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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 4/7/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-19 and 21 remain pending in the application.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim 21 limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 1-3, 8, 11-13, 18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Danker U.S. Patent Application 20180184171 in view of Cutler U.S. Patent Application 20240428380, and further in view of Yamamoto U.S. Patent Application 20160379413.
Regarding claim 11, Danker discloses a system comprising:
control circuitry (baseband circuitry 1208) configured to:
access a video capture (paragraph [0029]: Cumulative interaction among participants or viewers of the video stream may enable an effect or affect the effect applied to the recognized person/object);
generate a segmentation mask based on a user region; modify the video capture, to replace portions of the video capture outside of the segmentation mask with a virtual background (paragraph [0076]: FIGS. 2A-2B... any suitable image segmentation, face detection, or object detection process may be used to achieve the result of replacing an original background with a new background; paragraph [0076]: The background element may be personalized to each user (e.g., a Chicago Bulls fan may see Michael Jordan superimposed on the basketball court, while a Boston Celtics fan may see Kevin Garnett superimposed on the basketball court). Information used to personalize the background element may be retrieved from the user's messaging service profile, an associated social networking profile, the video stream or audio stream, etc).
Danker discloses all the features with respect to claim 11 as outlined above. However, Danker fails to disclose detecting in the video capture a first object, being held by a user in the user region, within the segmentation mask; based at least in part on the detecting the first object being held by the user, add the first object to a list of allowed objects that are no to be replaced by the virtual background when appearing outside the segmentation mask; detecting in the video capture a second object, being held by the user in the user region, outside of the segmentation mask; determine that the second object is listed in the list of allowed objects; and modify the video capture such that the second object is not replaced by the virtual background.
Cutler discloses detecting in the video capture a second object, outside of the segmentation mask; determine that the second object is listed in the list of allowed objects; and modify the video capture such that the second object is not replaced by the virtual background (paragraph [0042]: FIG. 3A shows enrolled users 302 (user region) and 304 (second object outside user 302’s segmentation mask and in the list of allowed objects) who appear in a video signal 306 that is transmitted to other participants in a call... The other family members can receive the video signal 306, which can be displayed on their respective devices; paragraph [0044]: FIG. 3C... In the enhanced video signal, person 308 is at least partially removed by blurring or completely removing the person (replaced by the virtual background) from the enhanced video signal).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Danker’s to display enrolled users as taught by Cutler, to improve video quality and user satisfaction.
Danker as modified by Cutler discloses all the features with respect to claim 11 as outlined above. However, Danker as modified by Cutler fails to disclose detecting in the video capture a first object, being held by a user in the user region, within the segmentation mask; based at least in part on the detecting the first object being held by the user, add the first object to a list of allowed objects that are no to be replaced by the virtual background when appearing outside the segmentation mask.
Yamamoto discloses detecting in the video capture a first object, being held by the user in the user region, within the segmentation mask; based at least in part on the detecting the first object being held by the user, add the first object to a list of allowed objects that are no to be replaced by the virtual background when appearing outside the segmentation mask (paragraph [0101]: as the user brings his or her hand holding a physical body such as a cup close to the head-mounted display 100, the physical body is detected as an object automatically, and as long as the hand remains within a fixed distance (segmentation mask) from the head-mounted display 100, the physical body is tracked and a three-dimensional model MI of the physical body is placed in the virtual world and continually displayed (allowed objects); see fig. 10 and fig. 17; Yamamoto’s teaching of tracking and displaying user’s cup can be combined with Danker and Cutler’s device, such that allowed objects will not be replaced by the virtual background when moves outside the segmentation mask).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Danker and Cutler’s to track and display object held by users as taught by Yamamoto, to improve user pleasure.
Regarding claim 12, Danker as modified by Cutler and Yamamoto discloses the system of claim 11, wherein the control circuitry is further configured to: in response to determining that (a) that the second object is not being held by the user, and (b) that the second object is outside of the segmentation mask: modify the video capture to replace the second object with the virtual background (Yamamoto’s paragraph [0101]: If the hand moves away farther than the fixed distance (cannot detect object is being held by the user and outside the segmentation mask), the physical body is no longer detected, and the display of the three-dimensional model MI also disappears… the transparency may rise gradually with distance and automatically return to the original display of the virtual world only).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Danker’s to display enrolled users as taught by Cutler, to improve video quality and user satisfaction; and combine Danker and Cutler’s to track and display object held by users as taught by Yamamoto, to improve user pleasure.
Regarding claim 13, Danker as modified by Cutler and Yamamoto discloses the system of claim 12, wherein the control circuitry is configured to, when modifying the video capture to replace the second object with the virtual background, to gradually increase transparency of the second object until the second object is fully transparent (Yamamoto’s paragraph [0101]: If the hand moves away farther than the fixed distance, the physical body is no longer detected, and the display of the three-dimensional model MI also disappears… the transparency may rise gradually with distance and automatically return to the original display of the virtual world only).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Danker’s to display enrolled users as taught by Cutler, to improve video quality and user satisfaction; and combine Danker and Cutler’s to track and display object held by users as taught by Yamamoto, to improve user pleasure.
