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 .
Claims 1-20 are present for examination.
Claim Interpretation
The term “computer readable storage medium” has been interpreted as excluding signals and/or carrier waves in view of the disclosure. (See Specification, para. [0057].)
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 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “publicly available” in claims 7 and 17 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “publicly available” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear being available to how many people can be determined as “publicly available”. For examination purposes, the term “publicly available” has been interpreted as available.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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) 1-4, 7-14, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Publication No. 20170316600 A1 to Jeong et al. in view of US Patent Publication No. 20220237410 A1 to Wrenninge.
Regarding claim 1, Jeong discloses A computer-implemented method (Jeong, Abstract) comprising:
obtaining a plurality of metaverse environments, wherein each of the plurality of metaverse environments corresponds to a geographic area and a time period (Jeong, para. [0056], disclosing obtaining the one or more images of objects included in a target space, the one or more images may be real images or graphic images or a combination of a real image and a graphic image, para. [0059], disclosing the metadata may include information about mapping between a 3D mesh model used to generate the VR image of the target space and the one or more images, para. [0069], disclosing obtaining the one or more images from an external capturing device, para. [0246], disclosing a web storage or cloud server that performs a storage function of the memory on the internet, indicating the one or more images of objects included in a target space can correspond to a plurality of metaverse environments, each of the images as a metaverse environment correspond to a geographic area (the target space) and a time period (when the image was captured) because each image describes an online place (corresponding to at least part of the target space with images stored on the internet) where physical, virtual, and augmented realties are shared and the image can be a combination of a real image and a graphic image can correspond to sharing physical, virtual and augmented realities using real image and graphic image combinations);
identifying two or more metaverse environments of the plurality of metaverse environments that are at least partially coincident (Jeong, para. [0071], disclosing determining positions of one or more images mapped onto the 3D mesh model, para. [0073], disclosing a region which includes an object overlapping between the one or more images, indicating the images including the region having the overlapping object can correspond to two or more metaverse environments that at least partially coincident (overlapping));
identifying objects in each of the two or more metaverse environments (Jeong, para. [0071], disclosing determining positions of one or more images mapped onto the 3D mesh model, para. [0073], disclosing a region which includes an object overlapping between the one or more images, para. [0093], disclosing identifying an object overlapping between a first image and a second image, indicating the object overlapping between the one or more images (e.g. the first image and the second image) can correspond to objects identified in each of the image as each of the two or more metaverse environments), and creating, based on the two or more metaverse environments, the merged metaverse environment by combining the objects from the two or more metaverse environments based on the filter (Jeong, para. [0077], disclosing combining pixel values of a region of the one or more images which includes the overlapping object, para. [0093], disclosing determining pixel values of the overlapping object between the first image and the second image, para. [0096], disclosing rendering the VR image of the target space from the one or more images, indicating the rendered VR image can correspond to the merged metaverse created based on the first and second images as the two or more metaverse environments, combining pixel values of a region of the images including the objects overlapping between the images can correspond to combining the objects from the images as the two or more metaverse based on the filter corresponding to the overlapping object).
However, Jeong does not expressly disclose wherein each of the objects includes a tag identifying a type of the object; receiving, from a user, a filter specifying types of the objects to be included in a merged metaverse environment.
On the other hand, Wrenninge discloses wherein each of the objects includes a tag identifying a type of the object (Wrenninge, para. [0070], disclosing a 2D image depicting a 3D scene with annotation includes label metadata such as object class); receiving, from a user, a filter specifying types of the objects to be included in a metaverse environment (Wrenninge, para. [0094], disclosing selecting a first set of object classes associated with traffic objects, selecting a second set of object classes from the first set of object classes, selecting one of the set of predetermined 3D models corresponding to each of the second set of object classes and generating a 3D scene, the composition (e.g. scene composition) of which includes a plurality of objects, each of the objects is an instance of the first set of object classes, wherein each of the plurality of objects is arranged within the 3D scene based on the set of parameter values of the set of geometric parameters, and wherein each of the plurality of objects corresponding to an instance of the second set of object classes is generated using one of the set of predetermined 3D models, para. [0096], disclosing images are rendered of 3D scenes, indicating the selecting the first set and second set of object classes can correspond to receiving from a user a filter specifying types of the objects to be included in the rendered 3D scene with the scene composition as a metaverse environment). Because Jeong discloses merging images with overlapping objects, combining Jeong with Wrenninge could allow the use of a filter specifying types of the objects to be included in a merged image as the merged metaverse environment by selecting object classes to be included within the 3D scenes corresponding to the images.
Before the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art to combine Jeong and Wrenninge. The suggestion/motivation would have been to produce synthetic data with one or more variations, as suggested by Wrenninge (see Wrenninge, para. [0114]).
Regarding claim 2, Jeong in view of Wrenninge discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein identifying the two or more metaverse environments of the plurality of metaverse environments that are at least partially coincident includes determining that the geographic area of the two or more metaverse environments at least partially overlap and that the time period of the two or more metaverse environments are at least partially concurrent (Jeong, para. [0021], disclosing a plurality of images, an overlapping object overlaps between two images of the plurality of images, para. [0085], disclosing N capturing devices capture images of objects included in the target space respectively, some objects overlap each other, the images captured by the N capturing devices may be generated as a VR image capable of expressing a 360-degree region of the target space through stitching, indicating the plurality of image can include the two or more images including the overlapping object as the two or more metaverse environments are at least partially coincident as the geographic area of the two or more images at least partially overlap (including the overlapping object) and the time period of the two or more images are at least partially concurrent (plurality of images captured by the N capturing devices at the same time)).
Regarding claim 3, Jeong in view of Wrenninge discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein creating the merged metaverse environment further includes identifying common objects that are present in both of the two or more metaverse environments and selecting one of the common objects to be part of the merged metaverse environment (Jeong, para. [0093], disclosing identifying an overlapping object in case of stitching of the one or more images, identifying an object overlapping between a first image and a second image, determining pixel values of the overlapping object between the first image and the second image based on a weight value w1 for a pixel value of the first image and a weight value w2 for a pixel value of the second image, indicating the overlapping object can correspond to a common object that are present in both first image and second image as the two or more metaverse environments. Although Jeong does not expressly disclose selecting one of the common objects to be part of the merged metaverse environment, it falls in the obviousness of similar and overlapping ranges, amounts, and proportions because when one of the weight values to be 1 and the other to be 0 (e.g., w1=1 and w2=0 or w1=0 and w2=1), one of the common objects (overlapping objects) will be selected to be part of the merged metaverse environment, and the weight values are at least falling into the range of 0 to 1, indicating the weight values of 0 and 1 are in the overlapping ranges of the weight values (see MPEP 2144.05, stating “in the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists”.)).
Regarding claim 4, Jeong in view of Wrenninge discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising receiving a request for the merged metaverse environment from the user, wherein the request includes a desired geographic area and a desired time period (Jeong, para. [0061], disclosing receiving a user input requesting the VR image of the target space, para. [0141], disclosing obtaining object-of-interest information regarding an object of the target space based on user input, para. [0142], disclosing selecting a first image based on user input, para. [0143], disclosing selecting a second image based on user input, para. [0144], disclosing selecting portion from one or more images based on the object-of-interest information, para. [0149], disclosing requesting for the one or more images based on the user input for selecting the target space, para. [0155], disclosing generating the VR image of the target space based on the one or more images, Wrenninge, para. [0021], disclosing the input can include a geographic location identifier, a temporal identifier (e.g., a time of day associated with known parameter values or ranges of parameter values) and the output can be synthetic data set that includes realistic images and three-dimensional scenes, para. [0068], disclosing rendering parameters including time of day, indicating the user input for selecting the target space can correspond to a request for the merged metaverse environment from the user, the target space can correspond to a desired geographic area, and a geographic location identifier and a temporal identifier disclosed by Wrenninge can correspond to the request includes a desired geographic area and a desired time period). Before the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art to combine Jeong and Wrenninge. The suggestion/motivation would have been to produce synthetic data with one or more variations, as suggested by Wrenninge (see Wrenninge, para. [0114]).
Regarding claim 7, Jeong in view of Wrenninge discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of metaverse environments are obtained from a database including publicly available metaverse environments and wherein the computer-implemented method further comprises storing the merged metaverse environment in the database (Jeong, para. [0245], disclosing the memory stores input/output data (one or more images, metadata regarding the one or more images, and a VR image generated as a result of rendering, received from the device), para. [0246], disclosing a web storage or cloud server that performs a storage function of the memory on the internet, Wrenninge, para. [0100], disclosing the system obtains input data including images representing physical objects and environments, combining Jeong and Wrenninge could allow the images corresponding to the metaverse environments being obtained from the web storage or cloud server that has performed a storage function of the memory as the database, and the VR image disclosed in Jeong as the merged metaverse environment as output to be stored the web storage or cloud server that has performed a storage function of the memory as the database). Before the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art to combine Jeong and Wrenninge. The suggestion/motivation would have been to produce synthetic data with one or more variations, as suggested by Wrenninge (see Wrenninge, para. [0114]).
