Ex Parte Gentilin et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 23, 2019

15000381 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 23, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
15/000,381 01/19/2016
7590 05/23/2019
MIHIR SHAH
IMMERSV, INC.
1480 64TH STREET SUITE 160
EMERYVILLE, CA 94608
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
John Charles Gentilin
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
60434-0011 4077
EXAMINER
PATEL, SHIV ANG I
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2618
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/23/2019 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHN CHARLES GENTILIN, MIHIR SHAH,
ANDREW RAYMOND BUCK,
and
JONATHAN LINSNER
Appeal2018-005670
Application 15/000,3 81 1
Technology Center 2600
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, HUNG H. BUI, and JON M. JURGOV AN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final
Rejection of claims 1 and 3-20, which are all the claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm. 2
1 Appellants identify Immersv Inc. as the real party in interest. (App. Br. 1.)
2 Our Decision refers to the Specification ("Spec.") filed January 19, 2016,
the Final Office Action ("Final Act.") mailed September 21, 201 7, the
Appeal Brief ("App. Br.") filed January 4, 2018, the Examiner's Answer
("Ans.") mailed March 22, 2018, and the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") filed
May 9, 2018.
Appeal2018-005670
Application 15/000,3 81
CLAIMED INVENTION
The claims recite a method and system "for creating virtual reality
environments for displaying content using head-mounted displays and other
digital display devices." (Spec. ,r 1.) Appellants' invention "receives design
data from an application publisher," "uses the design data to generate a
virtual reality environment that has a similar appearance to an application of
the application publisher," and "inserts ... content into the [generated]
virtual reality environment" for display on a client computing device. (Spec.
,r 19.)
Claims 1, 11, and 20 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
storing, at a virtual reality content management system,
data defining one or more parameters for a digital graphical
virtual reality environment;
receiving at the virtual reality content management
system, from an application publisher computing device
separate from the virtual reality content management system via
one or more digital telecommunication networks, a request to
create a modified virtual reality environment for the purpose of
displaying inserted content in a particular virtual reality
application;
receiving, from the application publisher computing
device, design data related to the particular virtual reality
application wherein the design data comprises environmental
textures, three dimensional models, or material surface
properties for the virtual reality environment;
requesting and receiving, from a content provider
computing device separate from the virtual reality content
management system via the one or more digital
telecommunication networks, particular content to insert into
the modified virtual reality environment;
2
Appeal2018-005670
Application 15/000,3 81
generating and storing, at the virtual reality content
management system, an application ID that identifies the
particular virtual reality application;
generating the modified virtual reality environment
comprising a content display location in which the particular
content can be displayed based, at least in part, on the data
defining one or more parameters for the digital graphical virtual
reality environment and the design data related to the particular
virtual reality application;
receiving, from a client computing device executing the
particular virtual reality application separate from the content
provider computing device, the application publisher computing
device, and the virtual reality content management system, a
request for the modified virtual reality environment, wherein
the request includes the application ID that identifies the
particular virtual reality application executing on the client
computing device;
in response to receiving the request for the modified
virtual reality environment which includes the application ID
that identifies the particular virtual reality application executing
on the client computing device, generating instructions which,
when executed by a client computing device, cause the client
computing device to transition from the particular virtual reality
application executing on the client computing device to
displaying the particular content in the content display location
of the modified virtual reality environment via a digital display
device.
(App. Br. 10-18 (Claims App'x).)
REJECTION & REFERENCES
Claims 1 and 3-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Lehtiniemi et al. (US 2013/0263016 Al, published Oct. 3,
2013, "Lehtiniemi"), Watson et al. (US 2015/0243078 Al, published Aug.
27, 2015, "Watson"), and RiftyBusiness, New Oculus Home Gear VR
Dashboard I May 2015 Update, YOUTUBE (May 6, 2015),
3
Appeal2018-005670
Application 15/000,3 81
https://www.youtube.com/watch ?v=iERMD R2qEyO ("Rifty Business").
(Final Act. 3-30.)
ANALYSIS
With respect to independent claims 1, 11, and 20, Appellants contend
the cited prior art does not teach or suggest "caus[ing] the client computing
device to transition from the particular virtual reality application executing
on the client computing device to displaying the particular content in the
content display location of the modified virtual reality environment via a
digital display device" as claimed. (App. Br. 6-8; Reply Br. 1-3.)
Particularly, Appellants argue "RiftyBusiness never shows transitioning
from a currently executing application to a VR [(virtual reality)] environment
built with design data from that application." (App. Br. 7 (emphasis
added).) Appellants acknowledge RiftyBusiness discloses a transition from
a demonstration environment (a game preview) to an actual application (the
game), but argue the Examiner's Answer "fails to take into account the
difference in transitioning from a demonstration environment to a game [in
RiftyBusiness] and transitioning in the middle of executing an application to
an environment created using design data from the application." (Reply Br.
2 (emphasis added).) Appellants additionally argue:
The transition of claims 1, 11, and 20 allows a computing device
to maintain an immersive feel by creating a situation where, to
the user, the application does not appear to have closed, as the
executing virtual reality application is replaced by a virtual
reality environment built using design data from the virtual
reality application. In contrast, [RiftyBusiness's] transitioning
from a virtual reality environment to the startup of an application
does not maintain any type of immersion, nor does such a
transition deal with the difficulties of making a transition from a
4
Appeal2018-005670
Application 15/000,3 81
currently executing application which the environment is created
to match.
(Id.) Appellants further argue "[n]either Lehtiniemi nor Watson cure the
deficiencies of Rifty Business," and therefore the Examiner's rejection fails
to provide sufficient factual basis for rejecting claims 1, 11, and 20. (App.
Br. 8; Reply Br. 3.) We do not agree.
We agree with and adopt the Examiner's findings as our own. (Ans.
3-5.) For additional emphasis, we note Appellants' claims 1, 11, and 20 do
not recite or require transitioning from a currently executing virtual reality
(VR) application to a modified virtual reality environment "built using
design datafrom the virtual reality application" or "created based on design
datafrom that application" as alleged by Appellants. (Reply Br. 2
( emphasis added); App. Br. 7 ( emphasis added).) Instead, claim 1 simply
recites that "design data" is "related to the particular virtual reality
application," and "the modified virtual reality environment [is generated] ...
based, at least in part, on ... the design data related to the particular virtual
reality application." (App. Br. 10 (Claim 1) (emphasis added).) That is,
claim 1 does not require the transitioned-to modified virtual reality
environment to be generated based on design data from the pre-transition
VR application, but only requires the transitioned-to modified virtual reality
environment to be generated based on design data related to the pre-
transition VR application. Claims 11 and 20 similarly do not require the
transitioned-to modified virtual reality environment to be generated based on
design data/rom the pre-transition VR application, but only require the
transitioned-to modified virtual reality environment to be generated based on
design data/or the pre-transition VR application. (App. Br. 13-14, 17-18
5
Appeal2018-005670
Application 15/000,3 81
(Claims 11 and 20, reciting "design data for a particular virtual reality
application").)
We therefore agree with the Examiner the transition recited in claims
1, 11, and 20--i.e., transitioning from a currently executing VR application
("particular virtual reality application") to a "modified virtual reality
environment" generated based on "design data related to [(or for)] the
particular virtual reality application"-is disclosed by RiftyBusiness' s
transition from a game preview to the actual game. (Ans. 4.) As the
Examiner finds, RiftyBusiness shows "the [Herobound] game can be started
by clicking the orange start button show[ n] at 1: 08-1: 18 3, 1 :4 3-1 :4 7, [so]
the screen would go from sample\preview environment into the game,
therefore RiftyBusiness discloses argued [ claimed] transition." (Ans. 3--4
(citing RiftyBusiness (at 1:08-1:18, 1:43-1:47)).) We agree with the
Examiner that RiftyBusiness teaches the claimed transition from a
"particular virtual reality application" (the Herobound game sample/preview
from 1 :08-1 :48 in the RiftyBusiness video) to a modified virtual reality
environment (the actual Herobound game that can be started by clicking the
orange "START" button shown at 1:09-1: 11, 1:36, and 1 :43-1 :47 seconds
in the video), where the modified virtual reality environment (Hero bound
game) is generated based on design data related to ( or for) the virtual reality
application (Herobound game sample/preview). (See RiftyBusiness (at
1:08-1 :48); Ans. 4.) The ordinary skilled artisan would recognize that
design data for generating the Herobound game is related to (andfor) the
3 The cites herein to the RiftyBusiness video are in [minutes]: [seconds]
format. Thus, "1:08-1:18" is a time interval in the video from one minute
eight seconds to one minute eighteen seconds.
6
Appeal2018-005670
Application 15/000,3 81
Herobound game's preview, as the Herobound game and the game's preview
are part of the same game software package. As the Examiner further finds,
the Hero bound game's design data includes "environmental textures, three
dimensional models, or material surface properties" as recited in claims 1,
11, and 20. (Final Act. 8; Ans. 3--4.)
Appellants further argue RiftyBusiness is deficient because it "does
not maintain any type of immersion, nor does such a transition deal with the
difficulties of making a transition from a currently executing application
which the environment is created to match." (Reply Br. 2.) We remain
unpersuaded because Appellants' argument is not supported by
corresponding language in claims 1, 11, and 20. Claims 1, 11, and 20 do not
recite or require maintaining "an immersive feel" or transitioning to an
"environment ... created to match" a currently executing application, as
alleged by Appellants. (Reply Br. 2 ( emphasis added).)
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that RiftyBusiness teaches and
suggests "transition[ing] from the particular virtual reality application
executing on the client computing device" to "the modified virtual reality
environment" generated based on "design data related to [or for] the
particular virtual reality application" as recited in claims 1, 11, and 20.
Appellants have not identified a deficiency in the RiftyBusiness reference in
the combination as applied by the Examiner, and have not identified an error
in the Examiner's rejection which would need to be remedied by Lehtiniemi
and Watson. We therefore sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claims 1, 11, and 20, and dependent claims 3-10 and 12-19, argued for their
dependency. (See App. Br. 8.)
7
Appeal2018-005670
Application 15/000,3 81
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1 and 3-20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8