DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Claim Status
Claims 1, 6, 26, and 27 are amended.
Claim 2 is canceled.
Claims 15-25 are withdrawn.
No newly added claims.
Claims 1 and 3-27 are presented for examination.
Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 overcome the prior rejection of claim 3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Prior rejection of claim of claim 3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, reasons are set forth below.
Applicant argues (Remarks page 10-11), that “Regarding Fig. 14, upon which the Examiner relied to allegedly teach the claimed features, Maruyama describes at para. [0182] that"[i]n the example shown in Fig. 14, the background region (the subject region 400) having the lowest display priority is displayed at the rearmost position, and the subject regions 400 to 403 and the comment regions 500 to 502 are superimposed and displayed in a layered structure in a given order. ... This display order is determined as display priorities P." Thus, the "behind/in front" relationship in Fig. 14 of Maruyama is an overlay- ordering outcome on the output image, not evidence that a comment region is an object residing inside a modeled scene……Maruyama does not support the Examiner's interpretation that the comment region 500 is in virtual-space. The specification consistently describes comment regions as display overlays composited onto a video frame under a calculated display-priority scheme-sometimes in front of, sometimes "behind," other frame elements. Fig. 14 of Maruyama therefore illustrates the result of superimposition and layered display governed by priority, not the existence of comment region 500 as an object within a virtual space.
Applicant notes that the only regions in Fig. 14 of Maruyama that could plausibly correspond to objects disposed in a virtual space are the subject regions 401-403. By contrast, the messages are presented within comment regions 500-502-balloon-like display overlays associated with the subjects. While portions of the comment regions 500-502 visually overlap the subject regions 401-403 in Fig. 14 of Maruyama, the messages themselves are not placed within the subject regions; rather, the entirety of each message is contained inside its respective comment region. In Maruyama, messages are rendered in comment-region overlays (500-502) that are merely related to-yet distinct from-the subject regions (401-403).
Accordingly, Maruyama does not disclose, teach, or suggest the claimed feature "wherein, in the second period, an entirety of the post message is displayed in a second display area that corresponds to a part or entirety of a display object disposed in the virtual space," as recited in amended claim 1.”
In response, the examiner respectfully points out that, as it is claimed the limitation, "wherein, in the second period, an entirety of the post message is displayed in a second display area that corresponds to a part or entirety of a display object disposed in the virtual space" is being interpreted that in certain period of time, entire post message (here it is being interpreted as not every messages that were posted in second period but rather a single message) is displayed in second display area that is part or entirety of a display object displayed in the virtual space. 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., Applicant interpretating of “display object disposed in the virtual space” as “modeled scene object”) 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).
Maruyama in par. 0173-0174, fig. 11A and 11B discloses message displayed at different time durations, such as time duration (i.e. second period, period after the previous period for comment region 501) 00:00:20 to 00:00:25 comment region 500 displayed based on display priority. Fig. 14, par. 0182 discloses, comment region 500 (i.e. in the second period) displayed behind the subject region (i.e. behind character object), therefore message displayed is part of the display object 500 is in virtual space that has depth in scene that is behind the character object and not as superimposed over the subject region. Hence, Maruyama meets the claimed limitation.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-4, 8-11, 13, 26, and 27 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 16-19, and 23 of U.S. Patent No. 11190848 in view of Davis et al. (US20190102929), in further view of Maruyama et al. (US 20170223422). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they claim same subject matter or they are obvious variation of claims in US Patent 11190848.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, mapping of claims as follows:
Instant Application No. 18/530,400
U.S. Patent No. 11190848
Claims 1-4, 8-11, 13, 26, and 27 maps to
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 16-19, and 23
Claim 1 of US Patent 11190848 claims inventive steps same as of the inventive steps in claims 1, 26, and 27 of instant application. However, claim 1 of US Patent 11190848 does not claim limitations, “distribute a video containing an animation of a character object and the post message, the animation of the character object being generated based on a motion of an actor so as to move in a virtual space, wherein, in the second period, an entirety of the post message is displayed in a second display area that corresponds to a part or entirety of a display object disposed in the virtual space.”
Davis discloses, video containing an animation of a character object, the animation of the character object being generated based on a motion of an actor so as to move in a virtual space (Par. 0034, fig. 2, the generated animation content may then be transmitted to the viewer, who ultimately sees, in this example, the result of the “actor” subject's movement and voice portrayed as an animated character, on the viewer's display).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to modify the method of Kunigita in view of White, by teachings of video containing an animation of a character object, the animation of the character object being generated based on a motion of an actor so as to move in a virtual space, as taught by Davis, to make content more entertaining by generating animation of characters or actors, as disclosed in Davis, par. 0002.
Claim 1 of US Patent 11190848 in view of Davis does not disclose, wherein, in the second period, an entirety of the post message is displayed in a second display area that corresponds to a part or entirety of a display object disposed in the virtual space.
Maruyama discloses, wherein, in the second period, the post message is displayed in a second display area that corresponds to a part or entirety of display object disposed in the virtual space (Par. 0173-0174, fig. 11A and 11B discloses message displayed at different time durations, such as time duration (i.e. second period, period after the previous period for comment region 501) 00:00:20 to 00:00:25 comment region 500 displayed based on display priority. Fig. 14, par. 0182 discloses, comment region 500 (i.e. in the second period) displayed behind the subject region (i.e. behind character object), therefore message displayed is part of the display object 500 is in virtual space and not as superimposed over the subject region).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Claim 1 of US Patent 11190848 in view of Davis with the teachings of in the second period, the post message is displayed in a second display area that corresponds to a part or entirety of display object disposed in the virtual space, as taught by Maruyama, to prevent occlusion of subject that user wants to see or read that is important to user, as disclosed in Davis Maruyama, par. 0018-0019.
Claims 1, 26, and 27 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12137274 in view of Davis et al. (US20190102929), in further view of Maruyama et al. (US 20170223422). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they claim same subject matter or they are obvious variation of claims in US Patent 12137274.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, mapping of claims as follows:
Instant Application No. 18/530,400
U.S. Patent No. 12137274
Claims 1, 26, and 27 maps to
Claim 1
Claim 1 of US Patent 12137274 claims inventive steps same as of the inventive steps in claims 1, 26, and 27 of instant application. However, claim 1 of US Patent 12137274 does not claim limitations, “distribute a video containing an animation of a character object and the post message, the animation of the character object being generated based on a motion of an actor so as to move in a virtual space, wherein, in the second period, an entirety of the post message is displayed in a second display area that corresponds to a part or entirety of a display object disposed in the virtual space.”
Davis discloses, video containing an animation of a character object, the animation of the character object being generated based on a motion of an actor so as to move in a virtual space (Par. 0034, fig. 2, the generated animation content may then be transmitted to the viewer, who ultimately sees, in this example, the result of the “actor” subject's movement and voice portrayed as an animated character, on the viewer's display).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to modify the method of Kunigita in view of White, by teachings of video containing an animation of a character object, the animation of the character object being generated based on a motion of an actor so as to move in a virtual space, as taught by Davis, to make content more entertaining by generating animation of characters or actors, as disclosed in Davis, par. 0002.
Claim 1 of US Patent 12137274 in view of Davis does not disclose, wherein, in the second period, an entirety of the post message is displayed in a second display area that corresponds to a part or entirety of a display object disposed in the virtual space.
Maruyama discloses, wherein, in the second period, the post message is displayed in a second display area that corresponds to a part or entirety of display object disposed in the virtual space (Par. 0173-0174, fig. 11A and 11B discloses message displayed at different time durations, such as time duration (i.e. second period, period after the previous period for comment region 501) 00:00:20 to 00:00:25 comment region 500 displayed based on display priority. Fig. 14, par. 0182 discloses, comment region 500 (i.e. in the second period) displayed behind the subject region (i.e. behind character object), therefore message displayed is part of the display object 500 is in virtual space and not as superimposed over the subject region).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Claim 1 of US Patent 11190848 in view of Davis with the teachings of in the second period, the post message is displayed in a second display area that corresponds to a part or entirety of display object disposed in the virtual space, as taught by Maruyama, to prevent occlusion of subject that user wants to see or read that is important to user, as disclosed in Davis Maruyama, par. 0018-0019.
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 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.
Claims 1, 3-12, 26 and 27 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kunigita et al (US 20120189272), in view of White (US 20140013200), in further view of Davis et al. (US20190102929), in further view of Maruyama et al. (US 20170223422).
Regarding claim 1, Kunigita discloses, a video distribution system (Par. 0024, The content distribution server 16 is operated by a video distributing company), comprising:
one or more computer processors (Par. 0051),
wherein the one or more computer processors execute computer-readable instructions (Par. 0051) to:
distribute a video containing a character object and the post message (Par. 0024, the content distribution server 16 is operated by a video distributing company or the like and provides the host device 10 and the client devices 18 with content data. Par. .0041, chat window 24 is preferably not superimposed on an image in which a specific actor appears. On the other hand even for an identical content data, it is not a problem in some cases that the text chat window 24 is superimposed on a content image if the specific actor does not appear in the image, i.e., video containing character objects),
wherein the post message is displayed in different manners in a first period and a second period, the second period being different from the first period (Par. 0041, display instruction information of type 1 can also be viewed as information defining the entire area of the display as the area for displaying a communication tool. Described above is an example in relation with an actor A. For example, in the display instruction information of type 2, if an area that does not superpose on the actor A is specified as an displayable area of the text chat window 24, the content distributor can select the display instruction information of type 2 even for a scene in which the actor A appears, i.e. when in a scene period (i.e. first period) where actor A does not appear, display chat window to any area of screen, and in a scene period, when actor A appears (i.e. second period), specify chat window to be appeared in specific displayable area), and
wherein in the first period, the post message is displayed in a first display area that is not an object included in the virtual space (Par. 0044, 5A, the text chat window 24 is displayed over the entire area of the display. In case of being displayed over the entire area, the text chat window 24 is a translucent window and thus in practice, only text input as chat is displayed while overlapping on a content image, i.e. chat window is overlapped on the content = chat displayed in area that is not part of an object included in the virtual space).
Kunigita does not disclose, a storage storing a post message posted by a user,
video containing an animation of a character object, the animation of the character object being generated based on a motion of an actor so as to move in a virtual space; and
wherein, in the second period, an entirety of the post message is displayed in a second display area that corresponds to a part or entirety of a display object disposed in the virtual space.
White discloses, a storage storing a post message posted by a user (par. 0013, database stores comment (i.e. message) feed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Kunigita, by teachings of storage storing a post message posted by a user, as taught by White, to organize message feed that can be linked to various portions of the video content, as disclosed in White, par. 0013.
Kunigita in view of White does not disclose, video containing an animation of a character object, the animation of the character object being generated based on a motion of an actor so as to move in a virtual space; and
wherein, in the second period, an entirety of the post message is displayed in a second display area that corresponds to a part or entirety of a display object disposed in the virtual space.
Davis discloses, video containing an animation of a character object, the animation of the character object being generated based on a motion of an actor so as to move in a virtual space (Par. 0034, fig. 2, the generated animation content may then be transmitted to the viewer, who ultimately sees, in this example, the result of the “actor” subject's movement and voice portrayed as an animated character, on the viewer's display).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Kunigita in view of White, by teachings of video containing an animation of a character object, the animation of the character object being generated based on a motion of an actor so as to move in a virtual space, as taught by Davis, to make content more entertaining by generating animation of characters or actors, as disclosed in Davis, par. 0002.
Kunigita in view of White in further view of David does not disclose, wherein, in the second period, an entirety of the post message is displayed in a second display area that corresponds to a part or entirety of a display object disposed in the virtual space.
Maruyama discloses, wherein, in the second period, the post message is displayed in a second display area that corresponds to a part or entirety of display object disposed in the virtual space (Par. 0173-0174, fig. 11A and 11B discloses message displayed at different time durations, such as time duration (i.e. second period, period after the previous period for comment region 501) 00:00:20 to 00:00:25 comment region 500 displayed based on display priority. Fig. 14, par. 0182 discloses, comment region 500 (i.e. in the second period) displayed behind the subject region (i.e. behind character object), therefore message displayed is part of the display object 500 is in virtual space and not as superimposed over the subject region).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Kunigita in view of White in further view of Davis, by teachings of in the second period, the post message is displayed in a second display area that corresponds to a part or entirety of display object disposed in the virtual space, as taught by Maruyama, to prevent occlusion of subject that user wants to see or read that is important to user, as disclosed in Davis Maruyama, par. 0018-0019.
Regarding claim 3, the video distribution system of claim 1,
Kunigita in view of White in further view of Davis in further view Maruyama further discloses, wherein the display object is displayed behind the character object in the video (Maruyama Par. 0182, fig. 14, when the subject region 401 and the subject region 402 are the regions that a user wants to see without occlusion, it is possible to realize comment display in which these regions are not occluded by providing display priorities P higher than those of the other regions as the simplest manner, i.e. display object 500, 501 displayed behind character object 401 and 402).
Regarding claim 4, The video distribution system of claim 1,
Kunigita further discloses, wherein in the first period, the post message is superimposed on the video (Par. 0044, 5A, the text chat window 24 is displayed over the entire area of the display. In case of being displayed over the entire area, the text chat window 24 is a translucent window and thus in practice, only text input as chat is displayed while overlapping on a content image, i.e. chat window is overlapped on the content).
Regarding claim 5, The video distribution system of claim 1,
Kunigita further discloses, wherein the second period is a distribution period for the character object to perform (Par. 0041, the text chat window 24 is preferably not superimposed on an image in which a specific actor appears, i.e. period when actor appears = period when actor is performing).
Regarding claim 6, The video distribution system of claim 1,
Kunigita further discloses, wherein a shift occurs from the first period to the second period in response to an instruction from the actor or a supporter supporting distribution of the video, the instruction being received during distribution of the video (Par. 0037, content creator or content distributor specifies area for displaying the chat window, the information processing system 1 provides an environment for answering the request from content creators or content distributors and for executing a communication tool appropriately. Par. 0087, instruction from creators to execute communication tools (i.e. chat windows) while commercial is playing and while movie is playing. Par. 0041-0042, instructions to display chat window during different time period in different manner).
Regarding claim 7, The video distribution system of claim 1,
Kunigita does not disclose, wherein the post message includes a first post message and a second post message, the first post message being posted by a first user belonging to a first user group, the second post message being posted by a second user belonging to a second user group.
White discloses, wherein the post message includes a first post message and a second post message, the first post message being posted by a first user belonging to a first user group, the second post message being posted by a second user belonging to a second user group (Par. 0066 comments from different member types (user groups). Par. 0011, 0071-0072, 0086 higher-priority comments (comments from users of a second group) are displayed in a second area, where the lower-priority comments (from users of a first group) are moved away from the second area, thus are not displayed in the second area).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Kunigita in view of Davis, by teachings of the post message includes a first post message and a second post message, the first post message being posted by a first user belonging to a first user group, the second post message being posted by a second user belonging to a second user group, as taught by White, to provide priority to displayed message based on type of the user who posted it, as disclosed in White, par. 0066.
Regarding claim 8, The video distribution system of claim 7,
Kunigita further discloses, wherein the first post message is displayed so as to overlap the character object (Par. 0044, 5A, the text chat window 24 is displayed over the entire area of the display. In case of being displayed over the entire area, the text chat window 24 is a translucent window and thus in practice, only text input as chat is displayed while overlapping on a content image, i.e. chat window is overlapped on the content = chat displayed in area overlaps the video with actors).
Regarding claim 9, The video distribution system of claim 7,
Kunigita in view of White in further view of Davis further discloses, wherein the first post message is displayed so as to move in a first direction (White Par. 0086 when a higher-priority comment is placed at the top-most position, existing comments (first post messages) are moved down).
Regarding claim 10, The video distribution system of claim 7,
Kunigita in view of White in further view of Davis further discloses, wherein the second post message is displayed so as to move in a second direction in the second display area (Par. 0055, 0070 second post messages are moved up after their display duration expires).
Regarding claim 11, The video distribution system of claim 10,
Kunigita in view of White in further view of Davis further discloses, wherein a moving speed of the second post message is slower than a moving speed of the first post message (Par. 0070, second user group comments are displayed for a longer duration, thus their moving speed is slower than that of the ordinary viewers).
Regarding claim 12, The video distribution system of claim 10,
Kunigita in view of White in further view of Davis further discloses, wherein a time period during which the second post message is displayed in the second display area is longer than a time period during which the first post message is displayed in the first display area (Par. 0070, second user group comments are displayed for a longer duration).
Regarding claim 26, Kunigita in view of White in further view of Davis in further view of Maruyama meets claim limitation as set forth in claim 1, respectively, Kunigita further discloses, a system for processing multi-media content for a user device independent of the user device location (Par. 0051).
Regarding claim 27, Kunigita in view of White in further view of Davis in further view of Maruyama meets claim limitation as set forth in claim 1, respectively, Kunigita further discloses, a system for processing multi-media content for a user device independent of the user device location (Par. 0051).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for objected the claim to be allowed:
The examiner has found that the prior arts of records does not appear to teach or suggest or render obvious the claimed limitations in combination with the specific added limitations as recited in dependent claims.
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 AKSHAY DOSHI whose telephone number is (571)272-2736. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM to 6:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JOHN W MILLER can be reached at (571)272-7353. 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.
/A.D./ Examiner, Art Unit 2422
/JOHN W MILLER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2422