Regarding claim 8, Jeong in view of Wrenninge discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the merged metaverse environment includes the geographic area that is a combination of the geographic area of the two or more metaverse environments and a time period that is a combination of the time periods of the two or more metaverse environments (Jeong, para. [0021], disclosing a plurality of images, an overlapping object overlaps between two images of the plurality of images, para. [0085], disclosing N capturing devices capture images of objects included in the target space respectively, some objects overlap each other, the images captured by the N capturing devices may be generated as a VR image capable of expressing a 360-degree region of the target space through stitching, indicating the VR image can correspond to the merged metaverse environment includes the geographic area as a combination of the geographic area of the two or more images corresponding to the two or more metaverse environments and a time period that is a combination of the time periods of the two or more images corresponding to the two or more metaverse environments).
Regarding claim 9, Jeong in view of Wrenninge discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the merged metaverse environment includes a geographic area that consists of a common geographic area of the two or more metaverse environments and a time period that consists of a common time period of the two or more metaverse environments (Jeong, para. [0021], disclosing a plurality of images, an overlapping object overlaps between two images of the plurality of images, para. [0085], disclosing N capturing devices capture images of objects included in the target space respectively, some objects overlap each other, the images captured by the N capturing devices may be generated as a VR image capable of expressing a 360-degree region of the target space through stitching, indicating the VR image can correspond to the merged metaverse environment includes the geographic area that consists of a common geographic area of the two or more images corresponding to the two or more metaverse environments (the overlapping region including the overlapping object between the two images), and a time period that consists of a common time period of the two or more metaverse environments (plurality of images captured by the N capturing devices at the same time (common time period))).
Regarding claim 10, Jeong in view of Wrenninge discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising presenting the merged metaverse environment to the user via a head-mounted display device (Jeong, para. [0066], disclosing the terminal can be ahead mounted display (HMD), para. [0158], disclosing the terminal displays the generated VR image).
Regarding claim 11, it recites similar limitations of claim 1 but in a computer system form. The rationale of claim 1 rejection is applied to reject claim 11. In addition, Jeong discloses a processor electronically coupled to a memory (Jeong, FIG. 19).
Regarding claim 12, it recites similar limitations of claim 2 but in a computer system form. The rationale of claim 2 rejection is applied to reject claim 12. In addition, Jeong discloses a processor electronically coupled to a memory (Jeong, FIG. 19).
Regarding claim 13, it recites similar limitations of claim 3 but in a computer system form. The rationale of claim 3 rejection is applied to reject claim 13. In addition, Jeong discloses a processor electronically coupled to a memory (Jeong, FIG. 19).
Regarding claim 14, it recites similar limitations of claim 4 but in a computer system form. The rationale of claim 4 rejection is applied to reject claim 14. In addition, Jeong discloses a processor electronically coupled to a memory (Jeong, FIG. 19).
Regarding claim 17, it recites similar limitations of claim 7 but in a computer system form. The rationale of claim 7 rejection is applied to reject claim 17. In addition, Jeong discloses a processor electronically coupled to a memory (Jeong, FIG. 19).
Regarding claim 18, it recites similar limitations of claim 8 but in a computer system form. The rationale of claim 8 rejection is applied to reject claim 18. In addition, Jeong discloses a processor electronically coupled to a memory (Jeong, FIG. 19).
Regarding claim 19, it recites similar limitations of claim 9 but in a computer system form. The rationale of claim 9 rejection is applied to reject claim 19. In addition, Jeong discloses a processor electronically coupled to a memory (Jeong, FIG. 19).
Regarding claim 20, it recites similar limitations of claim 1 but in a computer program product form. The rationale of claim 1 rejection is applied to reject claim 20. In addition, Jeong discloses computer readable program stored on a computer readable storage medium (Jeong, paras. [0027] and [0253]).
Claim(s) 5, 6, 15, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong in view of Wrenninge as applied to claims 4 and 14 above, and further in view of US Patent Publication No. 20190333285 A1 to Delia et al.
Regarding claim 5, Jeong in view of Wrenninge discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 4. However, Jeong in view of Wrenninge does not expressly disclose wherein the two or more metaverse environments of the plurality of metaverse environments are further identified based on determining that the geographic area of the two or more metaverse environments at least partially overlap the desired geographic area and that the time period of the two or more metaverse environments at least partially overlap the desired time period.
On the other hand, Delia discloses wherein the two or more metaverse environments of the plurality of metaverse environments are further identified based on determining that the geographic area of the two or more metaverse environments at least partially overlap the desired geographic area and that the time period of the two or more metaverse environments at least partially overlap the desired time period (Delia, para. [0056], disclosing multiple data sources may be provided including images, mapping and geographical records, photographs, video data, para. [0056], disclosing the data sources may be analyzed for creating a 3D virtual representation of a particular location at a selected time, such as image data captured by a media capturing device at a selected time period and location can be analyzed and used to recreate a 3D virtual representation of a particular location at a selected time, para. [0075], disclosing creating a time-dependent 3D virtual reality environment that are time period specific and location specific based on user input and data resources, para. [0079], disclosing assuming a user desires to see a photographic rendering of the time period 1965 that includes a stadium where a music concert was held, para. [0080], disclosing creating a time-dependent 3D virtual environment using parameters according to the user input defining a selected time, space, and location (e.g., a photographic rendering of the time period 1965 that includes a stadium where a music concert was held, indicating the user input data for seeing a photographic rendering of the time period 1965 that includes a stadium where a music concert was held can correspond to a user request including the desired geographic area (area including the stadium) and the desired time period (when the concert was held in 1965), and the resources such as image and video data would correspond to the metaverse environments at least partially overlap the desired geographic area and the desired time period because at least video data including multiple images (two or more metaverse environments)).
Before the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art to combine Jeong in view of Wrenninge with Delia. The suggestion/motivation would have been to provide a solution for delivery of a time-dependent virtual reality environment, as suggested by Delia (see Delia, para. [0080]).
Regarding claim 6, Jeong in view of Wrenninge discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 4. However, Jeong in view of Wrenninge does not expressly disclose wherein the request for the merged metaverse environment from the user is created by the user selecting the desired geographic area on a map displayed on a graphical user interface.
On the other hand, Delia discloses wherein the request for the merged metaverse environment from the user is created by the user selecting the desired geographic area on a map displayed on a graphical user interface (Delia, para. [0063], disclosing the time-dependent virtual reality environment system may include an interactive GUI for providing user interaction for sending or receiving one or more inputs/queries from a user and user interaction for defining a selected time, selected location, one or more configurable boundaries or adjusting the one or more configurable boundary parameters according to a selected time period, a selected location, one or more media images, etc., interactive GUI functionality for enabling a user to enter a query in the GUI relating to the selected time, the selected location, one or more configurable boundaries, and/or other parameters, domain of interest, topic, decision, alternative criteria, or additional analysis, and the GUI may display 3D time-dependent virtual reality created according to the selected time, the selected location and/or one or more configurable boundaries, FIG. 6A and FIG. 6B showing maps including the desired geographic area, indicating the GUI can provide user interactions for selecting desired geographic area on the map displayed on the GUI to create a request for creating the merged metaverse environment using the media images/videos).
Before the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art to combine Jeong in view of Wrenninge with Delia. The suggestion/motivation would have been to provide a solution for delivery of a time-dependent virtual reality environment, as suggested by Delia (see Delia, para. [0080]).
Regarding claim 15, it recites similar limitations of claim 5 but in a computer system form. The rationale of claim 5 rejection is applied to reject claim 15. In addition, Jeong discloses a processor electronically coupled to a memory (Jeong, FIG. 19).
Regarding claim 16, it recites similar limitations of claim 6 but in a computer system form. The rationale of claim 6 rejection is applied to reject claim 16. In addition, Jeong discloses a processor electronically coupled to a memory (Jeong, FIG. 19).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent Publication No. 20220139055 A1 to Palmaro: discloses a method of merging distant virtual spaces.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAIXIA DU whose telephone number is (571)270-5646. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am-4:00 pm.
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, Kee Tung can be reached at 571-272-7794. 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.
/HAIXIA DU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Prosecution Insights