Detailed Action
1. This office action is in response to communication filed July 18, 2024. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and claims 1, 11, and 20 are the independent claims.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. 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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
3. Claims 1-3, 6, 9, 11-13, 16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kawahara et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 7,290,216) – hereinafter “Kawahara”.
Regarding independent claim 1, Kawahara discloses:A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising:
maintaining a polyspatial graph specifying an application hierarchy comprising at least a host application, one or more hosted applications to be executed within the host application, one of the one or more hosted applications corresponding to an intermediate host application for an additional application; and (Fig. 2 and Col. 2 Lines 46-67 “In a variation on this embodiment, receiving the scene graph for the application involves receiving multiple scene graphs for multiple applications, and displaying the visual output involves displaying visual output for multiple applications in the same display. In a further variation, displaying the visual output involves ensuring that there is no interference between visual output from different user interfaces. In a further variation, the user interface manager maintains the multiple scene graphs in separate data structures. In a further variation, the user interface manager combines the multiple scene graphs into a single master scene graph that represents an entire scene to be displayed. In a variation on this embodiment, the system intercepts a user input event for the user interface at the user interface manager before the user input event is forwarded to the application. The system then performs an associated action. In a further variation, after intercepting the user input event, the user interface manager can: consume the user input event; forward the user input event to the application; or can modify the user input event before forwarding the user input event to the application.” and Col. 4, Lines 38-47 “FIG. 2 illustrates how user interface manager 112 interacts with scene graphs for various applications in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention. As is illustrated in FIG. 2, window system 118 (which is typically a portion of an associated operating system) receives input from one or more user input devices, such as user input device 210, and causes visual output to be sent to 2D display 104. Window system 118 also coordinates interactions between client applications 206-207, user input device 210 and 2D display 104.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the user interface manager is an application that interacts with other applications to handle combining multiple scene graphs for multiple individual applications into a unified scene graph.
executing the host application and the one or more hosted applications, the executing comprising: (Fig. 2 and Col. 4, Lines 38-47 “FIG. 2 illustrates how user interface manager 112 interacts with scene graphs for various applications in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention. As is illustrated in FIG. 2, window system 118 (which is typically a portion of an associated operating system) receives input from one or more user input devices, such as user input device 210, and causes visual output to be sent to 2D display 104. Window system 118 also coordinates interactions between client applications 206-207, user input device 210 and 2D display 104.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the user interface manager interacts with various applications.
receiving, at the host application, input to be transmitted to the one or more hosted applications; (Fig. 2 and Col. 4, Lines 12-27 “Note that user inputs, for example received through a mouse a keyboard, can be used to manipulate windows within 3D display model 102. More specifically, user interface manager 112 can receive input from a 2D pointing device, such as mouse 136, and can communicate this input to applications 114 and 116. In doing so, user interface manager 112 first receives an input specifying a 2D offset from mouse 136 (see step 122 in FIG. 1B). Next, the user interface manager 112 uses this 2D offset to move a cursor 109 to a new position (x.sub.1,y.sub.1) in 2D display 104 (step 124).”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the user interface manager receives input from a mouse and communicates the input to applications.
coordinating, by the host application, interactions among the one or more hosted applications; (Fig. 2 and Col. 2 Lines 46-67 “In a variation on this embodiment, receiving the scene graph for the application involves receiving multiple scene graphs for multiple applications, and displaying the visual output involves displaying visual output for multiple applications in the same display. In a further variation, displaying the visual output involves ensuring that there is no interference between visual output from different user interfaces. In a further variation, the user interface manager maintains the multiple scene graphs in separate data structures. In a further variation, the user interface manager combines the multiple scene graphs into a single master scene graph that represents an entire scene to be displayed. In a variation on this embodiment, the system intercepts a user input event for the user interface at the user interface manager before the user input event is forwarded to the application. The system then performs an associated action. In a further variation, after intercepting the user input event, the user interface manager can: consume the user input event; forward the user input event to the application; or can modify the user input event before forwarding the user input event to the application.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the user interface manager coordinates interactions between applications from their multiple scene graphs into a single master scene graph.
generating, by the host application, of an aggregated output based on outputs of the one or more hosted applications, the aggregated output comprising a scene graph; and (Fig. 2 and Col. 2 Lines 46-67 “In a variation on this embodiment, receiving the scene graph for the application involves receiving multiple scene graphs for multiple applications, and displaying the visual output involves displaying visual output for multiple applications in the same display. In a further variation, displaying the visual output involves ensuring that there is no interference between visual output from different user interfaces. In a further variation, the user interface manager maintains the multiple scene graphs in separate data structures. In a further variation, the user interface manager combines the multiple scene graphs into a single master scene graph that represents an entire scene to be displayed. In a variation on this embodiment, the system intercepts a user input event for the user interface at the user interface manager before the user input event is forwarded to the application. The system then performs an associated action. In a further variation, after intercepting the user input event, the user interface manager can: consume the user input event; forward the user input event to the application; or can modify the user input event before forwarding the user input event to the application.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the user interface manager coordinates interactions between applications from their multiple scene graphs into a single master scene graph that includes associated actions.
displaying, by the host application, of a display based on the generated aggregated output. (Fig. 2 and Col. 2 Lines 46-67 “In a variation on this embodiment, receiving the scene graph for the application involves receiving multiple scene graphs for multiple applications, and displaying the visual output involves displaying visual output for multiple applications in the same display. In a further variation, displaying the visual output involves ensuring that there is no interference between visual output from different user interfaces. In a further variation, the user interface manager maintains the multiple scene graphs in separate data structures. In a further variation, the user interface manager combines the multiple scene graphs into a single master scene graph that represents an entire scene to be displayed. In a variation on this embodiment, the system intercepts a user input event for the user interface at the user interface manager before the user input event is forwarded to the application. The system then performs an associated action. In a further variation, after intercepting the user input event, the user interface manager can: consume the user input event; forward the user input event to the application; or can modify the user input event before forwarding the user input event to the application.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the user interface manager combines the multiple scene graphs into a single master scene graph to represent a singular scene to be displayed.
Regarding claim 2, Kawahara discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 1, wherein the application hierarchy further comprises the additional application to be executed within the intermediate host application, the executing comprising:
receiving, at the intermediate host application, the input from the host application: (Fig. 2 and Col. 4, Lines 12-27 “Note that user inputs, for example received through a mouse a keyboard, can be used to manipulate windows within 3D display model 102. More specifically, user interface manager 112 can receive input from a 2D pointing device, such as mouse 136, and can communicate this input to applications 114 and 116. In doing so, user interface manager 112 first receives an input specifying a 2D offset from mouse 136 (see step 122 in FIG. 1B). Next, the user interface manager 112 uses this 2D offset to move a cursor 109 to a new position (x.sub.1,y.sub.1) in 2D display 104 (step 124).”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the user interface manager receives input from a mouse and communicates the input to applications.
transmitting, at the intermediate host application, the input to the additional application; (Fig. 2 and Col. 4, Lines 38-47 “FIG. 2 illustrates how user interface manager 112 interacts with scene graphs for various applications in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention. As is illustrated in FIG. 2, window system 118 (which is typically a portion of an associated operating system) receives input from one or more user input devices, such as user input device 210, and causes visual output to be sent to 2D display 104. Window system 118 also coordinates interactions between client applications 206-207, user input device 210 and 2D display 104.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the input sent by the user interface manager to a client application can be sent between other client applications.
receiving at the intermediate host application, output from the additional application; and (Fig. 2 and Col. 4, Lines 38-47 “FIG. 2 illustrates how user interface manager 112 interacts with scene graphs for various applications in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention. As is illustrated in FIG. 2, window system 118 (which is typically a portion of an associated operating system) receives input from one or more user input devices, such as user input device 210, and causes visual output to be sent to 2D display 104. Window system 118 also coordinates interactions between client applications 206-207, user input device 210 and 2D display 104.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the input sent by the user interface manager to a client application can be responded to with an output from a client application.
transmitting, at the intermediate host application, the output from the additional application to the host application. (Fig. 2 and Col. 4, Lines 38-47 “FIG. 2 illustrates how user interface manager 112 interacts with scene graphs for various applications in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention. As is illustrated in FIG. 2, window system 118 (which is typically a portion of an associated operating system) receives input from one or more user input devices, such as user input device 210, and causes visual output to be sent to 2D display 104. Window system 118 also coordinates interactions between client applications 206-207, user input device 210 and 2D display 104.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the input sent by the user interface manager to a client application can be responded to with an output from a client application that is received back by the user interface manager.
Regarding claim 3, Kawahara discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 1, wherein:
the host application and the one or more hosted applications share a logical 3D space; (Figs. 1A-1B and Col. 6, Lines 41-46 “If user interface manager 112 receives a request from the user to move the position of a client visual within 3D display environment 102, user interface manager 112 can check the bounding shape (box) of the client visual, and can move client visual, if necessary, so that it doesn't collide with visual for other clients.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the applications 114 and 116 and user interface manager 112 are displayed in the 3D-display model 102 shown in Fig. 1A.
each hosted application of the one or more hosted applications controls a volume or window enabled to be moved, resized or change shape; and (Figs. 1A-1B and Col. 6, Lines 41-46 “If user interface manager 112 receives a request from the user to move the position of a client visual within 3D display environment 102, user interface manager 112 can check the bounding shape (box) of the client visual, and can move client visual, if necessary, so that it doesn't collide with visual for other clients.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the user interface manager verifies requests from the user to move client visuals in the 3D display environment.
the coordinating, by the host application, of interactions among the one or more hosted applications comprises resolving conflicts among the hosted applications caused by volume overlaps in the logical 3D space for volumes or windows controlled by the hosted applications. (Figs. 1A-1B and Col. 6, Lines 41-46 “If user interface manager 112 receives a request from the user to move the position of a client visual within 3D display environment 102, user interface manager 112 can check the bounding shape (box) of the client visual, and can move client visual, if necessary, so that it doesn't collide with visual for other clients.” and Col. 7, Lines 36-41 “Note that by using user interface manager 112 in the above-described manner, we can drag-and-drop fairly complicated visuals of an application, because user interface manager 112 is aware of the scene graph and can directly manipulate a branch graph to perform drag-and-drop (and cut-and-paste) operations.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the user interface manager verifies requests from the user to move client visuals in the 3D display environment including drag-and-drop operations from one visual in an application to another application.
Regarding claim 6, Kawahara discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 1, wherein generating, by the host application, of the aggregated output is further based on local content of the host application or a local user interface (UI). (Fig. 2 and Col. 2 Lines 46-67 “In a variation on this embodiment, receiving the scene graph for the application involves receiving multiple scene graphs for multiple applications, and displaying the visual output involves displaying visual output for multiple applications in the same display. In a further variation, displaying the visual output involves ensuring that there is no interference between visual output from different user interfaces. In a further variation, the user interface manager maintains the multiple scene graphs in separate data structures. In a further variation, the user interface manager combines the multiple scene graphs into a single master scene graph that represents an entire scene to be displayed. In a variation on this embodiment, the system intercepts a user input event for the user interface at the user interface manager before the user input event is forwarded to the application. The system then performs an associated action. In a further variation, after intercepting the user input event, the user interface manager can: consume the user input event; forward the user input event to the application; or can modify the user input event before forwarding the user input event to the application.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the user interface manager coordinates interactions between applications from their multiple scene graphs into a single master scene graph that includes associated actions.
Regarding claim 9, Kawahara discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 1, wherein each application of the host application and the one or more hosted applications comprises application logic that is separate from input/output (I/O) requirements of a platform on which the application is executed. (Fig. 2 and Col. 4, Lines 38-47 “FIG. 2 illustrates how user interface manager 112 interacts with scene graphs for various applications in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention. As is illustrated in FIG. 2, window system 118 (which is typically a portion of an associated operating system) receives input from one or more user input devices, such as user input device 210, and causes visual output to be sent to 2D display 104. Window system 118 also coordinates interactions between client applications 206-207, user input device 210 and 2D display 104.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the input sent by the user interface manager to a client application is separate from platform inputs/outputs as it is specifically meant for the client application it is delivered to.
Regarding claim 11, it is a computer-implemented method claim having the same limitations as cited in non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim 1. Thus, claim 11 is also rejected under the same rationale as addressed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 12, it is a computer-implemented method claim having the same limitations as cited in non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim 2. Thus, claim 12 is also rejected under the same rationale as addressed in the rejection of claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 13, it is a computer-implemented method claim having the same limitations as cited in non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim 3. Thus, claim 13 is also rejected under the same rationale as addressed in the rejection of claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 16, it is a computer-implemented method claim having the same limitations as cited in non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim 6. Thus, claim 16 is also rejected under the same rationale as addressed in the rejection of claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 19, it is a computer-implemented method claim having the same limitations as cited in non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim 9. Thus, claim 19 is also rejected under the same rationale as addressed in the rejection of claim 9 above.
Regarding claim 20, it is a system claim having the same limitations as cited in non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim 1. Thus, claim 20 is also rejected under the same rationale as addressed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
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.
4. Claims 4-5 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawahara et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 7,290,216) – hereinafter “Kawahara” in view of Timko et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,132,373) – hereinafter “Timko”.
Regarding claim 4, Kawahara discloses he non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 3, wherein … the additional application sharing the logical 3D space or an additional 3D space associated with the logical 3D space. (Figs. 1A-1B and Col. 6, Lines 41-46 “If user interface manager 112 receives a request from the user to move the position of a client visual within 3D display environment 102, user interface manager 112 can check the bounding shape (box) of the client visual, and can move client visual, if necessary, so that it doesn't collide with visual for other clients.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the applications 114 and 116 and user interface manager 112 are displayed in the 3D-display model 102 shown in Fig. 1A.
Kawahara does not explicitly disclose:
wherein an additional application is connected, over a network, to the host application or to one of the one or more hosted applications …
However, Timko discloses:
wherein an additional application is connected, over a network, to the host application or to one of the one or more hosted applications … (Col. 8, Lines 38-46 “In an embodiment, each client device 102 may host or execute one or more client applications 110 that are capable of interacting with one or more host devices 106 via one or more networks 104. For instance, a client application 110 may be or comprise a web browser that a user may use to navigate to one or more websites or other resources provided by one or more host devices 106. As another example, a client application 110 may comprise a mobile application or “app.””) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the client applications interact with the host devices and the host applications over a network.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add wherein an additional application is connected, over a network, to the host application or to one of the one or more hosted applications as seen in Timko's invention into Kawahara's invention because these modifications allow the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way such that applications connected over a network are able to be part of a 3D rendered user interface in the same manner as applications running on local hardware.
Regarding claim 5, Kawahara discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
an application of the one or more hosted applications is associated with content or state data; and
upon detecting changes to the content or the state data wherein the changes comprise one or more of updates to assets, updates to properties of materials or updates to transformations, the application transmits the detected changes to at least the host application.
However, Timko discloses:
an application of the one or more hosted applications is associated with content or state data; and (Col. 8, Lines 55-65 “In an embodiment, a client application 110 may include a monitoring component 112. At a high level, the monitoring component 112 comprises a software component or other logic that facilitates generating performance data related to a client device's operating state, including monitoring network traffic sent and received from the client device and collecting other device and/or application-specific information. Monitoring component 112 may be an integrated component of a client application 110, a plug-in, an extension, or any other type of add-on component. Monitoring component 112 may also be a stand-alone process.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the client application has its device’s and application’s operating state/information tracked.
upon detecting changes to the content or the state data wherein the changes comprise one or more of updates to assets, updates to properties of materials or updates to transformations, the application transmits the detected changes to at least the host application. (Col. 10, Lines 11-25 “In an embodiment, the monitoring component 112 may also monitor and collect performance data related to one or more aspects of the operational state of a client application 110 and/or client device 102. For example, a monitoring component 112 may be configured to collect device performance information by monitoring one or more client device operations, or by making calls to an operating system and/or one or more other applications executing on a client device 102 for performance information. Device performance information may include, for instance, a current wireless signal strength of the device, a current connection type and network carrier, current memory performance information, a geographic location of the device, a device orientation, and any other information related to the operational state of the client device.” and Col. 8, Lines 55-65 “In an embodiment, a client application 110 may include a monitoring component 112. At a high level, the monitoring component 112 comprises a software component or other logic that facilitates generating performance data related to a client device's operating state, including monitoring network traffic sent and received from the client device and collecting other device and/or application-specific information. Monitoring component 112 may be an integrated component of a client application 110, a plug-in, an extension, or any other type of add-on component. Monitoring component 112 may also be a stand-alone process.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the client application has its device’s and application’s operating state/information tracked and transmitted to the host devices/applications via network connections.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add an application of the one or more hosted applications is associated with content or state data and upon detecting changes to the content or the state data wherein the changes comprise one or more of updates to assets, updates to properties of materials or updates to transformations, the application transmits the detected changes to at least the host application as seen in Timko's invention into Kawahara's invention because these modifications allow the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way such that application state data is tracked to force updates to applications.
Regarding claim 14, it is a computer-implemented method claim having the same limitations as cited in non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim 4. Thus, claim 14 is also rejected under the same rationale as addressed in the rejection of claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 15, it is a computer-implemented method claim having the same limitations as cited in non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim 5. Thus, claim 15 is also rejected under the same rationale as addressed in the rejection of claim 5 above.
5. Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawahara et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 7,290,216) – hereinafter “Kawahara” in view of Koh et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,983,823) – hereinafter “Koh”.
Regarding claim 7, Kawahara discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
the operations further comprising building or updating a unified model of aggregate physics content of the one or more hosted applications, the unified model to be used by the coordinating, by the host application, of the interactions among the one or more hosted applications.
However, Koh discloses:
the operations further comprising building or updating a unified model of aggregate physics content of the one or more hosted applications, the unified model to be used by the coordinating, by the host application, of the interactions among the one or more hosted applications. (Col. 5, Line 61 – Col. 6, Line 20 “Illustrative embodiments will be described below for illustrative purposes relative to the technical computing environment of the MATLAB.RTM. programming environment and the Simulink.RTM. model-based design system from The MathWorks, Inc. of Natick, Mass. Although the illustrative embodiments are described relative to a Math Works-based application, one of ordinary skill in the art will appreciate that the present invention may be applied to other graphical modeling environments and technical computing environments, such as any technical computing environments using software products of Rhapsody from I-Logix Inc., TargetLink and Real-Time Interface from dSPACE GmbH, RT-LAB.TM. from Opal-RT Technologies, Inc., EXITE from EXTESSY AG, LabVIEW and MATRIXx from National Instruments, Inc., SystemVue.TM. from Eagleware-Elanix Corporation, Mathematica.RTM. from Wolfram Research, Inc., Mathcad of Mathsoft Engineering & Education Inc., COSSAP from Synopsys, Inc., HyperSignal.RTM. from Hyperception, Inc., Dymola from Dynasim AB, or Maple.TM. from Maplesoft, a division of Waterloo Maple Inc. Furthermore, one ordinarily skilled in the art will appreciate that the present invention may apply to any graphical modeling environment, such as one providing modeling with a Unified Modeling Language (UML), Hardware Description Language (HDL), or that provides a physics modeling domain. Additionally, those skilled in the art will also appreciate that the principles and concepts are equally applicable to non-graphical modeling applications as well.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the graphical modeling environments using physics model content are used to provide physics modeling domains for applications updating in a 3D environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the operations further comprising building or updating a unified model of aggregate physics content of the one or more hosted applications, the unified model to be used by the coordinating, by the host application, of the interactions among the one or more hosted applications as seen in Koh’s invention into Kawahara's invention because these modifications allow applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results such that the displaying of multiple applications in 3D space occurs with proper physics coordination.
Regarding claim 17, it is a computer-implemented method claim having the same limitations as cited in non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim 7. Thus, claim 17 is also rejected under the same rationale as addressed in the rejection of claim 7 above.
6. Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawahara et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 7,290,216) – hereinafter “Kawahara” in view of Lojou (U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0125836).
Regarding claim 8, Kawahara discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
a subgraph of the scene graph being transmitted to a worker host application for rendering;
receiving, from the worker host application, the rendered subgraph; and
wherein displaying, by the host application, of a display based on the generated aggregated output further comprises combining, by the host application, of the rendered subgraph with locally rendered scene graph content.
However, Lojou discloses:
a subgraph of the scene graph being transmitted to a worker host application for rendering; ([0057-0058] “Store 218 may include presentations in unrendered (e.g., scene graph or subgraph) and rendered (e.g., bitmap) forms. A displaying process makes a presentation visible to a viewer. A displaying process may be performed by a displaying subsystem. For example, displaying process 220 obtains one or more bitmaps (e.g., a series for animation) from presentations store 218 and makes an image of the presentation visible on a monitor for viewing by human viewer 222.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the unrendered subgraph can be rendered by a displaying process to make the presentation visible to a human viewer.
receiving, from the worker host application, the rendered subgraph; and ([0058] “A displaying process makes a presentation visible to a viewer. A displaying process may be performed by a displaying subsystem. For example, displaying process 220 obtains one or more bitmaps (e.g., a series for animation) from presentations store 218 and makes an image of the presentation visible on a monitor for viewing by human viewer 222. Conventional image scanning and refreshing technologies may be used. Displaying process 220 may accept controls from viewer 222 for control of animation and scaling of bitmap images. Displaying process 220 may obtain unrendered presentations and/or portions of presentations and perform rendering prior to or in conjunction with displaying.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the unrendered subgraph is rendered by the displaying process and transmitted for human viewership.
wherein displaying, by the host application, of a display based on the generated aggregated output further comprises combining, by the host application, of the rendered subgraph with locally rendered scene graph content. ([0058] “A displaying process makes a presentation visible to a viewer. A displaying process may be performed by a displaying subsystem. For example, displaying process 220 obtains one or more bitmaps (e.g., a series for animation) from presentations store 218 and makes an image of the presentation visible on a monitor for viewing by human viewer 222. Conventional image scanning and refreshing technologies may be used. Displaying process 220 may accept controls from viewer 222 for control of animation and scaling of bitmap images. Displaying process 220 may obtain unrendered presentations and/or portions of presentations and perform rendering prior to or in conjunction with displaying.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the unrendered subgraph is rendered by the displaying process and transmitted for human viewership in conjunction with other presentations of scene graph content.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a subgraph of the scene graph being transmitted to a worker host application for rendering; receiving, from the worker host application, the rendered subgraph; and wherein displaying, by the host application, of a display based on the generated aggregated output further comprises combining, by the host application, of the rendered subgraph with locally rendered scene graph content as seen in Lojou’s invention into Kawahara's invention because these modifications allow the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way such that rendering of applications can be outsourced to worker applications to spread resource usage across different physical resource footprints.
Regarding claim 18, it is a computer-implemented method claim having the same limitations as cited in non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim 8. Thus, claim 18 is also rejected under the same rationale as addressed in the rejection of claim 8 above.
7. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawahara et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 7,290,216) – hereinafter “Kawahara” in view of Gladkov et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0090315) – hereinafter “Gladkov”.
Regarding claim 10, Kawahara discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 9, but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein one of the hosted applications is a sandboxed plug-in application, the sandboxed plug-in application being one of at least a user-generated content (UGC) application, a chat application, a streaming tool, a minigame, or a playable ad.
However, Gladkov discloses:
wherein one of the hosted applications is a sandboxed plug-in application, the sandboxed plug-in application being one of at least a user-generated content (UGC) application, a chat application, a streaming tool, a minigame, or a playable ad. ([0037] “In a further example, a floating application may be a video chat application that shows a 3D reconstruction of the face of the person on the other end of the line.” and [0038] “[0038] As further described below, artificial reality system 10 includes a concurrent application engine 107 that is configured to concurrently execute multiple artificial reality applications that collaboratively build and share a common artificial reality environment. In the example of FIG. 1A, concurrent application engine 107 receives modeling information of objects of a plurality of artificial reality applications. For instance, concurrent application engine 107 receives modeling information of agenda object 140 of an agenda application to display agenda information. Concurrent application engine 107 also receives modeling information of virtual media object 142 of a media content application to display media content (e.g., GIF, photo, application, live-stream, video, text, web-browser, drawing, animation, 3D model, representation of data files (including two-dimensional and three-dimensional datasets), or any other visible media).”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the hosted applications include video chat applications and live-stream applications.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add wherein one of the hosted applications is a sandboxed plug-in application, the sandboxed plug-in application being one of at least a user-generated content (UGC) application, a chat application, a streaming tool, a minigame, or a playable ad as seen in Gladkov’s invention into Kawahara's invention because these modifications allow the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results such that different application types can be displayed at the same time such as games, chats, or video-streams via multiple applications.
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Such prior art includes:
- Papon et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,607,105) which discloses a collector batching a multitude of local scene graphs for processing to produce a global scene graph (Col. 12, Lines 41-56).
- Schrock et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0068639) which discloses retrieving data items from hierarchical groups based on application queries (Fig. 1 and [0039]).
- Bathiche (U.S. Pub. No. US 2010/0271315) which discloses verifying access control privileges of an application program to resolve conflicts between multiple competing programs that make concurrent or overlapping display requests ([0034]).
- Herman et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0274070) which discloses a top-down render traversal across scene nodes which are subgraphs of a scene graph ([0107]).
- Fahrni et al. (WO 2023/055957) which discloses handling task management/communication between host applications and source applications with embedded tasks in between their application layers.
- Webster et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0199213) which discloses a graph component integrating into a display hierarchy based on the recipient application’s status in the window ([0021]).
Examiner has cited particular columns/paragraphs/sections and line numbers in the references applied and not relied upon to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
When responding to the Office action, applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the reference(s) cited or the objections made. A showing of how the amendments avoid such references or objections must also be present. See 37 C.F.R. 1.111(c).
When responding to this Office action, applicant is advised to provide the line and page numbers in the application and/or reference(s) cited to assist in locating the appropriate paragraphs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL B TRAINOR whose telephone number is (571)272-3710. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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, Pierre Vital can be reached at (571) 272-4215. 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.
/D.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2198
/PIERRE VITAL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2198
Prosecution Insights