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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims are directed to the abstract idea of mental processes and/ or certain methods of organizing human activity. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as discussed below.
Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter
More specifically, regarding Step 1, of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the claims are directed to a machine, process, and/or an article of manufacturer, which are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2a – Prong 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims are analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception.
The claims recite an abstract idea. Independent claim 1, for example, recites: receiving signals from one or more cameras imaging spectator locations in a display area; inputting the signals to at least one machine learning (ML) model; and presenting video on a display based on an output of the at least one ML model. Independent claim 14 similarly recites receiving at least one image of people in an arena or stadium with a massive display, implementing computer vision on the image to identify actions of the people, and using a result of the computer vision to control presentation of a video game on the massive display. Independent claim 20 recites using one or more cameras to image a crowd of people in an area of a display, providing output images to at least one ML model, and using output of the ML model for game play signals to control a video game on the display.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mental processes and/or certain methods of organizing human activity. Observing crowd or spectator actions (e.g., waves, raised hands, jumps, high fives, leaning), evaluating or analyzing those actions (via an ML model or computer vision), and controlling a game or video response based on collective or individual participation are concepts that can be performed in the human mind (or with pen and paper) or that manage personal or commercial interactions / entertainment activities. The claims merely automate observation of human behavior in an audience setting and the corresponding adjustment of entertainment content.
Step 2a – Prong 2 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
The second prong of step 2a is the consideration if the claim limitations are directed to a practical application.
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application:
-Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
-Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition - see Vanda Memo
-Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
-Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing – see MPEP 2106.05(c)
-Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
-Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea- see MPEP 2106.05(f)
-Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
-Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.05(h)
The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements (one or more cameras, a processor or processor system, and an ML model or computer vision implemented on generic computing hardware) are recited at a high level of generality. They amount to mere data gathering (camera signals/images), generic computer implementation of the mental process or organizing-human-activity idea, and insignificant extra-solution activity (displaying the result). The claims do not improve the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field; they simply use conventional computer-vision and display components as tools to perform the abstract idea of analyzing audience actions and adjusting entertainment content accordingly.
Step 2b of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
Next, the claims as a whole are analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception.
The claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The cameras, processors, ML models / computer vision and displays are well-understood, routine, and conventional. When considered individually and as an ordered combination, they provide only generic computer implementation and data gathering/output of the abstract idea. No inventive concept is present.
Dependent claims 2–13 and 15–19 are rejected under the same analysis; they merely refine the abstract idea without adding significantly more.
Consequently, consideration of each and every element of each and every claim, both individually and as an ordered combination, leads to the conclusion that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Castiglia (US 2017/0182406 A1) in view of Person (US 2021/0337284 A1).
1. Castiglia teaches an apparatus comprising at least one processor configured to:
receive signals from one or more cameras imaging spectator locations in a display area (one or more cameras aimed at an audience in a theater, stadium, arena, or similar venue that capture successive images of the multi-person audience), [0013]-[0017] and inputting the camera signals/images to a computer-vision process that generates a Motion Index quantifying the net direction and intensity of collective physical motions of the audience (including arm waves, raised arms, side-to-side and up-and-down movements), and presenting interactive video/game content on a large shared display based on that output, [0014], [0015], [0017], [0026]-[0051], [0141].
Castiglia does not expressly disclose inputting the signals to at least one machine learning (ML) model, wherein an output of the at least one ML model is used to present the video. Person teaches a system that employs a machine learning model which receives interaction/action information, identifies characteristics of the interactions (including speed, accuracy, location, success/failure), and determines modifications to an immersive video/game environment based on the identified characteristics, [0088], [0093]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Castiglia with Person and would have been motivated to do so provide a more intelligent, adaptive, and characteristic-based control of the interactive content.
2. Castiglia and Person disclose the apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the processor system is configured to: normalize the signals from the one or more cameras for respective sizes of plural people represented by the signals such that the output of the ML model is based on the signals normalized for respective sizes of plural people, Castiglia [0026]-[0038], [0287].
3. Castiglia and Person disclose the apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the processor system is configured to: normalize the signals from the one or more cameras for empty spectator locations represented by the signals such that the output of the ML model is based on the signals normalized for respective empty spectator locations represented by the signals, Castiglia [0026]-[0038], [0287].
4-8. Castiglia and Person disclose the apparatus of Claim 1, wherein Castiglia expressly teaches detection of collective motions including moving their arms and bodies to the left and right, by standing still, and in some embodiments also by moving up and down [0014], [0017], [0141]. Recognition of the specific recited actions (wave, raised hands, jumps, high fives, leaning) is therefore an obvious selection of the well-known audience gestures already within the scope of Castiglia’s teachings, motivated by the desire to provide additional intuitive control modalities for the same interactive gameplay purpose.
9. Castiglia and Person disclose the apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the output of the ML model comprises a video game character action, Castiglia [0142], Person [0041], [0058], [0062].
10. Castiglia and Person disclose the apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the output of the ML model comprises a video game team action, Castiglia [0014], [0017], Person [0041], [0058], [0062].
11. Castiglia and Person disclose the apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the processor system is configured to: configure a first event of a video game presented on the display at a first amplitude responsive to a first number of people in the display area performing a demanded action; and configure the first event of the video game presented on the display at a second amplitude responsive to a second number of people in the display area performing the demanded action, Castiglia [0018], [0072]-[0074].
12. Castiglia and Person disclose the apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the processor system is configured to: decompose the signals from the one or more cameras to isolate individual people in the display area; and control respective objects in the video presented on the display based on respective actions by the respective individual people, Castiglia [0017].
13. Castiglia and Person disclose the apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the display is hemispherically shaped, Person [0048].
14-19. Castiglia and Person disclose an apparatus comprising: computer memory that is not a transitory signal and that comprises instructions executable by at least one processor system to: receive at least one image of people in an arena or stadium with a massive display; implement computer vision on the image to identify actions of the people, and using a result of the computer vision, control presentation of a video game presented on the massive display as similarly discussed above.
20. Castiglia and Person disclose a method comprising: using one or more cameras, imaging a crowd of people in an area of a display; providing output images of the one or more cameras to at least one machine learning (ML) model; and using output of the ML model for game play signals to control a video game on the display as similarly discussed above.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached USPTO form PTO-892.
Yerli (US 2011/0223996 Al) discloses multi-user computer-controlled video gaming systems in which cameras record an audience at a theater or cinema and provide input for controlling game mechanics and presenting video game content on a large cinema screen.
Filing of New or Amended Claims
The examiner has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasoning to explain why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the original disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims. See Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 263, 191 USPQ at 97 (“[T]he PTO has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasons why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims.”). However, when filing an amendment an applicant should show support in the original disclosure for new or amended claims. See MPEP § 714.02 and § 2163.06 (“Applicant should specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure.”). Please see MPEP 2163 (II) 3. (b)
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SENG H LIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3301. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9-5).
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, Xuan Thai can be reached at (571) 272-7147. 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.
/Seng H Lim/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights