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 filed 9/19/2025
Applicant's arguments filed 09/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 6-7 the applicant argues, “The Examiner rejected claims 1-20 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 applicant regards as the invention. More specifically, the Office action asserts on p. 3 that "the frame" has ambiguous antecedent basis.
As amended, claim 1 now recites:
An electronic device, comprising: a display; and
a processor communicably coupled to the display and configured to:
obtain a video of a scene, wherein the video includes a plurality of frames;
for each frame of the plurality of frames: determine a location for the frame in an extended reality environment based on corresponding scene
position information for the frame that indicates an orientation of a
camera during capture of the frame relative to a fixed view point;
and
in accordance with a determination that at least a portion of the frame is within a displayed portion of the
extended reality environment, present the frame at the location in
the extended reality environment. (Emphasis added).
The Assignee respectfully submits that the above amended claim is clear and definite. Each instance of "the frame" in claim 1 follows a limitation that specifies that the processor is configured to, "for each frame of the plurality of frames," perform a set of operations. As discussed at multiple points in the application, the devices and methods involve performing a set of operations on each frame of a video. For example, the set of operations are performed on a first frame of the video, a second frame of the video, and so on. A person of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that "the frame" in the present claims, in the context of "for each frame of the plurality of frames", represents the frame that is the currently the subject of the operation being performed by the processor in claim. In other words, "the frame" refers to a first frame when the processor is performing these operations on the first frame, refers to a second frame of the video when the processor is performing these operations on the second frame, and so on for each frame of the plurality of frames. Independent claim 14 recites similar limitations and are clear and definite for the same reasons.
Accordingly, the Assignee respectfully requests withdrawal of the 35 U.S.C.§ 112 rejections.” To which the examiner respectfully disagrees.
As per, “Each instance of "the frame" in claim 1 follows a limitation that specifies that the processor is configured to, "for each frame of the plurality of frames," perform a set of operations.” The examiner notes this is not particularly clear and is ambiguous as “the frame” following provides no clarity. Which frame of “each frame” is “the frame” referencing? If this is what the applicant is suggesting is it is not clear.
Furthermore it appears the applicant is arguing limitations that are not in the claims.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e.,” As discussed at multiple points in the application, […]. For example, the set of operations are performed on a first frame of the video, a second frame of the video, and so on. […] represents the frame that is the currently the subject of the operation being performed by the processor in claim. In other words, "the frame" refers to a first frame when the processor is performing these operations on the first frame, refers to a second frame of the video when the processor is performing these operations on the second frame, and so on”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
On page 7-8 (the examiner is omitting the graphic as it is available in the patent itself) the applicant argues, “The Examiner rejected claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Villmer (U.S. Patent No. 9,618,747 B2; hereinafter "Villmer").
The Assignee respectfully notes that Villmer merely describes rendering portions of omnidirectional images to match the orientation of a head mounted display. For instance, Villmer describes using "omnidirectional image data" to determine virtual geometry into which omnidirectional images are projected (e.g., spherical, cubical, cylindrical projections) and how the images may be translated in response to a user's head movements within a projection (see, e.g., Figs. 26A and 26B of Villmer, reproduced below).
[…]
Villmer does not contemplate any system wherein recorded videos may be presented at locations within an extended reality environment based on frame-by-frame scene position information that indicates an orientation of a camera during capture relative to a fixed view point. For example, Villmer does not describe any adjustment of a projected omnidirectional image on an ongoing basis. More broadly, Villmer does not describe any manner in which a trajectory of a capture device during capture (e.g., using scene position information for each frame) may be used to display images in an extended reality environment in a manner that follows said trajectory (see, e.g., Fig. 2F of the current application, reproduced below).
[…]
For at least the foregoing reasons, the Assignee respectfully submits that Villmer does not teach or suggest the subject matter of the claims. Accordingly, the Assignee respectfully requests withdrawal of the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejections.” To which the examiner respectfully disagrees.
The examiner notes the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because it is not even clear what claim or claim limitation the applicant is referencing.
Since it is not clear what limitation or claim the applicant is referencing the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Under the above rationales the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 is considered to be indefinite.
As per the claim language:
1. (Currently Amended) An electronic device, comprising:a display; and
a processor communicably coupled to the display and configured to:
obtain a video of a scene, wherein the video includes a plurality of frames;
for each frame of the plurality of frames
:determine a location for the frame in an extended reality environment based on [[the]] corresponding scene position information for the frame that indicates an orientation of a camera during capture of the frame relative to a fixed view point; and in accordance with a determination that at least a portion of the frame is within a displayed portion of the extended reality environment, present the frame at the location in the extended reality environment.
Line 8 recites “the frame”, however it is not clear what is intended by this. Is “the frame” of line 6 referring to “a plurality of frames” as recited in line 4, that is what is intended “the plurality of frames”, or is what is intended to be referencing an ambiguous frame within “a plurality of frames”, or as per line 7, “each frame” or an altogether unreferenced frame. It is not clear what exactly is intended by “the frame.”
Line 9 recites “the frame”, however it is not clear what is intended by this. Is “the frame” of line 6 referring to “a plurality of frames” as recited in line 4, that is what is intended “the plurality of frames”, or is what is intended to be referencing an ambiguous frame within “a plurality of frames”, or as per line 7, “each frame” or an altogether unreferenced frame. It is not clear what exactly is intended by “the frame.”
Line 10 recites “the frame”, however it is not clear what is intended by this. Is “the frame” of line 6 referring to “a plurality of frames” as recited in line 4, that is what is intended “the plurality of frames”, or is what is intended to be referencing an ambiguous frame within “a plurality of frames”, or as per line 7, “each frame” or an altogether unreferenced frame. It is not clear what exactly is intended by “the frame.”
Line 11 recites “the frame”, however it is not clear what is intended by this. Is “the frame” of line 6 referring to “a plurality of frames” as recited in line 4, that is what is intended “the plurality of frames”, or is what is intended to be referencing an ambiguous frame within “a plurality of frames”, or as per line 7, “each frame” or an altogether unreferenced frame. It is not clear what exactly is intended by “the frame.”
Line 12 recites “the frame”, however it is not clear what is intended by this. Is “the frame” of line 6 referring to “a plurality of frames” as recited in line 4, that is what is intended “the plurality of frames”, or is what is intended to be referencing an ambiguous frame within “a plurality of frames”, or as per line 7, “each frame” or an altogether unreferenced frame. It is not clear what exactly is intended by “the frame.”
Claim 2 is considered to be indefinite.
As per the claim language:
2. The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to generate contextual content associated with the video, comprising, for each frame of the plurality of frames:selecting one or more contextual frames other than the frame; generating the contextual content from the one or more contextual frames; and in accordance with a determination that at least a portion of the contextual content is within the displayed portion of the extended reality environment, presenting the contextual content in the extended reality environment.
As per line 2-3, “each frame of the plurality of frames” is consider indefinite as it is not clear if this is referencing “the frame” of line 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 which has “the frame” has its own indefinite issue as detailed in claim 1 the subject of which will be incorporated herein. Alternatively “each frame of the plurality of frames” may reference “each frame of the plurality of frames” of line 7 of claim 1 as well.
Line 4, “contextual frames other than the frame” is consider indefinite as detailed in claim 1 the subject of which will be incorporated herein. Also, it is not clear what frame is intended to be by “other than the frame” as what the frame is, isn’t clear.
Line 5, “one or more contextual frames” is consider indefinite as detailed in claim 1 the subject of which will be incorporated herein. Furthermore it is also not clear what contextual frames are referencing as they are contrasted by ‘the frame” which is not clear as well.
Claim 3-20 recite frame or frames in some variation of the above. For brevity, the claims all will be considered indefinite under similar rationale as detailed in claim 1 and 2. Said simply it doesn’t appear that any of the claims make an attempt to clarify or distinguish the usage of frame/frames in any combination or usage. Also said another way, every recitation of frame/frames is considered unclear with the exception of the first recitation of frames in each independent claim. Due to the severity of the indefiniteness of all the claims the prior art is a best attempt.
