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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of the restriction requirement dated 10/23/2025 in the reply filed on 12/22/2025 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
The labels on the flowchart of Fig. 1 is hard to make out without magnification. Examiner suggests using a larger font size or rotating the image to fit the page horizontally for more space to enlarge the flowchart.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Par 18, Line 3, “[Figure 1]” should be written as [Figure 3] since Fig. 3 of the present application more accurately fits the description of the 9x9 capture space.
In Par 18, Line 3, “[Figure 2]” should be written as [Figure 4] since Fig. 4 of the present application more accurately fits the description of the operator needing to be stationed outside to monitor the capture process.
In the heading before the first paragraph, “CROSS-REFERNCE” should be written as “CROSS-REFERENCE”
In Par 37, Line 3, there are two instances where “consists essentially of’ should be written as “consists essentially of”.
In Par 37, Line 4, there are two instances where “consisting of’ should be written as “consisting of”.
In Par 37, Line 4, there are two instances where “consists of’ should be written as “consists of”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arcturus (“VR Days Presentation: Digital Human Creation With Volumetric Video”) in view of Sharlet et al (US 20100026897 A1), Mumbauer et al (US 9299184 B2) and Shehata et al (US 202400958), hereinafter Arcturus, Sharlet, Mumbauer and Shehata respectively.
PNG
media_image1.png
744
1379
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Arcturus teaches a method of virtual video composition comprising: - providing a synchronized multi-camera capture system setup (Arcturus shows a multi-camera capture system that surrounds the actor performing a dance, Timestamp 2:05-2:45)
PNG
media_image2.png
703
1335
media_image2.png
Greyscale
for detailed refinement of a volumetric video signature (Arcturus shows the 3D model of the performer based on the volumetric capture inside a video editor where the user can make adjustments to refine the actor’s movements and the shape of the model, Timestamp 5:30-6:15)
PNG
media_image3.png
748
1030
media_image3.png
Greyscale
with intricate photogrammetric modeling complemented by precise bone-mapping (the model captured by the volumetric camera system can have a skeleton map generated to precisely adjust or correct the actor’s performance, Timestamp 6:20-6:40);
PNG
media_image4.png
651
1197
media_image4.png
Greyscale
and synchronizing motion capture data with volumetric video (Arcturus demonstrates an example of an actor moving her head side to side. The 3D model of the actor almost immediately performs the same head movements to show that the motion capture data is synced with the volumetric video, Timestamp 2:05 -2:45).
Arcturus does not teach processing in real time for the removal of visual artifacts; applying cinematic camera emulation within an interactive virtual setting; and rendering a cinematic video infused with film grain emulation to thereby achieve an authentic cinematic quality. However, Sharlet teaches processing in real time (“performs this operation in real-time or near real-time” - Par 10, Line 16) for the removal of visual artifacts (“removing via one or more GPU operations a plurality of artifacts from the video stream” - Abstract). [NOTE: the removal of visual artifacts as disclosed by Sharlet includes the removal of noise, Par 10, Lines 12-16]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Arcturus to incorporate the teachings of Sharlet to process the video in real time to remove the visual artifacts. It is commonly known in the art that the removal of noise creates a high-quality viewing experience. Removing the visual artifacts in real time may also save post-production editing time. Arcturus in view of Sharlet still does not teach applying cinematic camera emulation within an interactive virtual setting; and rendering a cinematic video infused with film grain emulation to thereby achieve an authentic cinematic quality. However, Mumbauer teaches applying cinematic camera emulation within an interactive virtual setting (“By simulating the performance of a virtual camera operating inside the scenes generated for the video games (e.g., using motion capture camera in a motion capture session), two forms of cinematic shots are presented to the players: a fully-rendered movie (e.g., see FIG. 5); and end-game cinematic shots (e.g., see FIG. 6)” – Col 3, Lines 16- 23). [NOTE: Although Mumbauer simulates the virtual camera to capture cinematic shots in a video game, one of ordinary skill in the art could simply add the virtual camera to capture cinematic shots of the photogrammetric model inside the virtual setting.]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Arcturus to incorporate the teachings of Mumbauer to use a virtual camera inside the virtual setting to capture cinematic shots. Doing so would produce dynamic and engaging scenes to immerse the viewer which creates a unique experience. Arcturus in view of Sharlet and Mumbauer still does not teach rendering a cinematic video infused with film grain emulation to thereby achieve an authentic cinematic quality. However, Shehata teaches rendering a cinematic video infused with film grain emulation to thereby achieve an authentic cinematic quality (“In certain cases, it may be desirable to add film grain to digitally recorded images or video. For example, adding film grain to a video may make the video appear cinematic.“ - Par 3, lines 3-6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Arcturus to incorporate the teachings of Shehata to apply film grain to a video to achieve a cinematic appearance. It is known in the art that film grain provides an aesthetic to the video by adding subtle detail and textures. Adding film grain also has the benefit of hiding imperfections such as visual artifacts and noise.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID V. NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6111. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00.
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, King Y Poon can be reached at 571-270-0728. 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.
/DAVID VAN NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2617 /KING Y POON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2617