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
1. The following is a non-final, First Office Action on the merits. Claims 21-40 are pending. Claims 1-20 have been canceled by the Applicant.
Double Patenting
2. Independent claims 21 and 31 of the instant application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable respectively over claims 1 and 11 of US Patent 12,033,187 B2. See below.
Instant Application: case 19/266,889
US Patent 12,033,187 B2
Claims 21 and 31: A method and system comprising:
determining a surface of a first virtual object displayed in a virtual environment for placement of a second virtual object;
determining a currently-displayed viewing angle relative to a fixed reference position in the virtual environment;
determining an orientation of the surface of the first virtual object relative to the fixed reference position;
associating a texture of the second virtual object with the surface of the first virtual object; and
rendering the second virtual object, in the virtual environment, from the currently-displayed viewing angle based at least in part on the determined orientation of the surface of the first virtual object, wherein the rendering causes the texture of the second virtual object to be displayed on the surface of the first virtual object at a currently-displayed angle that matches the orientation of the surface of the first virtual object relative to the currently-displayed viewing angle.
Claims 1 and 11: A method and system comprising:
determining a respective surface of a number of surfaces displayed in a virtual environment for placement of a selected advertisement;
determining a currently-displayed viewing angle relative to a fixed reference position in the virtual environment;
determining an orientation of a virtual object relative to the fixed reference position;
calculating a currently-displayed angle of a surface of the virtual object; calculating an image transformation matrix that matches the currently-displayed angle of the surface of the virtual object; transforming an image of the selected advertisement using the image transformation matrix; and
displaying the virtual object with the transformed image of the selected advertisement overlaid over the surface of the virtual object at the currently-displayed angle of the surface of the virtual object.
In summary, independent claims 1 and 11 of U.S. Patent 12,033,187 B2 teach all the features of independent claims 21 and 31 of the instant application as indicated in the table above. Although claims 1 and 11 of U.S. Patent 12,033,187 B2 has additional underlined features (bold limitations in the table above) such as {e.g., calculating a currently-displayed angle of a surface of the virtual object; calculating an image transformation matrix that matches the currently-displayed angle of the surface of the virtual object; transforming an image of the selected advertisement using the image transformation matrix;}; however, it has been held that deleting elements when the function of element is not desired is obvious. See MPEP 2144.04 Section II. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify or to omit the additional elements of claims 1 and 11 of U.S. Patent 12,033,187 B2 to arrive at the claims 21 and 31 of the instant application because the person of ordinary skill would have realized that the remaining element would perform the same functions as before. “Omission of element and its function in combination is obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform same functions as before.” See In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184, decide Jan 16, 1963, Appl. No. 6857, U. S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.
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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. Claims 21, 25, 27-31, 35, and 37-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altbert et al; (US 2014/0058807), in view of Mathur et al; (US 2019/0272673 A1):
5. Independent claims 21 and 31: Altbert teaches a method and system comprising:
determining a surface (paras 0095-0097 in context with paras 0503-0504)of a first virtual object (e.g., virtual objects such as virtual bulletin board…etc., in paras 0080-0081, 0093 in context with para 0095-0098, 0503-0504) displayed in a virtual environment for placement of a second virtual object (e.g., advertisement in paras 0080-0081, 0093 in context with para 0095-0098), wherein the second virtual object is stored in a memory (paras 0125, 0341) (step/limitation 1) {At least paras 0080-0081, 0093-0098, 0104. 0125, 0341 in context with para 0104, 0456, 0503-0504};
determining a position (e.g., avatar/viewer’s position in paras 0503-0504) (part of step/limitation 2) in the virtual environment {At least paras 0503-0504};
determining an orientation of the surface of the first object (e.g., virtual objects in paras 0503-0504) relative to a position (e.g., avatar/viewer’s position in paras 0503-0504) (part of step/limitation 3) {At least paras 0503-0504};
associating a texture of the second virtual object (e.g., advertisement in para 0503-0504) with the surface of the first virtual object (e.g., virtual objects in paras 0503-0504) (step/limitation 4) {At least paras 0503-0504 teaches surfaces of the objects/first virtual objects is/are identified and advertisement/second virtual object is presented as part of the appearance of a surface of a virtual object/first virtual object. Also see para 0105. The Examiner interprets a texture of the second virtual object/advertisement with the surface of the first virtual object would have been associated in order for the advertisement/second virtual object is presented as part of the appearance of a surface of a virtual object/first virtual object}; and
rendering the second virtual object, in the virtual environment, based at least in part on the determined orientation of the surface of the first virtual object, wherein the rendering causes the texture of the second virtual object (e.g., advertisement in paras 0503-0504) to be displayed on the surface of the first virtual object that matches the orientation of the surface of the first virtual object (part of step/limitation 5) {At least paras 0503-0504 in context with paras 0095-0105} .
However, Altberg does not explicitly teach the underlined features: “determining a currently-displayed viewing angle relative a fixed reference position in the virtual environment (part of step/limitation 2); determining an orientation of the surface of the first virtual object relative to the fixed reference position (part of step/limitation 3); rendering the second virtual object, in the virtual environment, from the currently-displayed viewing angle based at least in part on the determined orientation of the surface of the first virtual object, wherein the rendering causes the texture of the second virtual object to be displayed on the surface of the first virtual object at a currently-displayed angle that matches the orientation of the surface of the first virtual object relative to the currently-displayed viewing angle (part of step/limitation 5).
Mathur teaches:
determining a currently-displayed viewing angle relative to a fixed reference position in a virtual environment {At least paras 0041-0043, 0027-0028 in context with para 0003. Also see fig. 7A paras 0066-0073};
determining an orientation of surface (para 0060) of a first virtual object (paras 0037-0039, 0060) relative to the fixed reference position (paras 0041-0043, 0027-0028, 0060) {At least fig. 6A especially paras 0060-0061 in context with paras 0041-0043, fig. 7A paras 0066-0073};
rendering the second virtual object (e.g., digital asset such as advertisement in paras 0060-0063 especially paras 0063, 0027), in the virtual environment, from the currently-displayed viewing angle based at least in part on the determined orientation of the surface of the first virtual object, wherein the rendering causes the texture of the second virtual object to be displayed on the surface of the first virtual object at a currently-displayed angle that matches the orientation of the surface of the first virtual object relative to the currently-displayed viewing angle {At least fig. 6A paras 0060-0063 in context with paras 0027-0028, 0041-0043, fig. 7A paras 0066-0073}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify “determining a surface of a first virtual object displayed in a virtual environment for placement of a second virtual object; determining a position in the virtual environment; determining an orientation of the surface of the first object relative to a position; associating a texture of the second virtual object with the surface of the first virtual object; and rendering the second virtual object, in the virtual environment, based at least in part on the determined orientation of the surface of the first virtual object, wherein the rendering causes the texture of the second virtual object to be displayed on the surface of the first virtual object that matches the orientation of the surface of the first virtual object” of Altberg to include “determining a currently-displayed viewing angle relative to a fixed reference position in a virtual environment; determining an orientation of surface of a first virtual object relative to the fixed reference position; and rendering the second virtual object, in the virtual environment, from the currently-displayed viewing angle based at least in part on the determined orientation of the surface of the first virtual object, wherein the rendering causes the texture of the second virtual object to be displayed on the surface of the first virtual object at a currently-displayed angle that matches the orientation of the surface of the first virtual object relative to the currently-displayed viewing angle”, taught by Mathur. One would be motivated to do this in order to determine the viewer’s points of interest/field of view in the virtual environment more accurately, which in turn would increase the effectiveness of the advertisements that are displayed to the viewer based on the viewer’s accurate field of view.
10. Claims 25 and 35: The combination of Altberg and Mathur teaches the claimed invention as in claims 21 and 31 respectively. The combination further teaches wherein the texture of the second virtual object comprises geometric (paras 0041, 0044, 0055-0056, 0060-0063, 0068), and topological parameters (paras 0041, 0060-0063, 0067-0068) {Mathur: At least paras 0041, 0044, 0055-0056, 0060-0063, 0067-0068, Fig. 7A paras 0066-0073}, the method further comprising:
calculating a position and the currently-displayed angle for displaying the second virtual object relative to a user's field of view of the virtual environment, based at least in part on the geometric and topological parameters of the second virtual object {Mathur: At least paras 0060-0063 in context with paras 0041-0043, 0041, 0044, 0055-0056, 0067-0068, Fig. 7A paras 0066-0073}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify “the texture of the second virtual object” of the combination of Altberg and Mathur to include “wherein the texture of the second virtual object comprises geometric, and topological parameters, the method further comprising: calculating a position and the currently-displayed angle for displaying the second virtual object relative to a user's field of view of the virtual environment, based at least in part on the geometric and topological parameters of the second virtual object”, taught by Mathur. One would be motivated to do this in order to improves immersion, accuracy, and engagement in virtual or augmented reality advertising.
6. Claims 27 and 37: The combination of Altberg and Mathur teaches the claimed invention as in claims 21 and 31 respectively. The combination further teaches determining whether the surface of the first virtual object is suitable for displaying the second virtual object based at least in part on a size of the surface, an angle of the surface, a curvature of the surface or lighting of the surface {Mathur: At least para 0060}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify “rendering the second virtual object to be displayed on the surface of the first virtual object” of the combination of Altberg and Mathur to include “determining whether the surface of the first virtual object is suitable for displaying the second virtual object based at least in part on a size of the surface, an angle of the surface, a curvature of the surface or lighting of the surface”, taught by Mathur. One would be motivated to do this since determining whether the surface of the first virtual object in a virtual environment is suitable for displaying an advertisement/second virtual object based on size, angle, curvature, and/or lighting would improve ad visibility, user experience, and campaign effectiveness.
7. Claims 28 and 38: The combination of Altberg and Mathur teaches the claimed invention as in claims 21 and 31 respectively. The combination further teaches:
comparing a reference point of the second virtual object to the fixed reference position; and {Mathur: At least paras 0060-0063 in context with pars 0041-0043, fig. 7 paras 0066-0073};
determining an orientation for displaying the of the second virtual object based at least in part on the comparing {Mathur: At least paras 0060-0063 in context with pars 0041-0043, fig. 7 paras 0066- 0073}.
8. Claims 29 and 39: The combination of Altberg and Mathur teaches the claimed invention as in claims 21 and 31 respectively. The combination further teaches selecting the surface of the first virtual object for displaying the second virtual object {Mathur: At least para 0060} by:
receiving metadata associated with the first virtual object, wherein the metadata indicates respective sizes associated with one or more other surfaces of the first virtual object {Mathur: At least para 0060}; and
determining that the one or more other surfaces are not suitable for placement of the second virtual object based at least in part on the respective sizes {Mathur: At least para 0062}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify “rendering the second virtual object to be displayed on the surface of the first virtual object” of the combination of Altberg and Mathur to include “selecting the surface of the first virtual object for displaying the second virtual object; receiving metadata associated with the first virtual object, wherein the metadata indicates respective sizes associated with one or more other surfaces of the first virtual object; and determining that the one or more other surfaces are not suitable for placement of the second virtual object based at least in part on the respective sizes”, taught by Mathur. One would be motivated to do this since determining whether the surface of the first virtual object in a virtual environment is suitable for displaying an advertisement/second virtual object based on sizes would improve ad visibility, user experience, and campaign effectiveness.
9. Claims 30 and 40: The combination of Altberg and Mathur teaches the claimed invention as in claims 21 and 31 respectively. The combination further teaches wherein the second virtual object (e.g., advertisement) is a static or animated virtual object {Altberg: At least paras 0059, 0095}.