Regarding claim 18, Danker as modified by Cutler and Yamamoto discloses the system of claim 11, wherein the virtual background comprises at least one of: a static background, a dynamic background, or a modified visual effect applied to the transmitted background (Danker’s paragraph [0076]: FIGS. 2A-2B... any suitable image segmentation, face detection, or object detection process may be used to achieve the result of replacing an original background with a new background; paragraph [0076]: The background element may be personalized to each user (e.g., a Chicago Bulls fan may see Michael Jordan superimposed on the basketball court, while a Boston Celtics fan may see Kevin Garnett superimposed on the basketball court). Information used to personalize the background element may be retrieved from the user's messaging service profile, an associated social networking profile, the video stream or audio stream, etc).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Danker’s to display enrolled users as taught by Cutler, to improve video quality and user satisfaction; and combine Danker and Cutler’s to track and display object held by users as taught by Yamamoto, to improve user pleasure.
Claim 1 recites the functions of the apparatus recited in claim 11 as method steps. Accordingly, the mapping of the prior art to the corresponding functions of the apparatus in claim 11 applies to the method steps of claim 1.
Claim 2 recites the functions of the apparatus recited in claim 12 as method steps. Accordingly, the mapping of the prior art to the corresponding functions of the apparatus in claim 12 applies to the method steps of claim 2.
Claim 3 recites the functions of the apparatus recited in claim 13 as method steps. Accordingly, the mapping of the prior art to the corresponding functions of the apparatus in claim 13 applies to the method steps of claim 3.
Claim 8 recites the functions of the apparatus recited in claim 18 as method steps. Accordingly, the mapping of the prior art to the corresponding functions of the apparatus in claim 18 applies to the method steps of claim 8.
Claim 21 recites the functions of the apparatus recited in claim 11 as apparatus steps. Accordingly, the mapping of the prior art to the corresponding functions of the apparatus in claim 11 applies to the apparatus steps of claim 21.
Claim 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Danker U.S. Patent Application 20180184171 in view of Cutler U.S. Patent Application 20240428380, in view of Yamamoto U.S. Patent Application 20160379413, and further in view of Beers U.S. Patent Application 20210097065.
Regarding claim 15, Danker as modified by Cutler and Yamamoto discloses generating for display an interface, wherein the interface comprises names of one or more objects within the list of allowed objects (Danker’s paragraph [0065]: FIG. 1E depicts an interface in which a media effect is applied to multiple users based on a detected emotion; Fig. 1E display name for each user). However, Danker as modified by Cutler and Yamamoto fails to disclose identifiers of one or more objects.
Beers discloses identifiers of one or more objects (paragraph [0033]: providing a model feature panel that displays a list of object identifiers and relationship identifiers that correspond to one or more objects and one or more relationships included in the graph model or the data model).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Danker, Cutler and Yamamoto’s to display identifiers as taught by Beers, to manage display of objects in the data visualization.
Claim 5 recites the functions of the apparatus recited in claim 15 as method steps. Accordingly, the mapping of the prior art to the corresponding functions of the apparatus in claim 15 applies to the method steps of claim 5.
Claim 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Danker U.S. Patent Application 20180184171 in view of Cutler U.S. Patent Application 20240428380, in view of Yamamoto U.S. Patent Application 20160379413, and further in view of Honma U.S. Patent Application 20190222798.
Regarding claim 19, Danker as modified by Cutler and Yamamoto discloses the control circuitry is configured to add the first object to the list of allowed objects is performed in response to: (a) detecting in the video capture the first object, being held by the user, within the segmentation mask (Yamamoto’s paragraph [0101]: as the user brings his or her hand holding a physical body such as a cup close to the head-mounted display 100, the physical body is detected as an object automatically, and as long as the hand remains within a fixed distance (segmentation mask) from the head-mounted display 100, the physical body is tracked and a three-dimensional model MI of the physical body is placed in the virtual world and continually displayed (allowed objects)). However, Danker as modified by Cutler and Yamamoto fails to disclose processing an audio input to determine that a word in the audio input is related to the object, and (b) the determining that the word in the audio input is related to the object.
Honma discloses processing an audio input to determine that a word in the audio input is related to the object, and (b) the determining that the word in the audio input is related to the object (paragraph [0110]: the video display portion 73 is caused to highlight-display the rectangular frame image displayed in the area of the face of the person selected as the audio object, in a word, the selected rectangular frame image).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Danker, Cutler and Yamamoto’s to display object based on audio input as taught by Honma, to enable a desired object sound to be more simply, and more accurately separated.
