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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/16/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-9, 11-13 and 16-23 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 11, 13 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Copley et al. (“Cop”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2020/0322395) in view of Prechtl (U.S. Patent No. 9,185,391).
In regards to claim 1, Cop teaches a video transmission method executed by a mobile edge computing node, comprising:
receiving a panoramic video stream collected in real time (See FIG. 1, ¶0003 and 0012 wherein a wide-field-of-view- [wide-FOV] camera captures images for a host device at a host site; it is noted that Cop teaches “near real-time” to refer as “the time required for data processing by at least one of two devices that are communicating with one another, and for data transmission between two devices” which may be interpreted as real time as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art);
receiving pose information of each terminal device of a plurality of terminal devices (See ¶0015-0017, 0090, and “Additionally, as will be described in additional detail below, client device 108 can also provide orientation data to a host device 104, to communication server(s) 114, and/or to other client devices 108,” - ¶0043, wherein it is particularly noted in 0090 that each of the client devices provides its corresponding orientation information);
generating respective video streams for the plurality of terminal devices based on the pose information and the panoramic video stream (See at least ¶0015-0017 and 0092-0093) using computing resources allocated for each terminal device of the plurality of terminal devices simultaneously (Given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with applicant’s specification, computing resource allocation simultaneously is taught as host-side processing and rendering of specific client-specific feeds as taught in at least ¶0104 and client-side processing and rendering as seen in ¶0058), wherein the respective video streams comprise respective parts of the panoramic video stream corresponding to the pose information (See ¶0012, 0015-0017 and 0090); and
transmitting, to the plurality of terminal devices, the respective video streams for the plurality of terminal devices (See ¶0012, 0015-0017).
Cop, however, fails to teach wherein the pose information comprises a zoom scale representing a near-far degree of a lens for viewing a video through the terminal device.
In a similar endeavor Prechtl teaches wherein the pose information comprises a zoom scale representing a near-far degree of a lens for viewing a video through the terminal device (See col. 13, li. 38-58 wherein a user may adjust view through a panoramic scene through adjustment of zoom factors of the lens, this is taken in view of Cop’s teachings described above).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Prechtl into Cop because it gives the user a much closer effective point of view in a process that allows for the brain to be able to process the scene in a reasonable fashion.
In regards to claim 2, Cop teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein receiving the panoramic video stream collected in real time comprises:
receiving the panoramic video stream from a routing device via a wide area network connection (See ¶0041), wherein the panoramic video stream is transmitted from a shooting device to the routing device via a local area network connection (See ¶0040 in view of 0041 and FIG. 1-4A).
In regards to claim 4, Cop teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein generating the respective video streams for the plurality of terminal devices based on the pose information and the panoramic video stream comprises:
determining a further mobile edge computing node associated with the plurality of terminal devices (See FIG. 1-4A, ¶0041, 0043 and 0062 wherein the further mobile edge computing node may be taught as one of the various information processing systems or, more particularly, one of the plurality of host devices, or even a client device which may itself transmit further image data to other client and/or host devices);and
transmitting the panoramic video stream to the further mobile edge computing node via a core network, so that the further mobile edge computing node, replacing the mobile edge computing node, generates the respective video streams for the plurality of terminal device and transmits the respective video streams to the terminal devices (See FIG. 1-4A, ¶0041, 0043 and 0062 wherein each of the devices may be connected via a communication network, communication server[s], data networks, etc.).
In regards to claim 11, the claim is rejected under the same basis as claim 1 by Cop in view of Prechtl, wherein the shooting device may be taught as one of the host-site headset[s], wide-FOV video capture device or mobile device[s] as an example, routing device may be taught as the network interface of the respective information processing systems as seen in FIG. 8 and transmits the wide-view images in real time according to a frame rate as described in ¶0054-0055, mobile edge computing node may be taught as the information processing systems as seen in FIG. 1-4A and at least one terminal device are taught as seen in for example, HMD or mobile device as seen in FIG. 1 or video display any of the information processing systems as seen in FIG. 8. It is noted by the examiner that within the overall communication system as seen in FIG. 1-4A, video sequences may be sent to and/or from any of the information processing systems as described in at least ¶0061-0062, with each having associated and corresponding display control units and cameras, thus each of these may act as both reception and transmission units of video information.
In regards to claim 13, the claim is rejected under the same basis as claim 1 by Cop in view of Prechtl, wherein the processing unit and memory may be taught as seen in ¶0083-0086 and FIG. 8.
In regards to claim 16, the claim is rejected under the same basis as claim 2 by Cop in view of Prechtl.
Claim(s) 3 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Copley et al. (“Cop”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2020/0322395) in view of Prechtl (U.S. Patent No. 9,185,391) and Shin (U.S. PG Publication No. 2020/0177928).
In regards to claim 3, Cop teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein the local area network connection comprises a wired local area network connection or a wireless local area network connection (See ¶0041).
Cop, however, fails to teach the wide area network connection comprises a 5G network connection.
In a similar endeavor Shin teaches wherein the wide area network connection comprises a 5G network connection (See ¶0028).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Shin into Cop because it allows for a connection structure that enables the exchange of information between nodes as described in ¶0028, thus allowing for a wide variety of communication networks.
In regards to claim 17, the claim is rejected under the same basis as claim 3 by Cop in view of Precht and Shin.
Claim(s) 5 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Copley et al. (“Cop”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2020/0322395) in view of Prechtl (U.S. Patent No. 9,185,391) and Stern et al. (“Stern”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2022/0286587).
In regards to claim 5, Cop fails to teach the method according to claim 4, wherein determining the further mobile edge computing node associated with the plurality of terminal devices comprises:
determining a mobile edge computing node in the vicinity of the terminal device as the further mobile edge computing node.
In a similar endeavor Stern teaches determining a mobile edge computing node in the vicinity of the plurality of terminal devices as the further mobile edge computing node (See ¶0034).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Stern into Cop because it allows for the devices to interact wirelessly as described in ¶0034 when in such a vicinity that enables communication, therefore allowing for direct communications.
In regards to claim 19, the claim is rejected under the same basis as claim 5 by Cop in view of Precht and Stern.
Claim(s) 6 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Copley et al. (“Cop”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2020/0322395) in view of Prechtl (U.S. Patent No. 9,185,391) and Stern et al. (“Stern”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2022/0286587), in further view of Bijwe (U.S. PG Publication No. 2021/0208949).
In regards to claim 6, Cop fails to explicitly teach the method according to claim 4, wherein determining the further mobile edge computing node associated with the plurality of terminal devices comprises:
in response to determining that available computing resources of the mobile edge computing node are insufficient, determining the further mobile edge computing node from a plurality of mobile edge computing nodes based on available computing resources of the plurality of mobile edge computing nodes and delays between the plurality of terminal devices and the plurality of mobile edge computing nodes.
In a similar endeavor Bijwe teaches in response to determining that available computing resources of the mobile edge computing node are insufficient, determining the further mobile edge computing node from a plurality of mobile edge computing nodes based on available computing resources of the plurality of mobile edge computing nodes and delays between the plurality of terminal devices and the plurality of mobile edge computing nodes (See ¶0065).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Bijwe into Cop because it allows for servers and systems to share available computing resources according to when additional resources may be required, thus possibly preventing slowdowns or unavailability of resources within a network, improving stability.
In regards to claim 20, the claim is rejected under the same basis as claim 6 by Cop in view of Prechtl and Stern, in further of Bijwe.
Claim(s) 7, 8, 21 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Copley et al. (“Cop”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2020/0322395) in view of Prechtl (U.S. Patent No. 9,185,391) and Oh et al. (“Oh”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2020/0382758).
In regards to claim 7, Cop teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein generating the respective video streams for the plurality of terminal devices based on the pose information and the panoramic video stream comprises:
determining respective viewport area for the plurality of terminal devices in the panoramic video stream based on the pose information (See ¶0044 and 0090); and
generating the respective video streams based on the respective viewport areas and the respective panoramic video stream (See ¶0012 and 0018 in view of 0044 and 0090).
Cop, however, fails to teach determining respective extended area surrounding the viewport area in the respective panoramic video streams; and generating the respective video streams based on the respective viewport areas, the respective extended area and the panoramic video stream.
In a similar endeavor Oh teaches determining respective extended area surrounding the viewport area in the respective panoramic video streams (See ¶0208, particularly “For example, in providing 360-degree video or panorama video, video information of the target region may be extended based on the RAI region for fast viewport response. Here, the viewport response may represent a response of changing a viewport image in response to a change of a direction in the case that the direction that a user faces is changed owing to a reason such as a movement of the user,” - ¶0208); and
generating the respective video streams based on the respective viewport areas and the respective panoramic video stream (See ¶0208 of Oh in view of Cop’s teachings as described above).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Oh into Cop because it allows for the use of image data [video information] that is extended just outside of the target region in order the give the system a time to respond, thus providing a fast viewport response due to unexpected movement of the user, therefore providing for a more efficient and smoother transition in response to movement.
In regards to claim 8, Cop fails to teach the method according to claim 7, wherein determining the respective extended areas surrounding the respective viewport areas in the panoramic video stream comprises: obtaining respective motion-to-response delay of the plurality of terminal device; and determining the respective extended areas based on the respective motion-to-response delay and the respective viewport area.
In a similar endeavor Oh teaches obtaining respective motion-to-response delay of the plurality of terminal device (See ¶0208); and
determining the respective extended areas based on the respective motion-to-response delay and the respective viewport area (See ¶0208 in view of ¶0203-0204).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Oh into Cop because it allows for the use of image data [video information] that is extended just outside of the target region in order the give the system a time to respond, thus providing a fast viewport response due to unexpected movement of the user, therefore providing for a more efficient and smoother transition in response to movement.
In regards to claim 21, the claim is rejected under the same basis as claim 7 by Cop in view of Prechtl and Oh.
In regards to claim 22, the claim is rejected under the same basis as claim 8 by Cop in view of Prechtl and Oh.
Claim(s) 9, 12 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Copley et al. (“Cop”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2020/0322395) in view of Prechtl (U.S. Patent No. 9,185,391) and Melkote Krishnaprasad et al. (“Mel”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2020/0322649).
In regards to claim 9, Cop teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising:
receiving data of at least one detection instrument (See ¶0085 wherein a detection instrument may be taught as a microphone, keyboard or pointing device); and
transmitting the data to the plurality of terminal device together with the respective video streams (See ¶0085).
Cop, however, fails to teach wherein the data is aligned with the respective video stream based on a timestamp.
In a similar endeavor Mel teaches wherein the data is aligned with the respective video stream based on a timestamp (See ¶0076).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Mel into Cop because it allows for the transmission of both audio and video streams to continuously playout their corresponding portions in implicit synchronicity as described in at least ¶0076.
In regards to claim 12, the claim is rejected under the same basis as claim 9 by Cop in view of Prechtl and Mel.
In regards to claim 23, the claim is rejected under the same basis as claim 9 by Cop in view of Prechtl and Mel.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDEMIO NAVAS JR whose telephone number is (571)270-1067. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, ~ 9 AM -6 PM.
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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached at 5712727383. 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.
EDEMIO NAVAS JR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2483
/EDEMIO NAVAS JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Prosecution Insights