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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s amendment/response filed on 11 March 2026, which has been entered and made of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “The Examiner asserts that Bendale teaches a general augmented reality framework, White provides the context of film location scouting with logistical data, and Abrahams teaches the use of a hierarchical data structure. However, the combination of these references fails to teach or suggest the specific functional integration of a synchronized, presenter-led immersive session driven by a multi-level logistical hierarchy” (Remarks, para. 9). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejection below cites specific paragraph and/or line numbers for each limitation taught by one (or more) of the references. Starting with the Bendale reference, which teaches a general virtual reality HMD interface for location scouting (e.g. para. 95), and which also teaches data hierarchy (e.g. para. 92), one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to look in both the location scouting technology area (e.g. White) and the data hierarchy storage area (e.g. Abrahams) to fill in any specifics not explicitly recited by Bendale. Therefore, the combination of references renders obvious the claims as a whole.
Applicant argues “While Bendale describes sharing media content, it does not suggest a system where one user's immersive navigation through a specific data hierarchy actively controls and synchronizes the virtual environment currently being experienced by other remote users” (Remarks, pg. 9). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Bendale discloses “AR and VR can provide an immersive experience” (para. 3), “create folders, links, and access file systems similar to desktop operating systems” (para. 92), and “allow users or automated agents to share, create, and modify interactive content on the 360-degree video … synchronously (co-presence)” (para. 71). Likewise, in the same art of location scouting, White describes both the immersive experience (albeit not with a VR headset) for location scouting and synchronizing the virtual environment with a plurality of remote users: “The capability to use the secondary display screen as a virtual screening and conference room enables all decisions to take place on-line. The application allows the user selection of participants in the virtual conference, the contents that will be presented for screening during the conference, and the ability to vote, add more content, and have dialog between participants--imitating an actual meeting--regardless of the geographic locations of the participants” (para. 47). Using White to add detail to the “location scouting” of Bendale would have been obvious and would teach all of the limitation of the claims except for the specific “hierarchical arrangement of cities, location types within each city, and sub-location types within each location type” limitations, which is why the reference Abrahams is introduced as described below. Therefore, the combination of references teaches each limitation of the claims, exists in the same technology area, and has motivation to combine.
Applicant argues “The hierarchy in Abrahams is a text-based search-tree used to narrow down metadata for dining options. There is no suggestion in the prior art to integrate such a search structure into an immersive 360-degree imagery platform to serve as a navigational engine for film production scouting” (Remarks, pg. 10). However, the Examiner does not use Abrahams to teach 360-degree imagery or film production scouting. Rather, since all of Abrahams, Bendale, White, and the current invention are related to location-based information gathering and presentation, the specific data hierarchy in the location-based information gathering and presentation of Abrahams can be applied in a straightforward and obvious manner to the location-based information gathering and presentation system of Bendale and White.
Applicant argues “The combination also fails to teach the parallel presentment of logistical attributes anchored as spatial overlays within the immersive 360-degree imagery” (Remarks, pg. 10). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Bendale, in Figs. 3A-3E, illustrates logistical attributes anchored as spatial overlays within immersive 360-degree video. While Bendale does not explicitly recite overlaying film production attributes, it is clear that this is taught and rendered obvious since Bendale illustrates logistical attribute spatial overlays and says that the system can be used for “location scouting.” Thus, when the more specific teachings of White are applied to the location scouting VR interface of Bendale, the combination teaches and renders obvious all the claim language regarding film production attributes.
Applicant argues “the prior art does not teach the receipt of a rating associated with the selected imagery from a user while the plurality of users are viewing that imagery through the virtual reality interface … White describes these actions in the context of a web-based application” (Remarks, pg. 10). First, a broadest reasonable interpretation of “virtual reality” can include web applications such as White. The phrase “virtual reality” does not require a head-mounted display, but merely requires the display of a virtual world, which is done in the web interface of White. Second, Bendale explicitly recites a VR headset used for location scouting, and it would have been obvious to incorporate any/all of the location scouting techniques taught by White, including the rating system, into the VR headset of Bendale.
Applicant argues “Beall does not suggest a system where a presenter's ad hoc navigation of a logistical hierarchy, rather than a linear set of slides” (Remarks, pg. 11). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The language of Beall describes a technique for navigating between virtual locations in a virtual world: “Virtual Reality (VR) comprises a computer simulated environment that can simulate a physical presence in places in the real world” (col. 1, lines 30-35); “in a multi-user virtual/augmented reality session, a computing system may provide, via a respective user VR/AR headset or other display, each user with a view of the virtual/augmented world/scene” (col. 5, lines 30-40); and “a ‘Jump To’ feature causes a user and/or participant to be transported to a new configured location within a virtual world” (col. 23, lines 5-10). This is clearly more than a ”linear set of slides” as characterized by Applicant. When applied to the combination Bendale, White, and Abrahams, the combination of references teaches the claimed VR system for virtual location scouting.
Any remaining arguments are considered moot based on the foregoing.
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.
Claims 1-3, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bendale et al. (US 2018/0341811; hereinafter “Bendale”) in view of White et al. (US 2004/0051732; hereinafter “White”), and further in view of Abrahams et al. (US 2016/0378328; hereinafter “Abrahams”).
Regarding claim 1, Bendale discloses A computer-based method, comprising: storing, by a virtual location management computing system (“observe and evaluate 3D scenes to get a better sense of the surroundings, better spatial understanding of places … location scouting,” para. 95), 360-degree imagery collected at each of a plurality of physical locations in a data store (“a 360-degree image from a video of a scene in a zoo ... a 360-degree image from a video of a scene in a city street,” para. 42) as a data hierarchy, wherein the data hierarchy … organizes the 360-degree imagery for searching and retrieval (“organize content … create folders, links, and access file systems similar to desktop operating systems,” para. 92); storing, by the virtual location management computing system, a set of attributes associated with each of the respective plurality of physical locations in the data store (“pre-generated metadata may be stored and associated with the recorded video. The pre-generated metadata may include basic information about scenes,” para. 71); initiating, by the virtual location management computing system, a multi-user presentation for a plurality of users including at least a presenting user and at least one viewing user (“the user may share the AR media content with one or more other users in the AR environment,” para. 33); providing, by the virtual location management computing system, a virtual reality interface within a head mounted virtual reality device (“an augmented/virtual reality device,” para. 25) of the presenting user that provides access to the data hierarchy, wherein the virtual reality interface permits navigation of the data hierarchy for individual selection of 360-degree imagery (“organize content … create folders, links, and access file systems similar to desktop operating systems,” para. 92; “both current and subsequent users may interact with related metadata to enhance 360-degree videos, either synchronously (co-presence) or asynchronously (co-location),” para. 71); in response to a selection received from the presenting user via the virtual reality interface, providing, by the virtual location management computing system, the selected 360-degree imagery to synchronize visual presentment across each of the plurality of users (“share the AR media content with one or more other users in the AR environment,” para. 33; “both current and subsequent users may interact with related metadata to enhance 360-degree videos, either synchronously (co-presence) or asynchronously (co-location),” para. 71) through a virtual reality interface at a head mounted virtual reality device that is associated with each respective user (“an augmented/virtual reality device,” para. 25); providing, by the virtual location management computing system, a set of attributes for visual presentment as spatial overlays anchored within the selected 360-degree imagery via the virtual reality interface in parallel with the visual presentment of the selected 360-degree imagery (“an annotation may refer to one or more specific objects within content a user is viewing … such annotations may be positioned close to or on the corresponding objects within the AR media content … annotations may be associated with the corresponding objects based on the corresponding objects' properties,” para. 33; “both current and subsequent users may interact with related metadata to enhance 360-degree videos, either synchronously (co-presence) or asynchronously (co-location),” para. 71; see Figs. 3A-3E for illustrative examples of presenting attributes as spatial overlays anchored to imagery).
Bendale does not disclose virtual location management of film and video production locations, storing attributes wherein the set of attributes comprises film production attributes, and wherein the film production attributes comprise logistical information associated with the associated physical location for use in determining suitability for a film production, the presentation being a film location scouting presentation, or while the plurality of users are viewing the synchronized 360-degree imagery through the virtual reality interface, receiving, by the virtual location management computing system, a rating associated with the selected 360-degree imagery from at least one of the plurality of users.
In the same art of virtual location scouting, White teaches virtual location management of film and video production locations (“Location scouting is the business of locating a site for filming, photography, music videos,” para. 5), storing attributes wherein the set of attributes comprises film production attributes (“The organizing and forwarding of collected information by location scouts … may easily assemble all updated content (e.g. location information, images, permit information, etc.),” para. 40), and wherein the film production attributes comprise logistical information associated with the associated physical location for use in determining suitability for a film production (“permit information,” para. 40), the presentation being a film location scouting presentation (“automation of most tasks performed by traditional scouting methods … Designed as a presentation and distribution system,” paras. 13-14), and while the plurality of users are viewing the synchronized 360-degree imagery through the virtual reality interface (“organize and create a virtual screening room,” para. 15), receiving, by the virtual location management computing system, a rating associated with the selected 360-degree imagery from at least one of the plurality of users (“a 360-degree interactive panoramic view of a location,” para. 51; “The capability to use the secondary display screen 82 as a virtual screening and conference room enables all decisions to take place on-line. The application allows the user selection of participants in the virtual conference, the contents that will be presented for screening during the conference, and the ability to vote, add more content, and have dialog between participants--imitating an actual meeting,” para. 47; “All participants may vote for a content or add comments,” para. 52; NOTE: a vote or a positive/negative comment for a location is considered a type of rating for that location).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of White to Bendale. The motivation would have been to “allow for automation of most tasks performed by traditional scouting methods, providing efficient production tools for users” (White, para. 13).
The combination of Bendale and White does not disclose wherein the data hierarchy comprises a hierarchical arrangement of cities, location types within each city, and sub-location types within each location type or selection of a specific sub-location type.
In the same art of location management, Abrahams teaches a data hierarchy of location information, wherein the data hierarchy comprises a hierarchical arrangement of cities, location types within each city, and sub-location types within each location type and selection of a specific sub-location type (“traversing a hierarchically arranged set of topics. In such a case, a domain might be identified by a path ‘United States/New York State/New York City/Restaurants/Asian cuisine/Thai cuisine,’” para. 73).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Abrahams to the combination of Bendale and White. The motivation would have been to allow for efficient and intuitive storage and retrieval of location data, and to eliminate “inefficiencies and constraints” (Abrahams, para. 2).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Bendale, White, and Abrahams renders obvious wherein the set of attributes comprises dimensional information of the associated physical location (“annotations may be associated with the corresponding objects based on the corresponding objects' properties including, for example, shape, size,” Bendale, para. 33).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Bendale, White, and Abrahams renders obvious wherein the dimensional information identifies a dimension of a physical attribute of the physical location using an augmented reality display (“annotations may be positioned close to or on the corresponding objects within the AR media content,” Bendale, para. 33).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, they are rejected using the same citations and rationales described in the rejections of claims 1 and 2, respectively.
Claims 4, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Bendale, White, and Abrahams, and further in view of Spader et al. (US 10,521,865; hereinafter “Spader”).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Bendale, White, and Abrahams does not disclose wherein the physical attribute is any of a doorway, a window, and a ceiling.
In the same art of annotating image content, Spader teaches wherein the physical attribute is any of a doorway, a window, and a ceiling (“Room measurements may be estimated that include ... door and window opening dimensions,” col. 24, lines 30-35; “displaying the 3D image ... with the first plurality of measurements of the object pictured in the 3D image,” col. 19, lines 60-65).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Spader to the combination of Bendale, White, and Abrahams. The motivation would have been to generate a “more accurate estimated sizing” (Spader, col. 8, lines 50-55) and to provide pertinent information to a consumer of the content.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Bendale, White, and Abrahams does not disclose wherein the dimensional information of the set of attributes is collected using laser-aided measurement.
In the same art of annotating image content with dimensional information, Spader teaches wherein the dimensional information of the set of attributes is collected using laser-aided measurement (“measures the physical world using lasers,” col. 24, lines 5-10; “displaying the 3D image ... with the first plurality of measurements of the object pictured in the 3D image,” col. 19, lines 60-65).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Spader to the combination of Bendale, White, and Abrahams. The motivation would have been to generate a “more accurate estimated sizing” (col. 8, lines 50-55).
Regarding claim 11, it is rejected using the same citations and rationales described in the rejection of claim 4, with the additional limitation of rendered as a spatial overlay within the 360-degree imagery (taught by Bendale, Figs. 3A-3E).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Bendale, White, and Abrahams, and further in view of Au et al. (WO 02/10969; hereinafter “Au”).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Bendale, White, and Abrahams does not disclose wherein the logistical information comprises utility information.
In the same art of location scouting, Au teaches wherein the logistical information comprises utility information (“a data management system in which the data managed by the system is … film and television production, pre-production, and post-production data,” pg. 3, lines 25-30; “The locations department starts the breakdown with customary information including: picture of location, price, restrictions, permits required, booked or not booked … after they have seen the location on a technical scout,” pg. 17, lines 25-30; “the electric department might note a restriction on power load after seeing the location … provides easy access to all location information by scene, and thus, reduces the number of unpleasant surprises that occur on the day of shooting,” pg. 18, lines 1-5).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Au to the combination of Bendale, White, and Abrahams. The motivation would have been that it “provides easy access to all location information by scene, and thus, reduces the number of unpleasant surprises that occur on the day of shooting” (Au, pg. 18, lines 1-5).
Claims 13-15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bendale in view of White, and further in view of Abrahams, and further in view of Beall et al. (US 10,403,050; hereinafter “Beall”).
Regarding claim 13, Bendale discloses A multi-user (“the user may share the AR media content with one or more other users,” para. 33) location presentation (“observe and evaluate 3D scenes to get a better sense of the surroundings, better spatial understanding of places … location scouting,” para. 95) system comprising: a server comprising one or more processors and memory (e.g. servers 140 of Fig. 1); a plurality of head mounted virtual reality devices in communication with the server (e.g. AR/VR headset 210 of Fig. 2), wherein each of the plurality of head mounted virtual reality devices is associated with a respective user of a plurality of users, and wherein the plurality of users comprises a presenting user and at least one viewing user (“the user may share the AR media content with one or more other users in the AR environment,” para. 33); wherein the one or more processors are configured to: receive-360 degree imagery captured at each of a plurality of physical locations, wherein the 360-degree imagery is configured to be presented via the plurality of head mounted virtual reality devices as 360 degree virtual reality views of the plurality of physical locations (“a 360-degree image from a video of a scene in a zoo ... a 360-degree image from a video of a scene in a city street,” para. 42); store the set of 360-degree imagery in a data store as a data hierarchy, wherein the data hierarchy … organizes the 360-degree imagery for searching and retrieval (“organize content … create folders, links, and access file systems similar to desktop operating systems,” para. 92) for each physical location selected from the plurality of physical locations received from the head mounted virtual reality device of the presenting user: cause a synchronized 360-degree imagery of the selected physical location to display on the plurality of head mounted virtual reality devices (“share the AR media content with one or more other users in the AR environment,” para. 33; “allow viewers to visit locations like Gotham city, LA River, etc., and see rich information about places,” para. 96; “both current and subsequent users may interact with related metadata to enhance 360-degree videos, either synchronously (co-presence) or asynchronously (co-location),” para. 71).
Bendale does not disclose searching and retrieval of film and video production locations, cause a location input interface to display as a spatial overlay on the plurality of head mounted virtual reality devices with the 360-degree imagery of the selected physical location, wherein the location input interface is configured to receive one or more inputs from the plurality of users and provide those one or more inputs to the processor, wherein the one or more inputs comprise any of a note describing the physical location, a rating of the physical location, and an attribute of the physical location, or wherein the attribute is a film production attribute comprising logistical information for use in determining suitability of the physical location for a film or video production.
In the same art of virtual location scouting, White teaches searching and retrieval of film and video production locations (“Location scouting is the business of locating a site for filming, photography, music videos,” para. 5), cause a location input interface to display with the 360 degree imagery of the selected physical location, wherein the location input interface is configured to receive one or more inputs from the plurality of users and provide those one or more inputs to the processor, wherein the one or more inputs comprise any of a note describing the physical location, a rating of the physical location, and an attribute of the physical location (“a virtual screening and conference room enables all decisions to take place on-line. The application allows … the ability to vote, add more content, and have dialog between participants – imitating an actual meeting,” para. 47; “during the on-line virtual conference … participants may use their icon to vote or add comments, or may select another participant's icon to view that member's comments or keep track of any new added content by a participant,” para. 50) and wherein the attribute is film production attribute (“The organizing and forwarding of collected information by location scouts … may easily assemble all updated content (e.g. location information, images, permit information, etc.),” para. 40) comprising logistical information for use in determining suitability of the physical location for a film or video production (“permit information,” para. 40).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of White to the spatial overlays and the plurality of head mounted virtual reality devices of Bendale. The motivation would have been to “allow for automation of most tasks performed by traditional scouting methods, providing efficient production tools for users” (White, para. 13).
The combination of Bendale and White does not disclose wherein the data hierarchy comprises a hierarchical arrangement of cities, location types within each city, and sub-location types within each location type.
In the same art of location management, Abrahams teaches a data hierarchy of location information, wherein the data hierarchy comprises a hierarchical arrangement of cities, location types within each city, and sub-location types within each location type (“traversing a hierarchically arranged set of topics. In such a case, a domain might be identified by a path ‘United States/New York State/New York City/Restaurants/Asian cuisine/Thai cuisine,’” para. 73).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Abrahams to the combination of Bendale and White. The motivation would have been to allow for efficient and intuitive storage and retrieval of location data, and to eliminate “inefficiencies and constraints” (Abrahams, para. 2).
The combination of Bendale, White, and Abrahams does not specifically describe cause a virtual reality physical location selection control to display within a head mounted virtual reality device of the presenting user, wherein the physical location selection control is configured to allow the presenting user to navigate through the data hierarchy to select a physical location from the plurality of physical locations or selecting locations via the virtual reality selection control.
In the same art of multi-user virtual/augmented reality presentations, Beall teaches cause a virtual reality selection control to display within a head mounted virtual reality device of the presenting user, wherein the virtual reality selection control is configured to allow the presenting user to navigate through the data hierarchy to select a physical location from the plurality of physical locations and selecting locations via the virtual reality selection control (“a VR slide presentation session comprises one or more scenes,” col. 16, lines 20-25; “download … a collection of Virtual Reality scenes/assets and composite them together in the context of a series or other set of slides,” col. 16, lines 50-55; “a 'Jump To' feature causes a user and/or participant to be transported to a new configured location within a virtual world (e.g., to a location within the scene/slide or to a location in another scene/slide),” col. 23, lines 5-10; “a Next Slide action causes a scene associated with the next slide to be displayed (e.g., in a Head Mounted Display of a user and/or participant(s),” col. 23, lines 55-60; “certain controls (e.g., a control on a PPT Wand Controller) advance to slide presentation to the next or previous slide on a displayed virtual screen,” col. 28, lines 40-50).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Beall to the physical locations of the combination of Bendale, White, and Abrahams. The motivation would have been “to provide a high quality, interactive, multi-user, virtual reality, and/or augmented reality experience” (Beall, col. 2, lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Bendale, White, Abrahams, and Beall renders obvious wherein each of the plurality of head mounted virtual reality devices are physically located within the same environment (“The main meeting members may be at same actual space or at different places,” Bendale, para. 98).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Bendale, White, Abrahams, and Beall renders obvious wherein one of the plurality of head mounted virtual reality devices is physically located in a different environment than another of the plurality of head mounted virtual reality devices (“The main meeting members may be at same actual space or at different places,” Bendale, para. 98).
Regarding claim 18, it is rejected using the same citations and rationales described in the rejection of claim 13, with the additional limitations of a presenting user located in a first physical location, a first viewing user located in a second physical location, and a second viewing user in a third physical location, wherein each of the first, second, and third locations are geographically separated (“The main meeting members may be at same actual space or at different places,” Bendale, para. 98).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any 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 Ryan McCulley whose telephone number is (571)270-3754. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 8:00am - 4:30pm.
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 on (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.
/RYAN MCCULLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Prosecution Insights