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
This office action is in response to communication filed 8/21/2023. Claims 1-20 are pending for examination, the rejection cited as stated below.
Examiner’s Claim Construction Comments
2. Regarding claims 1-15, in light of specification (see paragraph [0057] “A computer readable storage medium, as that term is used in the present disclosure, is not to be construed as storage in the form of transitory signals per se, such as radio waves or other freely propagating electromagnetic waves, electromagnetic waves propagating through a waveguide, light pulses passing through a fiber optic cable, electrical signals communicated through a wire, and/or other transmission media”), Examiner interprets the claimed “computer readable storage medium” as “non-transitory computer readable storage medium”, therefore, claims 1-15 are considered statutory.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
a) Claim 11 recites “a system…, comprises: edge target content delivery servers, a content delivery server including a computer readable storage medium… comprising: …”. The relationship between the edge target content delivery servers and the content delivery server is unclear, e.g., whether the content delivery server is one of the edge target content delivery servers, and if not, what the edge target content delivery servers are or perform, since the subsequent limitations do not recite anything related to the edge target content delivery servers at all. As a result, the scope of “edge target content delivery servers” cannot be definitely determined. Applicant is required to clarify. For the sake of the examination, Examiner assumes that the recited “edge target content delivery servers” refer to any servers and have any relationship with the content delivery server. Claims 12-15 are similarly rejected.
b) Claim 1 recites “to a viewer”, “the viewer is located”, then another “a viewer located in a target sub-location”. The relationship between the various viewer(s) cannot be definitely determined. For example, it is unclear whether and how the last “a viewer” relates to the first “a viewer” or “the viewer”. Applicant is required to clarify. For the sake of the examination, Examiner assumes any relationship. Claims 2-20 are similarly rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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 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.
7. 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.
8. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
9. Claims 1, 4-7, 11, 13, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hutsler et al (US 20200336668 A1, hereafter Hutsler) in view of Chastain et al (US 20230063505 A1, hereafter Chastain).
As to claim 1 Hutsler discloses a computer program product for transmitting captured video streams to a viewer comprising a person wearing an extended-reality headset to view an event in an extended-reality environment (Hutsler, [0026], “In one example, UEs 108-114 may each comprise a mobile device, a cellular smart phone, a wearable computing device (e.g., smart glasses, augmented reality glasses, head mounted displays, or headsets)… UEs 110 and 114 specifically comprise head mounted displays of the type that may be used to view volumetric video presentation”; abstract, ““method for selecting spectator viewpoints in volumetric video presentations of live events”), the computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having computer readable program code embodied therein that is executable to perform operations, the operations comprising:
assigning video cameras, positioned to capture video at a source location, to source sub-locations of the source location, wherein the video cameras assigned to a source sub-location capture video of the event from points-of-view of viewers within the source sub-location (Hutsler, abstract, “method for selecting spectator viewpoints in volumetric video presentations of live events includes receiving a plurality of video streams depicting an event occurring in a venue, wherein the plurality of video streams are provided to a processor by a plurality of cameras which are geographically distributed within the venue”; [0025], “The physical locations of cameras 130 may be geographically distributed within a venue 150. In one example, the venue 150 may be a site having defined boundaries, such as a stadium, a golf course, a park, or the like (in the example illustrated in FIG. 1, for instance, the venue is depicted as a golf course)…. Each camera 130 may be positioned to capture a different perspective (e.g., a different orientations and/or viewpoint) within the venue 150. Some of these perspectives may overlap. Thus, in one example, the cameras 130 may be positioned to collectively provide a 360 degree view of the venue 150. A volumetric video may then be composited from the videos obtained from the cameras 130. For instance, the cameras 130 may feed the respective videos to the AS 104 in network 102 via the access networks 120 and 122”; [0035], “The method 200 begins in step 202. In step 204, the processor may identify initial positions of a plurality of cameras within a venue from which a volumetric video presentation is to be produced. For instance, as discussed above, a plurality of cameras may be geographically distributed within a venue, such as a stadium, a golf course, a park, or the like”); and
transmitting a video sub-stream from video cameras assigned to a source sublocation to be rendered in the extended-reality headset worn by a viewer located in a target sub-location associated with the source sub-location (Hutsler, [0037], “In step 206, the processor may begin to receive a plurality of feeds from the plurality of cameras. The plurality of feeds may comprise streams of video captured in real time (i.e., as a live event is occurring, subject to any latency introduced by network conditions), where each stream of video depicts a different perspective within the venue”; [0040], “In step 210, the processor may composite the plurality of feeds to produce a traversal of the volumetric video presentation that follows the target…the traversal can be viewed on a user endpoint device as the traversal is being created”; [0026], “In one example, UEs 108-114 may each comprise a mobile device, a cellular smart phone, a wearable computing device (e.g., smart glasses, augmented reality glasses, head mounted displays, or headsets)… UEs 110 and 114 specifically comprise head mounted displays of the type that may be used to view volumetric video presentation”; abstract, ““method for selecting spectator viewpoints in volumetric video presentations of live events”),
but does not expressly disclose associating the source sub-locations of the source location with target sublocations of a target location in which the viewer is located, wherein the source location and the target location are in different geographical locations, or a target sub-location associated with the source sub-location to which the video cameras that captured the video sub-stream are assigned.
Chastain discloses associating source sub-locations of a source location with target sublocations of a target location in which a viewer is located, wherein the source location and the target location are in different geographical locations, and a target sub-location associated with the source sub-location to which video cameras that captured the video sub-stream are assigned (see Chastain, [0077], “At optional step 730, the processing system may match a viewpoint at the second venue (e.g., a camera location/position and/or a view from a camera of a plurality of cameras at the second venue) to the user viewpoint of the user at the first venue”; claims 11-13, “matching a first position of the user viewpoint of the user at the first venue to a second position of the viewpoint of the second venue”, “wherein the first position comprises a first seat at the first venue, and wherein the second position comprises a second seat at the second venue”, and “wherein first position and the second position have a same orientation and distance to corresponding first and second performance areas of the first venue and the second venue”; [0037], “Also associated with second physical environment 140 is a plurality of cameras 142-144 which may capture videos of the second physical environment 140, e.g., including items, objects, or other aspects of the environment. In one example, cameras 142-144 may provide video streams from various viewpoints (e.g., locations) within the second physical environment 140 to AS 104 (e.g., on an ongoing basis, or on demand). Cameras 142-144 may similarly have associated microphones for capturing audio data of the second physical environment 140 from the locations of the respective cameras 142-144”; abstract, “provide the visual content of the second venue to an augmented reality device of the user at the first venue, where the augmented reality device presents the visual content of the second venue as a visual overlay within a field of view of the user”).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Hutsler with Chastain. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to provide the visual content of the second venue to an augmented reality device of the user at the first venue (Chastain, abstract).
As to claim 11, see similar rejection to claim 1, wherein the device corresponding claim 1 is equivalent to a content delivery server. For edge target content delivery servers, see Hutsler, [0032], “edge servers”).
As to claim 16, see similar rejection to claim 1.