Claim 9 recites the functions of the apparatus recited in claim 19 as method steps. Accordingly, the mapping of the prior art to the corresponding functions of the apparatus in claim 19 applies to the method steps of claim 9.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4, 6-7, 10, 14 and 16-17 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 a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 4 and 14 are about generating for display an indication of designated object recognition zone; and in response to detecting in the video capture a third object, being held by the user, within the designated object recognition zone: adding the third object to the list of allowed objects.
Danker 20180184171, Cutler 20240428380 and Yamamoto 20160379413 combined cannot teach these features perfectly. These limitations when read in light of the rest of the limitations in the claim and the claims to which it depends make the claim allowable subject matter.
Claim 6 and 16 are about receiving a selection from the interface of a selected object from the list of allowed objects; receiving a command to add the selected object to a blocked objects list; detecting in the video capture a third object, being held by the user, within the segmentation mask; determining that the third object matches one of objects within the blocked object list; and in response to the determining that the third object matches one of objects within the blocked objects list, modifying the video capture such that the third object is modified to be transparent.
Danker 20180184171, Cutler 20240428380 and Yamamoto 20160379413 combined cannot teach these features perfectly. These limitations when read in light of the rest of the limitations in the claim and the claims to which it depends make the claim allowable subject matter.
Claim 7 and 17 are about detecting in the video capture a third object, being held by the user, within the segmentation mask; adding the third object to the list of allowed objects; and in response to determining that a maximum threshold has been exceeded for the list of allowed objects: modifying the list of allowed objects to remove least recently used object within the list of allowed objects.
Danker 20180184171, Cutler 20240428380 and Yamamoto 20160379413 combined cannot teach these features perfectly. These limitations when read in light of the rest of the limitations in the claim and the claims to which it depends make the claim allowable subject matter.
Claim 10 is about determining a first region of the video capture, wherein the first region is related to the user region; determining a second region of the video capture, wherein the second region is related to the first object being held by the user, within the segmentation mask; processing an audio input to determining that a word in the audio input is related to the detected first object; inputting the first region, the second region, and the audio input into a semantic segmentation model; and confirming, based on the semantic segmentation model, the first object exceeds a confidence threshold.
Danker 20180184171, Cutler 20240428380, Yamamoto 20160379413 and Honma 20190222798 combined cannot teach these features perfectly. These limitations when read in light of the rest of the limitations in the claim and the claims to which it depends make the claim allowable subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/7/2026, page 9 - 10, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 11 and 21 under 103, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. (FP 7.37)
Applicant argues on page 9-10 that Yamamoto is to make objects outside of a segmentation mask disappear from a virtual world. Detecting an object outside a segmentation mask and then "modifying the video capture such that the second object is not replaced by the virtual background" goes against the principal motivation of Yamamoto. Additionally, Cutler cannot reasonably be combined with Yamamoto.
In reply, the rejection is based on Danker, Cutler and Yamamoto combined. Cutler discloses detecting a second object outside of the segmentation mask; determine that the second object is listed in the list of allowed objects; and modify the video capture such that the second object is not replaced by the virtual background (paragraph [0042]: FIG. 3A shows enrolled users 302 (user region) and 304 (second object outside user 302’s segmentation mask and in the list of allowed objects) who appear in a video signal 306 that is transmitted to other participants in a call... The other family members can receive the video signal 306, which can be displayed on their respective devices; paragraph [0044]: FIG. 3C... In the enhanced video signal, person 308 is at least partially removed by blurring or completely removing the person (replaced by the virtual background) from the enhanced video signal).
Yamamoto discloses detecting in the video capture a first object, being held by the user in the user region, within the segmentation mask; based at least in part on the detecting the first object being held by the user, add the first object to a list of allowed objects that are no to be replaced by the virtual background when appearing outside the segmentation mask (paragraph [0101]: as the user brings his or her hand holding a physical body such as a cup close to the head-mounted display 100, the physical body is detected as an object automatically, and as long as the hand remains within a fixed distance (segmentation mask) from the head-mounted display 100, the physical body is tracked and a three-dimensional model MI of the physical body is placed in the virtual world and continually displayed (allowed objects); see fig. 10 and fig. 17; Yamamoto’s teaching of tracking and displaying user’s cup can be combined with Danker and Cutler’s device, such that cup is added as allowed object, will not be replaced by the virtual background when appearing outside the segmentation mask).
Cutler can be combined with Yamamoto, a user can hold another person’s hand to add that person to enrolled list. Similarly, Yamamoto can hold a cup to add cup to enrolled list, and keep tracking and displaying the cup even the cup moves outside the segmentation mask.
Please incorporate the allowable subject matter to further advance the prosecution.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Yi Yang whose telephone number is (571)272-9589. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00 AM-6:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Daniel Hajnik can be reached on 571-272-7642. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/YI YANG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2616
Prosecution Insights