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 .
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections
Most of the claim objections are withdrawn. However, new claim objections are raised to certain claims as set forth below in the following Detailed Action.
35 U.S.C. 112 Rejection
Most of the previous grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 are withdrawn. However, a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 is raised as to claims 38-40 and a ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 is maintained as to claim 39 as set forth below in the following Detailed Action.
Double Patenting Rejection
A new ground of Double Patenting Rejection is raised as set forth below in the following Detailed Action.
35 U.S.C. 103 Rejection
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claims 21, 30, 38 and 39 are objected to because of the following informalities:
For claim 21, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner:
A method comprising:
receiving a plurality of views of a physical subject participating in a meeting;
in response to determining that the plurality of views are different from each other, generating a virtual avatar of the physical subject, the virtual avatar comprising a plurality of planar objects, the plurality of planar objects each corresponding to respective segments of the physical subject, and the plurality of planar objects being based on the plurality of views of the physical subject;
rotating at least one of the plurality of planar objects during the meeting based at least on a location of a viewer that is also participating in the meeting; and
based at least on the rotating, outputting the virtual avatar to the viewer.
For claim 30, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner:
A system, comprising:
at least one processor; and
memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to perform a set of operations, the set of operations comprising:
receiving a plurality of views of a physical subject participating in a meeting;
in response to determining that the plurality of views are different from each other, generating a virtual avatar of the physical subject, the virtual avatar comprising a plurality of planar objects, the plurality of planar objects each corresponding to respective segments of the physical subject, and the plurality of planar objects being based on the plurality of views of the physical subject;
rotating at least one of the plurality of planar objects during the meeting based at least on a location of a viewer that is also participating in the meeting; and
based at least on the rotating, outputting the virtual avatar.
For claim 38, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner:
A method comprising:
receiving a plurality of views of a physical subject participating in a meeting;
in response to determining that the plurality of views are different from each other, generating a plurality of planar objects via a machine-learning model that has been trained to perform planar object generation based on a computational cost of the planar object generation and error involved during training, the plurality of generated planar objects forming a virtual avatar of the physical subject, the plurality of generated planar objects each corresponding to respective segments of the physical subject, and the plurality of generated planar objects being based on the plurality of views of the physical subject;
rotating at least one of the plurality of generated planar objects during the meeting based at least on a location of a viewer that is also participating in the meeting; and
based at least on the rotating, causing the virtual avatar to be displayed to the viewer.
For claim 39, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner:
The method of claim 38, wherein the plurality of generated planar objects are billboards angled with respect to each other.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 38-40 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.
For claim independent claim 38, this claim establishes a “plurality of planar objects” and further establishes a “plurality of generated planar objects”. Claim 38 goes on to recite the phrase “the planar objects” and it is unclear and ambiguous to which of the previously established “plurality of planar objects” and “plurality of generated planar objects” is being referenced by the phrase “the planar objects”. Examiner has suggested amendments in the claim objections discussed above to resolve the ambiguities.
For dependent claims 39-40, these claims depend from claim 38 and inherit the deficiencies of claim 38. Therefore, claims 39-40 are likewise indefinite.
Furthermore, for dependent claim 39, parent claim 38 establishes a “plurality of planar objects” and a “plurality of generated planar objects”. Claim 39 goes on to recite the phrase “the plurality of planar objects” and it is unclear and ambiguous to which of the previously established “plurality of planar objects” and “plurality of generated planar objects” is being referenced by the phrase “the plurality of planar objects”. Examiner has suggested amendments in the claim objections discussed above to resolve the ambiguities.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 21 and 27-29 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9 and 13-14 of U.S. Patent 12,175,581 in view of Miller, IV et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0188895 A1). Claims 30 and 35-37 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9 and 13-14 of U.S. Patent 12,175,581 in view of Germann et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0267344 A1) and Miller, IV et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0188895 A1).
The following is a claim comparison of claims 21, 27-30 and 35-37 of the instant application and claims 9 and 13-14 of U.S. Patent 12,175,581.
Application No. 18/930,033
U.S. Patent 12,175,581
21. A method comprising:
receiving a plurality of views of a physical subject participating in a meeting;
in response to determining that the plurality of views are different from each other, generating a virtual avatar of the physical subject, the virtual avatar comprising a plurality of planar objects, the plurality of planar objects each corresponding to respective segments of the physical subject, and the plurality of planar objects being based on the plurality of views of the physical subject;
rotating at least one of the planar objects during the meeting based at least on a location of a viewer that is also participating in the meeting; and based at least on the rotating, outputting the virtual avatar to the viewer.
