DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
This application is a continuation of U.S. Application No. 17/953,884, filed on September 27, 2022, which is a continuation of U.S. Application No. 17/075,454, filed on October 20, 2020.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is considered by the examiner.
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, 8 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US Publication Number 2019/0297304 A1, see IDS) in view of Pazour et al. (NPL, “Virtual Reality Conferencing”, 2018).
(1) regarding claim 1:
As shown in fig. 1, Li disclosed a computer-implemented method for streaming video and audio for a virtual conference (para. [0064], note that the group video session refers to a video session performed by a plurality of (two or more) users based on the server. The plurality of users may be a plurality of users on a social platform corresponding to the server, and the plurality of users may have a group relationship or a friendship. Also see para. [0078]), comprising:
receiving an audio stream and a video stream of a first participant of the virtual conference (para. [0081], note that when any user speaks during the group video session, the user equipment may send recorded audio data to the server in real time. Therefore, when receiving the audio data corresponding to the virtual user, the server may synthesize the current image data with the audio data,), the video stream including a plurality of frames, the first participant located in a volume area within the virtual conference (para. [0120], note that the server may add a frame to layer edges of the specified video data during synthesis, so that the specified video data has a display effect of being rendered on a “virtual screen” in the virtual environment. Definitely, if display positions in two or more pieces of specified video data are adjacent, the server may also add frames to layer edges of these pieces of specified video data);
generating an avatar navigable by the first participant, the avatar represented by a three-dimensional model (para. [0121], note that for each virtual user in the group video session, the server obtains a three-dimensional virtual character and audio data of the virtual user designated for the display position corresponding to the virtual user (e.g., to be integrated/synthesized to the target video at specific location and/or time).).
Li disclosed most of the subject matter as described above except for specifically teaching from a perspective of a virtual camera of a second participant, rendering for display for the second participant the avatar having respective frames from the plurality of frames from video stream mapped onto the three-dimensional model; and upon determining that the second participant is inside the volume area with the first participant, providing the audio stream to the second participant.
However, Pazour disclosed from a perspective of a virtual camera of a second participant, rendering for display for the second participant the avatar having respective frames from the plurality of frames from video stream mapped onto the three-dimensional model (page 3, III. System Overview, para. [0005], note that a host initiates a session and up to three clients can be invited to join the session in the same room. The avatars are automatically placed around the office table in a round robin order. Personalized 3D avatars: Possibility to integrate personalized avatars, i.e., the creation of a user’s face modeled by provided photos of users together with a generic model inside the application, Also see, page 5, para. [0002]); and upon determining that the second participant is inside the volume area with the first participant, providing the audio stream to the second participant (page 7, V. Network Architecture, para. [0003], note that when a user joins the VR conferencing room a proxy voice chat object is instantiated and spawned directly at the users position at each connected client. On audio input via push to talk the user sends his audio stream packages to the server which distributes them to the registered local proxies for each user. The mouth and gesture animation will then be handled locally by each client on successfully delivered audio stream packages).
At the time of filing for the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art to teach from a perspective of a virtual camera of a second participant, rendering for display for the second participant the avatar having respective frames from the plurality of frames from video stream mapped onto the three-dimensional model; and upon determining that the second participant is inside the volume area with the first participant, providing the audio stream to the second participant. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been in order to efficiently indicate a positive impact on the feeling of presence by users wearing virtual reality headsets as compared to the group without headsets (abs.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Li with Pazour to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
The proposed rejection of claim 1 renders obvious the steps of the system claim 8 and the non-transitory computer-readable device claim 15 because these steps occur in the operation of the proposed rejection as discussed above. Thus, the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 1 is equally applicable to claims 8 and 15.
Claim(s) 2-3, 6, 9-10, 13, 16 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li and Pazour, and further in view of Hupfer et al. (US Publication Number 2007/0282657 A1, hereinafter “Hupfer”).
(1) regarding claim 2:
Li disclosed most of the subject matter as described above except for specifically teaching wherein the volume area is a hierarchical volume space.
However, Hupfer disclosed wherein the volume area is a hierarchical volume space (para. [0034], note that the illustrative user interface 100 of FIG. 2 is shown including an artifacts user interface component 101, containing a hierarchical "tree" (or "outline") organization 102 of visual representations of team space artifacts).
At the time of filing for the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art to teach wherein the volume area is a hierarchical volume space. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been in order to provide an activity-centric collaboration space provides representations of the tasks that the team has planned, is engaged in, and has completed as a means of enhancing cross-team awareness and coordination (abs.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Li, Pazour with Hupfer to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2.
(2) regarding claim 3:
Li disclosed most of the subject matter as described above except for specifically teaching wherein the hierarchical volume space is represented as a tree.
However, Hupfer disclosed wherein the hierarchical volume space is represented as a tree (para. [0034], note that tasks user interface component 103 includes visual representations of team space tasks, similarly organized as a hierarchical tree 104).
At the time of filing for the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art to teach wherein the hierarchical volume space is represented as a tree. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been in order to provide an activity-centric collaboration space provides representations of the tasks that the team has planned, is engaged in, and has completed as a means of enhancing cross-team awareness and coordination (abs.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Li, Pazour with Hupfer to obtain the invention as specified in claim 3.
(3) regarding claim 6:
Li disclosed most of the subject matter as described above except for specifically teaching wherein the volume area is a virtual office.
However, Hupfer disclosed wherein the volume area is a virtual office (para. [0037], note that the display component 116 indicates that the team space member "Bryan" associated with the team space member representation 114 is currently active, is in the office, is currently working in the Orion team space).
At the time of filing for the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art to teach wherein the volume area is a virtual office. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been in order to provide an activity-centric collaboration space provides representations of the tasks that the team has planned, is engaged in, and has completed as a means of enhancing cross-team awareness and coordination (abs.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Li, Pazour with Hupfer to obtain the invention as specified in claim 6.
The proposed rejection of claims 2 and 6, renders obvious the steps of the system claims 9-10 and 13 and the non-transitory computer-readable device claims 16 and 19 because these steps occur in the operation of the proposed rejection as discussed above. Thus, the arguments similar to that presented above for claims 2 and 6 are equally applicable to claims 9-10, 13, 16 and 19.
Claim(s) 5, 12 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li, Pazour, Hupfer and further in view of Bear et al. (US Publication Number 2017/0028308 A1).
(1) regarding claim 5:
Li disclosed most of the subject matter as described above except for specifically teaching wherein each volume area in the hierarchical volume space is associated with a roll-off factor.
However, Bear disclosed wherein each volume area in the hierarchical volume space is associated with a roll-off factor (para. [0153], note that openAL enables a designer to specify the location of each virtual speaker in the VE, the direction the virtual speaker is facing in the VE, a roll-off factor (i.e. the attenuation range of a virtual speaker)).
At the time of filing for the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art to teach wherein each volume area in the hierarchical volume space is associated with a roll-off factor. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been in order to enable a participant to pivot, tip and aim a handheld display device to control a remote-controlled toy or full-sized vehicle (abs.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Li, Pazour, Hupfer with Bear to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5.
The proposed rejection of claim 5 renders obvious the steps of the system claim 12 and the non-transitory computer-readable device claim 18 because these steps occur in the operation of the proposed rejection as discussed above. Thus, the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 5 is equally applicable to claim 12 and 18.
Claim(s) 7, 14 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li, Pazour. and further in view of Bear et al. (US Publication Number 2017/0028308 A1).
(1) regarding claim 7:
Li further disclosed the method of claim 1, further comprising: adjusting a relative right-left volume of the audio stream based on a distance between the first participant and the second participant (para. [0122], note that adjust the three-dimensional virtual character to a synthesis size, synthesize the adjusted three-dimensional virtual character to the display position corresponding to the virtual user, and synthesize the synthesized three-dimensional image data with the obtained audio data of the virtual user, to obtain audio-video data of the virtual user).
Li disclosed most of the subject matter as described above except for specifically teaching an angle of orientation between the first participant and the second participant.
However, Bear disclosed an angle of orientation between the first participant and the second participant (para. [0153], note that openAL enables a designer to specify the location of each virtual speaker in the VE, the direction the virtual speaker is facing in the VE, a roll-off factor (i.e. the attenuation range of a virtual speaker), a reference distance (i.e. the distance that a virtual speaker's volume would normally fall by half), a maximum distance and other parameters. Also see para [0157], adjusted angle).
At the time of filing for the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art to teach an angle of orientation between the first participant and the second participant. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been in order to enable a participant to pivot, tip and aim a handheld display device to control a remote-controlled toy or full-sized vehicle (abs.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Li, Pazour with Bear to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7.
The proposed rejection of claim 7 renders obvious the steps of the system claim 14 and the non-transitory computer-readable device claim 20 because these steps occur in the operation of the proposed rejection as discussed above. Thus, the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 7 is equally applicable to claims 14 and 20.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 11 and 17 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 prior arts made of record do not teach “the providing the audio stream to the second participant further comprising: determining a number of volume walls by traversing the hierarchical volume space; and attenuating the audio stream by a wall transmission factor based on the number of volume walls”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Simard et al. (US Publication Number 2009/0119604 A1) disclosed a system and/or a method that facilitates communicating data utilizing holographic representations. An interface component can receive a portion of data related to a virtual meeting. A holographic component can generate at least one holographic image within a virtual meeting space, wherein the holographic image can virtually represent at least one of the portion of data related to the virtual meeting or a user associated with the virtual meeting.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to Hilina K Demeter whose telephone number is (571) 270-1676.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, King Y. Poon could be reached at (571) 270- 0728. 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 PAIR system, see http://pari-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.
/HILINA K DEMETER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2617
Prosecution Insights