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
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection (see below).
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.
Claims 1 and 3 – 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Svendsen et al. (US Pub. No. 2012/0254752 A1) in view of Ramani et al. (US Pub. No. 2003/0090530 A1).
As to claims 1, 8 and 9, Svendsen shows a method, an associated server and an associated non-transitory computer readable medium (Fig. 6 and para. 78) for analyzing an input by a user (i.e. editing, for example) received by a client on a server (Figs. 4 and 5 and paras. 63 and 65); the method comprising of; sending a content to be displayed by the client from the server to the client (Figs. 3 and 5 paras. 55 and 69), wherein the content comprises one or more 3d objects (i.e. 3D video, para. 67); receiving from the client, an input information (i.e. modification) by the user to the client (Fig. 3 and para. 56) while the content is displayed (i.e. via a preview, for example, Fig. 5 and para. 69), wherein the input information comprises a request to modify a 3D object of the one or more 3D object (i.e. video, para. 67): analyzing the input information by the user received from the client; and changing the content to be displayed by the client based on the result of the analysis (i.e. replacing the previous version, Fig. 3 and paras. 22, 56 and 59): and sending the changed content to the client (i.e. rendering the newly edited content, Figs. 3 and 5 paras. 57 and 69).
Svendsen does not show that each of the one or more 3D objects has a three-dimensional shape represented by geometry information.
Ramani shows the process of modifying objects having a three-dimensional shape represented by geometry information (Fig. 5 and para. 38).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Svendsen with those of Ramani because designing the system in this way allows the device to provide collaborative shape design (para. 34).
As to claim 3, Svendsen shows that the content is a content in a space of three or more dimensions (i.e. 3D video, para. 67).
As to claim 4, Svendsen shows that the content is generated in three dimensions (i.e. 3D video, para. 67).
As to claim 5, Svendsen shows receiving from the client, time information when the input information by the user is made (i.e. date of creation of content, duration information, etc., Fig. 5 and para. 69); and accumulating and analyzing the time information (i.e. including time information in the content and providing it back to the client for display, Fig. 5 and para. 69), wherein the changing the content comprises changing the content to be displayed by the client based on a result of the analysis of the input information and the time information (i.e. including time information in the content and providing it back to the client for display, Fig. 5 and para. 69).
As to claim 6, Svendsen shows receiving from the client, time information when the input information by the user is made and information on an event generated by the input information (i.e. date of creation of content, duration information, etc., Fig. 5 and para. 69).
As to claim 7, Svendsen shows analyzing the time information and the information on the event generated by the input information (i.e. including time information in the content and providing it back to the client for display, Fig. 5 and para. 69), wherein the changing the content comprises changing the content to be displayed by the client based on a result of the analysis of the input information, the time information, and the information on the event (i.e. including time information in the content and providing it back to the client for display, Fig. 5 and para. 69).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 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.
Specifically, Svendsen shows that the input information by the user includes a request to redraw one of the one or more 3D objects (i.e. delete and add new content, Fig. 5 and paras. 73 and 74); wherein the changing the content to be displayed by the client comprises redrawing the one of the one or more 3D objects (i.e. delete and add new content, Fig. 5 and paras. 73 and 74); wherein the method further comprises: encoding the content information as a stream (Fig. 5 and paras. 50 and 70); and wherein the sending the changed content to the client comprises sending the changed content as the stream to the client (Fig. 5 and paras. 50 and 70).
Svendsen does not show extracting color information, alpha information, and geometry information from the redrawn 3D object, and simplifying the geometry information.
The prior art does not show this configuration; therefore, this claim contains allowable subject matter.
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARL ADAMS whose telephone number is (571)270-7448. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9AM - 5PM EST.
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, Ke Xiao can be reached at 571-272-7776. 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.
/CARL ADAMS/ Examiner, Art Unit 2627
Prosecution Insights