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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Arguments
This is in response to applicant’s amendment/response filed on 12/16/2025 which have been entered and made of record.
Applicant’s arguments regarding claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues a review of GALLO and RATHOD indicates GALLO and RATHOD do not teach or suggest the aforementioned features recited in the presently amended claims. In particular, GALLO and RATHOD do nor teach or suggest at least "determine, during rendering of the virtual space and while the region is in the visual field of the virtual camera, a first display time indicating a time during which the first virtual object is actually rendered or visible within the visual field of the virtual camera and a second display time indicating a time during which the second virtual object is actually rendered or visible within the visual field of the virtual camera; and generate, in a case where the first display time is shorter than the second display time, a first virtual viewpoint image including the first virtual object, and generate, in a case where the first display time is longer than the second display time, a second virtual viewpoint image including the second virtual object." as presently claimed.
Thus, since the combination of GALLO and RATHOD do not teach or suggest at least the aforementioned features as presently recited in independent Claims 1, 13, and 14, Applicant submits that the combination of GALLO and RATHOD cannot render Claims 1, 13, and 14 prima facie obvious.
Examiner respectively disagrees. GALLO teaches the virtualization engine renders the virtual environment and the image of an advertisement based on the position and orientation of the virtual camera (Para. 0011). The rendering of these processes is step 510 (Rendering Virtual Environment, Para. 0092) and 512 (Rendering Virtual Advertisement, Para. 0096) respectively. GALLO teaches that steps 510 and 512 can be performed together (Para. 0096) and rendering engine 336 renders the view of a virtual camera in real-time (Para. 0071). Thus, GALLO teaches the rendering of the virtual advertisement, the rendering of the visual field of the virtual camera, and the rendering of the advertisement in the visual field of the camera occurs concurrently.
GALLO also teaches the advertisements have at least two different times associated with them. One of them is the amount of time in which an advertiser has requested their advertisement be shown visually (Contract Value, Para. 0080). The other is the actual time the advertisement has been currently displayed in view of the virtual camera (X.t.sub.s or t.sub.c, Para. 0080). Thus, GALLO teaches determine, during of the virtual space and while the region is in the visual field of the virtual camera, a first display time indicating a time during which the first virtual object is actually rendered or visible within the visual field of the virtual camera and a second display time indicating a time during which the second virtual object is actually rendered or visible within the visual field of the virtual camera;
Regarding the remaining arguments applicant argues with respect to the amended claim language, which is fully addressed in the prior art rejections set forth below.
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, 3-4, and 6-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gallo et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 20140278847 A1 in view of Rathod et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 20220179665 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Gallo teaches an image processing system comprising:
one or more memories storing instructions; (Main Memory 122 or Storage Memory 128, Para. 0030)
and one or more processors that execute the instructions to; (Central Processing Unit 122, Para. 0031)
acquire a visual field (Rendered View) of a virtual camera (Virtual Camera, 186) that changes in position relative to a region where a first virtual object (Virtual Object, Para. 0071 or Advertisement Para. 0079-0080) and a second virtual object (Virtual Object, Para. 0071 or Advertisement Para. 0079-0080) are displayed interchangeably, the region (Virtual Environment 184) being a region in a virtual space; (Para. 0045-0047) Advertisements can be dynamically replaced allowing for multiple advertisements to be displayed interchangeably.
determine, during of the virtual space and while the region is in the visual field of the virtual camera, a first display time indicating a time during which the first virtual object is actually rendered or visible within the visual field of the virtual camera and a second display time indicating a time during which the second virtual object is actually rendered or visible within the visual field of the virtual camera;
determine, during of the virtual space (Rendering of Virtual Environment, Para. 0011 and 0092) and while the region (Position/Location of Advertisement) is in the visual field of the virtual camera, a first display time (Display Time X, t.sub.s, or t.sub.c, Para. 0080) indicating a time during which the first virtual object (Virtual Object/Advertisement) is actually rendered (Rendering Virtual Advertisement, Para. 0096) or visible within the visual field of the virtual camera and a second display time (Display Time X, t.sub.s, or t.sub.c, Para. 0080) indicating a time during which the second virtual object (Virtual Object/Advertisement) actually rendered (Rendering Virtual Advertisement, Para. 0096) or visible within the visual field of the virtual camera; (Para. 0080 and 0082) Advertisers can pay for a set amount of time for their advertisement to be displayed. The time which an advertisement is displayed is tracked, since if an advertisement fails to be view for the set time, it will be shown elsewhere.