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(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Villmer et al. (US 9,618,747 B2)
Regarding claim 1, Villmer teaches an electronic device (See abstract and title), comprising:
a display (See title and abstract); and
a processor communicably coupled to the display and configured to (See title, abstract and Fig. 62):
obtain a video of a scene, wherein the video includes a plurality of frames (See abstract, col. 2 line 1 – 33, col. 3 lines 7 – 20, col. 3 line 54 - 62);
for each frame of the plurality of frames (See abstract. The abstract introduces omnidirectional frame and omnidirectional media, col. 2 line 1 – 33: discloses that omnidirectional media can contain images or video. The images of the media may be considered to be a plurality of frames of a video, or the video is considered to have plurality of frames as well. Col. 3 lines 7 – 20, discloses, position/orientation of a user and displaying the video according to the position/orientation information. Col. 3 line 54 – 62, also discloses positional information based upon GPS and displaying the video according to the GPS position. Fig. 26A-26B, demonstrates the user changing the position of the omnidirectional media, which is interpreted as a plurality of frames/video. Fig. 51, line 9-17 is the code that sets of a 3d camera view. Lines 19-23: disclose creating a video, data.mov. Lines 25-33: discloses setting the ominisphere view to a default. Figure 52: line 6-15 setting up gyroscope/accelerometer which is determining the change in location based upon “listening” for updates. Lines 17-24 when the updates from the gyroscope/accelerometer occur, the rendering position updates. The user is moving their head, and an adjusted frame based upon the adjust position is considered to read on the limitation as the user is exploring a 180/360 degree space. Thus determining a location for the frame in an extended reality environment, of each frame of the plurality of frames. ):
determine a location for the frame in an extended reality environment based on the corresponding scene position information for the frame that indicates an orientation of a camera during capture of the frame relative to a fixed view point (See abstract. The abstract introduces omnidirectional frame and omnidirectional media, col. 2 line 1 – 33: discloses that omnidirectional media can contain images or video. The images of the media may be considered to be a plurality of frames of a video, or the video is considered to have plurality of frames as well. Col. 3 lines 7 – 20, discloses, position/orientation of a user and displaying the video according to the position/orientation information. Col. 3 line 54 – 62, also discloses positional information based upon GPS and displaying the video according to the GPS position. Fig. 26A-26B, demonstrates the user changing the position of the omnidirectional media, which is interpreted as a plurality of frames/video. Fig. 51, line 9-17 is the code that sets of a 3d camera view. Lines 19-23: disclose creating a video, data.mov. Lines 25-33: discloses setting the ominisphere view to a default. Figure 52: line 6-15 setting up gyroscope/accelerometer which is determining the change in location based upon “listening” for updates. Lines 17-24 when the updates from the gyroscope/accelerometer occur, the rendering position updates. The user is moving their head, and an adjusted frame based upon the adjust position is considered to read on the limitation as the user is exploring a 180/360 degree space. Thus determining a location for the frame in an extended reality environment, of each frame of the plurality of frames. ); and in accordance with a determination that at least a portion of the frame is within a displayed portion of the extended reality environment, present the frame at the location in the extended reality environment (See previous citations/explanations and col. 16 lines 34-46: the examiner notes the determination is based upon a change in position. When the change in position occurs the updated presentation of the frame in the extended reality occurs. Said another way, Villmer is in a 180/360 degree space, so when updating the rendering based upon position of head or gps a determination is made based upon the position data and from that data the frame is determined to be within the displayed view of the user and is thus presented to the user as shown in Fig. 26A-26B .See abstract, col. 2 line 1 – 33, col. 3 lines 7 – 20, col. 3 line 54 – 62, Fig. 26A-26B).
Regarding claim 2, Villmer teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to generate contextual content associated with the video, comprising, for each frame of the plurality of frames (col. 19 line 14 - 45):
selecting one or more contextual frames other than the frame (col. 12 line 6 – 13, any of the other frames can be considered a contexture frame);
generating the contextual content from the one or more contextual frames (col. 12 line 6 – 13, any of the other frames can be considered a contexture frame); and
in accordance with a determination that at least a portion of the contextual content is within the displayed portion of the extended reality environment, presenting the contextual content in the extended reality environment (See Fig. 36A-36B).
Regarding claim 3, Villmer teaches the electronic device of claim 2, wherein the contextual content is generated at one or more contextual locations in the extended reality environment selected using the corresponding scene position information from the one or more contextual frames (See Fig. 13, Fig. 24A and Fig. 25B).
Regarding claim 4, Villmer teaches the electronic device of claim 2, wherein the one or more contextual frames comprise one or more frames preceding the frame (Fig. 24A and Fig. 25B).
Regarding claim 5, Villmer teaches the electronic device of any of claim 2, further comprising generating the contextual content by adjusting one or more image characteristics of the one or more contextual frames (Fig. 26A-26B).
Regarding claim 6, Villmer teaches the electronic device of claim 2, wherein generating the contextual content comprises, for each contextual frame of the one or more contextual frames, adjusting one or more image characteristics of the contextual frame based on a temporal relationship between the contextual frame and the frame (Fig. 26A-26B).
Regarding claim 7, Villmer teaches the electronic device of claim 2, wherein generating the contextual content comprises, for each contextual frame of the one or more contextual frames, adjusting one or more image characteristics of the contextual frame based on the corresponding scene position information for the contextual frame (Fig. 26A-26B).
Regarding claim 8, Villmer teaches The electronic device of claim 2, wherein the one or more contextual frames comprise all of the frames of the video (See col. 2 lines 1 - 24).
Regarding claim 9, Villmer teaches the electronic device of claim 2, wherein generating the contextual content comprises:
analyzing the one or more contextual frames and the corresponding scene position information to differentiate portions of each of the one or more contextual frames changing due to movement of a camera recording the video and portions of each of the one or more contextual frames changing due to movement of one or more subjects in the one or more contextual frames (col. 15 line 58 – col. 16 line 46);
and generating the contextual content based on a difference between the portions of each of the one or more contextual frames changing due to movement of the camera and the portions of each of the one or more contextual frames changing due to movement of one or more subjects in the one or more contextual frames (col. 15 line 58 – col. 16 line 46).
Regarding claim 10, Villmer teaches the electronic device of claim 1, further comprising a motion tracking system configured to provide motion information about the electronic device (col. 20 line 43 – 45: tracking), wherein:
the processor is communicably coupled to the motion tracking system (Fig. 62: gyroscope/accelerometer can function as a motion tracking system and is connected to a processor); and
the processor is further configured to:determine the displayed portion of the extended reality environment based on the motion information from the motion tracking system;
in accordance with a determination that at least a portion of the frame is not within the displayed portion of the extended reality environment, present an indicator in the displayed portion of the extended reality environment (page 3 lines 54- 63, col. 20 line 33 – 55, Fig. 47-48).
Regarding claim 11, Villmer teaches the electronic device of claim 10, wherein the indicator provides a direction of the current frame of the video in the extended reality environment with respect to a location of the indicator in the extended reality environment (page 3 lines 54- 63, col. 20 line 33 – 55, Fig. 47-48).
Regarding claim 12, Villmer teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the scene position information is based on movement of the camera during recording of the video (See col. 15 line 46 – col. 16 line 22, Fig. 26A-B).
Regardomg claim 13, Villmer teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the location for the frame in the extended reality environment includes spherical coordinates describing the location of the frame as projected on an interior of a sphere within the extended reality environment (Fig. 43 and 51.).
Claims 14-20 recite similar limitations to that of claim 1-5, 8 and 9 and thus are rejected under similar rationale as detailed above.
Conclusion
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 ROBERT J CRADDOCK whose telephone number is (571)270-7502. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 AM - 6 PM EST.
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, Devona E Faulk can be reached at 571-272-7515. 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.
/ROBERT J CRADDOCK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2618