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 Objections
Claims 16-17, 20-21, 23-24, 27-28, and 30-31 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 16, 23, and 30, “the one or more objects of attention comprise object” should instead read “each of the one or more objects of attention comprise an object” or similar
In claims 17, 24, and 31, “rays that are associated gaze positions” should instead read “rays that are associated with gaze positions”
In claims 20 and 27, “receiving-attention data” should instead read “receiving attention data” without a hyphen
In claims 21 and 28, “the operation comprise” should instead read “the operation comprises”
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 18-19, 25-26, and 32 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.
Claims 18, 25, and 32 each recite the limitation "the one or more rays that are associated with gaze positions of the multiple users." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner recommends amending these claims to instead depend upon claims 17, 24, and 31, respectively.
Claims 19 and 26 each recite the limitation “each of the one or more rays that are associated with the gaze positions.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner recommends amending these claims to instead depend upon claims 17 and 24, respectively.
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 12 and 14-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea(s) without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 12, analyzed as the representative claim:
[Step 1] Claim 12 recites “A computer-implemented method…” which falls within the “process” statutory category of invention under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
[Step 2A – Prong 1] Claim 12 recites “A computer-implemented method comprising: receiving attention data that is indicative of a respective region of attention of each of multiple users of a video game; determining, based at least on the attention data that is indicative of the respective region of attention for each of the multiple users of the video game, one or more objects of attention in the video game; and determining to increase a level of detail (LOD) of the one or more objects in the video game for one or more different users of the video game.” The bolded limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass mental processes (including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion) That is, other than reciting that the method is “computer-implemented,” nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human and/or in the human mind. Specifically, the claim encompasses an observer viewing people playing a video game and seeing which region of the screen they are looking at, determining game objects within that region(s) that seem important, and determining that a level of detail of those objects should be increased. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea(s).
[Step 2A – Prong 2] The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Specifically, the claim recites the additional element of the method being “computer-implemented”, wherein the computing device and executed computer program are recited at a high level of generality and merely automate the receiving and determining steps. Therefore, this additional element amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computing device, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea(s). Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea(s).
[Step 2B] The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea(s) into a practical application, the additional element of the method being “computer-implemented” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computing device, which cannot provide an inventive concept. Taken alone, the additional element does not amount to significant more than the above-identified abstract idea(s). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication of any improvements to the function of a computer or any other technology and/or implementation of a particular machine. Instead, the claim appears to be directed merely to a conventional computer implementation. Accordingly, representative claim 12 is not patent eligible.
Claims 14-19 are dependent on representative claim 12 and include all of the limitations of claim 12. Therefore, the dependent claims recite the same abstract idea(s) as those recited in the independent claim or contain limitations drawn to generic computer components and/or reciting extra solution activities. While the dependent claims may have a narrower scope than the representative claim, no claim contains an additional element to integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application or to render an inventive concept that transforms the corresponding claim into a patent eligible application of the otherwise ineligible abstract idea(s). Thereby, claims 14-19 are also patent ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 12 and 14-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2019/0335166 (hereinafter “Copley”).
Regarding Claims 12, 20, and 27, Copley discloses receiving attention data that is indicative of a respective region of attention of each of multiple users of a video game (figs. 8-10 using gaze data/direction of multiple users to determine region of highest interest/attention; par. 0057: “In synthetic computer generated scenes, as in multiplayer video games, the scene geometry is known and can be easily used as an input to the process;” par. 0054: “With synthetic computer-generated… which allows so-called ‘6-degrees-of-freedom’ of movement for users, there is considerably more data available. In such content, each viewer is able to move freely through the three-dimensional space… the viewing orientation and zoom level, can serve as inputs to the consumption data aggregation process;” par. 0040: “consumption data… can be used to track which portion(s) of a 3D scene the viewer is consuming, wherein such tracking can involve gaze tracking;” par. 0041: “Gaze tracking data, indicating a direction of a viewer's gaze, may also be generated”);
determining, based at least on the attention data that is indicative of the respective region of attention for each of the multiple users of the video game, one or more objects of attention in the video game (par. 0058: “object… recognition is used to allow the ‘attention volume’ generation process to obtain higher resolution of expected attention regions;” par. 0014: “autonomously add contextual information about a person or object within a 3D volume of high interest so that the added contextual information is viewable by the multiple viewers;” Examiner notes objects of attention/interest are inherently determined when contextual information is added about them, and this determination is made at least partially because they are within portions/regions of the 3D scene that is receiving more attention from multiple viewers; figs. 8-10); and
determining to increase a level of detail (LOD) of the one or more objects in the video game for one or more different users of the video game (par. 0058: “object… recognition is used to allow the ‘attention volume’ generation process to obtain higher resolution of expected attention regions;” par. 0014: “autonomously add contextual information about a person or object within a 3D volume of high interest so that the added contextual information is viewable by the multiple viewers;” par. 0080: “rendering one or more 3D volume(s) of high interest at a higher resolution than another portion of the 3D scene that is outside the 3D volume(s) of high interest;” par. 0075: “the consumption data can be used to indicate which volumes of the scene deserve more bits for their representation;” par. 0005: “for at least one of the time slice or a later time slice, one or more 3D volume(s) of high interest is rendered at a higher resolution”).
Further regarding Claims 20 and 27, Copley discloses one or more processors (par. 0010: “one or more processors”), and
one or more non-transitory computer-readable media that store instructions (REF) which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations (par. 0018: “one or more processor readable storage devices having instructions encoded thereon which when executed cause one or more processors to perform a method for identifying and using three-dimensional (3D) volumetric level of interest data associated with a 3D scene that is being viewed by multiple viewers;” par. 0090: “computer-readable non-transitory media”) comprising the above steps (see claim 1).