10. Claims 22-24, 26 and 32-34 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altbert et al; (US 2014/0058807), in view of Mathur et al; (US 2019/0272673 A1), and further in view of Sivanandan et al; (US 2013/0124311):
11. Claims 22 and 32: The combination of Altberg and Mathur teaches the claimed invention as in claims 21 and 31 respectively. The combination further teaches wherein the virtual environment is a video game environment, wherein the second virtual object is an advertisement {Altberg: At least paras 0006-0007 in context with paras 0503-0504, 0095-0105}, and also {Mathur: At least para 0039 in context with paras 0063, 0041-0043}, and wherein the method further comprise displaying the first virtual object with an image of the advertisement overlaid over the surface of the first virtual object at the currently-displayed angel of the surface of the first virtual object {Altberg: At least paras 0095-0105, 0104, 0456, 0503-0504 especially paras 0503-0504}, and also {Mathur: {At least fig. 6A paras 0060-0063 in context with paras 0027-0028, 0041-0043, fig. 7A paras 0066-0073}.
However, the combination does not explicitly teach the underlined features: “calculating an image transformation matrix that matches the currently-displayed angle of the
surface of the first virtual object; transforming an image of the advertisement using the image transformation matrix; and displaying the first virtual object with the transformed image of the advertisement overlaid over the surface of the first virtual object at the currently-displayed angel of the surface of the first virtual object”
Sivanandan teaches:
calculating an image transformation matrix (e.g., physical attribute value of the advertising assets in paras 0008, 0023, 0041, 0043 in context with paras 0048, 0051-0053, 0069) that matches a currently-displayed angle of the surface of the first virtual object (e.g., placeholders within the virtual environment/game environment in paras 0048 in context with paras 0005, 0023, 0041, 0043, 0051, 0069) {At least para 0023, 0048, 0051-0053, 0069 in context with paras 0041, 0043, 0081, 0099};
transforming an image of the advertisement using the image transformation matrix {At least para 0005, 0008, 0023, 0048, 0051-0053, 0059, 0069, 0083 in context with paras 0041, 0043, 0081 and 0099}; and
displaying the first virtual object with the transformed image of the advertisement overlaid over the surface of the first virtual object {At least paras 0004-0005, 0008, 0028, 0030-0034, 0038. 0041, 0043, 0048, 0051-0053 in context with examples in Figs 4A-4F in paras 0066-0072}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify “wherein the virtual environment is a video game environment, wherein the second virtual object is an advertisement, and wherein the method further comprise displaying the first virtual object with an image of the advertisement overlaid over the surface of the first virtual object at the currently-displayed angel of the surface of the first virtual object” of the combination of Altberg and Mathur to include “calculating an image transformation matrix that matches a currently-displayed angle of the surface of the first virtual object; transforming an image of the advertisement using the image transformation matrix, and displaying the first virtual object with the transformed image of the advertisement overlaid over the surface of the first virtual object”, taught by Sivanandan. One would be motivated to do this in order to enable an advertising asset to be displayed with the correct form-factor in the context of the virtual environment {Sivanandan: para 0048}. This in turn would help to increase advertisement’s effectiveness and user’s experience.
12. Claims 23 and 33: The combination of Altberg, Mathur and Sivanandan teaches the claimed invention as in claims 22 and 32 respectively. The combination further teaches wherein associating the texture of the second virtual object with the surface of the first virtual object is performed based at least in part on using the image transformation matrix {Sivanandan: At least paras 0004-0005, 0008, 0028, 0030-0034, 0038. 0041, 0043, 0048, 0051-0053 in context with examples in Figs 4A-4F in paras 0066-0072}.
13. Claims 24 and 34: The combination of Altberg, Mathur and Sivanandan teaches the claimed invention as in claims 22 and 32 respectively. The combination further teaches selecting the advertisement by:
determining, based at least in part on information stored in a user profile, whether the advertisement is associated with a brand indicated by the user profile (e.g., user interest/user request) {Alberg: At least paras 0357, 0360, 0362 in context with paras 0098-0100}, and also {Sivanandan: At least para 0023 in context with para 0041}; and
based at least in part on determining that the advertisement is associated with the brand indicated by the user profile, selecting the advertisement for display {Alberg: At least paras 0357, 0360, 0362 in context with paras 0098-0100}, and also {Sivanandan: At least para 0023 in context with para 0041}.
14. Claims 26 and 36: The combination of Altberg and Mathur teaches the claimed invention as in claims 51 and 35 respectively. The combination further teaches the second virtual object is matched with the surface of the first virtual object relative to the currently-displayed viewing angle based at least in part on the geometric and topological parameters of the second virtual object {Altberg: At least paras 0503-0504 in context with para 0105}; and also {At least fig. 6A paras 0060-0063 in context with paras 0027-0028, 0041-0043, fig. 7A paras 0066-0073}.
However, the combination of Altberg and Mathur does not explicitly teach the underlined features: “transforming the second virtual object to match the surface of the first virtual object relative to the currently-displayed viewing angle based at least in part on the geometric and topological parameters of the second virtual object”
Sivanandan teaches transforming (paras 0081, 0099 in context with 0023, 0041, 0048, 0051-0053, 0059, 0069, 0083) the second virtual object to match the surface of the first virtual object based at least in part on the geometric (paras 0023, 0051) and topological parameters (paras 0023, 0048, 0051, 0069) of the second virtual object {At least paras 0023, 0041, 0048, 0051-0053, 0059, 0069, 0083 in context with paras 0081, 0099}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify “the second virtual object is matched with the surface of the first virtual object relative to the currently-displayed viewing angle based at least in part on the geometric and topological parameters of the second virtual object” of the combination of Altberg and Mathur to include “transforming the second virtual object to match the surface of the first virtual object based at least in part on the geometric and topological parameters of the second virtual object”, taught by Sivanandan. One would be motivated to do this in order to enable an advertising asset to be displayed with the correct form-factor in the context of the virtual environment {Sivanandan: para 0048}. This in turn would help increasing advertisement’s effectiveness and user’s experience.
Prior Art that is pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure
15. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Barron; (US 2019/0073820 A1), wherein teaches Exemplary embodiments include an optical method of accurately locating a real world object and relating the location to a virtual location of the system (such as a screen location, pixel location, camera location, or combinations thereof) and/or visa versa. Exemplary embodiments of the method may be used for counter-distortion techniques to more accurately display virtual objects, to calibrate a system to an individual user and/or use configuration, eye tracking, and combinations thereof.
YASUDA et al; (US 2019/0172271 A1), wherein teaches There is provided an information processing device for rotating an object relative to a viewpoint position of a user in further accordance with the user's desire, the information processing device including: a rotation center determination unit that determines a center of rotation based on a position of an object in a three-dimensional space and an instruction direction of a user in the three-dimensional space; and a rotation control unit that rotates the object relative to a viewpoint position of the user on the basis of the center of rotation.;
Suits et al; (US 6525731 B1), wherein teaches A system for providing interactive views of 3-dimensional models with surface properties is disclosed. The system provides a compact representation of a 3D model and its surface features and provides for efficiently viewing and interacting with the model using dynamically switched texture maps. The compact representation is beneficial for transmission of the model across a network as well as for local storage of the model in the computer memory. The dynamically switched texture maps allow for more accurate surface details on the 3D model, as well as speedy interaction between a user and the 3D model.
Rom et al; (US 2006/0105841 A1), wherein teaches The invention is a system for displaying objects within an interactive game program, in which, the objects can be added during the game program creation and afterwards. Additionally, a component within the game program itself updates these objects and communicates with a centralized server that manages and controls the objects through a number of utilities. One embodiment of the invention is a system providing dynamically changing advertisements within interactive video games. Additionally, a centralized server communicates with an internal Ad Engine to update interactive game ads without impeding on the game performance or affect the game play in any unintended way. Furthermore, the invention provides various management suites for interactive game program developers, game program publishers, and advertisers to update and manage the advertising objects within the game program.
Further, see additional references cited in PTO-892.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Thuy Nguyen whose telephone number is 571-272-4585 and fax number is 571-273-4585. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs, 8:30 am to 5: 00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Ilana Spar can be reached on 571-270-7537. The FAX 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.
/THUY N NGUYEN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622.
Prosecution Insights