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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claims have been amended to recite that authentication information is assigned or not assigned on a per-frame basis depending on whether the positions of the plurality of the 3D models for the frame correspond to permissible positions. Applicant’s remarks do not identify support for these limitations as recited, instead referring to original claims and the specification as a whole. Applicant’s disclosure only contemplates assigning the authentication information to the virtual viewpoint image generated based on the plurality of frames, not to the frames themselves. That is, as described in paragraphs 87-93 of the specification, the authentication condition is determined to be satisfied or not satisfied as indicated by the evaluation result being set to 0 or 1, indicating that there is or is not a piece of material data not satisfying the authentication condition. As further described in paragraphs 101-108, the authentication information is only assigned to the virtual viewpoint image when the virtual viewpoint image contains only frames which satisfy the authentication condition, i.e. as in the example of paragraph 101, a virtual viewpoint image of frames 0-149 may have the authentication information assigned, but as “described above, the editing history of each piece of material data is referred to, and if there is even one piece of material data not satisfying the authentication condition, the data evaluation unit 111 determines that it is not possible to assign the authentication information”, referring to the description of paragraphs 87-93 wherein the authentication information is assigned to the virtual viewpoint image as a whole, not the individual frames. The disclosure does not contemplate or describe assigning authentication information to individual frames, and instead only evaluates individual frames to determine whether the authentication condition is or is not met for every piece of material data use to generate a virtual viewpoint image. Therefore the independent claims are rejected due to reciting subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Depending claims do not clarify this issue and are rejected under the same rationale.
Depending claim 5 has been amended to recite that the authentication information designates an access right for viewing each frame, but as with the discussion of the independent claim amendment above, the disclosure does not contemplate individual frame access rights being assigned using the authentication information. That is, there is no disclosure describing authentication information assigned on a per-frame basis being used to control access to the frame because there is not disclosure regarding authentication information being assigned on a per-frame basis. Therefore, claim 5 is rejected as reciting subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As discussed in the 112(a) rejections above, the independent claims have been amended to recite that authentication information is assigned or not assigned on a per-frame basis depending on whether the positions of the plurality of the 3D models for the frame correspond to permissible positions, and Applicant’s disclosure only contemplates assigning the authentication information to the virtual viewpoint image generated based on the plurality of frames, not to the frames themselves. Further, the authentication information in Applicant’s amended independent claim is indefinite, i.e. Applicant’s disclosure, e.g. figure 4, paragraphs 64-67, only describes authentication information assigned to a virtual viewpoint image, and does not define authentication information assigned on a per-frame basis, leaving the scope of the claimed “assigning authentication information to a frame” undefined, i.e. there is no description, and there is no relationship recited between the assigned authentication information and the virtual viewpoint image, such that the effect of assigning the authentication information is unclear. Further, the limitation is redundant with the determining step, i.e. the result of the determining step is equivalent to the claimed assigning of authentication information, in that a positive or negative determination amounts to assignment of information depending on whether the authentication condition is or is not satisfied for every 3D model’s position in the frame. Therefore the independent claims are indefinite. Depending claims do not clarify this issue and are rejected under the same rationale.
For purposes of applying prior art, the claim will be interpreted as reciting non-assignment or assignment of the authentication information to the virtual viewpoint image depending on whether there is or is not a frame within the plurality of frames for which there is a 3D model position not satisfying the condition, i.e. “assign authentication information to the virtual viewpoint image being generated based on the plurality of 3D models corresponding to the plurality of frames if for every [a] frame, among the plurality of frames, every frame being generated based on the plurality of 3D models corresponding to the frame, and not assign the authentication information to the virtual viewpoint image being generated based on the plurality of 3D models corresponding to the plurality of frames if there is a frame, among the plurality of frames, for which it is determined that a position of at least one of the plurality of 3D models corresponding to the frame does not correspond to the predetermined permissible position”.
Depending claim 5 has been amended to be consistent with the independent claim amendment, and as with the above discussion regarding the independent claims, the scope of the claimed authentication information/access rights being assigned on a per-frame basis is not disclosed or described, leaving the scope of claim 5 indefinite, i.e. it is not definite how a virtual viewpoint image with varying per-frame access rights for viewing would control access to frames with and without authentication information assigned.
For purposes of applying prior art, claim 5 will be treated as reciting the previously recited limitation, i.e. "an access right for viewing the virtual viewpoint image
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, 5-7, and 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0374503 A1 (hereinafter Goldston) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0169713 A1 (hereinafter Umemura) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0300966 A1 (hereinafter Andon) in view of U.S. Patent Application 2018/0218753 A1 (hereinafter Hodge).
Regarding claim 1, the limitations “An information processing apparatus comprising: one or more memories storing instructions; and one or more processors executing the instructions to: … specify … a plurality of [visual media] to be used for generating [an] image, … and assign authentication information to [the image generated] based on the plurality of [visual media if a predetermined condition is satisfied]” are taught by Goldston (Goldston, e.g. abstract, paragraphs 55-276, discloses a collaborative multimedia content management system, allowing one or more creators to collaborate on a multimedia project such as an image, song, or video, e.g. paragraphs 55, 63, 116, 117, 154-158, wherein the content item may be stored in a container file comprising a plurality of separate components, including visual media such as artwork and video, used to generate the item, e.g. paragraphs 55, 58, 63, 121, which are collectively stored, accessed, and authenticated using an NFT container, e.g. paragraphs 55, 58-60, 66-68, 74, 132, 154-158, 163-168. Further, Goldston, e.g. paragraphs 57, 59, 60, 66, 68, 74, 132, 149, 158, 165-168, 191, 193, teaches that the system allows users to modify/change the content item and/or components thereof, thereby updating the authenticated NFT container to include the changed item/components, where the system only allows the update when the user has appropriate permissions or has an update request approved by other user(s) having the appropriate permissions, i.e. an updated content item and updated components used to generate the updated content item are assigned authentication information only if the predetermined condition(s) of appropriate permissions is satisfied. Finally, Goldston, e.g. paragraphs 270-276, indicates that the system is implemented using processor(s) executing instructions stored in memory, and with respect to claim 16, the memory may be non-transitory.)
The limitations “specify … editing histories of a plurality of [visual media] to be used for generating [an] image, the editing histories indicating editing details regarding [the visual media]; determine … based on the editing histories, whether each [visual media satisfies a predetermined condition] and assign authentication information to … [the image generated] based on the plurality of [visual media if each visual media satisfies the predetermined condition]” are taught by Goldston (Goldston, e.g. paragraphs 150, 169, teaches that each of the separate components used to generate the content item are associated with activity logs indicating previous changes made to the respective components, i.e. the claimed editing histories indicating editing details of a plurality of pieces of material data to be used for generating the image. Further, Goldston, e.g. paragraphs 59, 60, 132, 165-168, 191, 193, indicates that a request to update the content item NFT container is prohibited and/or may not be approved when the user does not have permission to modify the content item/components, and/or other user(s) having the appropriate permissions disapprove the request, where, e.g. paragraphs 59, 74, 137, 138, 154-158, the permissions may be set by the original creator(s) of the content item/components, i.e. as claimed, the authentication information is only assigned if the predetermined conditions(s) of user permissions to edit the content item/components is met, wherein the editing of each content item/components is indicated by the editing details in the editing history, e.g. as in figures 18-19, i.e. the predetermined condition(s) of user permissions to edit the content item/components is met when the request to update the content item/components includes an editing history with editing details indicating that the user did not edit any components they did not have permission to edit. In contrast, if a user requested to update an NFT container with a modified content item generated with a modified component, where the user did not have permission to modify the component and the update request was denied by the other user(s) with appropriate permissions, then the NFT container would not be updated with the modified content item/component, i.e. the claimed authentication information would not be assigned to the modified content item because the editing details of the editing history of the modified component would not satisfy the predetermined condition of the user having been granted permission to edit the component, i.e. at least one editing detail in the editing history of a component does not satisfy the predetermined condition indicating editing details for which editing of the piece of material data is permitted. It is additionally noted that this corresponds to the further limitations of depending claim 3, i.e. the permissions/predetermined condition are set by the creator(s) of the content item and its components.)
The limitations “acquire information indicating a plurality of frames that are targets for generation of a virtual viewpoint image; specify, for each of the plurality of frames, editing histories of a plurality of 3D models corresponding to the frame and to be used for generating the virtual viewpoint image, the editing histories indicating editing details regarding … the plurality of 3D models; … and assign authentication information to the [virtual viewpoint image] generated based on the plurality of 3D models [if each of the plurality of 3D models satisfies the predetermined condition]” are not explicitly taught by Goldston (While Goldston, e.g. paragraphs 55, 63, indicates that any type of multimedia content, and component files used to generate the content, are supported by the system, i.e. the content items may be images or videos, Goldston does not address the content item being a virtual viewpoint image comprising a plurality of frames generated from a plurality of components including a plurality of 3D models corresponding to each frame.) However, this limitation is taught by Umemura (Umemura, e.g. abstract, paragraphs 20-122, describes a system for generating virtual viewpoint images and videos from video data acquired from a plurality of cameras recording one or more events. Umemura, e.g. paragraphs 22-24, describes exemplary arrangement of cameras with respect to an athletic field, where the video data is stored for later use in generating the virtual viewpoint images, e.g. paragraph 27, and the virtual viewpoint images/videos are generated by constructing 3D models of foreground objects and the background from the stored videos, e.g. paragraphs 28, 29, 33, 44, 52, and rendering virtual viewpoint images according to the viewpoint position and arrangement of object models specified by the user for each frame of the plurality of frames of the video(s), e.g. paragraphs 30-33, 43, 45, 47-49, 58-60, 62-66, 74-86. As discussed by Umemura, e.g. paragraphs 47-50, one of the advantages of the disclosed system is generating virtual viewpoint images/videos allowing for visual comparison of two or more players’ performance from one or more recorded events, including selectively adjusting their relative positioning, i.e. placing the two players in adjacent lanes.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Goldston’s collaborative multimedia content management system to support Umemura’s virtual viewpoint image generation system as one of the types of content items because Goldston’s indicates that any type of multimedia content, and component files used to generate the content, are supported by the system. It is noted that this does not necessarily constitute a modification, per se, of Goldston’s system, i.e. in the combined system Goldston’s system would operate as described, where the disclosed creator user(s) could choose to use Goldston’s authenticated NFT container files to control access to/modification of a generated virtual viewpoint image corresponding to Goldston’s content item, where the authenticated NFT container files would additionally include the components used to generate the virtual viewpoint image, i.e. Umemura’s recorded videos from the plurality of cameras at the one or more events, as well as the 3D models of foreground objects and the background, for each of the plurality of frames of the video(s).
The limitations “the editing histories indicating editing details regarding positions of the plurality of 3D models; determine, … based on the editing histories, whether each of the positions of the plurality of 3D models … corresponds to a predetermined permissible position at which each of the plurality of 3D models is permitted to be arranged in a virtual space; and assign authentication information to [the virtual viewpoint image] generated based on the plurality of 3D models [if each position of the plurality of 3D models corresponds to the predetermined permissible position” are implicitly taught by Goldston in view of Umemura (Umemura, e.g. paragraphs 33, 38-51, 72-87, 99, 100, 110, teaches that the virtual viewpoint image includes rendering foreground player object models at a virtual viewpoint position based on the relative position between the recorded player object model and the recorded background model, where the virtual viewpoint position may be used to render the foreground player object model at the appropriate relative position in a different background model, i.e. in a same relative lane number but a different recorded track environment as in paragraphs 72-87, and/or render the foreground player object model in an adjusted lane. That is, Umemura teaches that the 3D foreground player object models are restricted to positions in the virtual space that are within the lanes of the 3D background model, corresponding to the claimed predetermined permissible position that each of the plurality of 3D models is permitted to be arranged in a virtual space. Further, as discussed above, Goldston, e.g. paragraphs 59, 60, 132, 165-168, 191, 193, indicates that a request to update the content item NFT container is prohibited and/or may not be approved when the user does not have permission to modify the content item/components, and/or other user(s) having the appropriate permissions disapprove the request, i.e. in addition to requiring the user requesting to update the virtual viewpoint image NFT container have permission to modify the player object positions, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it implicit in view of Umemura’s disclosure that the user would be restricted to selecting player object positions relative to the 3D background model that are located within one of the lanes, corresponding to the claimed assigning authentication information to the virtual viewpoint image if each of the 3D model’s positions correspond to predetermined permissible positions. In the interest of compact prosecution, Andon is cited for teaching what one of ordinary skill in the art would have found implicitly taught by Goldston in view of Umemura, i.e. that the creator of an NFT authenticated 3D model component may specify a predetermined set of permissible positions for combining the 3D model component with other components of a 3D scene.) However this limitation is taught by Andon (Andon, e.g. abstract, paragraphs 16-45, describes a digital asset architecture for mixed reality environments, wherein the digital assets include 2D and 3D graphics models, e.g. paragraphs 21-23, and each asset is secured and authenticated using a corresponding NFT, e.g. paragraphs 17-29. Andon, e.g. paragraph 24, indicates that the creator of an asset can specify the location(s) where other asset type(s) can be displayed, using the example of logo assets restricted to predetermined positions on a jersey asset, i.e. as noted above Andon teaches what one of ordinary skill in the art would have found implicitly taught by Goldston in view of Umemura, that the creator of an NFT authenticated 3D model asset may specify a predetermined set of permissible positions for combining the 3D model asset with other assets of a 3D scene.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Goldston’s collaborative multimedia content management system, supporting Umemura’s virtual viewpoint image generation system as one of the types of content items, to use Andon’s NFT 3D model asset location restrictions specified by the asset creator in order to support Umemura’s lane restricted player object positions relative to the 3D background model, i.e. as noted above, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it implicit in view of Umemura’s disclosure that the user would be restricted to selecting player object positions relative to the 3D background model that are located within one of the lanes, and Andon teaches that an asset creator may specify the location(s) where other asset type(s) can be displayed. In the modified system, the creator of one of Umemura’s virtual viewpoint images/videos as a content item authenticated using Goldston’s NFT containers would be able to specify a restricted set of permissible positions within the lanes of the 3D background model for the player 3D models, analogous to Andon’s example of permissible logo asset locations with respect to the jersey asset, such that the predetermined condition(s) for assigning the authentication information to a modified version of said virtual viewpoint image/video include the claimed condition that the position of each of the plurality of 3D models corresponds to the predetermined permissible permission, determined based on their editing histories.
The limitations “determine, for each of the plurality of frames and based on the editing histories, whether each of the positions of the plurality of 3D models corresponding to the frame corresponds to a predetermined permissible position at which each of the plurality of 3D models is permitted to be arranged in a virtual space; and assign authentication information to the virtual viewpoint image being generated based on the plurality of 3D models corresponding to the plurality of frames if for every [a] frame, among the plurality of frames, it is determined that each of the positions of the plurality of 3D models corresponding to the frame corresponds to the predetermined permissible position, frame being generated based on the plurality of 3D models corresponding to the frame, and not assign the authentication information to the virtual viewpoint image being generated based on the plurality of 3D models corresponding to the plurality of frames if there is a frame, among the plurality of frames, it is determined that a position of at least one of the plurality of 3D models corresponding to the frame does not correspond to the predetermined permissible position" (prior art interpretation from above 112(b) rejection indicated in italics) are implicitly taught by Goldston in view of Umemura and Andon (As discussed above, Goldston, e.g. paragraphs 59, 60, 132, 165-168, 191, 193, indicates that a request to update the content item NFT container is prohibited and/or may not be approved when the user does not have permission to modify the content item/components, and/or other user(s) having the appropriate permissions disapprove the request. Further, as discussed above in view of Andon, in the modified system, the creator of one of Umemura’s virtual viewpoint images/videos as a content item authenticated using Goldston’s NFT containers would be able to specify a restricted set of permissible positions within the lanes of the 3D background model for the player 3D models. That is, when the request to update includes modified position(s) of the player 3D model(s), which would be indicated by the activity log associated with the modified 3D model(s), e.g. Goldston, paragraphs 150, 169, and the modified position(s) are not within the restricted set of permissible positions within the lanes of the 3D background model for the player 3D models, i.e. at least one of the position(s) in the editing history(ies) of the modified 3D models(s) in the update request do not correspond to predetermined permissible position(s), then the NFT container is not updated to include the modified virtual viewpoint video, generated based on the modified 3D player model(s), i.e. the authentication information is not assigned to the modified virtual viewpoint video because at least one of the position(s) in the editing history(ies) of the modified 3D models(s) in the update request do not correspond to predetermined permissible position(s). As discussed above, Umemura, e.g. paragraphs 58-60, 62-66, teaches that the 3D player model(s) have different positions for each frame of the video(s) used to generate the virtual viewpoint image, i.e. one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the determination of whether at least one of the position(s) in the editing history(ies) of the modified 3D models(s) in the update request do not correspond to predetermined permissible position(s) implicitly, if not inherently, requires performing the determination for every frame, due to each frame having different corresponding positions for the 3D model(s). While one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the determination implicitly, if not inherently, requires performing the determination for every frame, in the interest of compact prosecution Hodge is cited for teaching that a video may be evaluated as “Fully Authentic” or less than fully authentic by determining authenticity for every frame of the video.) However, this limitation is taught by Hodge (Hodge, e.g. abstract, paragraphs 2-14, 32-84, describes a system for authenticating captured videos. Hodge, e.g. paragraphs 50-52, 59, 61, teaches that a video can be authenticated by authenticating each segment of the video, where each authenticated segment may be a single frame of video, and the result may be indicated as “Fully Authentic” or partially or not authentic. That is, as noted above, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that determining whether the requirement that the 3D player model position(s) have not been modified to a position other than the restricted set of positions for the entire virtual viewpoint video implicitly, if not inherently, requires determining whether the requirement is met for every frame of the video, which is explicitly taught by Hodge, i.e. only videos which have no frames/segments which are not authenticated are determined to be fully authenticated, and other videos are determined to be partially or not authenticated.)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Goldston’s collaborative multimedia content management system, supporting Umemura’s virtual viewpoint image generation system as one of the types of content items, using Andon’s NFT 3D model asset location restrictions specified by the asset creator, to perform the determination of whether at least one of the position(s) in the editing history(ies) of the modified 3D models(s) in the update request do not correspond to predetermined permissible position(s) by evaluating the position(s) of the 3D model(s) for every frame of the virtual viewpoint video because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that determining whether the requirement that the 3D player model position(s) have not been modified to a position other than the restricted set of positions for the entire virtual viewpoint video implicitly, if not inherently, requires determining whether the requirement is met for every frame of the video, which is explicitly taught by Hodge, i.e. only videos which have no frames/segments which are not authenticated are determined to be fully authenticated, and other videos are determined to be partially or not authenticated. It is noted that this is not necessarily a further modification of Goldston’s modified system, i.e. as noted above, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found this to be implicitly, if not inherently, required to determine whether the requirement for the restricted set of positions has been met or not met, before assigning or not assigning the authentication information to the modified version of the virtual viewpoint image, corresponding to the assigning claim limitation.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation “wherein the predetermined permissible position is set by a creator who has created the plurality of 3D models” is taught by Goldston in view of Umemura and Andon (As discussed in the claim 1 rejection above, Goldston, e.g. paragraphs 59, 74, 137, 138, 154-158, teaches that the permissions may be set by the original creator(s) of the content item/components. Further, as discussed in the combination with Umemura and Andon in the claim 1 rejection, in the modified system, the creator of one of Umemura’s virtual viewpoint images/videos as a content item authenticated using Goldston’s NFT containers would be able to specify a restricted set of permissible positions within the lanes of the 3D background model for the player 3D models, analogous to Andon’s example of permissible logo asset locations with respect to the jersey asset, such that the predetermined condition(s) for assigning the authentication information to a modified version of said virtual viewpoint image/video include the claimed condition that the position of each of the plurality of 3D models corresponds to the predetermined permissible permission, determined based on their editing histories. That is, the predetermined permissible position(s) are set by the creator of the 3D models.)
Regarding claim 5, 6, and 14, the limitations “wherein the authentication information is information designating an access right for viewing the virtual viewpoint image authentication information is indicated by using a non-fungible token (NFT)”, and “wherein the one or more processors execute the instructions further to output the virtual viewpoint image to another apparatus” are taught by Goldston (As discussed in the claim 1 rejection above, Goldston, e.g. paragraphs 58, 59, 73-76, 86, 87, 90, 93, 104-111, teaches that the authentication information is an authenticated NFT container used to control access to the content item, i.e. access rights for viewing and/or modifying the virtual viewpoint image, which may include selling or otherwise granting access rights to reviewing users, using separate reviewing devices, e.g. paragraphs 86, 87 i.e. outputting the virtual viewpoint image to other apparatuses.)
Regarding claim 7, the limitation “wherein the plurality of 3D models include at least one of a foreground model and a background model” is taught by Goldston in view of Umemura (As discussed in the claim 1 rejection above, Umemura’s 3D models include 3D models of foreground objects and the background from the stored videos, e.g. paragraphs 28, 29, 33, 44, 52, i.e. the foreground 3D player models correspond to the 3D models having the predetermined permissible position(s) as discussed in the claim 1 rejection.)
Regarding claim 10, the limitation “wherein the predetermined permissible position corresponds to a position restricted based on a positional relationship between one of the plurality of 3D models and another of the plurality of 3D models” are taught by Goldston in view of Umemura and Andon (As discussed in the claim 1 rejection above, in the modified system, the creator of one of Umemura’s virtual viewpoint images/videos as a content item authenticated using Goldston’s NFT containers would be able to specify a restricted set of permissible positions within the lanes of the 3D background model for the player 3D models, analogous to Andon’s example of permissible logo asset locations with respect to the jersey asset, such that the predetermined condition(s) for assigning the authentication information to a modified version of said virtual viewpoint image/video include the claimed condition that the position of each of the plurality of 3D models corresponds to the predetermined permissible permission, determined based on their editing histories. That is, as further defined by claim 10, the predetermined permissible permission(s) are restricted based on a positional relationship between the foreground 3D player models and the background 3D model. It is additionally noted that although the claim 1 rejection does not address the background 3D model, per se, having a restricted set of permissible permissions, Umemura, e.g. paragraphs 99, 100, 110, indicate that the origin point of the athletic field is used to define the coordinates for the other models and lane components, such that the background 3D model also has a restricted position, i.e. the origin point of the athletic field cannot be changed without causing errors to the calculation of the relative coordinates, indicating that the background 3D model may be one of the 3D models having a predetermined permissible position specified by the creator.)
Regarding claims 11 and 12, “wherein the plurality of 3D models are specified based on a user operation”, “wherein the plurality of 3D models include a 3D model for which an NFT indicating ownership has been issued, and the plurality of 3D models include a 3D model for which the user has ownership” are taught by Goldston in view of Umemura (As noted in the claim 1 rejection above, Umemura, e.g. paragraphs 30-33, 43, 45, 47-49, 74-86, teaches rendering virtual viewpoint images according to the viewpoint position and arrangement of object models specified by the user, i.e. the plurality of 3D models are specified based on a user operation. Further, Goldston, e.g. paragraphs 58, 59, 74, teaches that the each of the components used to generate the content item may be separately associated with a respective NFT for controlling access/transaction rights for the component, i.e. each of the 3D models may have an NFT issued for indicating ownership. Finally, in at least some instances the same user, e.g. a creator user, may specify the viewpoint position and object model arrangement as in Umemura, and also have the NFT authenticated ownership rights to each of the component models used to generate the virtual viewpoint image as taught by Goldston, corresponding to the claim requirement that the user has ownership of the 3D models indicated by respective NFT(s).)
Regarding claim 13, the limitation “wherein the virtual viewpoint image is generated based on a plurality of captured images obtained by being captured by a plurality of image capturing apparatuses” is taught by Goldston in view of Umemura (As discussed in the claim 1 rejection above, Umemura, e.g. paragraphs 22-24, describes exemplary arrangement of cameras with respect to an athletic field, i.e. the virtual viewpoint image is generated based on the plurality of captured images from the plurality of cameras.)
Regarding claims 15 and 16, the limitations are similar to those treated in the above rejection(s) and are met by the references as discussed in claim 1 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/18/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Goldston, Umemura, and Andon do not teach the amended claims because the amended claims are not directed to assigning authentication information to a virtual viewpoint image as a whole, but rather on a frame-by-frame basis. As discussed in the above 112(a) and 112(b) rejections, Applicant’s disclosure neither contemplates or describes a system assigning authentication information on a frame-by-frame basis, and instead clearly indicates that authentication information is assigned to the virtual viewpoint images as a whole depending on whether or not every piece of material data used to generate the virtual viewpoint image meets the authentication condition.
Furthermore, Applicant’s remarks do not suggest how such an amendment actually distinguishes from Goldston’s modified system, i.e. as discussed in the above rejections, performing the determination on a per-frame basis is implicitly, if not inherently, required to determine whether a given modified virtual viewpoint video meets or violates the requirement that the player model position(s) are within the restricted position(s). That is, it is implicit, if not inherent, that determining whether the entire video meets or violates the requirement includes determining whether or not there is at least one frame violating the requirement, indicating the determination must be performed for every frame of the virtual viewpoint image. As noted above, Applicant’s amended independent claims are indefinite due to failing to distinguish between the result of the determining step, per se, and the assigning authentication information, i.e. the implicit, if not inherent, requirement of Goldston’s modified system to perform the determination on a per-frame basis reads on Applicant’s amended independent claims. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments cannot be considered persuasive.
It is further noted that although the requirement to determine whether every frame meets or violates the requirement that player model position(s) are within the restricted set of positions is mapped in view of Hodge in the above rejections, wherein Hodge explicitly teaches both assigning authentication information to the video as a whole, i.e. full, partial, or not authenticated, based on determining/assigning the authentication information to each frame of the video, this limitation is implicitly, if not inherently, required by Goldston’s system modified in view of Umemura and Andon, as discussed in the claim 1 rejection above.
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 ROBERT BADER whose telephone number is (571)270-3335. The examiner can normally be reached 11-7 m-f.
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, Tammy Goddard can be reached at 571-272-7773. 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.
/ROBERT BADER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Prosecution Insights