9. A method of creating a virtual avatar, the method comprising:
receiving a plurality of input video streams; identifying a first subject, within the plurality of input video streams; identifying, based on the plurality of input video streams, a plurality of views of the first subject; determining whether the second view is substantially different than the first view;
in response to determining that the second view is substantially different than the first view, segmenting the first subject into a plurality of planar objects, the plurality of planar objects being transformed with respect to each other, and the plurality of planar objects being based on the plurality of views of the first subject; and
outputting the plurality of planar objects in an output video stream, whereby the plurality of planar objects provide perspective of the first subject to one or more viewers.
13. The method of claim 9, wherein the first subject is identified within a room, and wherein the room is a hybrid meeting space.
14. The method of claim 13, wherein the hybrid meeting space includes a plurality of participants disposed therein who are two or more from the group of: physically in the room, virtually displayed within the room, and represented within the room via a respective virtual avatar.
27. The method of claim 21, wherein the outputting comprises displaying the virtual avatar in a hybrid meeting environment and the rotating involves causing the virtual avatar to face the viewer.
13
28
14
29
14
30. A system, the system comprising: at least one processor; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to perform a set of operations, the set of operations comprising:
receiving a plurality of views of a physical subject participating in a meeting;
in response to determining that the plurality of views are different from each other, generating a virtual avatar of the physical subject, the virtual avatar comprising a plurality of planar objects, the plurality of planar objects each corresponding to respective segments of the physical subject, and the plurality of planar objects being based on the plurality of views of the physical subject;
rotating at least one of the planar objects during the meeting based at least on a location of a viewer that is also participating in the meeting; and based at least on the rotating, outputting the virtual avatar.
9. A method of creating a virtual avatar, the method comprising:
receiving a plurality of input video streams; identifying a first subject, within the plurality of input video streams; identifying, based on the plurality of input video streams, a plurality of views of the first subject; determining whether the second view is substantially different than the first view;
in response to determining that the second view is substantially different than the first view, segmenting the first subject into a plurality of planar objects, the plurality of planar objects being transformed with respect to each other, and the plurality of planar objects being based on the plurality of views of the first subject; and
outputting the plurality of planar objects in an output video stream, whereby the plurality of planar objects provide perspective of the first subject to one or more viewers.
13. The method of claim 9, wherein the first subject is identified within a room, and wherein the room is a hybrid meeting space.
14. The method of claim 13, wherein the hybrid meeting space includes a plurality of participants disposed therein who are two or more from the group of: physically in the room, virtually displayed within the room, and represented within the room via a respective virtual avatar.
35. The system of claim 30, wherein the virtual avatar is output on a display screen in a hybrid meeting environment and the rotating involves causing the virtual avatar to face the viewer.
13
36
14
37
14
Claims 21 and 27-29 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9 and 13-14 of U.S. Patent 12,175,581 in view of Miller, IV et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0188895 A1). Claims 30 and 35-37 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9 and 13-14 of U.S. Patent 12,175,581 in view of Germann et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0267344 A1) and Miller, IV et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0188895 A1).
For claim 21, claims 9 and 13-14 of U.S. Patent 12,175,581 do not disclose rotating objects, of a virtual avatar of a physical subject participating in a meeting, during the meeting based at least on a location of a viewer that is also participating in the meeting and, based on least on the rotating, outputting the virtual avatar to the viewer. However, these limitations are well-known in the art as disclosed in Miller, IV et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0188895 A1). It would have been obvious to implement an augmented reality environment where users as physical subjects are represented with corresponding virtual avatars for interaction with one another in a teleconference session as a meeting (par. 52, 347 and 378) wherein a virtual avatar may comprise objects to be rotated during the teleconference session based on a location of a viewer also participating in the teleconference session so that the virtual avatar is output to the viewer based on the rotation to appropriately present augmented reality (par. 331, 343 and 435) as taught in Miller, IV et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0188895 A1). Claims 9 and 13-14 of U.S. Patent 12,175,581 otherwise discloses the limitations of claim 21 as shown in the claim chart above. Therefore, claim 21 is not patentably distinct from claims 9 and 13-14 of U.S. Patent 12,175,581.
For dependent claim 27, claims 9 and 13-14 of U.S. Patent 12,175,581 does not disclose causing a virtual avatar to face a viewer. However, these limitations are well-known in the art as disclosed in Miller, IV et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0188895 A1). It would have been obvious to implement an augmented reality environment where users as physical subjects are represented with corresponding virtual avatars for interaction with one another in teleconference session as a meeting (par. 52, 347 and 378) wherein a virtual avatar may be rotated to face a viewer to appropriately present augmented reality (par. 331) as taught in Miller, IV et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0188895 A1). Therefore, claim 27 is not patentably distinct from claims 9 and 13-14 of U.S. Patent 12,175,581.
For dependent claims 28-29, claims 9 and 13-14 of U.S. Patent 12,175,581 mirror and recite the same limitations of claims 28-29 as depicted in the claim chart above. Therefore, claims 28-29 are not patentably distinct from claims 9 and 13-14 of U.S. Patent 12,175,581.
For independent claim 30, claims 9 and 13-14 of U.S. Patent 12,175,581 do not disclose a system, the system comprising: at least one processor, memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor and a display screen; and do not disclose rotating objects, of a virtual avatar of a physical subject participating in a meeting, during the meeting based at least on a location of a viewer that is also participating in the meeting and, based on least on the rotating, outputting the virtual avatar to the viewer. However, these limitations are well-known in the art as disclosed in Germann et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0267344 A1) and Miller, IV et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0188895 A1). It would have been obvious to apply the use of a system with a processing unit and memory for storing instructions for execution by the processing unit to perform the functions of the system and a display screen to appropriately display a model of planar objects to viewers (Fig. 1; par. 113, 140 and 187) as taught in Germann et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0267344 A1). It would have been further obvious to implement an augmented reality environment where users as physical subjects are represented with corresponding virtual avatars for interaction with one another in a teleconference session as a meeting (par. 52, 347 and 378) wherein a virtual avatar may comprise objects to be rotated during the teleconference session based on a location of a viewer also participating in the teleconference session so that the virtual avatar is output to the viewer based on the rotation to appropriately present augmented reality (par. 331, 343 and 435) as taught in Miller, IV et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0188895 A1). Claims 9 and 13-14 of U.S. Patent 12,175,581 otherwise disclose the same limitations of claim 30 of the instant application as depicted in the claim chart above. Therefore, claim 30 is not patentably distinct from claims 9 and 13-14 of U.S. Patent 12,175,581.
For dependent claim 35, claims 9 and 13-14 of U.S. Patent 12,175,581 does not disclose causing a virtual avatar to face a viewer. However, these limitations are well-known in the art as disclosed in Miller, IV et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0188895 A1). It would have been obvious to implement an augmented reality environment where users as physical subjects are represented with corresponding virtual avatars for interaction with one another in teleconference session as a meeting (par. 52, 347 and 378) wherein a virtual avatar may be rotated to face a viewer to appropriately present augmented reality (par. 331) as taught in Miller, IV et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0188895 A1). Therefore, claim 35 is not patentably distinct from claims 9 and 13-14 of U.S. Patent 12,175,581.
For dependent claims 36-37, claims 9 and 13-14 of U.S. Patent 12,175,581 mirror and recite the same limitations of claims 36-37 as depicted in the claim chart above. Therefore, claims 36-37 are not patentably distinct from claims 9 and 13-14 of U.S. Patent 12,175,581.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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) 21, 22, 24, 29, 30, 32 and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Germann et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0267344 A1, hereinafter “Germann”) in view of Soryal et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0388796 A1, hereinafter “Soryal”) and Miller, IV et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0188895 A1, hereinafter “Miller”).
For claim 21, Germann discloses a method of creating a virtual avatar (disclosing the generation of a virtual 3D articulated object model of a human as a virtual avatar (par. 141-146)), the method comprising: receiving a plurality of views of a physical subject (disclosing two or more cameras for receiving two or more respective input video streams (par. 140); disclosing a segmentation to identify the human as a subject within the two or more input video streams (par. 140 and 152); disclosing a determination to find and identify a first view of the human from the first input video stream from the first camera and a determination to find and identify a second view of the human from the second input video stream from the second camera (par. 156)); in response to determining that the plurality of views are different from each other, generating a virtual avatar of the physical subject, the virtual avatar comprising a plurality of planar objects, the plurality of planar objects each corresponding to respective segments of the physical subject, and the plurality of planar objects being based on the plurality of views of the physical subject (disclosing the segmentation of the human into a plurality of planar objects as billboards where the billboards are transformed to represent the different body parts of the human with respect to each other and where the billboards are based on the first view and the second view to generate the virtual 3D articulated object model (par. 145, 148 and 166-167) where the object model is generated in response to a determination that the views are different in representing different viewpoints (par. 49 and 186)); and outputting the virtual avatar (disclosing an output of the billboards forming the articulated object model as a virtual image in an virtual video stream so that the billboards provide a three-dimensional representation of the articulated object model of the human to viewers at respective video display devices (par. 140-141 and 166-167)).
Germann does not explicitly recite a virtual avatar.
However, the use of virtual avatars is well-known in the art as disclosed in Soryal.
Soryal similarly discloses a system and method for presenting images of virtual entities and a virtual environment for display to viewers with respective display devices (par. 12-13 and 23-25). Soryal explains a virtual entity may be an avatar representing a user as the user is captured and identified from a data feed as an input stream of a camera (par. 23-26). It follows Germann may be accordingly modified with the teachings of Soryal to implement its articulated object model as a virtual avatar for presenting virtual images in association with its first subject.
A person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify Germann with the teachings of Soryal. Soryal is analogous art in dealing with a system and method for presenting images of virtual entities and a virtual environment for display to viewers with respective display devices (par. 12-13 and 23-25). Soryal discloses its use of a virtual avatar is advantageous in facilitating meetings in virtual reality to promote interaction between multiple users (par. 23-25). Consequently, a PHOSITA would incorporate the teachings of Soryal into Germann for facilitating meetings in virtual reality to promote interaction between multiple users.
Germann as modified by Soryal does not disclose rotating objects, of a virtual avatar of a physical subject participating in a meeting, during the meeting based at least on a location of a viewer that is also participating in the meeting and, based on least on the rotating, outputting the virtual avatar to the viewer.
However, these limitations are well-known in the art as disclosed in Miller.
Miller similarly discloses a system and method for presenting an augmented reality environment where users as physical subjects are represented with corresponding virtual avatars for interaction with one another in teleconference session as a meeting (par. 52, 347 and 378). Miller explains a virtual avatar may comprise objects to be rotated during the teleconference session based on a location of a viewer also participating in the teleconference session so that the virtual avatar is output to the viewer based on the rotation (par. 331, 343 and 435). It follows Germann and Soryal may be accordingly modified with the teachings of Miller to rotate at least one of its planar objects, of its physical subject participating in a meeting, during the meeting based at least on a location of a viewer that is also participating in the meeting and based on least on the rotating, outputting the virtual avatar to the viewer.
A PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify Germann and Soryal with the teachings of Miller. Miller is analogous art in dealing with a system and method for presenting an augmented reality environment where users as physical subjects are represented with corresponding virtual avatars for interaction with one another in teleconference session as a meeting (par. 52, 347 and 378). Miller discloses its use of avatar rotation is advantageous in appropriately facilitating interaction between users and corresponding avatars in a teleconference session of an augmented reality environment (par. 331, 343 and 435). Consequently, a PHOSITA would incorporate the teachings of Miller into Germann and Soryal for appropriately facilitating interaction between users and corresponding avatars in a teleconference session of an augmented reality environment. Therefore, claim 21 is rendered obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
For claim 22, depending on claim 21, Germann as modified by Soryal and Miller discloses further comprising: generating the plurality of planar objects via a machine-learning model (Soryal similarly discloses a system and method for presenting images of virtual entities and a virtual environment for display to viewers with respective display devices (par. 12-13 and 23-25); Soryal explains a virtual entity may be an avatar representing a user as the user is captured and identified from a data feed as an input stream of a camera (par. 23-26); Soryal further explains its system and method may be implemented with a machine-learning model for performing operations of its system and method (par. 94-95); and it follows Germann may be accordingly modified with the teachings of Soryal to implement a machine-learning model for generating its plurality of planar objects).
For claim 24, depending on claim 21, Germann as modified by Soryal and Miller discloses wherein the plurality of planar objects are billboards angled with respect to each other (Germann discloses the plurality of planar objects as billboards angled with respect to each other (Fig. 2; par. 145-146)).
