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
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 10-13, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huske et al. (US 2019/0110111 A1) in view of Pantos (US 2020/0267437 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 10, and 19, Huske discloses a computer-implemented method to adaptively download virtual assets of a virtual experience, the method comprising:
initiating, by a processor, a virtual-asset traffic flow associated with first virtual assets and a plurality of other traffic flows associated with the virtual experience in which an avatar associated with a client device participates (see par. [0043], To further improve efficiency when delivering components to a user's computing device, the manifest 400 is able to prioritize the assets for the client device to resolve. In some embodiments, the manifest groups the assets into two sets of assets: a first set 402 of required assets and a second set 404 of preferable assets); and
implementing, by the processor, a delay-based control mechanism for the virtual-asset traffic flow and a congestion-control mechanism for the plurality of other traffic flows (see par. [0048], Preferably, necessary assets are downloaded first and then preferred assets are downloaded).
However, Huske does not explicitly disclose causing, by the processor, a concurrent download to the client device of a subset of the first virtual assets based on the delay-based control mechanism and information associated with the plurality of other traffic flows based on the congestion-control mechanism.
Pantos teaches low latency streaming media including causing, by the processor, a concurrent download to the client device of a subset of the first virtual assets based on the delay-based control mechanism and information associated with the plurality of other traffic flows based on the congestion-control mechanism (see par. [0010], According to one aspect, this method can be used to download both renditions concurrently to the client device after deciding to switch from the first rendition to the second rendition and while the client device attempts to switch between the two renditions. In one aspect, the requesting of the first plurality of media segments can specify a first weight for a relative download priority for the first plurality of media segments, and wherein the requesting of the second plurality of media segments also specifies a weight which is a second weight for a relative download priority for the second plurality of media segments, wherein the first weight and the second weight are different). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the method of Huske with the concurrent downloads of Pantos in order to improve the delivery or processing of streaming media content (see Pantos, par. [0004]).
Regarding claims 2, 11, and 20, Huske discloses wherein implementing the delay-based control mechanism for the virtual-asset traffic flow comprises determining, by the processor, the subset of the first virtual assets based on one or more of a game-play characteristic, a virtual-asset characteristic, or a connection characteristic of a network connection between the client device and a remote server from which the first virtual assets are downloaded (see claim 163, wherein the first set of assets includes images, graphics, sounds, script information, Internet content, data or real-time data).
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Huske discloses wherein the game-play characteristic includes one or more of avatar position, avatar orientation, avatar velocity, avatar audibility, or avatar visibility (see claim 163, wherein the first set of assets includes images, graphics, sounds, script information, Internet content, data or real-time data; images and graphics would include things like an avatar in the game and its position, orientation, visibility, etc.).
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Huske discloses wherein the virtual-asset characteristic includes one or more of: asset size or asset type, and wherein the asset type includes a mesh asset, a texture asset, an audio asset, video asset, character asset, object asset, font asset, animation asset, user interface (UI) asset (see claim 163, wherein the first set of assets includes images, graphics, sounds, script information, Internet content, data or real-time data).
Claim(s) 5 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huske et al. (US 2019/0110111 A1) in view of Pantos (US 2020/0267437 A1) and further in view of Mamidwar et al. (US 2022/0239764 A1).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, the combination of Huske and Pantos discloses the method as discussed above. However, the combination of Huske and Pantos does not explicitly disclose wherein the connection characteristic of the network connection comprises a transition from a first radio access technology (RAT) to a second RAT different than the first RAT, a packet error rate (PER) meeting a PER threshold, or an average packet delay meeting a packet-delay threshold.
Mamidwar teaches a system for converting between a lossy communication protocol and a lossless communication protocol wherein the connection characteristic of the network connection comprises a transition from a first radio access technology (RAT) to a second RAT different than the first RAT, a packet error rate (PER) meeting a PER threshold, or an average packet delay meeting a packet-delay threshold (see par. [0043], In some embodiments, the intermediate node 206 receives a request from the terminal device 204 to receive communications via a lossless communication protocol, or the intermediate node may determine that communications with the terminal device 204 should utilize a lossless communication protocol (e.g., responsive to latency measurements such as round trip times being below a threshold, and/or responsive to packet loss or error rates being above a threshold, suggesting a short-range and low latency but unreliable network)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the method of Huske and Pantos with the connection characteristic of Mamidwar in order to improve latency in implementations where low latency is particularly desired, e.g., for a gaming connection or video over internet protocol (VoIP) communication (see Mamidwar, par. [0029]).
Claim(s) 6, 7, 15, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huske et al. (US 2019/0110111 A1) in view of Pantos (US 2020/0267437 A1) and further in view of D’Angelo et al. (US 2023/0117482 A1).
Regarding claims 6 and 15, the combination of Huske and Pantos discloses the method as discussed above. However, the combination of Huske and Pantos does not explicitly disclose wherein each asset in the first virtual assets is associated with a respective engagement metric, and determining the subset of the first virtual assets comprises selecting, by the processor, the subset of the first virtual assets associated with game play based on the respective engagement metric for each asset.
D'Angelo teaches interactive engagement portals within virtual experiences wherein each asset in the first virtual assets is associated with a respective engagement metric, and determining the subset of the first virtual assets comprises selecting, by the processor, the subset of the first virtual assets associated with game play based on the respective engagement metric for each asset (see par. [0142], In some implementations, the user engagement metric also comprises one or more of: engagement with the displayed first media, the first indication, the second indication, an amount of time between the first indication and the second indication, a percentage of rendering of the second virtual experience before the second indication, playtime in the second virtual experience, activities in the second virtual experience, purchases in the second virtual experience, avatar interactions with virtual items in the second virtual experience, or avatar interactions with non-player characters in the second virtual experience). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Huske and Pantos to use the engagement metrics of D’Angelo in order to improve efficiency by prioritizing the assets (see Huske, par. [0011]).
Regarding claims 7 and 16, D’Angelo teaches wherein implementing the delay-based control mechanism for the virtual-asset traffic flow comprises obtaining, by the processor, engagement data from a plurality of avatars in the virtual experience; and generating, by the processor, the respective engagement metric for each asset in the first virtual assets based on the engagement data from the plurality of avatars (see par. [0142], In some implementations, the user engagement metric also comprises one or more of: engagement with the displayed first media, the first indication, the second indication, an amount of time between the first indication and the second indication, a percentage of rendering of the second virtual experience before the second indication, playtime in the second virtual experience, activities in the second virtual experience, purchases in the second virtual experience, avatar interactions with virtual items in the second virtual experience, or avatar interactions with non-player characters in the second virtual experience; also see par. [0018], a second avatar associated with a second user ID).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 9, 17, and 18 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: None of the references, alone or in combination, teach or suggest wherein implementing the delay-based control mechanism for the virtual-asset traffic flow comprises in response to two virtual assets having a same engagement metric that indicates a same length of engagement, causing, by the processor, a virtual asset of the two virtual assets with a smaller data size to be downloaded first; determining, by the processor, that a download of a particular virtual asset of the first virtual assets or the subset of the first virtual assets is incomplete at a time the particular virtual asset is requested for game rendering; and in response to determining that the download of the particular virtual asset is incomplete, causing, by the processor, an approximation of the particular virtual asset to be rendered based on at least one characteristic with at least one previously downloaded virtual asset.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wang (US 2016/0028635 A1), Keith (US 2013/0077486 A1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLEN CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5529. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 11:00 AM EST to 7:00 PM EST.
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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at (571) 272-4430. 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.
/ALLEN CHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715 3/21/2026