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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 14-16, 19, 21, 23-29, 31-34, 43, 57, 60, 61, 64, 65, 67, 70-72, 76, 78-80, 82-85, and 94 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. 20160306390 to Vertegaal et al (Vertegaal) in view of US Pub. 20190028691 to Hinds et al (Hinds).
Claims 1 and 57. Vertegaal discloses a gaming system comprising:
a gaming application configured to produce holographic video game data for a light field game experience during execution of the gaming application (Fig. 4, and ¶¶48 and 50);
a light field (LF) display assembly configured to present holographic content (¶50); and
a processing engine (¶¶10-13 “processor”) configured to:
receive the holographic video game data; and
generate display instructions for the light field display assembly to present the holographic video game data as holographic content using the LF display assembly, the holographic content representing a scene within the light field game experience (¶¶48 and 50).
However, Vertegaal fails to explicitly disclose:
a light field processing engine;
(as required by claim 57) a network interface configured to:
(as required by claim 57) transmit the plurality of inputs to a gaming server via a network connection, and
receive holographic video game content (as required by claim 57) comprising a plurality of display instructions for presenting the holographic video game content of the light field game experience via the network connection.
Hinds teaches a light field processing engine (Fig. 6, 614, and ¶69);
a network interface configured to:
(as required by claim 57) transmit the plurality of inputs to a gaming server via a network connection (¶¶10 and 121), and
a plurality of display instructions for presenting the holographic video game content of the light field game experience via the network connection (¶¶69, 72, and 83). The system of Vertegaal would have motivation to use the teachings of Hinds in order to provide infrastructure for various users to participate in the same game while at different locations which would encourage a wide range of people to participate in gameplay.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Vertegaal with the teachings of Hinds in order to provide infrastructure for various users to participate in the same game while at different locations.
Claims 4 and 60. Vertegaal in view of Hinds teaches wherein:
the LF processing engine is further configured to determine a geometric orientation of the LF display assembly; and
the LF processing engine is further configured to generate holographic content representing the scene based on the geometric orientation geometric orientation of the LF display system,
(as required by claim 60) the gaming system is further configured to access a geometric orientation of the LF display assembly, and
the network interface is further configured to transmit the geometric configuration of the LF display assembly to the gaming server, and the received holographic content representing the scene is configured for presentation using an LF display assembly having the geometric orientation (see Hinds ¶¶87-89).
Claims 5 and 61. Vertegaal in view of Hinds teaches wherein the geometric orientation includes any of:
a number of display panels of the LF display assembly,
a relative orientation of the display panels,
a height of the display panels,
a width of the display panels, and
a layout of the display panels (see Hinds ¶¶87-89).
Claims 8 and 64. Vertegaal in view of Hinds teaches wherein the holographic video game data for the LF game experience comprises any of: geometry, textures, lighting properties, and material properties corresponding to a scene in the LF game experience (see Hinds ¶¶87-89).
Claims 9 and 65. Vertegaal in view of Hinds teaches wherein the holographic video game data for the LF game experience is rendered as any of:
one or more viewpoints within the scene of the light field game experience,
a light field representing the light field game experience,
a deep image comprising multiple red, green, blue, and alpha samples,
a reflectance determined by a function of illumination geometry and viewing geometry for one or more surfaces in the light field game experience (see Hinds ¶¶99-101).
Claims 11 and 67. Vertegaal in view of Hinds teaches wherein the holographic video game data is rendered as one or more viewpoints within a scene of the light field game experience and at least some of the viewpoints are rendered at lower resolution than other viewpoints (see Hinds ¶13).
Claims 14 and 70. Vertegaal in view of Hinds teaches further comprising:
an encoder to encode the holographic video game data to encoded video game data (see Hinds ¶71 “real-time encoding unit”); and
a decoder configured to decode encoded holographic video game data when generating the display instructions for the light field display assembly (see Hinds ¶59 “3D content decoding element”).
Claims 15 and 71. Vertegaal in view of Hinds teaches wherein the encoded holographic video game data is in a first format (see Hinds ¶137 “vectorized format”) and the decoded holographic video game data is a second format (see Hinds ¶96 “raster-based representations”).
Claims 16 and 72. Vertegaal in view of Hinds teaches wherein the first format is a vectorized data format (see Hinds ¶137 “vectorized format”) and the second format is a rasterized data format (see Hinds ¶96 “raster-based representations”).
Claim 19. Vertegaal in view of Hinds teaches further comprising:
a network interface configured to receive global game information from a gaming server via a network connection, and wherein the gaming application is further configured to produce holographic video game data using the global game data received from the server (see Hinds ¶121 “multiple participants being represented by their 3D avatars, and participating in a virtual game in a 3D game space).
Claims 21 and 76. Vertegaal in view of Hinds teaches wherein the gaming server is located at a different location as the gaming system (see Hinds ¶50 in this case, the server is located at service provider location).
Claims 23 and 78. Vertegaal in view of Hinds teaches wherein a gaming server administers the light field game experience via a network connection (see Hinds Fig. 6 and ¶69).
Claims 24 and 79. Vertegaal in view of Hinds teaches wherein administering the light field game experience comprises any of:
collecting inputs from all the clients, collecting timestamps from the clients, keeping the world state of the game synchronized between players, making sure all player clients are playing by the rules, verifying and enforcing player movement, or sending regular snapshots of the world state of the game to all clients (see Hinds ¶121).
Claim 25. Vertegaal in view of Hinds teaches further comprising:
a network interface configured to transmit data of the light field game experience to a gaming server via a network connection (see Hinds Fig. 6 and ¶69).
Claim 26. Vertegaal discloses wherein the data of the light field game experience includes any of:
a position of a player, a timestamp, an action of player, or a status of an object in the light field game experience (¶51).
Claim 27. Vertegaal in view of Hinds teaches further comprising:
a network interface configured to receive at least some portion of the holographic video game data from a gaming server via a network connection (see Hinds Fig. 6 and ¶69).
Claim 28. Vertegaal in view of Hinds teaches wherein the holographic video game content received from the server is in a first data format, and the gaming system further comprises:
a decoder configured to decode the holographic video game content in the first data format to a second data format, the second data format configured for generating display instructions for a LF display assembly (see Hinds ¶59 “3D content decoding element”).
Claims 29 and 80. Vertegaal in view of Hinds teaches wherein the gaming application is configured to operate in a spectator mode where the gaming application generates video game data for viewing the light field game experience from a spectator viewpoint within the scene (see Vertegaal ¶53 “another viewer”).
Claims 31 and 82. Vertegaal in view of Hinds teaches wherein the gaming application transmits the holographic video game data to one or more additional LF display assemblies via a network connection (see Hinds ¶83).
Claims 32 and 83. Vertegaal in view of Hinds teaches, wherein the one or more additional LF display assemblies are at a different location than the LF display assembly (see Hinds ¶83)
Claims 33 and 84. Vertegaal in view of Hinds teaches wherein the one or more additional LF display assemblies are located at a home, a theater, a bar, an arena, or a stadium (see Hinds ¶83).
Claims 34 and 85. Vertegaal in view of Hinds teaches wherein the gaming system is located at a home, a theater, a bar, an arena, or a stadium (see Hinds ¶83).
Claims 43 and 94. Vertegaal in view of Hinds teaches wherein the LF display assembly is configured to present acoustic content, and the LF processing engine is further configured to:
receive the holographic video game data; and
generate audio instructions for the light field display assembly to present the holographic video game data as auditory content within the scene of the light field game experience (see Hinds ¶¶80 and 84 “audio elements).
Claims 10, 13, 20, 66, 69, and 75 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. 20160306390 to Vertegaal et al (Vertegaal) in view of US Pub. 20190028691 to Hinds et al (Hinds) as applied to claims 1 and 57 above, and further in view of US Pub. 20110128555 to Rothschild et al (Rotschild).
Claims 10 and 66. Vertegaal in view of Hinds and Rotschild teaches wherein the holographic video game data for the light field game experience is rendered as one or more viewpoints within the scene of the light field game experience and a first viewpoint of the one or more viewpoints corresponds to a center view having a larger resolution than the other viewpoints (see Hinds ¶13 “various HDR formats and optional support of WCG, displays 528, 530 my support various resolutions”; and see Rotschild ¶556 “different perspectives”). The system of Vertegaal in view of Hinds would have motivation to use the teachings of Rotschild in order to expand the capabilities of the light field computing system in doing so would make the system more fun and exciting to use.
Claims 13 and 69. Vertegaal in view of Hinds and Rotschild teaches wherein the holographic video game data is rendered as one or more volumetric (see Hinds ¶¶68 and 87) tactile surfaces (see Rotschild ¶17 “touches a certain protion of the hologram”), the holographic video game data describing the volumetric tactile surfaces as a sound field comprising one or more amplitudes for a sound wave generated at one or more coordinates (see Rotschild ¶38 “projecting a beam of sound, for example, ultrasound, modulated to cause sendsation”). The system of Vertegaal in view of Hinds would have motivation to use the teachings of Rotschild in order to expand the capabilities of the light field computing system in doing so would make the system more fun and exciting to use.
Claims 20 and 75. Vertegaal in view of Hinds and Rotschild teaches wherein the gaming server is located at a same location as the gaming system (see Rotschild Fig. 15, and ¶¶629-631, in this case the server is located at a gaming establishment enabling multiple players).
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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-16, 19-28, 31-35, 38-42, 44-50, 54-72, 75-79, 82-86, 89-93, 95-101, and 105-107 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-57 of U.S. Patent No. 11938398. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application recite the same limitations as the patented case; also, the instant application is generic to the patented case.
Claim 1. US Pat. 11938398 recites a gaming system comprising:
a gaming application configured to produce holographic video game data for a light field game experience during execution of the gaming application (see patented case claims 1, 40, 41, 44, 48, and 51);
a light field (LF) display assembly configured to present holographic content (see patented case claims 1, 40, 41, 44, 48, and 51); and
a light field processing engine (see patented case claims 1, 40, 41, 44, 48, and 51) configured to:
receive the holographic video game data (see patented case claims 1, 40, 41, 44, 48, and 51); and
generate display instructions for the light field display assembly to present the holographic video game data as holographic content using the LF display assembly, the holographic content representing a scene within the light field game experience (see patented case claims 1, 40, 41, 44, 48, and 51).
Claim 57. US Pat. 11938398 recites a gaming system comprising:
a gaming application configured to generate a plurality of inputs for a light field game experience during execution of the gaming application (see patented case claims 30, 54, 55, 56, and 57);
a network interface (see patented case claims 30, 54, 55, 56, and 57) configured to:
transmit the plurality of inputs to a gaming server via a network connection (see patented case claims 30, 54, 55, 56, and 57), and
receive holographic video game content comprising a plurality of display instructions for presenting the holographic video game content of the light field game experience via the network connection (see patented case claims 30, 54, 55, 56, and 57); and
a light field (LF) display assembly configured to input the display instructions and present the holographic video game content as a scene within the light field gaming experience (see patented case claims 30, 54, 55, 56, and 57).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 12, 17, 18, 22, 30, 35-42, 44-56, 58, 59, 62, 63, 68, 73, 74, 77, 81, 86-93, and 95-107 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAMON J PIERCE whose telephone number is (571)270-1997. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at 571-270-1344. 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.
/DAMON J PIERCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715