DETAILED ACTIONNotice 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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 10, 11, 13-15, 17, 18, 20 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vitta et al (2018/0103230) (herein “Vitta”). In regards to claims 1, 20 and 21, Vitta teaches a streaming system, comprising: a server computer configured to send a stream of video data; a streaming device configured to receive the video data and provide the video data to a display for displaying the video data to a viewer (See; p[0033], p[0035], p[0037]-p[0040] and p0044); and a sensor in communication with the streaming device, wherein the sensor is configured to measure a quantity that enables a viewing distance between the display and the viewer to be determined (See; Figs. 4, 6A and p[0032] for a distance detection unit 110 including more than one sensor for determining the distance between the display and at least one viewer); wherein the streaming device is configured to use the quantity to determine the viewing distance and send the viewing distance to the server computer; wherein the server computer is configured to adjust one or more features of the video data based on the viewing distance (See; Figs. 4, 5, 6A, Abstract, p[0030] and p[0036] for adjusting pixel image data or adjustment of video quality based on the detected distance).
In regards to claim 2, Vitta teaches wherein the streaming system is a video game streaming system, the server computer is configured to perform processing of a video game, and the video data comprises video data of the video game (See; p[0021] and p[0138] where the streamed content may be gaming information for video game panels or consoles).
In regards to claim 3, Vitta teaches wherein the one or more features include at least one feature related to an amount of visual detail contained in the video data (See; Abstract, p[0057] and p[0155] for adjusting video quality).
In regards to claim 4, Vitta teaches wherein the streaming device is configured to inform the server computer of a size and resolution of the display and the server computer is configured to adjust the one or more features relative to the size and resolution of the display (See; Fig. 6A, p[0034], p[0057], p[0083] for adjusting the resolution).
In regards to claim 5, Vitta teaches wherein the one or more features comprise a resolution of the video data (See; Fig. 6A, p[0034], p[0057], p[0083] for adjusting the resolution).
In regards to claim 6, Vitta teaches further comprising a peripheral device configured to control the streaming device, wherein the sensor is provided on or in the peripheral device (See; Fig. 1, p[0031]-p[0033] for a distance detection unit 110 which may be included in the display 102 or in the remote device 106).
In regards to claim 10, Vitta teaches wherein the streaming device is configured to calibrate the determined viewing distance to correct for a separation distance between the streaming device and the display (See; p[0032]).
In regards to claim 11, Vitta teaches wherein the sensor comprises a camera (See; p[0032] where the sensor may be an RGB-D camera or IR sensor).
In regards to claim 13, Vitta teaches wherein the sensor comprises a light sensor (See; p[0046]).
In regards to claim 14, Vitta teaches wherein the streaming device is configured to determine, based on a number of active peripheral devices connected to the streaming device or data from the sensor, that a plurality of viewers are present and to send the viewing distance of the nearest viewer to the server computer (See; p[0031], p[0057] where when multiple viewers are detected the distance to the closest person may be used).
In regards to claim 15, Vitta teaches wherein the one or more features comprise an encoding of the video data (See; p[0026]-p[0033] for encoding video).
In regards to claim 17, Vitta teaches wherein the one or more features are also adjusted based on user preferences stored by the server computer or the streaming device (See; p[0066]).
In regards to claim 18, Vitta teaches wherein the streaming system is a video game streaming system, the video data represents an in-game visual feature, and the server computer is configured to adjust a level of detail of the visual feature based on the viewing distance (See; p[0021] and p[0138] where the streamed content may be gaming information for video game panels or consoles which inherently contains in-game visual features that would have their level of detail changed when changing the level of detail of the entire display).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vitta et al (2018/0103230) (herein “Vitta”).
In regards to claim 7, Vitta fails to explicitly teach wherein the peripheral device is a video game controller. However, Vitta teaches the remote source device 106 may be a handheld device (See; p[0031]) and further teaches where the streamed content may be gaming information for video game panels or consoles (See; p[0021] and p[0138]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to determine that the handheld device 106 would be a video game controller when the system of Vitta is implemented to be used with video game panels or consoles as it is well known in the art that video game controllers are used to interact with video game consoles.
Claim(s) 8 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vitta et al (2018/0103230) (herein “Vitta”) in view of Riggert et al (2010/0250766) (herein “Riggert”). In regards to claim 8, Vitta fails to explicitly teach wherein the sensor comprises a microphone and the streaming device is configured to determine the viewing distance based on a time delay or volume of sound detected by the microphone and emitted by a speaker of the display. However, Riggert teaches a sensor comprises a microphone and the streaming device is configured to determine the viewing distance based on a time delay or volume of sound detected by the microphone and emitted by a speaker of the display (See; p[0025] for a distance measuring device 103 which may acoustically measure distance using a sound wave that bounces off viewers in the room creating an echo. Where it is obvious that microphones are involved in capturing the reflected sound wave and the distance is determined based on the time delay of the echo). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Vitta to measure the distance of the viewer from the display acoustically as done in Riggert as a well-known means of measuring distance between two points. In regards to claim 16, Vitta fails to explicitly teach wherein the one or more features comprise a frame rate. However, Riggert teaches wherein the one or more features comprise a frame rate (See; Fig. 4 and p[0009]-p[0011]] for adjusting a frame rate based on a measured distance). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Vitta to adjust a frame rate of the video as it is a well-known means of adjusting video quality and to keep the frame rate at a level at or below what a user can visually perceive so as to utilize less bandwidth on the network.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vitta et al (2018/0103230) (herein “Vitta”) in view of Feng et al (2011/0234366) (herein “Feng”).
In regards to claim 9, Vitta fails to explicitly teach wherein the sensor comprises a wireless receiver configured to measure a signal strength of a signal received from the streaming device. However, Feng teaches wherein the sensor comprises a wireless receiver configured to measure a signal strength of a signal received from the streaming device (See; p[0023] for measuring a distance between a wireless controller and a device using signal strength of a signal received). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Vitta to measure the distance of the viewer from the display using signal strength measurements as performed in Feng as a well-known means of measuring distance between two points.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vitta et al (2018/0103230) (herein “Vitta”) in view of YAMAGUCHI et al (2025/0354797) (herein “YAMAGUCHI”).
In regards to claim 12, Vitta teaches an IR camera (See; p[0032] and p[0046]), however fails to explicitly teach wherein the streaming device is configured to provide a pattern to the display and use an image of the pattern taken by the camera to estimate the viewing distance. However, YAMAGUCHI teaches wherein the streaming device is configured to provide a pattern to the display and use an image of the pattern taken by the camera to estimate the viewing distance (See; p[0071] for an sensor emitting an infrared random dot pattern to measure the distance to a subject through pattern matching). Thus when Vitta implements an IR camera in the handheld device and combines with YAMAGUCHI to emit a pattern to the display a distance to the display can be achieved. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Vitta to measure the distance of the viewer from the display using IR pattern matching as performed by YAMAGUCHI as a well-known means of measuring distance between two points.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN A BOYD whose telephone number is (571)270-7503. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00 - 5:00.
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.
/JONATHAN A BOYD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2627
Prosecution Insights