As to claim 4, Hutsler in view of Chastain discloses the computer program product of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise:
reconstructing video sub-streams from the video cameras assigned to the source sub-location to form a volumetric video sub-stream for the source sub-location, wherein the transmitted video sub-stream comprises the volumetric video sub-stream (see citation in rejection to claim 1, e.g., Hutsler, abstract, “selecting spectator viewpoints in volumetric video presentations of live events includes receiving a plurality of video streams depicting an event occurring in a venue, wherein the plurality of video streams are provided to a processor by a plurality of cameras which are geographically distributed within the venue, identifying an initial position of a target that is present in the venue, based on an analysis of the plurality of video streams, compositing the plurality of video streams to produce a first volumetric video traversal of the live event that follows the target through the venue”; [0025], “The physical locations of cameras 130 may be geographically distributed within a venue 150. In one example, the venue 150 may be a site having defined boundaries, such as a stadium, a golf course, a park, or the like (in the example illustrated in FIG. 1, for instance, the venue is depicted as a golf course)…. Each camera 130 may be positioned to capture a different perspective (e.g., a different orientations and/or viewpoint) within the venue 150. Some of these perspectives may overlap. Thus, in one example, the cameras 130 may be positioned to collectively provide a 360 degree view of the venue 150. A volumetric video may then be composited from the videos obtained from the cameras 130. For instance, the cameras 130 may feed the respective videos to the AS 104 in network 102 via the access networks 120 and 122”; [0035], “The method 200 begins in step 202. In step 204, the processor may identify initial positions of a plurality of cameras within a venue from which a volumetric video presentation is to be produced. For instance, as discussed above, a plurality of cameras may be geographically distributed within a venue, such as a stadium, a golf course, a park, or the like”).
As to claim 5, Hutsler in view of Chastain discloses the computer program product of claim 1, wherein the video sub-stream transmitted to the extended-reality headset to render is captured by video cameras assigned to a source-sub location corresponding to the target sub-location in which the
extended-reality headset is included (see citation in rejection to claim 1, e.g., Chastain, [0077], “At optional step 730, the processing system may match a viewpoint at the second venue (e.g., a camera location/position and/or a view from a camera of a plurality of cameras at the second venue) to the user viewpoint of the user at the first venue”; claims 11-13, “matching a first position of the user viewpoint of the user at the first venue to a second position of the viewpoint of the second venue”, “wherein the first position comprises a first seat at the first venue, and wherein the second position comprises a second seat at the second venue”, and “wherein first position and the second position have a same orientation and distance to corresponding first and second performance areas of the first venue and the second venue”; [0037], “Also associated with second physical environment 140 is a plurality of cameras 142-144 which may capture videos of the second physical environment 140, e.g., including items, objects, or other aspects of the environment. In one example, cameras 142-144 may provide video streams from various viewpoints (e.g., locations) within the second physical environment 140 to AS 104 (e.g., on an ongoing basis, or on demand). Cameras 142-144 may similarly have associated microphones for capturing audio data of the second physical environment 140 from the locations of the respective cameras 142-144”; abstract, “provide the visual content of the second venue to an augmented reality device of the user at the first venue, where the augmented reality device presents the visual content of the second venue as a visual overlay within a field of view of the user”).
As to claim 6, Hutsler in view of Chastain discloses the computer program product of claim 1, wherein the target sub-location comprises a first target sub-location, wherein the source sub-location comprises a second source sub-location, wherein the video sub-stream comprises a first video sub-stream, and wherein the video cameras capturing the first video sub-stream comprise first video
Cameras (see citation in rejection to claim 1, e.g., Hutsler discloses multiple cameras geographically distributed in a venue capture different perspectives; streams are used to create volumetric video of the live event delivered to remote HMDs with viewpoint selection, Chastain discloses identifying a user viewpoint of a user at a first venue, match a viewpoint at a second venue to the user viewpoint of the user at the first venue, obtain the visual content of the second venue, wherein the visual content of the second venue is obtained from the viewpoint at the second venue, and provide the visual content of the second venue to an augmented reality device of the user. Here, the headset previously rendered a first video sub-stream corresponding to a first target sub-location/first source sub-location), wherein the operations further comprise:
transmitting a second video sub-stream from second video cameras assigned to the second source sub-location associated with a second target sub-location to be rendered in the extended-reality headset that rendered the first video sub-stream that is currently located in the second target sub-location (see citation in rejection to claim 1 and explanation in rejection to the preceding limitations, wherein the same extended-realty headset is now currently located in a second target sub-location, see Chastain, wherein the system continuously (or on trigger) identifies the user’s viewpoint/location, when changes, a new matching is performed, see [0021], “the user's current seating position at Venue 1 is compared to available camera views at Venue 2 and the closest match camera view to the user's position in Venue 1 is identified. When the closest match camera in Venue 2 is identified, AR content associated with that camera may be retrieved from the AR content database” indicating movement or change in location/viewpoint triggers re-matching, hence a different matched camera/viewpoint is sent by the AR content server to the user AR device).
As to claim 7, Hutsler in view of Chastain discloses the computer program product of claim 1, where the target location includes a plurality of viewers wearing extended-reality headsets viewing within the target sub-locations, wherein the transmitting the video sub-stream is performed for a plurality of video sub-streams, captured by video cameras associated with different source sub-locations, to be rendered in the extended-reality headsets of the viewers in the target sub-locations that are associated with the source sub-locations assigned the video cameras that captured the video sub-streams (see citation in rejection to claim 1, wherein repeating the same functionality on a different user at target location does not involve additional inventive concept. See, e.g., Chastain, [0053], “user 191 (and other users) may experience one or more other events at one or more other venues as AR content (e.g., other venues of a same venue type), which may be live/current and/or which may be historical, time-shifted events)”).
As to claim 13, see similar rejection to claim 7.
As to claim 18, see similar rejection to claim 7.
10. Claims 2, 8-10, 12, 14-15, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hutsler in view of Chastain, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of PALERMO et al (US 2024/0312130 A1, hereafter PALERMO).
As to claim 2, Hutsler in view of Chastain discloses the computer program product of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprises receiving a request from the extended-reality headset worn by a viewer for a video sub-stream of the event (Hutsler, [0040], “The processor may publish a list or menu of traversals of the volumetric video presentation, where a viewer may select any of the published traversals for viewing”), but does not expressly disclose determining whether the extended-reality headset is within geographical coordinates of a target sub-location, wherein the video sub-stream is transmitted to the extended-reality headset in response to determining that the extended-reality headset sending the request is within the geographic coordinates of the target sub-location.
PALERMO discloses determining whether an extended-reality headset is within geographical coordinates of a target sub-location, wherein a video sub-stream is transmitted to the extended-reality headset in response to determining that the extended-reality headset is within the geographic coordinates of the target sub-location ([0036], “a CCGB may correspond to a virtual boundary representative of a geographic area (e.g., a neighborhood, a town, a city, a county, a state, a province, a region, a country, etc.) to which a live cast is to be streamed”; [0280], “the preset guardian boundary corresponds to a virtual boundary within which the first VR device and the second VR device are authorized to access the VR live stream”; [0217], “the access determination circuitry 840 can authorize the first client 302 for access to the virtual reality live stream event after a determination that the location of the first client 302 is within a CCGB of the VRLS event, such as the CCGB 134 of FIG. 1”; [0278], “after a determination that the first location and the second location satisfy the preset guardian boundary, at least one of executing or instantiating an instance of a VR live stream application associated with the VR live steam based on the first location and the second location, the first VR device and the second VR device to be associated with the VR live stream application.”; [0072], “In response to and/or after initially authorizing entry of the clients 602, 604 to the VR live cast based on the provided credentials and the location data, subsequent reauthorizations can be offloaded to the cloud server 610. For example, the cloud server 610 can utilize less precise location data associated with the clients 602, 604 from the cellular network 606 to periodically re-authorize the clients 602, 604 to increase the bandwidth of the edge network 608 to carry out other workloads, such as facilitating the VR live cast (e.g., executing a purpose-build cloud instance of the VR live cast)”; claim 80, “wherein a cloud server is to perform the at least one of the executing or the instantiating of the instance of the VR live stream application, and further including transmitting the VR live stream associated with the VR live stream application from the cloud server to the first VR device and the second VR device to cause the first VR device and the second VR device to render the VR live stream”; claim 81, “wherein an edge server associated with the first location data and the second location data is to perform the at least one of the executing or the instantiating of the instance of the VR live stream application, and further including transmitting the VR live stream associated with the VR live stream application from the edge server to the first VR device and the second VR device to cause the first VR device and the second VR device to render the VR live stream”).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Hutsler in view of Chastain with PALERMO. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to authorize live cast stream based on virtual boundary (PALERMO, [0280]).
As to claim 12, see similar rejection to claim 2.
As to claim 17, see similar rejection to claim 2.
As to claim 8, Hutsler in view of Chastain and PALERMO discloses the computer program product of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise:
assigning a plurality of target content delivery servers to the target sub-locations, where different of the target content delivery servers are assigned to different of the target sub-locations (PALERMO, [0065], “The MEC network 308 may be implemented using one or more edge servers that are co-located with the clients 302, 304. For example, the first client 302 may be in Chicago, Illinois, United States and the one or more edge servers may be in Chicago, Illinois, United States or a surrounding area (e.g., a surrounding city, state, etc.)”; claim 81, “wherein an edge server associated with the first location data and the second location data is to perform the at least one of the executing or the instantiating of the instance of the VR live stream application, and further including transmitting the VR live stream associated with the VR live stream application from the edge server to the first VR device and the second VR device to cause the first VR device and the second VR device to render the VR live stream”; [0283], “after a second determination that a latency associated with transmission of the VR live stream associated with the VR live stream application from a cloud server to the first VR device satisfies a threshold identifying an edge server associated with the first location, at least one of executing or instantiating a second instance of the VR live stream application on the edge server, and transmitting the VR live stream from the edge server to the first VR device”);
receiving, by a target content delivery server of the target content delivery servers, video sub-streams from the video cameras assigned to the source sub-location associated with the target sub-location assigned to the target content delivery server, wherein different of the target content delivery servers receive video sub-streams from different of the video cameras assigned to different of the source sub-locations (see citation in rejection to claim 1, wherein different geographically distributed video cameras produce different video sub-streams to be sent to a server, to be transmitted to different target sub-locations associated with the source sub-locations, different of the video cameras assigned to different of the source sub-locations. The server can be location-aware edge servers, once combined with PALERMO, see citation in rejection to the preceding limitation, wherein the edge servers are associated with different target sub-locations therefore are also associated with the source sub-locations and the respective video streams); and
transmitting, by the target content delivery servers, video sub-streams from the source sub-locations to be rendered in extended-reality headsets worn by viewers located in target sub-locations associated with the source sub-locations to which the video cameras that captured the video sub-stream are assigned (see citation and explanation in rejection to the preceding limitations).
As to claim 14, see similar rejection to claim 8.
As to claim 19, see similar rejection to claim 8.
As to claim 9, Hutsler in view of Chastain and PALERMO discloses the computer program product of claim 8, wherein a target content delivery server assigned to a target sub-location is positioned closer to more areas of the assigned target sub-location than other of the target content delivery servers, and wherein viewers in a target sub-location render a video sub-stream from the target content delivery server assigned to the target sub-location (see citation in rejection to claim 8, e.g., PALERMO, [0065], “The MEC network 308 may be implemented using one or more edge servers that are co-located with the clients 302, 304. For example, the first client 302 may be in Chicago, Illinois, United States and the one or more edge servers may be in Chicago, Illinois, United States or a surrounding area (e.g., a surrounding city, state, etc.)”; claim 81, “wherein an edge server associated with the first location data and the second location data is to perform the at least one of the executing or the instantiating of the instance of the VR live stream application, and further including transmitting the VR live stream associated with the VR live stream application from the edge server to the first VR device and the second VR device to cause the first VR device and the second VR device to render the VR live stream”; [0283], “after a second determination that a latency associated with transmission of the VR live stream associated with the VR live stream application from a cloud server to the first VR device satisfies a threshold identifying an edge server associated with the first location, at least one of executing or instantiating a second instance of the VR live stream application on the edge server, and transmitting the VR live stream from the edge server to the first VR device).
As to claim 15, see similar rejection to claim 9.
As to claim 20, see similar rejection to claim 9.
As to claim 10, Hutsler in view of Chastain and PALERMO discloses the computer program product of claim 8, wherein the operations further comprise:
programming the video cameras assigned to a source sub-location to transmit their video sub-streams to a server assigned to the target sub-location associated with the source sub-location to which the video cameras are assigned, wherein the target content delivery servers receiving the video sub-streams from the video cameras assigned to a source sub-location reconstruct the received video sub-streams into a volumetric video sub-stream to transmit to viewers viewing from within the target sub-location assigned to a target content delivery server (see citation and explanation in rejection to claim 8, wherein PALERMO teaches location-aware edge/MEC servers that serve AR/VR devices based on geographic location/guardian boundaries, wherein Hutsler in view of Chastain as cited and explained in rejection to claim 1 has established which source sub-location maps to which target sub-location, and wherein in view of PALERMO as cited and explained in rejection to claim 8 has assigned a specific edge server to each target sub-location, the combination teaches associating the cameras of a given source sub-location [to transmit] streams to the corresponding edge server based on location-association with the target sub-location. See, e.g., Hutsler, [0013], “the physical environment or space that is depicted in the volumetric video may be represented in the volumetric video as a plurality of "voxels" having positional coordinates ( e.g., X, Y, Z with respect to a reference point)” and citation in rejection to claim 1, wherein Hutsler expressly teaches talking multiple camera streams of a live event and compositing/reconstructing them into volumetric video for delivery to display devices including head-mounted display. Chastain as cited in rejection to claim 1 expressly discloses that matched visual content is provided to the AR device of the user at the corresponding location/viewpoint).
11. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hutsler in view of Chastain, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of PALERMO et al (US 2024/0312130 Al, hereafter PALERMO) and Martin (US 20180033208 A1).
As to claim 3, Hutsler in view of Chastain discloses the claimed invention substantially as discussed in claim 1, including broadcasting the video sub-stream and that target sub-location mapping to the source sub-location assigned the video cameras generating the video sub-stream, wherein the extended-reality headset worn by the viewer renders the broadcasted video sub-stream (see citation in rejection to claim 1. See also Chastain, [0029], “broadcast television network… a broadcast server”), but does not expressly disclose that information on geographic coordinates of the target sub-location is distributed together with the broadcasted video sub-stream, or that the rendering is in response to determining that the extended-reality headset is located within the geographic coordinates of the target sub-location included in the broadcasted video sub-stream.
Martin discloses information on geographic coordinates of target sub-location is distributed together with video sub-stream ([0005], “a data bundle comprising the captured visual content, the location and the orientation data to a server, notifying a remote user about the data bundle on the server, in response to receiving an acceptance from the remote user, transmitting the data bundle from the server to a device associated with the remote user to create a rendering of the virtual reality location in a real world location”).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Hutsler in view of Chastain with Martin. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to distribute a data bundle (Martin, [0005]).
PALERMO discloses that rendering is in response to determining that a extended-reality headset is located within geographic coordinates of target sub-location (see citation in rejection to claim 2).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to combine Hutsler in view of Chastain with PALERMO. The suggestion/motivation of the combination would have been to authorize live cast stream based on virtual boundary (PALERMO, [0280]).
Prior Art Cited but not Applied in the Rejection
12. Below is a list of prior art reference(s) cited but not applied in the rejection:
a) Bathory (US 20220053219 A1), disclosing initialize a virtual environment in which to render a hybrid graphically depicted virtual environment in combination with one or more video feeds; associate each of the plurality of cameras with a corresponding location in the virtual environment; authenticate a plurality of spectating users to access the virtual environment; and for each of the plurality of authenticated spectating users: determine a location, within the virtual environment, of a corresponding surrogate for that spectating user, map that spectating user to one of the plurality of cameras based on the determined location of the corresponding surrogate and based on the associated location of each camera, render in real time a video stream graphically depicting the virtual environment based on a location of the corresponding surrogate within the virtual environment and incorporating a video feed from the mapped camera, and deliver the video stream to a device from which the spectating user was authenticated to access the virtual environment (see claim 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUA FAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5311. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-6.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nasser Goodarzi, can be reached at (571) 272-4195. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HUA FAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426
Prosecution Insights