DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 7-12, 16, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swann et al (US 20210178266 A1), in view of Frazzini et al (US 20160094866 A1).
RE claim 1, Swann teaches An apparatus comprising: at least one processor system (Fig 1 #20, [0027]) configured to:
receive information from a computer game, the information comprising video and game metadata (Fig 5, [0081]-[0083] );
using the information, convert at least one scene in the video to a three-dimensional (3D) representation of space comprising at least a first volumetric representation of at least a first object in the video (Fig 14, [0168]-[0169] [0234]-[0235], [0249]-[0253]);
receive user-input content; insert the user-input content into the 3D representation of space and combine with the video from the computer game such that the user-input content appears in the computer game (Fig 8, [0128]-[0129]).
Swann is silent RE: set opacity to zero for all objects in the 3D representation of space except for portions of the user-input content to establish a mask; and combine the mask with the video. However Frazzini teaches in [0080]-[0081], [0140], [0151] wherein the alpha mask set opacity to zero for all objects except for the particular object.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in Swann a system and method to set opacity to zero for all objects in the 3D representation of space except for portions of the user-input content to establish a mask; and combine the mask with the video, as suggested by Frazzini, in order to effectively insert the user content and thereby ensuring system effectiveness and user experience.
RE claim 2, Swann teaches wherein the metadata comprises a z-buffer, and the processor system is configured to generate a depth map for each frame of the video using the z-buffer (Figs 3-4, [0040]-[0041], [0045]).
RE claim 3, Swann teaches wherein processor system is configured to create a point cloud for each frame base based on the depth map (abstract, Figs 12-13, [0168]- [0169]).
RE claim 7, Swann teaches wherein the user-input content comprises a drawing of a path through a game world ([0128], [0131]).
RE claim 8, Swann teaches wherein the processor system is configured to: responsive to identifying at least a first portion of the user-input content as being occluded by the first volumetric representation, not render the first portion of the user-input content ([0093]).
Claims 9-12 recite limitations similar in scope with limitations in claims 1, 7, 2-3 respectively as method and therefore rejected under same rationale.
Claims 16, 18-20 recite limitations similar in scope with limitations in claims 1, 8,7, 2 respectively and therefore rejected under same rationale. In addition Swann teaches A device, comprising: computer memory not a transitory signal (Fig 1, [0027]).
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swann as modified by Frazzini, and further in view of Ricard et al (US 20250211784 A1).
RE claim 4, Swann as modified by Frazzini is silent RE wherein processor system is configured to create a point cloud by extracting out scene geometry from a shader pipeline associated with the computer game, and then down-sample a number of mesh vertexes into the point cloud.
However Ricard teaches in [0005], [0276], [0315] to generate a point cloud from corrected geometry, wherein the rasterizer is in the shader pipeline.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in Swann as modified by Frazzini a system and method wherein processor system is configured to create a point cloud by extracting out scene geometry from a shader pipeline associated with the computer game, and then down-sample a number of mesh vertexes into the point cloud, as suggested by Ricard, in order to generate an error free point cloud and thereby increasing system effectiveness and user experience.
Claim 13 recites limitations similar in scope with limitations of claim 4 as method and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 5, 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swann as modified by Frazzini, and further in view of Fei et al (Fei B, Xu J, Zhang R, Zhou Q, Yang W, He Y. 3d gaussian splatting as new era: A survey. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics. 2024 May 7.).
RE claim 4, Swann teaches wherein the processor system is configured to: create an initial set of Gaussians for each point in the point cloud ([0234]-[0235]); and read camera poses from the metadata ([0158]-[0160], [0158], [0044]-[0045]).
Swann as modified by Frazzini is silent RE scale the Gaussians based on surface normals associated with the point cloud; and use the Gaussians and camera poses to execute Gaussian splatting to generate the 3D representation of space.
However Fei teaches in abstract, page 4430 col 1, page 4432 col 2-page 4433 col 1 to provide efficient and accurate representation of geometry and appearance properties utilizing the Gaussian splatting.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in Swann as modified by Frazzini a system and method to scale the Gaussians based on surface normals associated with the point cloud; and use the Gaussians and camera poses to execute Gaussian splatting to generate the 3D representation of space, as suggested by Fei, in order to generate efficient and accurate representation of geometry and appearance properties and thereby increasing system effectiveness and user experience.
Claim 14 recites limitations similar in scope with limitations of claim 5 as method and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
RE claim 17, Swann as modified by Frazzini is silent RE wherein the volumetric representations comprise Gaussians.
However Fei teaches in abstract, page 4430 col 1 to provide efficient and accurate representation of geometry and appearance properties utilizing the Gaussian splatting.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in Swann as modified by Frazzini a system and method wherein the volumetric representations comprise Gaussians, as suggested by Fei, in order to generate efficient and accurate representation of geometry and appearance properties and thereby increasing system effectiveness and user experience.
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swann as modified by Frazzini and Ricard, and further in view of Fei et al.
RE claim 6, Swann teaches wherein the processor system is configured to: create an initial set of Gaussians for each point in the point cloud ([0234]-[0235]); and read camera poses from the metadata ([0158]-[0160], [0158], [0044]-[0045]).
Swann as modified by Frazzini and Ricard is silent RE scale the Gaussians based on vertex normals associated with the point cloud; and use the Gaussians and camera poses to execute Gaussian splatting to generate the 3D representation of space.
However Fei teaches in abstract, page 4430 col 1, page 4432 col 2-page 4433 to provide efficient and accurate representation of geometry and appearance properties utilizing the Gaussian splatting.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in Swann as modified by Frazzini and Ricard a system and method to scale the Gaussians based on vertex normals associated with the point cloud; and use the Gaussians and camera poses to execute Gaussian splatting to generate the 3D representation of space, as suggested by Fei, in order to generate efficient and accurate representation of geometry and appearance properties and thereby increasing system effectiveness and user experience.
Claim 15 recites limitations similar in scope with limitations of claim 6 as method and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Double Patenting
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.
Claims 1-8, 9-17 and 19-20 provisionally are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5-10, 12, 16-17 and 19 of Copending US Application#18781870.
Table 1 illustrates the conflicting claim pairs:
Present Application
1
2-7
9-10
11-15
16-17
19-20
US application#18781870
1
5-9
10, 12
5-9
16-17
19, 5
Table 2 illustrates the conflicting claim pair with mapping, with the differences shown in bold form.
Claim 1 of present App.
Claim 1 of US Application#18781870
An apparatus comprising: at least one processor system configured to:
An apparatus comprising: at least one processor system configured to:
receive information from a computer game, the information comprising video and game metadata;
receive information from a computer game, the information comprising video and game metadata;
using the information, convert at least one scene in the video to a three-dimensional (3D) representation of space comprising at least a first volumetric representation of at least a first object in the video;
using the information, convert at least one scene in the video to a three-dimensional (3D) representation of space comprising at least a first volumetric representation of at least a first object in the video;
receive user-input content;
receive user-input content;
insert the user-input content into the 3D representation of space;
insert the user-input content into the 3D representation of space;
set opacity to zero for all objects in the 3D representation of space except for portions of the user-input content to establish a mask;
set opacity to zero for all objects in the 3D representation of space except for portions of the user-input content to establish a mask;
and combine the mask with the video from the computer game such that the user-input content appears in the computer game.
combine the mask with the video from the computer game such that the user-input content appears in the computer game; and animate the user-input content according to the game metadata.
As seen from the table all elements of claim 1 of application are anticipated by Claim 1 of US application#18781870 with some additional elements absent from the current application.
In addition elements of claims 2-7 of the application are anticipated by Claims 5-9 of US application#18781870 as shown in table 1.
Claims 9-15 recite limitations similar in scope with limitations in claims 1-7 and therefore rejected under same rationale. Additionally claim 10 of Patent #11276246 teaches A corresponding method.
In addition elements of claims 16-17 and 19 of the application are anticipated by Claims 16-17 and 19 of US application#18781870 as shown in table 1. Furthermore claim 20 recites limitations similar in scope with limitations in claim 2 and therefore rejected under same rationale
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 9 and 16 provisionally are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 10 and 16 of Copending US Application#18/781,823.
Table 1 illustrates the conflicting claim pairs:
Present Application
1
9
16
US application#18/781,823
1
10
16
Table 2 illustrates the conflicting claim pair with mapping, with the differences shown in bold form.
Claim 1 of present App.
Claim 1 of US Application#18/781,823
An apparatus comprising: at least one processor system configured to:
An apparatus comprising: at least one processor system configured to:
receive information from a computer game, the information comprising video and game metadata;
receive information from a computer game, the information comprising video and game metadata;
using the information, convert at least one scene in the video to a three-dimensional (3D) representation of space comprising at least a first volumetric representation of at least a first object in the video;
using the information, convert at least one scene in the video to a three-dimensional (3D) representation of space comprising at least a first volumetric representation of at least a first object in the video;
receive user-input content;
receive user-input content;
insert the user-input content into the 3D representation of space;
insert the user-input content into the 3D representation of space;
set opacity to zero for all objects in the 3D representation of space except for portions of the user-input content to establish a mask;
set opacity to zero for all objects in the 3D representation of space except for portions of the user-input content to establish a mask;
and combine the mask with the video from the computer game such that the user-input content appears in the computer game.
and combine the mask with the video from the computer game such that the user-input content appears in the computer game wherein the user-input content comprises a mesh, and the processor system is configured to alter a texture of the mesh and/or topology of the mesh according to the game metadata.
As seen from the table all elements of claim 1 of application are anticipated by Claim 1 of US application#18/781,823 with some additional elements absent from the current application.
Claim 9 recites limitations similar in scope with limitations in claim 1 and therefore rejected under same rationale. Additionally claim 10 of Patent #11276246 teaches A corresponding method.
In addition elements of claim 16 of the application are anticipated by Claim 16of US application#18/781,823 as shown in table 1.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (See attached 892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SULTANA MARCIA ZALALEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1411. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:00am-4:30pm.
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, Kent Chang can be reached on (571)272-7667. 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.
/Sultana M Zalalee/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2614
Prosecution Insights