Gallo teaches a virtual camera 186 that renders a view of a virtual environment 184, para. 0046. In this virtual environment are various virtual objects para. 0071 that can be advertisements para. 0079-0080. These advertisements have their display time (X.t.sub.s or t.sub.c) tracked para. 0080, which is the time in which the advertisements are in the rendered view of the virtual camera. Based on the current display time the system will change the location of the advertisements to ensure all advertisements are viewed by viewers for a set time that was requested by an advertiser para. 0080. Thus, Gallo teaches determining the time in which multiple virtual objects are within the visual field of a virtual camera.
Gallo teaches the virtualization engine renders the virtual environment and the image of an advertisement based on the position and orientation of the virtual camera (Para. 0011). The rendering of these processes is step 510 (Rendering Virtual Environment, Para. 0092) and 512 (Rendering Virtual Advertisement, Para. 0096) respectively. Gallo teaches that steps 510 and 512 can be performed together (Para. 0096) and rendering engine 336 renders the view of a virtual camera in real-time (Para. 0071). Thus, Gallo teaches the rendering of the virtual advertisement, the rendering of the visual field of the virtual camera, and the rendering of the advertisement in the visual field of the camera occurs concurrently.
However, Gallo fails to explicitly teach:
and generate, in a case where the first display time is shorter than the second display time, a first virtual viewpoint image including the first virtual object, and generate, in a case where the first display time is longer than the second display time, a second virtual viewpoint image including the second virtual object.
Gallo and Rathod are analogous to the claimed invention because both of them are in the same field of displaying virtual advertisements.
Rathod teaches:
and generate, in a case where the first display time (Pre-Set Duration/Timer) is shorter than the second display time (Pre-Set Duration/Timer), a first virtual viewpoint image (Display/Session/Screen) including the first virtual object (Advertisement/Content/Display), and generate, in a case where the first display time (Pre-Set Duration/Timer) is longer than the second display time (Pre-Set Duration/Timer) , a second virtual viewpoint image (Display/Session/Screen) including the second virtual object(Advertisement/Content/Display). (Para. 0872 and 0881) Advertisements are interchanged based on the current advertisement expiring. Advertisements expire based on a Pre-Set Duration or Timer. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the timer could be based on a Pre-Set Duration/Timer of another advertisement. Hence, to allow advertisements to alternate based on a set time.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gallo’s method of displaying Virtual Objects (Advertisements) in a virtual environment to incorporate Rathod’s Advertisement Pre-Set Duration/Timers. Since doing so would provide the benefit of displaying advertisements in more flexible way to increase the likelihood a user sees an advertisement.
Regarding claim 3, Gallo fails to teach the image processing system according to claim 1, wherein in a case where the first display time is longer than the second display time and a difference between the first display time and the second display time is greater than a predetermined time, the virtual viewpoint image includes the second virtual object, and in a case where the first display time is shorter than the second display time and the difference between the first display time and the second display time is greater than the predetermined time, the virtual viewpoint image includes the first virtual object.
However, Rathod teaches the image processing system according to claim 1, wherein in a case where the first display time (Pre-Set Duration/Timer) is longer than the second display time (Pre-Set Duration/Timer) and a difference between the first display time (Pre-Set Duration/Timer) and the second display time(Pre-Set Duration/Timer) is greater than a predetermined time (Pre-Set Duration/Timer), the virtual viewpoint image (Display/Session/Screen) includes the second virtual object (Advertisement/Content/Display), and in a case where the first display time (Pre-Set Duration/Timer) is shorter than the second display time (Pre-Set Duration/Timer) and the difference between the first display time (Pre-Set Duration/Timer) and the second display time (Pre-Set Duration/Timer) is greater than the predetermined time(Pre-Set Duration/Timer), the virtual viewpoint image (Display/Session/Screen) includes the first virtual object(Advertisement/Content/Display. (Para. 0872 and 0881) Using a predetermined time in conjunction with choosing the advertisement ensures advertisements are at least displayed for a set time. As interchanging advertisements based on the time, they are displayed can result in advertisements changing too frequently. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gallo’s method of displaying Virtual Objects (Advertisements) in a virtual environment to incorporate Rathod’s advertisement Pre-Set Durations/Timers. Since doing so would provide the benefit of displaying advertisements in more flexible way to increase the likelihood a user sees an advertisement. As well as resolve the inherited issue with changing displayed based on time displayed.
Regarding claim 4, Gallo teaches the image processing system according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the first virtual object (Virtual Object, Para. 0071 or Advertisement Para. 0079-0080) and the second virtual object (Virtual Object, Para. 0071 or Advertisement Para. 0079-0080) is an image or a three- dimensional object. (Para. 0071, 0075, and 0079)
Regarding claim 6, Gallo teaches the image processing system according to claim 1, wherein the digital content (Virtual Object, Para. 0071 or Advertisement Para. 0079-0080) having the three-dimensional shape is cube-shaped digital content. (Para. 0071, 0075, and 0079) Gallo fails to explicitly teach wherein the digital content having the three-dimensional shape is cube-shaped digital content.
However, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen the three-dimensional shape to
be cube-shaped. Since doing so would provide the benefit of allowing different sides of
a 3D advertisement to be displayed at once. Additionally, see MPEP 2144.04, In re
Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of
the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the
particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
Regarding claim 7, Gallo teaches the image processing system according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the first display time (Display Time X, t.sub.s, or t.sub.c, Para. 0080) and the second display time (Display Time X, t.sub.s, or t.sub.c, Para.0080) is acquired during a time in which a part of the region (Virtual Environment 184) is in the visual field (Rendered View) of the virtual camera (Virtual Camera, 186). (Para. 0045-0047)
Regarding claim 8, Gallo teaches the image processing system according to claim 1, wherein the region (Virtual Environment 184) is a region in a three-dimensional space. (Para. 0080) The virtual environment is a simulated version of the real environment. Hence it would be a three-dimensional space.
Regarding claim 9, Gallo teaches the image processing system according to claim 1, wherein the region has a two-dimensional planar shape. (Para. 0080 and 0084) The virtual environment can be mapped in various ways. One is of a textured space or section of mesh. Both of these can be a 2D planar shape, as well as define a 3D shape.
Regarding claim 10, Gallo teaches the image processing system according to claim 1, wherein the region (Virtual Environment 184) has a three-dimensional polyhedral shape. In a virtual environment based on the real word. There would be various regions that would contain various 3D shapes.
Regarding claim 11, Gallo teaches the image processing system according to claim 1,
wherein the one or more processors further execute the instructions to acquire a first display priority (Price/Location/Events/Replays) indicating a priority for displaying the first virtual object (Virtual Object, Para. 0071 or Advertisement Para. 0079-0080) in the region (Virtual Environment 184, Para. 0045-0047) and a second display priority (Price/Location/Events/Replays) indicating a priority for displaying the second virtual object (Virtual Object, Para. 0071 or Advertisement Para. 0079-0080) in the region (Virtual Environment 184), (Para. 0080-0082)
and wherein the virtual viewpoint image (Rendered View, Para. 0045-0047) includes one of the first virtual object (Virtual Object, Para. 0071 or Advertisement Para. 0079-0080) and the second virtual object (Virtual Object, Para. 0071 or Advertisement Para. 0079-0080) based on the first display priority (Price/Location/Events/Replays) and the second display priority (Price/Location/Events/Replays). (Para. 0080-0082) Advertisers can bid on locations for their advertisements to be shown at specific locations, times, and events. For example, an advertiser can pay a premium to have their advertisement displayed when certain scenarios happen, which would replace the current advertisement regularly being shown.
Regarding claim 12, Gallo teaches the image processing system according to claim 11,
wherein the first display priority (Price/Location/Events/Replays) is determined based on the first display time (Display Time X, t.sub.s, or t.sub.c) and an advertisement fee (Price) for the first virtual object (Virtual Object, Para. 0071 or Advertisement Para. 0079-0080), (Para. 0080-0082)
and wherein the second display priority (Price/Location/Events/Replays) is determined based on the second display time (Display Time X, t.sub.s, or t.sub.c) and an advertisement fee (Price) for the second virtual object (Virtual Object, Para. 0071 or Advertisement Para. 0079-0080). (Para. 0080-0082) One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that paying more can result in longer display times and a higher priority.
Regarding method claim 13, has similar limitations as of system claim 1, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, Gallo teaches the system of claim 1 and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (Storage Memory 128, Para. 0030) storing a program causing a computer to execute claim 1, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
Conclusion
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 BRIANNA R COCHRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4671. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Alicia Harrington can be reached at (571) 272-2330. 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.
/BRIANNA RENAE COCHRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2615
/ALICIA M HARRINGTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2615