DETAILED ACTION
Preliminary Remarks
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in the pending application.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. It is important that the abstract not exceed 150 words in length since the space provided for the abstract on the computer tape used by the printer is limited. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc.
The abstract comprises the phrase, “The invention relates to…” (see line 1) which can be implied and therefore should be omitted.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains reference numbers from figures of which should be omitted. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, 7-12, 14-15, 18, 21-26 and 28 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 4, 7-12, 14-15, 18, 21-26 and 28 comprise reference numbers from figures of which should be omitted.
Claim 1 begins with, “A system to adapt Virtual Reality (VR) bitstream…” (line 1, preamble) which should instead read, “A system to adapt a Virtual Reality (VR) bitstream…” in order to provide a more complete English sentence.
Claim 15 begins with, “Method for adapting…” (line 1, preamble) which should instead read, “A method for adapting…” in order to provide a more complete English sentence.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the language of the claims when taken as a whole, raise questions as whether the claims fall within any of the statutory categories of invention. Claim 1 refers to “engines” and “modules” of which the Examiner deems maybe interpreted as solely performed via software due to the lack of any explicit definition of the specification as per these terms. Although claim 1’s preamble states a “system,” this element solely occurs within the preamble and in combination with a lack of definition from Applicant’s specification, allows for the interpretation that the “engines” and “modules” can solely be performed in “software” thus constituting a rejection due to failing to fall within at least one of the statutory categories. Therefore, such claimed elements are software per se, which fails to fall within a statutory category of invention and necessitates the rejection of claims 1-14.
Claims 15-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) “Method for adapting virtual reality bitstream, comprising…” with steps comprising “arrange…” “using…”receiving…” and “delivering…” (claim 15) of which the Examiner deems as concepts that can be performed in one’s mind. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not provide any sort of actual hardware/physical processor/circuitry/etc. that performs at least one step of the method/process thus allowing for the interpretation of solely being performed abstractly in one’s mind. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the steps of the method/process solely perform “processing” upon “bitstream” type data without actually utilizing the data in any sort of manner (e.g. storing the data in a memory, displaying data via an actual display device, etc.). Note, claims 16-28 depend upon claim 15 and are therefore at least inherently included in this rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
In reference to claims 1 and 15, these claims comprise the limitations describing the information of a “user feedback module” in particular, that the module “gets current information of the video client comprising view direction, lost frames, current bandwidth, and the same situation” (see lines 13-15 of claim 1, for example) of which the Examiner deems suffers from enablement as the subject matter of “the same situation” was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, to make and/or use the invention. Further, the specification solely provides the exactly language that is within the claims without any further detail or explanation as to what is meant by “the same situation.” Since, the term in question is connected to a substantial element in the functionality and design of the claimed invention as a whole, the Examiner deems one of ordinary skill in the art, without knowing what “situation” is being referred to or equated to, suffers from the enablement requirement to make and/or use the invention. The Examiner does not know if such element is simply a matter of poor machine translation of a foreign application or if Applicant means to claim an actual significant element of the invention. Nonetheless, the Examiner deems such an element a critical feature of the invention and lack of such enabling language prohibits the Examiner from performing a proper prior art search. Note, claims 2-14 and 16-28 depend upon claims 1 and 15 respectively and are therefore at least inherently included in this rejection.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 15 recite the limitation "the metadata" in line 6 of claim 1, for example. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Note, claims 2-14 and 16-28 depend upon claims 1 and 15 respectively and are therefore at least inherently included in this rejection.
References Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Aksu et al. (WO 2019/193251)
Aksu et al. discloses a system in which a virtual reality headset is worn by a user and capable of receiving one or more data streams, the streams being one or more 360° image data streams for rendering and more particularly video bitstreams.
Thang et al. (U.S. Publication 2011/0080945).
Thang et al. discloses an apparatus and method for adapting a scalable video coding bitstream.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Antonio Caschera whose telephone number is (571) 272-7781. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday between 6:30 AM and 2:30 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Said Broome, can be reached at (571) 272-2931.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Mail Stop ____________
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
or faxed to:
571-273-8300 (Central Fax)
See the listing of “Mail Stops” at http://www.uspto.gov/patents/mail.jsp and include the appropriate designation in the address above.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the Technology Center 2600 Customer Service Office whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600.
/Antonio A Caschera/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2612
2/4/26