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 .
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments in the Remarks, filed on 7/23/26 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of new grounds of rejections.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 15 recites “a processor…” Applicant’s specification discloses “processor” as directed to hardware processor. In light of the specification, the interpretation of the recited “processor” is not software processor.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 10 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1, 6, 8, 13, 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jikadra et al, “Video Calling with Augmented Reality Using WebRTC API” (hereinafter Jikadra) in view of Sayko, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0126714 (hereinafter Sayko).
As per claim 1, Jikadra teaches the invention substantially as claimed comprising:
opening a web-based video call webpage in a browser on a first device (page 365, right column, 2nd paragraph; page 366, right column, paragraphs 2-3, e.g., make a WebRTC video call on user device);
receiving, at the first device from the second device, a streamed video as a first video (page 365, right column, paragraphs 2-3; page 366, right column, paragraph 3-page 367, left column, paragraph 1, e.g., receiving, at the first device from the second device, a captured video of a user’s body)
capturing, by the first device, a second video (page 365, right column, 2nd paragraph; page 366, right column, paragraphs 2-3; page 367, right col., paragraph 2, e.g., capturing, by the first device, an area around the other user through the camera);
orienting, by the first device, the first video based on the second video (page 365, right column, last paragraph; page 366, left column, 1st paragraph; page 366, left col, last paragraph-page 366, right col., first paragraph; page 367. left col., 1st paragraph e.g., orienting the user’s body into the environment of the other user);
projecting, by the first device, the first video into the second video to generate a third video (page 365, right column, last paragraph; page 366, left column, 1st paragraph; page 366, left col, last paragraph-page 366, right col., first paragraph; page 367. left col., 1st paragraph e.g., augmenting, by the first device, the user’s body into the environment of the other user as if they are talking face to face at the same room); and
rendering, by the first device, a webpage including the third video (page 365, right column, last paragraph; page 366, left column, 1st paragraph; page 366, left col, last paragraph-page 366, right col., first paragraph; page 367. left col., 1st paragraph e.g., rendering, by the first device, the WebRTC video call with augmented user’s body into the environment of the other user as if they are talking face to face at the same room).
Although Jikadra teaches the second device joining the first device in the web-based video call, however, Jikadra is silence regarding communicating request to join. The concept of communicating a request to join a video call is well-known and accepted in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include communicating a request to join because by doing so it would allow a user device to initiate joining of a video call in Jikadra’s system, thus allowing remote communication between users.
Although Jikadra teaches opening a web-based video call webpage in a browser on a first device (e.g., using WebRTC), however Jikadra is silent in regard to without installation of an application onto the first device. Sayko teaches opening a web-based video call webpage in a browser on a first device without installation of an application onto the first device ([37][72], e.g., display a web-based video call webpage/website in a browser without requiring installation of standalone/additional applications/software/browser plug-in).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Sayko’s teaching with Jikadra’s system in order to allow bidirectional media processing and media coding technologies available in the browser of Jikadra’s system [37].
As per claim 6, Jikadra and Sayko teach the invention substantially as claimed in claim 1 above. Jikadra further teach wherein the first video is of a first participant in the web-based video call (page 365, right column, paragraphs 2-3; page 366, right column, paragraph 3-page 367, left column, paragraph 1, e.g., receiving, at the first device from the second device, a captured video of a user’s body), and the second video is a real-world video (page 365, right column, 2nd paragraph; page 366, right column, paragraphs 2-3; page 367, right col., paragraph 2, e.g., capturing, by the first device, an area around the other user through the camera).
As per claims 8 and 15, they are rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1 above.
As per claims 13 and 19, they are rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 6 above.
Claims 2, 4-5, 9, 11-12, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jikadra and Sayko in view of Kwon et al, U.S Patent 9,007,422 (hereinafter Kwon).
As per claim 2, Jikadra and Sayko teach the invention substantially as claimed in claim 1 above. Jikadra and Sayko are silent in regard to generating a plane. Kwon teaches comprising generating a plane (col. 12, lines 58-67; col. 15, lines 1-56), wherein the orienting of the first video includes: determining a normal vector associated with the second video (e.g., determining the normal vector associated with the environment, col. 12, lines 58-67; col. 15, lines 1-56), and at least one of rotating and translating the first video based on the normal vector (e.g., rotating and translating the 3D object based on the normal vector, col. 12, lines 58-67; col. 15, lines 1-56).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Kwon’s teaching with Jikadra’s and Sayko’s system in order to allow object to be properly augmented on user’s space, thus enhancing the video communication in Jikadra’s and Sayko’s system.
As per claim 4, Jikadra and Sayko teach the invention substantially as claimed in claim 1 above. Jikadra and Sayko are silent in regard to generating a plane. Kwon teaches comprising generating a plane and positioning the plane in the second video, wherein the projecting of the first video into the second video includes adding the first video to the plane (col. 12, lines 58-67; col. 15, lines 1-56).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Kwon’s teaching with Jikadra’s and Sayko’s system in order to allow object to be properly augmented on user’s space, thus enhancing the video communication in Jikadra’s and Sayko’s system.
As per claim 5, Jikadra and Sayko teach the invention substantially as claimed in claim 1 above. Jikadra and Sayko are silent in regard to generating a plane. Kwon teaches comprising generating a plane and positioning the plane in the second video (col. 12, lines 58-67; col. 15, lines 1-56), wherein the orienting of the first video includes: determining a normal vector associated with the second video (e.g., determining the normal vector associated with the environment, col. 12, lines 58-67; col. 15, lines 1-56), and at least one of rotating and translating the first video based on the normal vector (e.g., rotating and translating the 3D object based on the normal vector, col. 12, lines 58-67; col. 15, lines 1-56), and the projecting of the first video into the second video includes adding the first video to the plane (col. 12, lines 58-67; col. 15, lines 1-56).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Kwon’s teaching with Jikadra’s and Sayko’s system in order to allow object to be properly augmented on user’s space, thus enhancing the video communication in Jikadra’s and Sayko’s system.
As per claims 9 and 16, they are rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 2 above.
As per claims 11 and 17, they are rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 4 above.
As per claims 12 and 18, they are rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 5 above.
Claims 7, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jikadra and Sayko in view of Official Notice.
As per claim 7, Jikadra and Sayko teach the invention substantially as claimed in claim 1 above. Although Jikadra teaches wherein the streamed video is streamed from the second device to the first device using WebRTC (page 365, right column, 2nd paragraph; page 366, right column, paragraphs 2-3, e.g., make a WebRTC video call on user device), however, Jikadra and Sayko are silent in regard to without using a server configured to control streaming communications. It is well known in the art that WebRTC enable peer to peer connect, meaning the streamed video is streamed between users rather than through a server. Official Notice is taken for the concept of without using a server configured to control streaming communication in WebRTC is known and accepted in the art. It would have been obvious to include without using a server configured to control streaming communication in Jikadra’s and Sayko’s system in order to allow low latency direct video call between the users using WebRTC.
As per claims 14 and 20, they are rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 7 above.
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 extension fee 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 Philip Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-3967. The examiner can normally be
reached on 6a-3p M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor,
Glenton Burgess can be reached on 571-272-3949. 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 the PAIR system, see http://pair- 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.
/PHILIP C LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454
Prosecution Insights