For claim 29, depending on claim 21, Germann as modified by Soryal and Miller discloses wherein the physical subject is one of a person, an animal, or an object (Germann explains the subject is a human person (par. 140 and 152)).
For claim 30, Germann as modified by Soryal and Miller discloses a system, the system comprising: at least one processor; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to perform a set of operations (Germann discloses a system with a processing unit and memory for storing instructions for execution by the processing unit to perform the functions of the system (par. 113)), the set of operations comprising the method of claim 1 (see above as to claim 1).
For claim 32, depending on claim 30, this claim is a combination of the limitations of claim 30 and claim 24. It follows claim 32 is rejected for the same reasons as to claim 30 and claim 24.
For claim 37, depending on claim 30, this claim is a combination of the limitations of claim 30 and claim 29. It follows claim 37 is rejected for the same reasons as to claim 30 and claim 29.
Claim(s) 25, 26, 33 and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Germann in view of Soryal and Miller further in view of Shiraga (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0327160 A1).
For claim 25, depending on claim 21, Germann as modified by Soryal and Miller does not disclose a view is received from one or more stereo cameras.
However, these limitations are well-known in the art as disclosed in Shiraga.
Shiraga similarly discloses a system and method for segmenting an object into planes for the presentation of virtual objects (par. 8 and 55). Shiraga likewise discloses the use of cameras for capturing a plurality of views from a plurality of viewpoints where the cameras may be stereo cameras (par. 51 and 125). Shiraga explains multiple viewpoints are used to determine a plane as a planar object for presenting virtual objects for the plane (par. 69 and 100-101). It follows Germann, Soryal and Miller may be accordingly modified with the teachings of Shiraga to receive its plurality of views from one or more stereo cameras.
A PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify Germann, Soryal and Miller with the teachings of Shiraga. Shiraga is analogous art in dealing with a system and method for segmenting an object into planes for the presentation of virtual objects (par. 8 and 55). Shiraga discloses its use of a stereo camera is advantageous in obtaining multiple views with a planar object to improve visibility of virtual objects displayed in connection with a planar object (par. 7-8, 69, 100-101 and 125). Consequently, a PHOSITA would incorporate the teachings of Shiraga into Germann, Soryal and Miller for obtaining multiple views with a planar object to improve visibility of virtual objects displayed in connection with a planar object. Therefore, claim 25 is rendered obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
For claim 26, depending on claim 25, Germann as modified by Soryal, Miller and Shiraga discloses wherein the one or more stereo cameras include one or more red, green, blue, and depth (RGBD) cameras (Shiraga similarly discloses a system and method for segmenting an object into planes for the presentation of virtual objects (par. 8 and 55); Shiraga likewise discloses the use of cameras for capturing a plurality of views from a plurality of viewpoints where the cameras may be stereo cameras that are RGBD cameras (par. 48, 51 and 125); Shiraga explains multiple viewpoints are used to determine a plane as a planar object for presenting virtual objects for the plane (par. 69 and 100-101); and it follows Germann, Soryal and Miller may be accordingly modified with the teachings of Shiraga to receive its plurality of views from one or more stereo cameras).
For claim 33, depending on claim 30, this claim is a combination of the limitations of claim 30 and claim 25. It follows claim 33 is rejected for the same reasons as to claim 30 and claim 25.
For claim 34, depending on claim 33, this claim is a combination of the limitations of claim 33 and claim 26. It follows claim 34 is rejected for the same reasons as to claim 33 and claim 26.
Claim(s) 27, 28, 35 and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Germann in view of Soryal and Miller further in view of Laaksonen et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0180509 A1, hereinafter “Laaksonen”).
For claim 27, depending on claim 21, Germann as modified by Soryal and Miller discloses the rotating involves causing the virtual avatar to face the viewer (Miller similarly discloses a system and method for presenting an augmented reality environment where users as physical subjects are represented with corresponding virtual avatars for interaction with one another in teleconference session as a meeting (par. 52, 347 and 378); Miller explains a virtual avatar may comprise objects to be rotated during the teleconference session based on a location of a viewer also participating in the teleconference session so that the virtual avatar is output to the viewer based on the rotation (par. 331, 343 and 435); Miller further explains the virtual avatar may be rotated to face the viewer (par. 331); and it follows Germann and Soryal may be accordingly modified with the teachings of Miller to rotate at least one of its planar objects, of its physical subject participating in a meeting, during the meeting based at least on a location of a viewer that is also participating in the meeting and based on least on the rotating, outputting the virtual avatar to the viewer).
