DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the Applicant Remarks received on October 31, 2025. Claims 1-15 are pending with no claims canceled, and claims 1, 3-5, 7-8, 11-12, and 15 currently amended.
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 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 5, 7-9, and 12-13 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 5, 7, and 12 recite the limitation "the group" in line 2 of claims 5 and 7 and line 3 of claim 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 8-9 and 13 are rejected by virtue of their dependencies, either directly or indirectly, on claims 7 and 12.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 10-11, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sofer [US 20060098089 A1] and the article, “Disrupting Reality: How VR is Changing Architecture’s Present and Future” [https://metropolismag.com/projects/disrupting-reality-how-vr-is-changing-architecture-present-future/], published on June 1, 2017, as authored by Vanessa Quirk (hereinafter, “Quirk”).
Regarding claim 1 (Currently Amended), Sofer discloses:
A navigation system for a blind individual that uses non-visual information to guide the individual through a virtual environment (Sofer, [0034], “An apparatus and method are described for aiding a visually impaired or blind person to detect, identify and avoid objects in the field of vision of the surroundings.”), including:
a transponder adapted to be carried by the individual (Sofer, [0078], “FIG. 4 is a schematic illustration of the headset 400” and Sofer, [0044], “FIG. 5 is a schematic illustration of the belt set”);
a tracking system for determining the position and directional orientation of said transponder (Sofer, [0046], “The system gains knowledge by analyzing movements derived from objects positioned near user 105.”) within the virtual environment (Sofer, claim 34, “…comprising the automated layout of a virtual world image.”);
a feedback system coupled to said transponder to generate a non-visual sensory signal indicative of said position of said transponder (Sofer, claim 1, “…audible information delivery device (Means for communicating) for audibly describing to the user the characterization of the object and said interpretation about the object.”);
said transponder having a primary sensor direction that is aimed by the individual (Sofer’s headset, therefore the sensor, may be aimed by the user turning their head.);
said non-visual sensory signal providing indications of virtual objects or walls in said virtual environment aligned with said primary sensor direction, (Sofer, claim 35, “…comprising the verbal description of said virtual world image to said person.”),
whereby the individual may be guided to find or avoid said virtual objects or walls in said virtual environment (Sofer, [0034], “The method describes the aid for a visually impaired person to detect, identify and avoid objects in the field of vision surroundings, including the steps of receiving visual images of the objects, receiving range information concerning the objects, processing the image information and audibly describing to the person the objects in the field of vision, thereby enabling the person to cope with, and proceed in his surroundings.”).
Sofer discloses a navigation system for a blind individual and provides the disclosure from the perspective of a virtual environment, but Sofer does not explicitly disclose the ability to utilize a purely virtual environment as Sofer discloses virtualizing the physical environment surrounding the user.
Quirk, however, discloses:
Virtual objects or walls do not exist as real objects or walls (Quirk, Immersed in Data, “Using the Unreal gaming engine, the architects and developers crafted a high-fidelity virtual simulation of an existing Ennead project: the Beus Center for Law and Society at Arizona State University (ASU).”).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Quirk to Sofer would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Quirk to the teachings of Sofer would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such graphical creation features into similar systems/methods. Further, applying the virtualization techniques of Quirk to Sofer with the ability to interact with non-exist structures and objects, would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow users to become familiar with the device before utilizing the device in a real-world scenario.
Moreover, the omission of an element and its function is obvious if the function of the element is not desired (MPEP 2144.04, Section II, A). Specifically, it would’ve been obvious to omit a module for scanning physical objects to create virtual representations of the physical objects as necessary in a training scenario, such as a user being unfamiliar with the mechanics of the system needing to learn the mechanics of the system in a safe environment, as taught by the instant application. In such a scenario, the physical objects are not desired or required as they could potentially introduce harm to the user attempting to learn the system.
The Examiner has provided MPEP 2144.04, Section II, A below for ease of reference for the Applicant:
Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ 2031 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989) (Claims at issue were directed to a method for inhibiting corrosion on metal surfaces using a composition consisting of epoxy resin, petroleum sulfonate, and hydrocarbon diluent. The claims were rejected over a primary reference which disclosed an anticorrosion composition of epoxy resin, hydrocarbon diluent, and polybasic acid salts wherein said salts were taught to be beneficial when employed in a freshwater environment, in view of secondary references which clearly suggested the addition of petroleum sulfonate to corrosion inhibiting compositions. The Board affirmed the rejection, holding that it would have been obvious to omit the polybasic acid salts of the primary reference where the function attributed to such salt is not desired or required, such as in compositions for providing corrosion resistance in environments which do not encounter fresh water.). See also In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965) (Omission of additional framework and axle which served to increase the cargo carrying capacity of prior art mobile fluid carrying unit would have been obvious if this feature was not desired.); and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (deleting a prior art switch member and thereby eliminating its function was an obvious expedient).
Regarding claim 2 (Original), Sofer/Quirk discloses:
The navigation system of claim 1, wherein said non-visual sensory signal comprises an audio signal (Sofer, [0034], “…audibly describing to the person the objects in the field of vision…”).
Regarding claim 4 (Currently Amended), Sofer/Quirk discloses:
The navigation system of claim 1, wherein said non-visual signal further indicates the relative size and motion of said virtual objects relative to the individual in the primary sensor direction (Sofer, [0036], “The system of the present invention provides detection and identification of fixed or moving obstacles, and can provide estimates of the relative range, speed and bearings of several simultaneous obstacles and objects.”).
Regarding claim 10 (Original), Sofer/Quirk discloses:
The navigation system of claim 1, wherein said transponder is a smartphone or other self-tracking device that can generate said information about the position and directional orientation of said transponder within the virtual environment (Sofer, See rejection of claim 1 for citations for rejection.).
Claims 11 and 14 share similar limitations to claims 1 and 10. For citations on rejection, see the rejection of claims 1 and 10 above.
Regarding claim 15 (Currently Amended), Sofer/Quirk discloses:
A method for training an individual to create a mental map of a virtual space (Sofer, [0033], “It is a still further object of the present invention to provide methods and apparatus to enable the creation of an overall mental picture of the surrounding physical environment of a visually impaired or blind person, and to enhance communication concerning the environment.”).
The remainder of claim 15 shares similar limitations to claim 1. For citations on rejection, see the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claims 3, 5-9, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sofer/Quirk as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 10-11, and 14-15 above, and further in view of Rantala [US 20100055651 A1].
Regarding claim 3 (Currently Amended), Sofer/Quirk discloses various audio signals, but Sofer/Quirk does not explicitly teach frequency, amplitude, pulse, and rhythm as variable parameters within a group.
Rantala, however, discloses:
Audio signal includes a variable parameter that is indicative of a distance between the transponder and a target, wherein said target is one of said virtual objects or walls, and wherein said variable parameter is one of frequency, amplitude, pulse, and rhythm (Rantala, [0035], “In one embodiment of the described method, the described apparatuses, the described device or the described computer program code, different pieces of information could be represented by pulses with different amplitudes and/or different frequencies and/or different shapes and/or different rhythms.”).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Rantala to Sofer/Quirk would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of tactile and auditory feedback to the teachings of Sofer/Quirk would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate frequency, amplitude, pulse and rhythms into similar systems and methods. Further, applying the variable parameters to Sofer/Quirk, as tactile and auditory feedback, would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow the user to utilize an additional sense (e.g., touch/feel) beyond hearing (for the tactile feedback) to grant the system the ability to introduce more information at an increased rate and an improved system that would better alert the user of their surroundings.
Regarding claim 5 (Currently Amended), Sofer/Quirk discloses:
Variable parameters having established correspondences with said relative size and motion of the virtual objects (Sofer, [0036], “The system of the present invention provides detection and identification of fixed or moving obstacles, and can provide estimates of the relative range, speed and bearings of several simultaneous obstacles and objects.”).
Sofer/Quirk does not explicitly teach frequency, amplitude, pulse, and rhythm as variable parameters within a group.
Rantala, however, discloses:
Audio signal includes variable parameters selected from the group consisting of frequency, amplitude, pulse and rhythms (Rantala, [0035], “In one embodiment of the described method, the described apparatuses, the described device or the described computer program code, different pieces of information could be represented by pulses with different amplitudes and/or different frequencies and/or different shapes and/or different rhythms.”).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Rantala to Sofer/Quirk would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of tactile and auditory feedback to the teachings of Sofer/Quirk would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate frequency, amplitude, pulse and rhythms into similar systems and methods. Further, applying the variable parameters to Sofer/Quirk, as tactile and auditory feedback, would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow the user to utilize an additional sense (e.g., touch/feel) beyond hearing (for the tactile feedback) to grant the system the ability to introduce more information at an increased rate and an improved system that would better alert the user of their surroundings.
Regarding claim 6 (Original), Sofer/Quirk discloses utilizing non-visual sensory signals, but Sofer/Quirk does not explicitly disclose a haptic signal.
Rantala, however, discloses:
The navigation system of claim 1, wherein said non-visual sensory signal comprises a haptic signal (Rantala, [0135], “The speed of Braille rhythm is easy to adjust by changing the delays and the speed of haptic playback.”).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Rantala to Sofer/Quirk would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of tactile and auditory feedback to the teachings of Sofer/Quirk would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate frequency, amplitude, pulse and rhythms into similar systems and methods. Further, applying the variable parameters to Sofer/Quirk, as tactile and auditory feedback, would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow the user to utilize an additional sense (e.g., touch/feel) beyond hearing (for the tactile feedback) to grant the system the ability to introduce more information at an increased rate and an improved system that would better alert the user of their surroundings.
Regarding claim 7 (Currently Amended), Sofer/Quirk/Rantala discloses:
The navigation system of claim 6, wherein said haptic signal includes variable parameters selected from the group consisting of frequency, amplitude, pulse and rhythms (Rantala, [0035], “In one embodiment of the described method, the described apparatuses, the described device or the described computer program code, different pieces of information could be represented by pulses with different amplitudes and/or different frequencies and/or different shapes and/or different rhythms.”),
said variable parameters having established correspondences with physical characteristics of the virtual objects (Sofer, [0036], “The system of the present invention provides detection and identification of fixed or moving obstacles, and can provide estimates of the relative range, speed and bearings of several simultaneous obstacles and objects.”).
Regarding claim 8 (Currently Amended), Sofer/Quirk/Rantala discloses:
The navigation system of claim 7, wherein said physical characteristics of the virtual objects include the relative size and motion of said virtual objects relative to the individual in the primary sensor direction (Sofer, [0036], “The system of the present invention provides detection and identification of fixed or moving obstacles, and can provide estimates of the relative range, speed and bearings of several simultaneous obstacles and objects.”).
Regarding claim 9 (Original), Sofer/Quirk/Rantala discloses:
The navigation system of claim 8, wherein said non-visual sensory signal includes verbal information (Sofer, See rejection of claim 1 for citations for rejection.).
Regarding claim 12 (Currently Amended), Sofer/Quirk does not explicitly teach frequency, amplitude, pulse, and rhythm as variable parameters within a group.
Rantala, however, discloses:
Audio signal includes variable parameters selected from the group consisting of frequency, amplitude, pulse and rhythms (Rantala, [0035], “In one embodiment of the described method, the described apparatuses, the described device or the described computer program code, different pieces of information could be represented by pulses with different amplitudes and/or different frequencies and/or different shapes and/or different rhythms.”).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Rantala to Sofer/Quirk would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of tactile and auditory feedback to the teachings of Sofer/Quirk would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate frequency, amplitude, pulse and rhythms into similar systems and methods. Further, applying the variable parameters to Sofer/Quirk, as tactile and auditory feedback, would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow the user to utilize an additional sense (e.g., touch/feel) beyond hearing (for the tactile feedback) to grant the system the ability to introduce more information at an increased rate and an improved system that would better alert the user of their surroundings.
Regarding claim 13 (Original), the claim shares similar limitations to claim 5. For citations on rejection, see the rejection of claim 5 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7 of the Remarks, filed October 31, 2025, with respect to the abstract have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of the specification has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7 of the Remarks, filed October 31, 2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7 of the Remarks, filed October 31, 2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 5, 7, and 12 for utilizing a relative term under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of the amendment of claims 5, 7, and 12 to recite “the group”, rather than the prior version that recited “a group”, introduces a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for lack of antecedent basis as claims 5, 7, and 12, nor the claims at which claims 5, 7, and 12 indirectly or directly depend on, do not have a prior recitation of a group to provide clear and definite boundaries of the instant application’s claimed scope.
See the rejection above in the corresponding section for further details.
Applicant's arguments, see page 8 of the Remarks, filed October 31, 2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY JOSEPH POLLOCK whose telephone number is (703)756-5952. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00am-8:00pm 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, XUAN THAI can be reached at (571) 272-7147. 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.
/Z.J.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/XUAN M THAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715