DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Priority
2. The present Application is in a chain of Continuation applications ending in U.S. Application # 13/152,476, filed 3 June 2011. U.S. Application # 13/182,930 is a continuation of U.S. Application # 13/152,476, and a Continuation-in-Part of U.S. Application # 12/111,688, filed 29 April 2008. U.S. Application # 13/152,476 fully supports the claims as recited in the present Application, but U.S. Application # 12/111,688 does not fully support the claims as recited in the present Application. Therefore, the presently recited set of claims have a domestic priority date of 3 June 2011.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The two Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed 15 July 2024 have been fully considered by Examiner. Annotated copies are included herewith.
Double Patenting
4. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
5. Claims 1-38 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13, 24-27, and 31-35 of U.S. Patent No. 12,190,342. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the Application are broader in scope that the claims of the Patent and include the recited subject matter of the claims of the Patent, as demonstrated below. The differences are shown in bold.
Present Application
U.S. Patent No. 12,190,342
1. A system for observing a sporting event at a sporting event venue by a user comprising:
an internet communication connection operable for receiving target information at the sporting event venue during the sporting event;
an internet device coupled to the communication connection for receiving target information at the sporting event venue including a display selectable by the user to display different views of the sporting event venue during the sporting event with one view displaying information associated with one or more targets,
wherein the user can select the position of the source of a view of the venue.
1. A system for observing a sporting event having sport participants at a sporting event venue by a user comprising:
an internet communication connection operable for receiving a plurality of sport participants positions at the sporting event venue in approximately real time during the sporting event;
an internet device coupled to the communication connection for receiving participant positions at the sporting event venue including a display selectable by the user to display different views of the sporting event venue in approximately real time during the sporting event with one view displaying one or more participants,
wherein the user can select the position of the source of a view of the venue.
As can be seen above, claim 1 of the Application recites the more general “target information” and “information associated with one or more targets”, which is broader than “participant positions” and “one or more participants, as recited in claim 1 of the Patent. Furthermore, claim 1 of the Application does not specify that the displaying occurs “in approximately real time”, through that would be an obvious variation for a display of a sporting event. Thus, claim 1 of the Application and claim 1 of the Patent are obvious variants.
Similarly, claims 2-9 of the Application and claims 2-9 of the Patent are, respectively, obvious variants.
Similarly, claims 10-11 of the Application and claims 33-34 of the Patent are, respectively, obvious variants.
Claim 12 of the Application and claim 32 of the Patent are include similar overlapping features, and are obvious variants.
Similarly, claims 13-16 of the Application and claims 24-27 of the Patent are, respectively, obvious variants.
Claim 17 of the Application and claim 35 of the Patent are include similar overlapping features, and are obvious variants.
Claim 18 of the Application includes further limitations from claim 1 of the Patent, so claim 18 of the Application and claim 1 of the Patent are obvious variants.
Claim 19 of the Application includes further limitations which are obvious variants over claim 1 of the Patent, so claim 19 of the Application and claim 1 of the Patent are obvious variants.
Similarly, claims 20-23 of the Application and claims 10-13 of the Patent are, respectively, obvious variants.
Claim 24 of the Application and claim 35 of the Patent are include similar overlapping features, and are obvious variants.
Claim 25 of the Application includes further limitations from claim 11 of the Patent, so claim 25 of the Application and claim 11 of the Patent are obvious variants.
Claim 26 of the Application includes further limitations which are obvious variants over claim 11 of the Patent, so claim 26 of the Application and claim 11 of the Patent are obvious variants.
Claim 27 of the Application includes further limitations from claim 11 of the Patent, so claim 27 of the Application and claim 11 of the Patent are obvious variants.
Similarly, claims 28-29 of the Application and claims 24-25 of the Patent are, respectively, obvious variants.
Claim 30 of the Application and claim 32 of the Patent are include similar overlapping features, and are obvious variants.
Claim 31 of the Application and claim 32 of the Patent are include similar overlapping features, and are obvious variants.
Similarly, claims 32-35 of the Application and claims 31-34 of the Patent are, respectively, obvious variants.
Claim 36 of the Application and claim 35 of the Patent are include similar overlapping features, and are obvious variants.
Claim 37 of the Application includes further limitations from claim 31 of the Patent, so claim 37 of the Application and claim 31 of the Patent are obvious variants.
Claim 38 of the Application includes further limitations which are obvious variants over claim 31 of the Patent, so claim 38 of the Application and claim 31 of the Patent are obvious variants.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
7. Claims 1-7, 10, 13, 14, 18, 19, 32, 34, 37 and 38 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hayashi (US-2002/0094853) in view of Elliott (US-6,868,338).
Regarding claim 1: Hayashi discloses a system (fig 6 and [0031] of Hayashi) for observing a sporting event at a sporting event venue by a user (fig 1, figs 7A-7B, [0021], and [0045]-[0046] of Hayashi) comprising: an electronic communication connection (fig 6(20) and [0033] of Hayashi) operable for receiving target information at the sporting event venue during the sporting event ([0033]-[0036] of Hayashi – tracks positions of race horse miniatures); an electronic device coupled to the communication connection (fig 6(10) and [0021]-[0024] of Hayashi) for receiving target information at the sporting event venue ([0025], and [0032]-[0034] of Hayashi) including a display (fig 6(13,33), [0023], and [0028] of Hayashi) selectable by the user to display different views of the sporting event venue during the sporting event with one view displaying information associated with one or more targets (fig 4 and [0026]-[0030] of Hayashi), wherein the user can select the position of the source of a view of the venue ([0040]-[0041], and [0049] of Hayashi – scroll switch used by player to determine virtual viewpoint).
Hayashi does not disclose the electronic communication connection is an internet communication connection; and the electronic device is an internet device.
Elliott discloses the electronic communication connection is an internet communication connection; and the electronic device is an internet device (fig 4(62); fig 7(80); column 6, lines 2-5; and column 7, lines 20-32 of Elliott).
Hayashi and Elliott are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely remote viewing of sporting events. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the electronic communication connection be an internet communication connection, and the electronic device be an internet device, as taught by Elliott. The suggestion for doing so would have been that internet communications are common, efficient, and effective means to transmit information between locations. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Hayashi according to the relied-upon teachings of Elliott to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2: Hayashi in view of Elliott discloses the system of claim 1 (as rejected above), wherein the user view selectable on the display is to a target from the spectator's selected source view of the venue (fig 4, figs 7A-7B, [0026]-[0027], and [0046]-[0049] of Hayashi).
Regarding claim 3: Hayashi in view of Elliott discloses the system of claim 1 (as rejected above), wherein the user view selectable on the display is an orientation of the view from the user's selected source position (figs 7A-7B and [0046]-[0049] of Hayashi).
Regarding claim 4: Hayashi in view of Elliott discloses the system of claim 1 (as rejected above), wherein said internet device includes a processor for receiving target information and for comparing said target with said user's selected source position (fig 1, fig 4, and [0024]-[0027] of Hayashi), and is coupled to said display to generate said user view from the user's selected source position to a target (figs 7A-7B and [0046]-[0049] of Hayashi).
Regarding claim 5: Hayashi in view of Elliott discloses the system of claim 1 (as rejected above), wherein said user view from the user's selected source position is adjustable by the user to zoom in or out (figs 7A-7B and [0046]-[0048] of Hayashi).
Regarding claim 6: Hayashi in view of Elliott discloses the system of claim 1 (as rejected above). Elliott further discloses wherein one of said user's different views is an overhead view of the venue for the sporting event (fig 1; fig 8; and column 7, line 66 to column 8, line 27 of Elliott).
Hayashi and Elliott are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely remote viewing of sporting events. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have one of said user's different views be an overhead view of the venue for the sporting event, as taught by Elliott. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow users to review the event later from a different perspective, allowing the users to better understand the performance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Hayashi according to the relied-upon teachings of Elliott to obtain the invention as specified in claim 6.
Regarding claim 7: Hayashi in view of Elliott discloses the system of claim 1 (as rejected above), wherein said user's selected source position is the position of one of the participants at the sporting event venue (fig 1, fig 4, and [0026]-[0027] of Hayashi).
Regarding claim 10: Hayashi in view of Elliott discloses the system of claim 1 (as rejected above), wherein a view on said display includes a virtual rendering associated with a displayed target (figs 7A-7B, [0042], and [0045]-[0048] of Hayashi).
Regarding claim 13: Hayashi in view of Elliott discloses the system of claim 1 (as rejected above), wherein said internet device is remote from the venue of the sporting event (fig 1(20); column 2, lines 46-59; and column 7, lines 18-42 of Elliott). Hayashi and Elliott are combined for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 14: Hayashi in view of Elliott discloses the system of claim 1 (as rejected above), wherein said internet device is proximate to the venue of the sporting event (fig 1(20), fig 3(20), and [0024]-[0027] of Hayashi – satellite terminal (internet device, by combination with Elliott) is located proximate the racetrack).
Regarding claim 18: Hayashi in view of Elliott discloses the system of claim 1 (as rejected above), wherein said target is a sporting event participant (fig 1(12), fig 7B, and [0047]-[0048] of Hayashi).
Regarding claim 19: Hayashi in view of Elliott discloses the system of claim 1 (as rejected above), wherein said target is an object at the sporting event venue (fig 1, figs 7A-7B, [0021]-[0022], and [0046]-[0047] of Hayashi).
Regarding claim 32: Hayashi discloses a system (fig 6 and [0031] of Hayashi) for enabling a user to observe a sporting event at a sporting event venue (fig 1, figs 7A-7B, [0021], and [0045]-[0046] of Hayashi) comprising: an electronic communication connection (fig 6(20) and [0033] of Hayashi) operable for transmitting information about one or more targets at the sporting event during the sporting event ([0033]-[0036] of Hayashi – tracks positions of race horse miniatures); program instructions operating on an electronic device accompanying the user and coupled to the communication connection for receiving target information ([0033] and [0052] of Hayashi), said program instructions operable to allow the user to display different views of the sporting event venue during the sporting event with one view displaying one or more targets and associated target information (fig 1, fig 4, and [0026]-[0030] of Hayashi), and operable to allow the user to select the position of the source of a view of the venue ([0040]-[0041], and [0049] of Hayashi – scroll switch used by player to determine virtual viewpoint).
Hayashi does not disclose the electronic communication connection is an internet communication connection; and the electronic device is an internet device.
Elliott discloses the electronic communication connection is an internet communication connection; and the electronic device is an internet device (fig 4(62); fig 7(80); column 6, lines 2-5; and column 7, lines 20-32 of Elliott).
Hayashi and Elliott are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely remote viewing of sporting events. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the electronic communication connection be an internet communication connection, and the electronic device be an internet device, as taught by Elliott. The suggestion for doing so would have been that internet communications are common, efficient, and effective means to transmit information between locations. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Hayashi according to the relied-upon teachings of Elliott to obtain the invention as specified in claim 32.
Regarding claim 34: Hayashi in view of Elliott discloses the system of claim 32 (as rejected above), wherein a view on said display includes a virtual rendering associated with a displayed target (figs 7A-7B, [0042], and [0045]-[0048] of Hayashi).
Regarding claim 37: Hayashi in view of Elliott discloses the system of claim 32 (as rejected above), wherein said target is a sporting event participant (fig 1(12), fig 7B, and [0047]-[0048] of Hayashi).
Regarding claim 38: Hayashi in view of Elliott discloses the system of claim 32 (as rejected above), wherein said target is an object at the sporting event venue (fig 1, figs 7A-7B, [0021]-[0022], and [0046]-[0047] of Hayashi).
8. Claims 8, 9, 11, 12, 17, 33, 35 and 36 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hayashi (US-2002/0094853) in view of Elliott (US-6,868,338), and in further view of Porter (US-2009/0094106).
Regarding claim 8: Hayashi in view of Elliott discloses the system of claim 1 (as rejected above). Hayashi in view of Elliott does not disclose wherein said user's different views on said display include a composition of geographic referenced datasets, including at least imagery and virtual renderings.
Porter discloses wherein said user's different views on said display include a composition of geographic referenced datasets, including at least imagery and virtual renderings (fig 2, fig 3(308,310), [0027], and [0031]-[0032] of Porter).
Hayashi and Porter are analogous art because they are from similar problem solving areas, namely displaying virtual content at different viewpoints to different viewers in the virtual space. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have said user's different views on said display include a composition of geographic referenced datasets, including at least imagery and virtual renderings, as taught by Porter. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow for targeted advertising for each user of the virtual system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Hayashi further according to the relied-upon teachings of Porter to obtain the invention as specified in claim 8.
Regarding claim 9: Hayashi in view of Elliott, and in further view of Porter, discloses the system of claim 8 (as rejected above), wherein one of said user's different views includes geographic referenced positions of one or more targets overlaid said composition (fig 1(26a) and [0035] of Hayashi – different views include referenced positions of the targets; and [0032] of Porter – “Exemplary properties include, but are not limited to, age, gender, ethnicity, income, geographic location, hobbies, preferences, and the like.”; reference positions can be geographic). Hayashi and Porter are combined for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 8.
Regarding claim 11: Hayashi in view of Elliott discloses the system of claim 10 (as rejected above). Hayashi in view of Elliott does not disclose wherein said virtual rendering includes a message associated with said displayed target.
Porter discloses wherein said virtual rendering includes a message associated with said displayed target (fig 2(210) and [0028]-[0029] of Porter).
Hayashi and Porter are analogous art because they are from similar problem solving areas, namely displaying virtual content at different viewpoints to different viewers in the virtual space. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have said virtual rendering include a message associated with said displayed target, as taught by Porter. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow for targeted advertising for each user of the virtual system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Hayashi further according to the relied-upon teachings of Porter to obtain the invention as specified in claim 11.
Regarding claim 12: Hayashi in view of Elliott discloses the system of claim 10 (as rejected above). Hayashi in view of Elliott does not disclose wherein said virtual rendering is georeferenced to said displayed target.
Porter discloses wherein said virtual rendering is georeferenced to said displayed target (fig 2(210), [0028]-[0029], and [0032] of Porter).
Hayashi and Porter are analogous art because they are from similar problem solving areas, namely displaying virtual content at different viewpoints to different viewers in the virtual space. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to geo-reference said virtual rendering to said displayed target, as taught by Porter. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow for targeted advertising for each user of the virtual system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Hayashi further according to the relied-upon teachings of Porter to obtain the invention as specified in claim 12.
Regarding claim 17: Hayashi in view of Elliott discloses the system of claim 1 (as rejected above). Hayashi in view of Elliott does not disclose wherein said target information comprises advertising.
Porter discloses wherein said target information comprises advertising (fig 2 (210) and [0028] of Porter).
Hayashi and Porter are analogous art because they are from similar problem solving areas, namely displaying virtual content at different viewpoints to different viewers in the virtual space. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have said target information comprise advertising, as taught by Porter. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow for targeted advertising for each user of the virtual system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Hayashi further according to the relied-upon teachings of Porter to obtain the invention as specified in claim 17.
Regarding claim 33: Hayashi in view of Elliott discloses the system of claim 32 (as rejected above). Hayashi in view of Elliott discloses wherein said user's different views include a composition of geographic referenced datasets, including at least imagery and virtual renderings.
Porter discloses wherein said user's different views include a composition of geographic referenced datasets, including at least imagery and virtual renderings (fig 2, fig 3(308,310), [0027], and [0031]-[0032] of Porter).
Hayashi and Porter are analogous art because they are from similar problem solving areas, namely displaying virtual content at different viewpoints to different viewers in the virtual space. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have said user's different views include a composition of geographic referenced datasets, including at least imagery and virtual renderings, as taught by Porter. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow for targeted advertising for each user of the virtual system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Hayashi further according to the relied-upon teachings of Porter to obtain the invention as specified in claim 33.
Regarding claim 35: Hayashi in view of Elliott discloses the system of claim 32 (as rejected above). Hayashi in view of Elliott does not disclose wherein a view on said display includes a message associated with a displayed target.
Porter discloses wherein a view on said display includes a message associated with a displayed target (fig 2(210) and [0028]-[0029] of Porter).
Hayashi and Porter are analogous art because they are from similar problem solving areas, namely displaying virtual content at different viewpoints to different viewers in the virtual space. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have a view on said display includes a message associated with a displayed target, as taught by Porter. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow for targeted advertising for each user of the virtual system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Hayashi further according to the relied-upon teachings of Porter to obtain the invention as specified in claim 35.
Regarding claim 36: Hayashi in view of Elliott discloses the system of claim 32 (as rejected above). Hayashi in view of Elliott does not disclose wherein said target information comprising advertising.
Porter discloses wherein said target information comprising advertising (fig 2 (210) and [0028] of Porter).
Hayashi and Porter are analogous art because they are from similar problem solving areas, namely displaying virtual content at different viewpoints to different viewers in the virtual space. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have said target information comprise advertising, as taught by Porter. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow for targeted advertising for each user of the virtual system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Hayashi further according to the relied-upon teachings of Porter to obtain the invention as specified in claim 36.
9. Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hayashi (US-2002/0094853) in view of Elliott (US-6,868,338), and in further view of Meadows (US-8,172,702).
Regarding claim 15: Hayashi in view of Elliott discloses the system of claim 1 (as rejected above). Hayashi in view of Elliott does not disclose wherein said internet device comprises a portable device and said internet communication connection comprises a radio coupled to the internet device.
Meadows discloses wherein said internet device comprises a portable device (column 7, lines 49-67 of Meadows) and said internet communication connection comprises a radio coupled to the internet device (column 2, lines 17-21 of Meadows – teaches that radios can be used to transmit correction data; invention of Meadows is an improvement, but does not contradict the possibility of using radio transmission).
Hayashi and Meadows are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely displaying virtual content at different viewpoints to different viewers in the virtual space. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have said internet device comprise a portable device and said internet communication connection comprise a radio coupled to the internet device, as taught by Meadows. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow the user greater mobility in the virtual space. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Hayashi further according to the relied-upon teachings of Meadows to obtain the invention as specified in claim 15.
Regarding claim 16: Hayashi in view of Elliott discloses the system of claim 1 (as rejected above). Hayashi in view of Elliott does not disclose wherein said internet device comprises a gaming device, personal computer, gaming PDA, a cell phone, smart phone, tablet computer, head mounted display, glasses or a game console.
Meadows discloses wherein said internet device comprises a gaming device, personal computer, gaming PDA, a cell phone, smart phone, tablet computer, head mounted display, glasses or a game console (column 4, lines 35-44; and column 7, lines 49-67 of Meadows).
Hayashi and Meadows are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely displaying virtual content at different viewpoints to different viewers in the virtual space. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have said internet device comprise a gaming device, personal computer, gaming PDA, a cell phone, smart phone, tablet computer, head mounted display, glasses or a game console, as taught by Meadows. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow the user greater mobility in the virtual space. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Hayashi further according to the relied-upon teachings of Meadows to obtain the invention as specified in claim 16.
10. Claims 20, 21, 24-27 and 29-31 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hayashi (US-2002/0094853) in view of Porter (US-2009/0094106).
Regarding claim 20: Hayashi discloses a method for observing a sporting event having one or more targets at a sporting event venue (fig 1, figs 7A-7B, [0021], and [0045]-[0046] of Hayashi) comprising: receiving in approximately real time during the sporting event information about a target at the venue of the sporting event ([0025], and [0032]-[0034] of Hayashi – receiving information about race horse miniatures during the racing event); viewing during the sporting event on the display of a spectator's device a perspective view of the target at the sporting event venue (fig 1, fig 4, and [0026]-[0030] of Hayashi), the view including background environment (fig 1 (10,11) and [0021]-[0024] of Hayashi); and viewing during the sporting event target information (fig 4 and [0026]-[0030] of Hayashi).
Hayashi does not disclose the target information comprising a geo-referenced message associated with said target in the background environment at the sporting event venue and displayed on the display to convey information to the spectator, wherein said message is geo-referenced to said target from different user-perspective views.
Porter discloses the target information comprising a geo-referenced message associated with said target in the background environment at the venue and displayed on the display to convey information to the spectator (fig 2(214), fig 3(308,310), and [0028]-[0031] of Porter), wherein said message is geo-referenced to said target from different user-perspective views ([0025] and [0028]-[0029] of Porter).
Hayashi and Porter are analogous art because they are from similar problem solving areas, namely displaying virtual content at different viewpoints to different viewers in the virtual space. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the target information comprise a geo-referenced message associated with said target in the background environment at the venue and displayed on the display to convey information to the spectator, wherein said message is geo-referenced to said target from different user-perspective views, as taught by Porter. By combination with Hayashi, the venue would specifically be a sporting event venue. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow for targeted advertising for each user of the virtual system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Hayashi according to the relied-upon teachings of Porter to obtain the invention as specified in claim 20.
Regarding claim 21: Hayashi in view of Porter discloses the method of claim 20 (as rejected above), wherein said device includes an input mechanism for selecting a source location for viewing the sporting event, one of the selectable points of view being from the selected source position (fig 4, figs 7A-7B, [0026]-[0027], and [0047]-[0050] of Hayashi).
Regarding claim 24: Hayashi in view of Porter discloses the method of claim 20 (as rejected above), wherein said target information comprises advertising (fig 1(214) and [0028]-[0029] of Porter). Hayashi and Porter are combined for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 20.
Regarding claim 25: Hayashi in view of Porter discloses the method of claim 20 (as rejected above), wherein said target is a sporting event participant (fig 1(12), fig 7B, and [0047]-[0048] of Hayashi).
Regarding claim 26: Hayashi in view of Porter discloses the method of claim 20 (as rejected above), wherein said target is an object at the sporting event venue (fig 1, figs 7A-7B, [0021]-[0022], and [0046]-[0047] of Hayashi).
Regarding claim 27: Hayashi in view of Porter discloses the method of claim 20 (as rejected above), wherein said target is a participant and said target information is participant information (fig 1(12), fig 7B, and [0047]-[0048] of Hayashi).
Regarding claim 29: Hayashi in view of Porter discloses the method of claim 20 (as rejected above), wherein said spectator's device is proximate to the venue of the sporting event (fig 1(20), fig 3(20), and [0024]-[0027] of Hayashi – satellite terminal is located proximate the racetrack).
Regarding claim 30: Hayashi in view of Porter discloses the method of claim 20 (as rejected above), wherein said georeferenced message is associated with a target in said perspective view (fig 2(210), [0028]-[0029], and [0032] of Porter). Hayashi and Porter are combined for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 20.
Regarding claim 31: Hayashi in view of Porter discloses the method of claim 20 (as rejected above), wherein said georeferenced message comprises a georeferenced billboard associated with a target at the venue of the sporting event (fig 2(210), [0028]-[0029], and [0032] of Porter). Hayashi and Porter are combined for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 20.
11. Claims 22, 23 and 28 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hayashi (US-2002/0094853) in view of Porter (US-2009/0094106) and in further view of Elliott (US-6,868,338).
Regarding claim 22: Hayashi in view of Porter discloses the method of claim 21 (as rejected above). Hayashi in view of Porter does not disclose wherein one of said points of view being an overhead view of said venue.
Elliott discloses wherein one of said points of view being an overhead view of said venue (fig 1; fig 8; and column 7, line 66 to column 8, line 27 of Elliott).
Hayashi and Elliott are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely remote viewing of sporting events. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have one of said points of view be an overhead view of said venue, as taught by Elliott. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow users to review the event later from a different perspective, allowing the users to better understand the performance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Hayashi further according to the relied-upon teachings of Elliott to obtain the invention as specified in claim 22.
Regarding claim 23: Hayashi in view of Porter discloses the method of claim 20 (as rejected above), wherein said perspective view is from a participant position (fig 4, figs 7A-7B, [0026]-[0027], and [0045]-[0047] of Hayashi). Hayashi in view of Porter does not disclose the participant position determined with a GPS receiver at least in part.
Elliott discloses the participant position determined with a GPS receiver at least in part (fig 1; and column 2, lines 50-57 of Elliott).
Hayashi and Elliott are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely remote viewing of sporting events. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the participant position with a GPS receiver at least in part, as taught by Elliott. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow users to review the event later from a different perspective, allowing the users to better understand the performance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Hayashi further according to the relied-upon teachings of Elliott to obtain the invention as specified in claim 23.
Regarding claim 28: Hayashi in view of Porter discloses the method of claim 20 (as rejected above). Hayashi in view of Porter does not disclose wherein said spectator's device is remote from the venue of the sporting event.
Elliott discloses wherein said spectator's device is remote from the venue of the sporting event (fig 1(20); column 2, lines 46-59; and column 7, lines 18-42 of Elliott).
Hayashi and Elliott are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely remote viewing of sporting events. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have said spectator's device be remote from the venue of the sporting event, as taught by Elliott. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow users to review the event later from a different perspective, allowing the users to better understand the performance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Hayashi further according to the relied-upon teachings of Elliott to obtain the invention as specified in claim 28.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James A Thompson whose telephone number is (571)272-7441. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-6pm.
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, Alicia Harrington can be reached at 571-272-2330. 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.
/JAMES A THOMPSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2615