113]). 3. Maintains a per-user list of N nearest avatars [0103, 0111] and 4. Only treats those avatars as “in range” [0028-0029]. Examiner views that as independent per object spatial region determination and filtering.) Also, the server executes a cell based algorithm places each user in exactly one cell, and maintains a per-user list of nearest neighbors for crowd control
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Kirk’s disclosure to include the above limitations in order to improve scalability and bandwidth efficiency.
However, Leahy [0103,0111-0113]. [0016, 0020, 0023] disclose a standard 3D virtual-world architecture: a central server and separate client machines with rendering engines.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Kirk’s disclosure to include the above limitations in order to handle large numbers of simultaneous users in a 3D virtual environment.
As to claim 2, Kirk in view of Leahy current modification discloses everything as disclosed in claim 1 but is silent to wherein the first object data is object data generated based on sensor data acquired by a client device at a first place where a first subject is present, and the second object data is object data generated based on sensor data acquired by a client device at a second place where a second subject is present, the second place being different from the first place.
However, Leahy discloses wherein the first object data is object data generated based on sensor data acquired by a client device at a first place where a first subject is present, and the second object data is object data generated based on sensor data acquired by a client device at a second place where a second subject is present, the second place being different from the first place. ([0015, 0027] discloses each user interacts with a client system and the client system is networked to a virtual world server. Input devices 116 might include might include keyboard, microphones, digital video cameras. [0020] discloses several clients 20 interacting with the virtual world server 22 over a network 24 such as the Internet. Examiner submits “client systems; input devices; microphones; digital video cameras correspond to client device acquiring sensor data at a place where a subject is present. Different clients 20 at different physical locations is equivalent to first place and second place being different from the first place. Updates to avatar positions/appearance based on the captured input is equivalent to first/second object data generated based on sensor data acquired by client devices.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Kirk in view of Leahy current modification’s disclosure to include the above limitations in order to support interactive multi user FVV or virtual world experiences while still using Kirk’s server-side filtering and streaming.
As to claim 3, Kirk in view of Leahy current modification discloses everything as disclosed in claim 1 but is silent to wherein the broker includes a determination unit that negotiates with a server corresponding to a client device for a viewer who views the first object and the second object and that determines the filter condition, and a filter that filters the first object data and the second object data based on the determined filter condition.
However, Leahy discloses wherein the broker includes a determination unit that negotiates with a server corresponding to a client device for a viewer who views the first object and the second object and that determines the filter condition, and a filter that filters the first object data and the second object data based on the determined filter condition. ([0030, 0103, 0111] discloses a list of the N nearest neighboring remote avatars used to notify client regarding changes corresponding to server side “determination unit” that establishes filter conditions based on client/user state. The fact that N and N’ together determine which avatars are neighbors and which are sent is equivalent to a filter that filters first object data and second object data based on the determined filter condition.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Kirk in view of Leahy current modification’s disclosure to include the above limitations in order to scale to many users while minimizing traffic.
As to claim 4, Kirk in view of Leahy current modification discloses everything as disclosed in claim 3. In addition, Kirk discloses wherein the determination unit and the filter are deployed on a cloud different from the rendering server.
([0044-0045] discloses only the texture data and geometric data necessary to render a desired viewpoint or view frustum at the client is sent to the client. Server 502 performing frustum culling and data selection is equivalent to determination unit and filter deployed in the cloud. Client 508; 3D renderer 522 is equivalent to rendering server located separately from the cloud server.)
As to claim 5, Kirk in view of Leahy current modification discloses everything as disclosed in claim 3. In addition, Kirk discloses determination unit is deployed on a cloud different from the rendering server, and the filter is deployed on the same cloud as the rendering server. ([0044] discloses server 502 can compute the client’s view frustum in a view frustum computation module 510. Likewise the client can compute the client view frustum in a view computation module 512 on the client. Computing the view frustum either server-side or client side is equivalent to moving the filter between a cloud server and the rendering side)
As to claim 6, Kirk in view of Leahy discloses everything as disclosed in claim 1. In addition, Kirk discloses wherein the filter condition includes a filter condition related to a scope of a viewer who views the first object and the second object. ([0029-0032, 0038-0039, 0103 for example] discloses View Frustum is exactly the spatial “scope” of what the viewer sees; only geometry/texture within that frustum is selected)
As to claim 16, Kirk in view of Leahy discloses everything as disclosed in claim 1. In addition, Kirk discloses wherein the rendering server is shared by a plurality of client devices that display an image based on the object data. ([0031] discloses this approach has the advantage of providing a consistent and manageable amount of data to the client, or “several clients” )
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirk et al. (U.S. Publication 2013/0321593) in view of Leahy et al. (U.S. Publication 2007/0050716) as applied in claim 1, above further in view of Goss et al. (U.S. Publication 2005/0253872)
As to claim 7, Kirk in view of Leahy discloses everything as disclosed in claim 1 but is silent to wherein the filter condition includes a filter condition related to a distance to a target object in the virtual space.
However, Goss’s discloses wherein the filter condition includes a filter condition related to a distance to a target object in the virtual space. (Abstract, [0007, 0034-0035, 0037, 0046, 0048] discloses determining a proximity of a representation of an observed object in the virtual environment to the view volume; thereafter process the visual data stream of that object only when it is within a specified proximity to the view volume.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Kirk in view of Leahy’s disclosure to include the above limitations in order to introduce proximity-based culling which a specialized extension of view-frustum culling.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirk et al. (U.S. Publication 2013/0321593) in view of Leahy et al. (U.S. Publication 2007/0050716) as applied in claim 1, above further in view of Pourashraf et al. (U.S. Publication 2014/0267564)
As to claim 8, Kirk in view of Leahy discloses everything as disclosed in claim 1 but is silent to wherein the filter condition includes a filter condition related to movement of a target object.
However, Pourashraf discloses wherein the filter condition includes a filter condition related to movement of a target object. (Abstract discloses comprises monitoring movement of the avatars within the virtual environment)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Kirk in view of Leahy’s disclosure to include the above limitations in order to proactively monitor each avatar’s motion.
As to claim 9, Kirk in view of Leahy discloses everything as disclosed in claim 1 but is silent to wherein the filter condition includes a filter condition related to a brightness or color of a target object, or a volume of a voice uttered by the target object.
However, Pourashraf discloses wherein the filter condition includes a filter condition related to a brightness or color of a target object, or a volume of a voice uttered by the target object. (See, wherein the filter is configured such that if a color specific high brightness condition occurs then the color specific high brightness condition is not present in the filtered frame)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Kirk in view of Leahy’s disclosure to include the above limitations in order to yield a unified broker that culls objects not only by view frustum but also by excessive brightness or color.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirk et al. (U.S. Publication 2013/0321593) in view of Leahy et al. (U.S. Publication 2007/0050716) as applied in claim 1, above further in view of Hirata et al. (U.S. Publication 2008/0071437)
As to claim 10, Kirk in view of Leahy discloses everything as disclosed in claim 1 but is silent to wherein the filter condition includes a filter condition related to an action of a target object or a phrase spoken by the target object.
However, Hirata discloses wherein the filter condition includes a filter condition related to an action of a target object or a phrase spoken by the target object. (See Speech Commands [0040])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Kirk in view of Leahy’s disclosure to include the above limitations in order to transmit object-data only when the target object is invoked by name or action.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirk et al. (U.S. Publication 2013/0321593) in view of Leahy et al. (U.S. Publication 2007/0050716) as applied in claim 1, above further in view of Giunio-Zorkin (U.S. Publication 2017/0255681)
As to claim 11, Kirk in view of Leahy discloses everything as disclosed in claim 1 but is silent to wherein the filter condition includes a filter condition related to a degree of interest in a target object.
However, Giunio-Zorkin discloses wherein the filter condition includes a filter condition related to a degree of interest in a target object. (See Abstract and all occurrences of disclosure on filtering by user defined interest categories)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Kirk in view of Leahy’s disclosure to include the above limitations in order to yield a broker that enforces both spatial and interest constraints.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirk et al. (U.S. Publication 2013/0321593) in view of Leahy et al. (U.S. Publication 2007/0050716) as applied in claim 1, above further in view of Noble et al. (U.S. Patent 9,075,435)
As to claim 12, Kirk in view of Leahy discloses everything as disclosed in claim 1 but is silent to wherein the filter condition includes a filter condition depending on physical environmental factors with respect to a target object.
However, Noble discloses wherein the filter condition includes a filter condition depending on physical environmental factors with respect to a target object. (Abstract, Col. 2 Lines 35-55 discloses the device context can include information about a state of the environment such as an amount of ambient noise or light, atmospheric pressure, temperature or other determinable characteristics of the environment)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Kirk in view of Leahy’s disclosure to include the above limitations in order to maintain high image quality in the presence of varying lighting.
CONCLUSION
No prior art has been found for claims 13-15 & 17 in their current form.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Stephen P Coleman whose telephone number is (571)270-5931. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 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, Andrew Moyer can be reached at (571) 272-9523. 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.
Stephen P. Coleman
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2675
/STEPHEN P COLEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2675
Prosecution Insights