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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/16/26 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-13, and 16-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nokia (EP 3,467,617) in view of Barcias (US 20210016182)
In claims 1,9, and 16 Nokia discloses
One or more processors, one or more computer readable media having stored thereon computer executable instructions that, when executed with the one or more processor cause the apparatus to (device 200 and processor 210, fig 2 paragraph 52)
receive information pertaining to a first user’s sensitivity to at least one visual artifact; (receive a predicting sickness factor (sensitivity) of a user viewing immersive visual content including flicker (artifact), fig 4, paragraphs 59-60)
determine that the visual artifact is to be presented in a video (as described, the artifact is flicker, as per the abstract, paragraph 61 describes the flicker being reduced, and still determining the sickness risk factor after adjustments, to further lower the flicker)
encode the video for presentation on a first display according to the information pertaining to the first user’s sensitivity to the visual artifact; (graphical settings of a source encoded video are temporarily decremented by the graphic processing module (post-processing) on a display of a user-facing application 770 according to the user facing sickness mitigation policy. Fig. 7, paragraphs 56, 87, 96)
transmit, via a network, the video to be presented on the first display based on the encoding (paragraph 56 discloses transmission of the data, paragraph 50 discloses components being located separately such as via a cloud or within a network)
Nokia fails to disclose that the information is generated with a machine learning model trained using gameplay videos with artifacts and user reactions to the artifacts, however Barcias discloses information is generated with a machine learning model trained using gameplay videos with artifacts and user reactions to the artifacts (paragraphs 56-57). This would teach the invention as disclosed in Nokia using machine learning models similar to Barcias to train and determine the sickness factor taught in Nokia. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Nokia with Barcias in order to allow for automation of the determination of sickness factor.
In claims 2 and 10, Nokia discloses wherein the video comprises at least one computer game. (paragraph 80)
In claims 3 and 11, Nokia discloses encode the video for presentation on a second display according to the information pertaining to a second user’s sensitivity to the visual artifact. (source encoding the video for display of a user facing application 770 on a display according to the user facing sickness mitigation policy, fig.7 paragraphs 56, 87, 96, 105)
In claims 4 and 12, Nokia discloses decode the video for presentation on the first display according to the information pertaining to the first user’s sensitivity to the visual artifact; and decode the video for presentation on the second display according to the information pertaining to the second user’s sensitivity to the visual artifact. (source encoding the video according to user facing sickness mitigation policy inherently requires the user graphical processing module 780 to decode the video for display for the user and other users (second), fig. 7, paragraph 94)
In claims 6 and 19, Nokia discloses post-process the at least one video for presentation on the first display according to the information pertaining to the first user’s sensitivity to the visual artifact; and post-process the video for presentation on the second display according to the information pertaining to the second user’s sensitivity to the visual artifact. (graphical settings of a source encoded video are temporarily decremented by the graphic processing module (post processing) of a display of a user-facing application 770 and other users (second) according to the user facing sickness mitigation policy. Fig. 7 paragraphs 56, 87, 96)
In claims 7 and 13 Nokia discloses the visual artifact comprises flickering or flashing. (the sickness threshold is due to flicker paragraph 61, and includes flashing lights paragraph 77)
In claim 17, Nokia discloses the display is associated with the at least one input device from whence the indication is received (the device 200, video player comprises the display device 240 to display the video received by a communications unit 250. Fig. 2, paragraphs 51-54)
In claims 5, 18, and 20 Nokia discloses the claimed invention except for pre-processing, however since Nokia discloses source encoding the video (paragraph 105) and post processing the video according to the information pertaining to the first user’s sensitivity to the visual artifact (see fig. 7, paragraph 56, 87, 96), and Official notice is taken that pre processing is a well known method, which may be in combination or as an alternative to post processing as part of the processing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Nokia with this well-known technique as it would reach the same result and would be based upon the preference of the operator to optimize the timing of the usage of computer resources to maximize efficiency.
In claim 21, Barcias discloses the machine learning model is trained further using gameplay videos without artifacts and ground truth characterizing the artifacts (barcies paragraphs 56-57 disclose use of gameplay videos both with and without the jump scare. With respect to “ground truth” the BRI of this would be any sort of information that is accurate, and the prior art is providing accurate information to the training model)
In claim 22, Nokia discloses encode the video at a lower bit rate when the information indicates reduces sensitivities to the visual artifact than when the information indicates elevated sensitivities to the visual artifact (graphical settings of a source encoded video are temporarily decremented by the graphic processing module (post-processing) on a display of a user-facing application 770 according to the user facing sickness mitigation policy. Fig. 7, paragraphs 56, 87, 96)
In claim 23, Nokia in view of Barcias discloses the machine learning model is configured to receive gameplay videos of the first user, identify artifacts in the gameplay video, and output an indication of sensitivity of the first user to the artifacts (Nokia teaches an indication of sensitivity of the first user to the artifacts, Barcies teaches user reactions to gameplay video artifacts as per paragraphs 56-57
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amended claim language overcomes the previous art rejection, however a new rejection is made in view of Barcies as set forth above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS HAYNES HENRY whose telephone number is (571)270-3905. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571-270-7625. 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.
/THOMAS H HENRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights