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 .
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) 21-22, 25-29, 32-36 and 39-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Khalid et al. ( US patent publication: 20170316606, “Khalid”) in view of SCHLATTMANN et al. ( US Patent Publication: 20220277463, “SCHLATTMANN”) and Thiel et al. ( US patent publication: 20210056314, “Thiel”).
Regarding claim 21, Khalid teaches A system ( Fig. 12) comprising:
one or more memory units (storage device 1204) ; and
one or more computer processors (processor 1204) communicatively coupled to the one or more memory units and configured to:
access sensor data from multiple sensors in a physical environment; (“0120] In operation 1002, a virtual reality media provider system that includes a configuration of synchronous video and depth capture devices disposed at fixed positions in a vicinity of a first object may capture 2D video data and depth data for a surface of the first object. In some examples, the virtual reality media provider system may capture the 2D video data and depth data while the first object is located in a natural setting along with one or more additional objects. Operation 1002 may be performed in any of the ways described herein.”)
determine, by analyzing the sensor data from the multiple sensors, a physical object that is physically located within the physical environment;( [0121] In operation 1004, the virtual reality media provider system may distinguish the first object from a second object included in the one or more additional objects located in the natural setting along with the first object. For example, the virtual reality media provider system may distinguish the first object from the second object based on the captured depth data and captured 2D video data captured in operation 1002. Operation 1004 may be performed in any of the ways described herein.”)
display, on an electronic display, a three-dimensional (3D) model of the physical environment; ([0029]…..” Accordingly, the virtual reality media provider system may provide virtual reality media content representative of an immersive virtual reality world corresponding to the real-world event to media player devices in real time.”) and
provide real-time movement tracking of the physical object using a virtual object displayed in the 3D model of the physical environment. (“(104) Dynamic object depth modeling 708 and dynamic object image mapping 710 may perform similar respective functions as static object depth modeling 704 and static object image mapping 706 for dynamic objects (e.g., objects determined to be dynamically moving in real time). However, because the dynamic object may be continuously in flux (e.g., moving around within the natural setting), individually-manipulable volumetric models 718 of the dynamic objects may be updated much more regularly in order to keep the volumetric data stream up-to-date with what is occurring within the natural setting.”)
Khalid doesn’t expressly teach, provide one or more options in the graphical user interface to create a trigger zone within the virtual 3D environment, the trigger zone comprising an area that is monitored for movement or presence of virtual objects.
However, SCHLATTMANN teaches, one or more computer processors are further configured to provide one or more options in the graphical user interface to create a trigger zone within the virtual 3D environment, the trigger zone comprising an area that is monitored for movement or presence of virtual objects. ( [0038] viii. wherein the processing circuitry is configured to generate an activity world as a virtual environment that corresponds to the real world physical environment, the activity world defining an area where object's dynamics are being monitored. [0039] ix. wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to define an activity area having specific boundaries within the activity world, the activity area being assigned with one or more attributes defining constraints on the manner in which an activity of the user should be performed from within the activity area.” Here the activity area is the claimed trigger zone.)
Khalid and SCHLATTMANN area analogous as they are from the field extended reality.
Therefore it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Khalid to have the one or more computer processors further configured to provide one or more options in the graphical user interface to create a trigger zone within the virtual 3D environment, the trigger zone comprising an area that is monitored for movement or presence of virtual objects as taught by SCHLATTMANN.
The motivation to include the modification is to provide a focus area in the display where the viewer is interested to see user’s activity.
Khalid as modified by SCHLATTMANN doesn’t expressly teach, provide an alert when a configurable number of ingress detections occur into the trigger zone.
However, Thiel teaches, provide an alert when a configurable number of ingress detections occur into the trigger zone.(“[0101] As illustrated, in some cases, a user may define the zone 735 (or region) around a door 739 and direct the video processing system to count the number of detected objects, such as object 737-a, that are within or passing through the zone 735. In some cases, the object 737-a may be a person or animal passing through the door 739. In some embodiments, alerts or alarms (e.g., visual, auditory, etc.) may be sent to a user based on the detection or prediction information of objects in the zone 735. For example, if a large number of objects 737 are detected within the zone 735 (or region), an alert may be sent to a user to indicate that a large number of people are entering or exiting the building through the door 739 contained in the zone 735.”)
Thiel and Khalid as modified by SCHLATTMANN are analogous as they are from the field of image processing.
Therefore it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective fling date of the claimed invention to have modified Khalid as modified by SCHLATTMANN to have included providing an alert when a configurable number of ingress detections occur into the trigger zone as taught by Thiel.
The motivation to include provide viewer safety information to the viewers or player.
Claim 28 is directed to a method and its steps are similar in scope and functions of the elements of the device claim 21 and therefore claim 28 is rejected with same rationales as specified in the rejection of claim 21.
Claim 35 is directed to a one or more computer-readable non-transitory storage media( Khalid, Fig. 12 storage device 1206 “[0132] In certain embodiments, one or more of the processes described herein may be implemented at least in part as instructions embodied in a non-transitory computer-readable medium and executable by one or more computing devices. In general, a processor (e.g., a microprocessor) receives instructions, from a non-transitory computer-readable medium, (e.g., a memory, etc.), and executes those instructions, thereby performing one or more processes, including one or more of the processes described herein. Such instructions may be stored and/or transmitted using any of a variety of known computer-readable media.” ) and its elements are similar in scope and functions of the elements of eth device claim 21 and therefore claim 35 is rejected with same rationales as specified in the rejection of claim 21.
Regarding claim 22, 29 and 36, Khalid as modified by SCHLATTMANN and Thiel teaches, teaches, wherein the virtual object comprises an appearance corresponding to a classification of the physical object.(“ [0093] In order to distinguish object 504 from object 602, a first technique that system 100 (e.g., volumetric modeling 514) may employ is identifying objects 504 and 602 based on 2D video data 506, and then determining that object 504 as identified is different from object 602 as identified. Specifically, system 100 may use object recognition algorithms to identify (e.g., recognize) object 504 as a basketball and object 602 as, for example, a human being (e.g., a basketball player). (“(104) Dynamic object depth modeling 708 and dynamic object image mapping 710 may perform similar respective functions as static object depth modeling 704 and static object image mapping 706 for dynamic objects (e.g., objects determined to be dynamically moving in real time). However, because the dynamic object may be continuously in flux (e.g., moving around within the natural setting), individually-manipulable volumetric models 718 of the dynamic objects may be updated much more regularly in order to keep the volumetric data stream up-to-date with what is occurring within the natural setting.”)
Regarding claims 25, 32 and 39, Khalid as modified by SCHLATTMANN and Thiel teaches, wherein the multiple sensors are: multiple video cameras; multiple temperature sensors; multiple infrared sensors; or multiple biometric sensors. (Khalid, “0120] In operation 1002, a virtual reality media provider system that includes a configuration of synchronous video and depth capture devices disposed at fixed positions in a vicinity of a first object may capture 2D video data and depth data for a surface of the first object. In some examples, the virtual reality media provider system may capture the 2D video data and depth data while the first object is located in a natural setting along with one or more additional objects.”
Regarding claims 26 and 33, Khalid as modified by SCHLATTMANN and Thiel teaches, wherein the physical object is: a person (Khalid, “[0082]…. Similarly, object 504 may be any visible (i.e. nontransparent) object mentioned herein or that may otherwise be present within natural setting 502. For example, object 504 may be animate (e.g., a person or an animal) or inanimate, a solid, a liquid, or a non-transparent gas (e.g., fog generated from a fog machine at a concert), etc.;”) a vehicle; or an animal.
Regarding claims 27, 34 and 40, Khalid as modified by SCHLATTMANN and Thiel teaches, wherein the sensor data is multiple video streams. (Khalid, “0120] In operation 1002, a virtual reality media provider system that includes a configuration of synchronous video and depth capture devices disposed at fixed positions in a vicinity of a first object may capture 2D video data and depth data for a surface of the first object. In some examples, the virtual reality media provider system may capture the 2D video data and depth data while the first object is located in a natural setting along with one or more additional objects.”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 41 is 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.
Claim 41 is objected because the combination of prior arts fails to expressly teach, generating a fused track for the physical object by associating detections of the physical object across the multiple sensors; and maintaining, using the fused track, continuous real-time tracking of the physical object in the 3D model of the physical environment as the physical object moves between fields of view of the multiple sensors.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks Page 8, filed 08/06/2026 with respect to rejection of claim 24,31 and 38 under 35 USC 112(d) have been fully considered and are persuasive as the claims are cancelled. The rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks Page 8, filed 08/06/2026 with respect to rejection of claim 21 user 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. The rejection has been maintained.
Applicant argues, see remarks pages 8-9, “The Office Action admits that Khalid and Schlattmann fail to disclose this portion of Claim 21….. of people are entering or exiting the building through the door 739 contained in the zone 735….(Thiel, 1[0101].) That is, while the cited portions of Thiel may disclose alerts based on objects in a zone, they do not disclose, teach, or suggest "provide an alert when a configurable number of ingress detections occur into the trigger zone," as recited in Claim 21. Consequently, the proposed Khalid-Schlattmann-Thiel combination fails to disclose, teach, or suggest each and every element of Claim 21.”
Examiner replies, Thiel, [0101] clearly teaches the argued limitation, provide an alert when a configurable number of ingress detections occur into the trigger zone. See Thiel, 1 [0101].: “ For example, if a large number of objects 737 are detected within the zone 735 (or region), an alert may be sent to a user to indicate that a large number of people are entering or exiting the building through the door 739 contained in the zone 735.” Here alert is being sent when a number of entering the building. Number of entering the building means a configurable number of ingress detections. Ingress means entering. Therefore applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues, see remarks Pages 9-10, “Respectfully, the Office Action fails to adequately point out the motivation to combine Khalid, Schlattmann, and Thiel. In Personal Web Technologies, LLC V. Apple, Inc., No. 18-1599 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the Federal Circuit held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) failed to explain why a relevant skilled artisan would have had a motivation to combine the prior art references. The requisite explanation is not whether the prior art references could be or can be combined but rather why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the references and also how the combination of the references was supposed to work………...
Here, the Examiner has not demonstrated a prima facie case of obviousness because the Examiner has not provided an adequate reason either in the cited references or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant's invention to combine or modify the references in the manner proposed by the Examiner. For example, as allegedly providing a reason for the proposed Khalid-Schlattmann-Thiel combination, the Examiner states the following:
…..……..The motivation to include the modification is to provide a focus area in the display where the viewer is interested to see user's activity. (Office Action, pages 7-8.) Applicant respectfully submits that these statements …… of the references in the manner the Examiner proposes. Nor does the Examiner state how these systems can be combined and, if combined, would be successfully combined.“
Examiner replies, In response to applicant’s argument that there is no motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case,
SCHLATTMANN [0038-0039] teaches, one or more computer processors are further configured to provide one or more options in the graphical user interface to create a trigger zone within the virtual 3D environment, the trigger zone comprising an area that is monitored for movement or presence of virtual objects. Here Schalman’s activity area is the claimed trigger zone.
Examiner proposed to modify Khalid to have the one or more computer processors further configured to provide one or more options in the graphical user interface to create a trigger zone within the virtual 3D environment, the trigger zone comprising an area that is monitored for movement or presence of virtual objects as taught by SCHLATTMANN. The motivation to include the modification is to provide a focus area in the display where the viewer is interested to see user’s activity. Why a trigger zone would be given, the zone is needed to limit an area of user, so viewer can see the focus area , also the processing of monitoring activity is reduced or made optimum.
Similarly, Thiel[0101] teaches, provide an alert when a configurable number of ingress detections occur into the trigger zone.
Examiner proposed to modify Khalid as modified by SCHLATTMANN to have included providing an alert when a configurable number of ingress detections occur into the trigger zone as taught by Thiel. The motivation to include provide viewer safety information to the viewers or player.
Therefore the motivations of the both combinations are placed properly why an ordinary skilled person would be motivated to include the references.
Applicant argues, see remarks Page 11, “Thus, Applicant respectfully submits that the Examiner's attempt to combine Khalid, Schlattmann, and Thiel appears to constitute the type of impermissible hindsight reconstruction of Applicant's claims, using Applicant's claims as a blueprint, that is specifically prohibited by the M.P.E.P. and governing Federal Circuit cases.”
Examiner replies, in response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In this case missing limitation of the primary reference are taught be SCHLATTMANN and Thiel as described above. As the references teaches the limitations before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, there is no impermissible hindsight reconstruction.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tapas Mazumder whose telephone number is (571)270-7466. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 PM PST.
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, Alicia Harrington can be reached at 571-272-2330. 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.
/TAPAS MAZUMDER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2615
Prosecution Insights