Regarding Claims 14, 21, and 28, Copley further discloses an indicator indicating the one or more objects of attention (par. 0006: “the aggregated volumetric level of interest data is used to autonomously add contextual information about a[n]… object within a 3D volume of high interest so that the added contextual information is viewable by the multiple viewers. Such contextual information can be statistical information and/or background information about a person or object within the 3D volume of high interest, but is not limited thereto;” par. 0059: “Third-party position data: Especially for… entertainment… real-time data feeds indicating the position of key actors or objects within the scene are often available”).
Regarding Claims 15, 22, and 29, Copley discloses the attention data comprises gaze data (figs. 8-10; par. 0040: “track which portion(s) of a 3D scene the viewer is consuming, wherein such tracking can involve gaze tracking;” par. 0041: “Gaze tracking data, indicating a direction of a viewer's gaze, may also be generated;” par. 0052: “consumption data can be derived from… gaze direction”).
Regarding Claims 16, 23, and 30, Copley further discloses the one or more objects of attention comprise object in a three-dimensional (3D) virtual world of the video game (par. 0006: “object within a 3D volume;” par. 0057: “synthetic computer generated scenes, as in multiplayer video games;” par. 0070: “synthetic… 3D scenes… virtual cameras in 3D virtual space”).
Regarding Claims 17, 24, and 31, Copley further discloses the one or more objects of attention are positioned along one or more rays that are associated with gaze positions of the multiple users (figs. 8-10: gaze rays/directions from multiple users with region 808 being the region receiving the most attention and having the objects of attention; par. 0048: “Through triangulation, the potential volumes of interest can be dramatically narrowed. A simple example of the triangulation process is shown in FIG. 8. Referring to FIG. 8, an attention volume generated by consumption data from the capture point 604d is shown as being overlaid by a separate attention volume generated by consumption data from the capture point 604b. This use of an additional data source allows the distribution of viewer attention through the 3D space to be more accurately determined. More specifically, in FIG. 8 the dark shaded area labeled 806d indicates high attention from the capture point 604d, and light shaded areas labeled 804d indicate moderate attention from the capture point 604d. The dark shaded area labeled 806b indicates high attention from the capture point 604b, and light shaded areas labeled 804b indicate moderate attention from the capture point 604b. With the additional consumption data, the volume of highest interest can be constrained to the darkest area, labeled 808;” par. 0041: “Gaze tracking data, indicating a direction of a viewer's gaze”).
Regarding Claims 18, 25, and 32, Copley further discloses the one or more objects of attention are positioned along each of the one or more rays that are associated with gaze positions of the multiple users within a predetermined time period (figs. 8-10: gaze rays/directions from multiple users with region 808 being the region receiving the most attention and having the objects of attention; par. 0048: “Through triangulation, the potential volumes of interest can be dramatically narrowed. A simple example of the triangulation process is shown in FIG. 8… With the additional consumption data, the volume of highest interest can be constrained to the darkest area, labeled 808;” par. 0041: “Gaze tracking data, indicating a direction of a viewer's gaze;” par. 0078: “identifying for the time slice, based on the consumption data, 3D volumetric level of interest data associated with each of the viewers that are viewing the 3D scene;” par. 0080: “using the aggregated volumetric level of interest data to autonomously control an aspect associated with the 3D scene for at least one of the time slice or a later time slice. For example, step 1308 can include, for at least one of the time slice or a later time slice (e.g., a current frame or a later frame), rendering one or more 3D volume(s) of high interest at a higher resolution than another portion of the 3D scene that is outside the 3D volume(s) of high interest”).
Regarding Claims 19 and 26, Copley further discloses the one or more objects of attention are positioned along each of the one or more rays that are associated with the gaze positions for at least a predetermined time period (figs. 8-10: gaze rays/directions from multiple users with region 808 being the region receiving the most attention and having the objects of attention; par. 0048: “Through triangulation, the potential volumes of interest can be dramatically narrowed. A simple example of the triangulation process is shown in FIG. 8… With the additional consumption data, the volume of highest interest can be constrained to the darkest area, labeled 808;” par. 0041: “Gaze tracking data, indicating a direction of a viewer's gaze;” par. 0078: “identifying for the time slice, based on the consumption data, 3D volumetric level of interest data associated with each of the viewers that are viewing the 3D scene;” par. 0080: “using the aggregated volumetric level of interest data to autonomously control an aspect associated with the 3D scene for at least one of the time slice or a later time slice. For example, step 1308 can include, for at least one of the time slice or a later time slice (e.g., a current frame or a later frame), rendering one or more 3D volume(s) of high interest at a higher resolution than another portion of the 3D scene that is outside the 3D volume(s) of high interest”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2018/00597880 (Mitchell) teaches a system and method of analyzing collected gaze data from a plurality of users in order to identify important/focal areas of a virtual image which should be rendered with higher detail. Machine learning may be used to form predictions of where a new user will look and to reduce adjustment latency.
US 2017/0287112 (Stafford) teaches a method and system of using a viewer’s gaze data to increase the level of detail of high-interest regions/objects. Further, objects may be tagged based on their detected level of importance.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIE DOSHER whose telephone number is (571) 272-4842. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10 a.m. - 6 p.m. ET.
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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at (571) 272-4430. 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.
/J.G.D./Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/DMITRY SUHOL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights