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 § 112
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.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Claims 13-14, each recites the limitation "the following information " in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Examiner’s Note
It is noted that non-functional descriptive material does not patentably distinguish over prior art that otherwise renders the claims unpatentable. See for example, MPEP 2111.05, MPEP 2112.01(III). See also In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Exparte Nehls, 88 USPQ2d 1883, 1887-90 (BPAI 2008) (precedential) (discussing cases pertaining to non-functional descriptive material) see also BPAI’s decision in Appeal 2009-010851 (for Ser. No. 10/622,876) or BPAI’s decision in Appeal 2011-011929 (for Ser. No. 11/709,170), pages 6-7. In this case, a particular type of data such as “2D video”, “VR video” could be considered as non-functional descriptive material and are not required to give patentable weight because these particular types of data do not functionally change the structure or operation of a system of receiving instruction to switch different types of video in different displaying window/region. The limitations “2D video” “VR video” are only given patentable weight of two types of data.
Although non-functional descriptive material are not required to be considered, all claim limitations including non-functional descriptive material are known by prior art as discussed below.
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.
Claims 1-5, 12-16, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson et al. (US 20180288354) in view of Saito et al. (US 20240255754).
Regarding claim 1, Anderson discloses a method for switching video, comprising:
displaying a first playing window of a 2D application in a virtual reality space, a first video being played in the first playing window (displaying a first display window such as PIP screen of a 2D application in a VR space of display device/HMD 102, a first video being played in the PIP screen – see include, but are not limited to, figures 1, 3, 5B-5C, 7, paragraphs 0013, 0015, 0018, 0031-0032); and
in response to a first video switching instruction, determining a switched video as a virtual reality (VR) video, and playing the VR video through a second playing window, the second playing window having a larger area than the first playing window (in response to a first selection/interact to change/swap of video, determining a switched/new video as a VR video, and playing the VR video through a second playing window such as main viewing screen – see include, but are not limited to, figures 1, 3, 5B-5C, 7, paragraphs 0019, 0024, 0026, 0031-0033, 0035).
Anderson discloses the HMD 102 may display a two-dimensional (2D) image on a set of display monitors (paragraph 0018). However, Anderson does not explicitly disclose first video being displayed in first playing window is 2D video.
Additionally and/or alternatively, Saito discloses displaying a first playing window of a 2D application in a virtual reality space, a first 2D video being played in the first playing window (displaying a first playing window such as window 500s, of a 2D application in a virtual reality space, a first 2D images/video being in the first playing window 500s – see include, but are not limited to, figures 3 (S124), 4-11, 13-15, paragraphs 0041, 0046, 0063, 0081, 0090);
in response to a first video switching instruction, playing VR video through a second playing window (in response to instruction such as selection or gazing, moving, etc., playing VR video in second playing window such as real-space/VR space 400 – see include, but are not limited to, figures 4-15, paragraphs 0046, 0063, 0078, 0081).
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 Anderson with the teaching including 2D video in first displaying window as taught by Saito in order to yield predictable result of allowing user to see 2D video or preventing missing an important scene (see paragraphs 0063, 0079).
Regarding claim 2, Anderson in view of Saito discloses the method of claim 1, wherein playing the VR video through the second playing window comprises: displaying the VR video in a full screen within the second playing window (display the VR video in a full/entire screen within the main viewing screen – see Anderson: figures 5B-5C, paragraph 0027; Saito: figures 4, 6-7, 9-10, 13-15, paragraphs 0005, 0009, 0136).
Regarding claim 3, Anderson in view of Saito discloses the method of claim 1, wherein playing the VR video through the second playing window comprises:
superimposing and displaying the first playing window on the second playing window, and playing the VR video within the second playing window, wherein a content of the VR video located within an area covered by the first video playing window is displayed through the first playing window and a remaining content is displayed within the second playing window, and the second playing window has a less transparency than the first playing window (PIP view is displayed as a floating window in the main view, the floating window may appear translucent or see-through so that the viewer can portion of main viewing screen covered by the PIP screen/first display window – see include, but are not limited to, figures 5B-5C, paragraphs 0026, 0027, 0041, 0059; Saito: figures 4, 6-7, 9, 14-15, paragraphs 0078, 0136, claims 2-4).
Regarding claim 4, Anderson in view of Saito discloses the method of claim 3, wherein superimposing and displaying the first playing window on the second playing window comprises: generating a masked image based on a location and a size of the first playing window, an effective area of the masked image being an area corresponding to the first playing window, an image within the effective area being displayed completely, and an image outside the effective area being displayed semi-transparently; and
displaying the VR video played within the second playing window after superimposing the masked image and the second playing window (masked image is read on image/portion that is blocked/obscured by the PIP screen or 2D image. Anderson also discloses the PIP screen may overlay or obscure some or all of the computer-generated element in the main presentation area. The viewer may control the PIP screen position, size, translucency, opaque – see include, but are not limited to, figures 5A-5C, paragraphs 0026, 0027, 0059. Thus, image (component within the effective area being displayed completely, and an image outside of effective area being semi-transparently based on the size, transparency level controlled by the viewer). See also 20240153205, for example, figures 7a-7c, paragraph 0059 for this teaching).
Regarding claim 5, Anderson in view of Saito discloses the method of claim 1, wherein a recommendation control for a VR video is further displayed in the virtual reality space, and in response to the first video switching instruction, determining the switched video as the VR video and playing the VR video through the second playing window comprises: in response to a first operation on the recommendation control for the VR video, determining the switched video is the VR video, and playing the VR video through the second playing window (in response to user selection on recommendation such as alternative content that a friend is playing, a preview of a VR game, or other content, etc., determining the switched video is the VR video, and playing the VR video through the second/main viewing screen – see include, but are not limited to, Anderson: figures 5a-5c, paragraphs 0047, 0050, 0061-0064).
Regarding claim 12, Anderson in view of Saito discloses the method of claim 3, further comprising: in response to a shape transformation operation on the first playing window, transforming a shape of the first playing window (transforming shape/size of the first displaying window/PIP screen - see include, but are not limited to, Anderson: paragraphs 0013, 0026, 0043; Saito: figures 4-115, paragraphs 0081, 0115).
Regarding claim 13, Anderson in view of Saito discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the following information is displayed on an inner and/or outer border of the first playing window: information of a currently displayed video, information of the 2D application and video recommendation information (see include, but are not limited to, Anderson: figures 5A-5B, paragraphs 0047, 0061-0065; Saito: figures 4-13, wherein “following information” is read on other alternative content, icon, channel information, etc. that is displayed outside or inside of the first playing window/PIP screen that contains information of displayed video, 2D application/interface, title or preview content of other user).
Regarding claim 14, Anderson in view of Saito discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the following information is displayed on an inner and/or outer border of the first playing window within a first preset time from the start of playing of the VR video: information of the VR video, information of the 2D application, video recommendation information and a full-screen playing control; and the video recommendation information and the full-screen playing control are displayed on an inner and/or outer border of the first playing window after the first preset time finishes (see include, but are not limited to, Anderson: figures 5A-5B, paragraphs 0047, 0061-0065; Saito: figures 4-13, paragraphs 0098, 0106, 0116-0117, 0128, 0153, wherein “following information” is read on other alternative content, icon, channel information, etc. that is displayed outside or inside of the first playing window/PIP screen that contains information of displayed video, 2D application/interface, preview content of other user, “first preset time” is read on the time that rotate or switch to different content/channel).
Regarding claim 15, Anderson in view of Saito discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: in response to the first video switching instruction, determining a switched video as a second 2D video, and playing the second 2D video through the second playing window (see include, but are not limited to, Saito: figures 4-14, paragraphs 0081, 0116, 0128, 0131, 0153).
Regarding claim 16, Anderson in view of Saito discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: in response to a second video switching instruction, determining a switched video as a VR video, and playing a switched target VR video through the second playing window (determining a second interaction/selection of another video and displaying the newly selected VR video in the second displaying window/main viewing screen – see include, but are not limited to, Anderson: figures 5b-5c, paragraphs 0026, 0032-0033, 0035, 0047, 0050).
Regarding claim 18, limitations of an electronic device that correspond to limitations of method of claim 1 are analyzed as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Particularly, Anderson in view of Saito discloses an electronic device (display device/HMD – Anderson: figures 1, 3, 7; Saito: figure 2), comprising:
a processor (processor/controller 108/116/312/702 – see Anderson: figures 1, 3, 7, paragraphs 0076-0078); and
a memory, the memory storing a computer program, wherein the processor is configured to invoke and run the computer program stored in the memory to cause the electronic device (see Anderson: paragraphs 0076-0078) to: display a first playing window of a 2D application in a virtual reality space, a first 2D video being played in the first playing window; and in response to a first video switching instruction, determine a switched video as a virtual reality (VR) video, and play the VR video through a second playing window, the second playing window having a larger area than the first playing window (see similar discussion in the rejection of claim 1 and Anderson: figures 1, 3, 7, paragraphs 0076-0078; Saito: figures 4-15).
Regarding claim 19, the additional limitations that correspond to the additional limitations of claim 2 are analyzed as discussed in the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 20, limitations of a computer program product that correspond to the limitations of method in claim 1 and/or claim 18 are analyzed as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 or claim 18. Particularly, Anderson in view of Saito discloses a computer program product comprising a computer program, wherein the computer program is stored on a non-transitory machine-readable medium, the computer program when executed by a processor, causes the processor to: display a first playing window of a 2D application in a virtual reality space, a first 2D video being played in the first playing window; and
in response to a first video switching instruction, determine a switched video as a virtual reality (VR) video, and play the VR video through a second playing window, the second playing window having a larger area than the first playing window (see similar discussion in the rejection of claim 1 and Anderson: figures 1, 3, 7, paragraphs 0076-0078; Saito: figures 4-15).
Claims 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson et al. (US 20180288354) in view of Saito et al. (US 20240255754) as applied to claim 3 and further in view of Alexander et al. (US 6177931).
Regarding claim 6, Anderson in view of Saito discloses the method of claim 3, wherein in response to full screen instruction, controlling the first displaying window to change the size, position, etc., the VR video being played in a full screen within the second playing window after the first playing window is changed/modified (see include, but are not limited to, Anderson: paragraphs 0013, 0026, 0031, 0043, figures 5A-5C, Saito: paragraphs 0153, 0087, 0112). Anderson in view of Saito discloses viewer can control the position, size, transparency or the PIP screen by changing the any size, position, transparency of the PIP screen/first displaying window and displaying VR content in full or entire screen (see include, but are not limited to, Anderson: paragraphs 0013, 0026, 0031, 0043, Saito: paragraphs 0153, 0087, 0112). However, Anderson does not explicitly disclose changing size or switching the display comprise controlling first playing window to disappear.
Alexander discloses in response to a full-screen playing instruction, controlling first playing window to disappear, video being played in a full screen within second playing window after the first playing window disappears (switching PIP mode to full screen mode – see include, but are not limited to, col. 4, lines 13-27, col. 6, lines 65-67, col. 7, lines 34-45).
See also the teaching in 20170332116 – paragraph 0325, figures 26-27.
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 Anderson in view of Saito with the teaching of first playing window disappear to display video content in full screen in second playing window as taught by Alexander in order to yield predictable result such as allowing the video to be viewed easily on large/full screen.
Regarding claim 7, Anderson in view of Saito and Alexander discloses the method of claim 6, wherein a full-screen playing control is displayed within the first playing window, and in response to the full-screen playing instruction, controlling the first playing window to disappear comprises: in response to a second operation on the full-screen playing control, controlling the first playing window to disappear (see include, but are not limited to, – see include, but are not limited to, col. 4, lines 13-27, col. 6, lines 65-67, col. 7, lines 34-45 – second operation is interpreted as selection to switch to full screen mode or selection to exit PIP mode).
Regarding claim 8, Anderson in view of Saito and Alexander discloses the method of claim 6. Anderson in view of Saito and Alexander discloses viewer can control the position, size, transparency or the PIP screen by changing the any size, position, transparency of the PIP screen/first displaying window and displaying VR content in full or entire screen (see include, but are not limited to, Anderson: paragraphs 0013, 0026, 0031, 0043, Saito: paragraphs 0153, 0087, 0112; Alexander: col. 3, lines 15-20, col. 4, lines 13-27, col. 6, lines 65-67, col. 7, lines 34-45). Obviously, controlling the first playing window to disappear comprises: controlling the first playing window to gradually increase until a boundary of the first playing window exceeds a boundary of the second playing window (e.g., adjusting or changing or setting the size or increasing the size of the PIP window to exceeds a boundary of the second playing window or to full screen), and the first playing window disappearing, wherein an area of the VR video displayed within the first playing window gradually increases in the process of increasing the first playing window in order to achieve the desired size of second playing window/full screen.
Regarding claim 9, Anderson in view of Saito and Alexander discloses the method of claim 6, further comprising: in response to a full-screen exit instruction, superimposing and displaying the first playing window on the second playing window (exit full screen mode to return to PIP/EPG/Guide mode – see include, but are not limited to, col. 6, lines 67- col. 7, line 30; Anderson: figures 5A-5C; Saito: figures 4-11).
Regarding claim 10, Anderson in view of Saito and Alexander discloses the method of claim 9, wherein a full-screen exit control is displayed within the second playing window, and in response to the full-screen exit instruction, superimposing and displaying the first playing window on the second playing window comprises: in response to a third operation on the full-screen exit control, controlling the first playing window to appear and to be superimposed on the second playing window (see include, but are not limited to, Alexander: col. 3, lines 15-20, col. 4, lines 13-27, col. 6, line 65 col. 7, line 45; Anderson: figures 5A-5C; Saito: figures 4-11).
Regarding claim 11, Anderson in view of Saito and Alexander obviously discloses the method of claim 9, wherein in response to the full-screen exit instruction, superimposing and displaying the first playing window on the second playing window comprises: in response to the full-screen exit instruction, controlling, based on a target location and a target size of the first playing window, the first playing window to gradually reduce to the target size and the target location from a boundary of the second playing window, wherein an area of the VR video displayed within the first playing window gradually reduces in a process of reducing the first playing window (see include, but are not limited to, Anderson: paragraphs 0013, 0026, 0031, 0043, Saito: paragraphs 0153, 0087, 0112; Alexander: col. 3, lines 15-20, col. 4, lines 13-27, col. 6, lines 65-67, col. 7, lines 34-45 and similar discussion in claim 8 for reducing size (instead or increasing in claim 8).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson et al. (US 20180288354) in view of Saito et al. (US 20240255754) as applied to claim 3 and further in view of Kitazato (US 20110043614) or Lee (US 20110321091).
Regarding claim 17, Anderson in view of Saito discloses the method of claim 3, further comprising: in response to a second video switching instruction, determining a switched video as a 2D video, and playing a switched third 2D video through the first playing window (in response to interaction/switching, rotating to different preview content, determining a switched video as 2D video and playing a third 2D video through the first playing window 500 - see include, but are not limited to, Saito: figures 4-13).
Anderson in view of Saito does not explicitly disclose closing the second playing window.
Kitazato or Lee discloses in response to a second switching instruction, determining a switching video as a 2D video, closing the second playing window (determining a switching video as a 2D video with indicator 0 for 2D video or 3 (switching from 3D to 2D video), closing playing window for 3D video) and playing a switched third 2D video through first playing window (see include, but are not limited to, Kitazato: 4, 11-13, paragraphs 0123, 0201, 0222; Lee: figure 6, paragraphs 0014, 0098).
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 Anderson in view of Saito to determining 2D video and closing second playing window as taught by Kitazato/Lee in order to yield predictable result of allowing newly selected video to be viewed easily.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Islamov et al. (US 20220207848) discloses method and apparatus for generating three dimensional images.
Sharma et al. (US 20230171456) discloses augmented reality display for content consumption based on field of view.
Kitazato (US 20110043614) discloses receiving instruction and based on video type (e.g., 2D or 3D), switching to displaying the video type (figures 4, 11-13).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AN SON PHI HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)272-7295. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am-6:30 pm.
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, NASSER M. GOODARZI can be reached at 571-272-4195. 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.
/AN SON P HUYNH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426
January 9, 2026