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 .
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 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-6, 9-14, and 17-19 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claims 1, 9, and 17, the space between “at which the comment is posted” and the comma is unnecessary. Claims 2-6, 10-14, and 18-19 recite “displaying the comment at the display position in the video comment region,” which is already recited in the parent claims. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6, 8-10, 14, 16-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White (US 2014/0013200) in view of Khan et al. (US 2019/0102941) and Liu et al. (US 2010/0115426).
Regarding claim 1, White teaches/suggests: A video comment display method, performed by a computer device (White Fig. 1B: computer 20), the method comprising:
displaying a video playing interface, the video playing interface comprising a video playing region and a video comment region, and the video comment region being configured for displaying comments for a video in the video playing region (White [0029] “The comment feed may be displayed in conjunction with a video (or other content) that a user is viewing or playing”);
obtaining a comment issued by an audience account associated with the computer device (White [0029] “a user may enter a website (optionally one in which the user has subscribed to or created a user profile) and initiate playback of content. While the content is being provided by the website, the user may desire to submit a comment on a particular part of, for example, a scene of a video”);
determining a comment display attribute of the comment, the comment display attribute comprising a display position in the video comment region (White [0029] “Submission of the comment may associate with the comment a reference, which may correspond to the part of the video during which the comment was submitted” [0058] “a comment corresponding to the reference point of the video is displayed in a top position of the comment feed window 350”); and
displaying the comment at the display position in the video comment region (White [0058] “a comment corresponding to the reference point of the video is displayed in a top position of the comment feed window 350”).
White does not teach/suggest a 3D virtual watching scene. Khan, however, teaches/suggests a 3D virtual watching scene (Khan [0045] “the virtual reality spectator 120 is presented with a view through the HMD 150 that simulates occupying the seat 122 in the venue 100”). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the comment feed (the video comment region) of White to include the virtual seating of Khan for simulation.
White as modified by Khan does not teach/suggest:
determining a comment display attribute of the comment based on spatial coordinates representing a spatial position of a 3D virtual watching scene at which the comment is posted, the comment display attribute comprising a display position corresponding to the spatial position of the comment in the 3D virtual watching scene in the video comment region;
Liu, however, teaches/suggests a comment display attribute of the comment based on spatial coordinates representing a spatial position at which the comment is posted (Liu [0069] “a comment window, such as conversation bubble 418 may be displayed to enable the user and the selected avatar (as represented by avatar 406) to communicate”). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the virtual seating (the spatial coordinates) of White as modified by Khan to include respective comment windows of Liu to identify which user is making which comment. As such, White as modified by Khan and Liu teaches/suggests:
determining a comment display attribute of the comment based on spatial coordinates representing a spatial position of a 3D virtual watching scene at which the comment is posted, the comment display attribute comprising a display position corresponding to the spatial position of the comment in the 3D virtual watching scene in the video comment region (Khan [0045] “the virtual reality spectator 120 is presented with a view through the HMD 150 that simulates occupying the seat 122 in the venue 100” Liu [0069] “a comment window, such as conversation bubble 418 may be displayed to enable the user and the selected avatar (as represented by avatar 406) to communicate”);
Regarding claim 2, White as modified by Khan and Liu teaches/suggests: The method according to claim 1, wherein the determining a comment display attribute of the comment based on the spatial coordinates comprises:
determining, based on a current field of view of a virtual viewpoint of the audience account in the 3D virtual watching scene and the spatial coordinates, a target position located within the current field of view for the comment (Khan [0046] “these views can be 360 degree views of the event/venue to provide an immersive spectating experience to the virtual reality spectator 120, the views being from the perspective of particular seats or locations in the venue” Liu [0069] “a comment window, such as conversation bubble 418 may be displayed to enable the user and the selected avatar (as represented by avatar 406) to communicate” [In view of Khan and Liu, the comment window at a virtual seat meets the target position.]);
determining the display position in the video comment region corresponding to the target position for the comment (Liu [0069] “a comment window, such as conversation bubble 418 may be displayed to enable the user and the selected avatar (as represented by avatar 406) to communicate”); and
displaying the comment at the display position in the video comment region (Liu [0069] “a comment window, such as conversation bubble 418 may be displayed to enable the user and the selected avatar (as represented by avatar 406) to communicate”).
The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 6, White as modified by Khan and Liu teaches/suggests: The method according to claim 2, wherein the method further comprises:
switching the current field of view of the virtual viewpoint in the 3D virtual watching scene in response to a field of view switching operation issued by the audience account within the video comment region (Liu [0048] “the virtual reality spectator 120 is able to select the seat through an interface, so that they may view the e-sports event from the perspective of their choosing”).
The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 8, White as modified by Khan and Liu teaches/suggests: The method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises:
displaying a spatial position selection control in the video comment region (Liu [0048] “the virtual reality spectator 120 is able to select the seat through an interface, so that they may view the e-sports event from the perspective of their choosing”);
determining, in response to a trigger operation on the spatial position selection control, the spatial coordinates corresponding to the audience account according to the trigger operation (Khan [0046] “these views can be 360 degree views of the event/venue to provide an immersive spectating experience to the virtual reality spectator 120, the views being from the perspective of particular seats or locations in the venue” Liu [0069] “a comment window, such as conversation bubble 418 may be displayed to enable the user and the selected avatar (as represented by avatar 406) to communicate”).
The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated herein.
Claims 9-10, 14, and 16 recite limitation(s) similar in scope to those of claims 1-2, 6, and 8, respectively, and are rejected for the same reason(s). White as modified by Khan and Liu further teaches/suggests a processor and a memory, the memory storing at least one instruction (White Fig. 1B: processor 24 and memory 27).
Claims 17-18 and 20 recite limitation(s) similar in scope to those of claims 1-2 and 8, respectively, and are rejected for the same reason(s). White as modified by Khan and Liu further teaches/suggests a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (White Fig. 1B: memory 27).
Claim(s) 7 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White (US 2014/0013200) in view of Khan et al. (US 2019/0102941) and Liu et al. (US 2010/0115426) as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Gerba et al. (US 2011/0093897).
Regarding claim 7, White as modified by Khan and Liu teaches/suggests: The method according to claim 1, wherein the displaying the comment at the display position in the video comment region comprises:
displaying, when that the display position corresponds to one comment, the comment within display duration corresponding to the comment (White [0047] “a display duration for an existing (e.g., already submitted) comment and a presently submitted comment may be used to determine the availability of a particular slot” Liu [0069] “a comment window, such as conversation bubble 418 may be displayed to enable the user and the selected avatar (as represented by avatar 406) to communicate”);
determining, when that the display position corresponds to at least two comments, a second display priority corresponding to each of the at least two comments, wherein the second display priority is related to an audience account issuing the comment (White [0066] “The user 5 may also be associated to a member type which may affect the manner in which the user's comments will be managed (e.g., priority order)” Liu [0069] “a comment window, such as conversation bubble 418 may be displayed to enable the user and the selected avatar (as represented by avatar 406) to communicate”) and issuing time of the comment (White [0043] “The reference may be a relative point in the video (e.g., time since the start of the video, number of frames into the video, etc.) or an absolute time (e.g., date and actual time of entry), which may be useful for managing comments on live video events that are being streamed”);
The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated herein.
White, Khan, and Liu are silent regarding:
displaying the at least two comments in sequence according to the second display priority and display duration corresponding to each of the at least two comments.
Gerba, however, teaches/suggests displaying in sequence according to the second display priority and display duration (Gerba [0091] “The table defines the time(s) that an ad is ready for display in the program guide, the priority in the rotation sequence, the duration of its display for a given rotation, and its location within the guide”). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the comments of the same comment window of White as modified by Khan and Liu to be displayed in sequence as taught/suggested by Gerba to display them at different times. As such, White as modified by Khan, Liu, and Gerba teaches/suggests:
displaying the at least two comments in sequence according to the second display priority and display duration corresponding to each of the at least two comments (Khan [0045] “the virtual reality spectator 120 is presented with a view through the HMD 150 that simulates occupying the seat 122 in the venue 100” Liu [0069] “a comment window, such as conversation bubble 418 may be displayed to enable the user and the selected avatar (as represented by avatar 406) to communicate” Gerba [0091] “The table defines the time(s) that an ad is ready for display in the program guide, the priority in the rotation sequence, the duration of its display for a given rotation, and its location within the guide”).
Claim 15 recites limitation(s) similar in scope to those of claim 7, and is rejected for the same reason(s).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, 11-13, and 19 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: The limitations “determining viewpoint coordinates of the virtual viewpoint of the audience account in the 3D virtual watching scene” and “determining the comment display attribute of the comment based on the viewpoint coordinates and the spatial coordinates corresponding to the comment,” taken as a whole, render the claims patentably distinct over the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2020/0336718 – video and user text
US 2021/0385554 – change viewpoint to prevent overlap
US 2023/0224445 – add comment to viewpoint path
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANH-TUAN V NGUYEN whose telephone number is 571-270-7513. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9AM-5PM ET.
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, JASON CHAN can be reached on 571-272-3022. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANH-TUAN V NGUYEN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2619