Germann as modified by Soryal and Miller does not specifically disclose a hybrid meeting environment.
However, these limitations are well-known in the art as disclosed in Laaksonen.
Laaksonen similarly discloses a system and method for presenting images of virtual content as virtual or augmented reality (par. 1-2). Laaksonen explains a room may be implemented as a hybrid space where a participant physically present in the room may be presented with virtual reality content of a participant at a different real-world location (Figs. 2-6; par. 135-139). It follows Germann, Soryal and Miller may be accordingly modified with the teachings of Laaksonen to implement a hybrid meeting environment for displaying its virtual avatar.
A PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify Germann, Soryal and Miller with the teachings of Laaksonen. Laaksonen is analogous art in dealing with a system and method for presenting images of virtual content as virtual or augmented reality (par. 1-2). Laaksonen discloses its use of a hybrid space is advantageous in enabling users not physically present to be virtually represented within the hybrid space to facilitate appropriate presentation of virtual or augmented reality (par. 135-139). Consequently, a PHOSITA would incorporate the teachings of Laaksonen into Germann, Soryal and Miller for enabling users not physically present to be virtually represented within the hybrid space to facilitate appropriate presentation of virtual or augmented reality. Therefore, claim 27 is rendered obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
For claim 28, depending on claim 27, Germann as modified by Soryal, Miller and Laaksonen discloses wherein the hybrid meeting environment includes a plurality of participants disposed therein who are two or more from the group of: in a physical room, virtually displayed within the physical room, and represented within the physical room via a respective virtual avatar (Laaksonen similarly discloses a system and method for presenting images of virtual content as virtual or augmented reality (par. 1-2); Laaksonen explains a room may be implemented as a hybrid space with a plurality of participants with at least one participant physically present in the room and at least one participant at a different real-world location that is virtually displayed within the room and/or represented with a virtual avatar (Figs. 2-6; par. 135-141); and it follows Germann, Soryal and Miller may be accordingly modified with the teachings of Laaksonen to implement a hybrid meeting environment for displaying its virtual avatar).
For claim 35, depending on claim 30, Germann as modified by Soryal, Miller and Laaksonen discloses wherein the virtual avatar is output on a display screen a hybrid meeting environment and the rotating involves causing the virtual avatar to face the viewer (Germann discloses a display screen (Fig. 1; par. 140 and 187); Miller similarly discloses a system and method for presenting an augmented reality environment where users as physical subjects are represented with corresponding virtual avatars for interaction with one another in teleconference session as a meeting (par. 52, 347 and 378); Miller explains a virtual avatar may comprise objects to be rotated during the teleconference session based on a location of a viewer also participating in the teleconference session so that the virtual avatar is output to the viewer based on the rotation (par. 331, 343 and 435); Miller further explains the virtual avatar may be rotated to face the viewer (par. 331); and it follows Germann and Soryal may be accordingly modified with the teachings of Miller to rotate at least one of its planar objects, of its physical subject participating in a meeting, during the meeting based at least on a location of a viewer that is also participating in the meeting and based on least on the rotating, outputting the virtual avatar to the viewer; Laaksonen similarly discloses a system and method for presenting images of virtual content as virtual or augmented reality (par. 1-2); Laaksonen explains a room may be implemented as a hybrid space where a participant physically present in the room may be presented with virtual reality content of a participant at a different real-world location (Figs. 2-6; par. 135-139); and it follows Germann and Soryal may be accordingly modified with the teachings of Laaksonen to implement a hybrid meeting environment for displaying its virtual avatar on its display screen).
For claim 36, depending on claim 35, this claim is a combination of the limitations of claim 35 and claim 28. It follows claim 36 is rejected for the same reasons as to claim 35 and claim 28.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 23 and 31 would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and to address any claim objections raised above in the Detailed Action.
Claims 38-40 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to address any claim objections raised above in the Detailed Action.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CHARLES TSENG whose telephone number is (571)270-3857. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5.
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, Xiao Wu can be reached at (571) 272-7761. 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.
/CHARLES TSENG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2613
Prosecution Insights