DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-5, 8-14, and 17-18 are presented for examination.
This Office Action is in response to submission of documents on June 29, 2026.
Rejection of claims 1-5 and 10-14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Debattista in view of Stein is withdrawn.
Rejection of claims 6-7 and 15-16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Debattista in view of Stein and Salcudean is withdraw in light of cancellation of those claims.
Rejection of claims 8-9 and 17-18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Debattista in view of Stein and Fung is withdrawn.
Rejection of claims 1-5 and 10-14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Debattista in view of Stein and Salcudean.
Rejection of claims 8-9 and 17-18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Debattista in view of Stein, Salcudean, and Fung.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on June 29, 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
The Response asserts that “Debattista, Stein, and Salcudean fail to teach or suggest the recited limitation ‘set a motion evaluation mode based on a sound-based scenario...’" of amended claim 1.” Response at pg. 7. In support of the assertion, the Response argues that “the ‘in-cab feel’ of Salcudean merely describes a design objective regarding the environment intended to be provided by the simulator and does not teach or suggest any configuration for setting a motion evaluation mode using sound as an active input. That is, in Salcudean, ‘sound effects’ are merely mentioned as one of the simulator outputs, and fails to teach or suggest any processing procedure for setting a motion evaluation mode based thereon. This is very different from the configuration of amended claim 1 in which a motion evaluation mode is set ‘in consideration of a seating posture of a user...’" Response at pg. 8.
However, Examiner is not persuaded by the assertion. Turning to Applicant’s Specification. an “evaluation mode” is not clearly defined other than it “may be set in consideration of a seat sitting posture to reduce an individualized evaluation in the immersion evaluation by the multi modal excitation.” Specification at [0087]. From this definition, it is not clear what is set in order to “reduce an individualized evaluation.” As alleged in the Response, Salcudean does not teach a “procedure for setting a motion evaluation” explicitly. However, the Specification is similarly devoid of disclosure related to the “procedure” for changing any parameters (i.e., “setting”) of a mode to accomplish the goal of “reduc[ing] an individualized evaluation,” nor what an “individualized evaluation” entails.
Because an alternative definition of the claim language is not provided in the Specification, Examiner interprets an “evaluation mode based on a sound-based scenario” to mean “an action that improves a user’s perception of sound that matches a particular scenario.” The interpretation is reasonable in light of the disclosure and the plain meaning of the terms of the claim. Thus, any setting which improves how the user experiences sound during a scenario would meet this definition.
Turning to Salcudean, an “in cab” feel is provided by, inter alia, sound effects. Because “in cab feel” is analogous to a user’s perception (i.e., having the sensation of being in the environment) and that sound effects are part of what causes the “in cab feel,” it is reasonable to conclude that causing said sound effects to match the other aspects experienced by the user is analogous to “setting an evaluation mode” because both result in improving the user’s perception of reality in the simulation.
Applicant further asserts that “the ‘in-cab feeling of Salcudean merely describes a design objective regarding the environment intended to be provided by the simulator and does not teach or suggest any configuration for setting a motion evaluation mode using sound as an active input.” Response at pg. 8. While Examiner does not contest this assertion, the claim similarly does not recite “any configuration for setting a motion evaluation mode using sound as an active input.” In both instances the design objective of improving user perception and experience (i.e., “in cab feel” of the reference and “individualized evaluation”).
Regarding the assertion that the reference lacks teaching of setting the mode “in consideration of a seating posture of a user,” this limitation is rejected in view of Stein and not Salcudean. Thus, although Examiner agrees that Salcudean fails to teach this limitation, the rejection of previously submitted claim 7, partially upon which the amendments to the independent claims are based, applies to this feature.
Further, the Response asserts that “analyze a motion excitation influence through immersion evaluation by a multi modal excitation" is not taught by Salcudean because “the recited analysis targets human sensory and cognitive responses, which are different from measurement of mechanical position values.” Response at pg. 9. However, Examiner disagrees. The term “motion excitation influence” can be broadly interpreted to mean any measurement that is affected by simulator movement and the Specification does not define the term in a manner that precludes “mechanical position values” as something that can be analyzed. Further, a definition of “immersion evaluation” is not provided in the Specification nor how such an evaluation is quantized. The Response indicates that the analysis is directed to human responses, but the claim language does not reflect this limitation. Thus, Examiner is not persuaded by the argument.
Accordingly, rejection of claims 1-5, 8-14, and 17-18 are withdrawn. However, in light of the amendments, claims 1-5 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Debattista in view of Stein and Salcudean and claims 8-9 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Debattista in view of Stein, Fung, and Salcudean.
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.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Debattista, et al., (“Subjective Evaluation of High-Fidelity Virtual Environments for Driving Simulations,” hereinafter “Debattista”) in view of Stein (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2019/0313200) and Salcudean, et al., (“A Six Degree-of-Freedom, Hydraulic, One Person Motion Simulator,” hereinafter “Salcudean”).
.
Claim 1
Debattista discloses:
A virtual driving simulation device comprising:
The experiment is based upon a real-world driving experience, see Fig. 3, followed by a reproduced experience in a simulator. Debattista at pg. 32, col. 1.
a microphone for measuring a three-dimensional (3D) sound;
Sound was recorded during a test drive for the real condition. The sound recording was performed using a TetraMic , which is an Ambisonic soundfield microphone with four capsules arranged in a tetrahedral fashion that record in A format. Debattista at pg. 36, col. 2.
record the 3D sound through the microphone,
Sound was recorded during a test drive for the real condition. The sound recording was performed using a TetraMic , which is an Ambisonic soundfield microphone with four capsules arranged in a tetrahedral fashion that record in A format. Debattista at pg. 36, col. 2.
realize a sensation of immersion based on a result of analyzing the sound realization influence.
The choice was made to use headphones and output to binaural using a head related transfer function (HRTF) as the user would be wearing an HMD, which provided head tracking information. The head tracking information can be used to decode the B format file to a binaural stream via the HRTF to produce the correct binaural response given the particular view direction in the sound field. The KEMAR HRTF dataset was used for this process… Debattista at pg. 36, col. 2.
Debattista does not appear to disclose:
a processor configured to:
analyze a sound realization influence by reproducing the recorded 3D sound through higher- order ambisonics (HOA) encoding and HOA decoding,
tune the seat simulator based on a predetermined scenario,
set a motion evaluation mode based on a sound-based scenario mode in consideration of a seating posture of a user to reduce individualized evaluation deviation in immersion evaluation
analyze a motion excitation influence through immersion evaluation by a multi modal excitation provided by the seat simulator in the set motion evaluation mode,
Stein, which is analogous art, discloses:
a processor configured to:
Elements of one embodiment of the audio codec may be implemented by hardware, firmware, software, or any combination thereof. When implemented as hardware, the audio codec may be employed on a single audio signal processor or distributed amongst various processing components. Stein at [0060].
Set a motion evaluation mode based on a sound-based scenario in consideration of a seating posture of a user
In the example, the listener moves within a listening environment from a first listener position 2601 to a second listener position 2602. At the first listener position 2601, the listener has a first look direction θ0 (e.g., zero degrees relative to an “up” or “forward” direction in the figure), and at the second listener position 2602, the listener has a different second look direction, θLOOK that is offset from θ0. When the listener is located at the first listener position 2601, the decoder can render ambisonic program information through standard means, such as decoding the source signals to a plurality of channels located around the listener corresponding to HRTF positions of the final 3D audio renderer. As the listener moves or translates to the second listener position 2602, the decoding for the source signals about the listener can accommodate the new listener position such that some information from the ambisonic program that is at or near an updated near-field 2611 for the listener can be rendered using the near-field HRTF channels and some information that remains in a far-field 2612 for the listener can be rendered using the far-field HRTF channels. Stein at [0202].
“Position” is analogous to a “seating posture of a user.”
to reduce individualized evaluation deviation in immersion evaluation
Improved scene-based representation can be achieved using various coding techniques. Active decoding, for example, reduces leakage of scene-based encoding by performing a spatial analysis on the encoded signals or a partial/passive decoding of the signals and then directly rendering that portion of the signal to the detected location via discrete panning. For example, the matrix decoding process in DTS Neural Surround or the B-Format processing in DirAC. In some cases, multiple directions can be detected and rendered, as is the case with High Angular Resolution Planewave Expansion (Harper). Stein at [0140].
“Improved scene-based representation” is analogous to “reduce individualized evaluation deviation.”
analyze a sound realization influence by reproducing the recorded 3D sound through higher- order ambisonics (HOA) encoding and HOA decoding, and
[S]olutions like Ambisonics (B-Format, UHJ, HOA, etc.) can be used to “capture” a soundfield description directly as a set of signals that may or may not be played directly, but can be spatially decoded and rendered on any output format. Stein at [0139].
Stein is analogous art to the claimed invention because both are related to reproduction of three-dimensional sound. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to combine Debattista and Stein to result in a simulator that utilizes HOA to realize encoding and decoding of sound associated with a simulation. Motivation to combine includes improved spatial resolution to result in a more realistic simulator.
Salcudean, which is analogous art, discloses:
a seat simulator for providing motions of 6 degrees of freedom,
This paper describes the design of a one-person hydraulic motion simulator with six degrees of freedom. Salcudean at Abstract.
tune the seat simulator based on a predetermined scenario,
Next , numerous dynamic simulations were performed with various platform trajectories in order to determine the required actuator force and velocity. Salcudean at pg. 2439, col. 1.
“Determin[ing] the required actuator force and velocity” is analogous to “tun[ing] the seat simulator.”
set a motion evaluation mode based on a sound-based scenario
The “in cab” feel will be provided by using computer or remote- camera generated stereo video images in a display helmet, computer generated motion cues and sound effects. Salcudean at pg. 2437, col. 2.
“’[I]n cab’ feel” is analogous to a “motion evaluation mode,” which provides sound effects, analogous to a “sound-based scenario.”
analyze a motion excitation influence through immersion evaluation by a multi modal excitation provided by the seat simulator in the set motion evaluation mode, and
The position of the platform is determined by measuring each of the actuator extensions using Temposonic magnetostrictive wire transducers. These were mounted in tension between the blind-end and the rod-end of each cylinder. Salcudean at pg. 2439, col. 1.
The “position of the platforms” is analogous to “motion excitation influence,” which is determined by the desired ‘in cab’ feel.
realize the sensation of immersion by reflecting a result of analyzing the motion excitation influence.
The trajectory planner generates points in the trajectory and carries out the inverse kinematics, passing the desired cylinder lengths to the control loop. The user may change the trajectory while the platform is running, using the commands recognized by the user input process. The control loop monitors various conditions which are critical to safety, as well as controlling the six cylinders. New trajectory points are generated at a rate of 20 Hz. Salcudean at pg. 2441, col. 2.
Salcudean is analogous art to the claimed invention because both are related to actuating motion of a simulator. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to combine Salcudean with Debattista and Stein to result in a simulator with a seat that is actuated by motion coupled with visual representations. Motivation to combine includes a more realistic simulation that improves reproduction of a scene that is simulated via the simulator, thus allowing a user to experience the simulation with realistic movement.
Claim 2
Debattista discloses:
wherein the processor is configured to convert a format of a data from the microphone into a
Sound was recorded during a test drive for the real condition. The sound recording was performed using a TetraMic [25], which is an Ambisonic soundfield microphone with four capsules arranged in a tetrahedral fashion that record in A format. These data can be readily converted into B format [26] (W, X, Y, Z) and then interpreted into any single point configuration of microphones. Debattista at pg. 36, col. 2.
Stein discloses:
HOA format and HOA encoding
[S]olutions like Ambisonics (B-Format, UHJ, HOA, etc.) can be used to “capture” a soundfield description directly as a set of signals that may or may not be played directly, but can be spatially decoded and rendered on any output format. Stein at [0139].
Claim 3
Debattista discloses:
wherein the HOA format is a B-format containing non-directional sound information and 3D direction information.
These data can be readily converted into B format (W, X, Y, Z) and then interpreted into any single point configuration of microphones. Debattista at pg. 36, col. 2.
Claim 4
Debattista discloses:
wherein the processor is configured to convert a first coordinate system of the data whose format is converted into the HOA format into a second coordinate system of a speaker array through the
The choice was made to use headphones and output to binaural using a head related transfer function (HRTF) as the user would be wearing an HMD, which provided head tracking information. The head tracking information can be used to decode the B format file to a binaural stream via the HRTF to produce the correct binaural response given the particular view direction in the sound field. The KEMAR HRTF dataset was used for this process [27]. Debattista at pg. 36, col. 2.
Stein discloses:
HOA decoding
[S]olutions like Ambisonics (B-Format, UHJ, HOA, etc.) can be used to “capture” a soundfield description directly as a set of signals that may or may not be played directly, but can be spatially decoded and rendered on any output format. Stein at [0139].
Claim 5
Debattista discloses:
wherein the processor is configured to reproduce a reproduced sound that has undergone the HOA encoding and the HOA decoding using a head- related transfer function (HRTF).
The choice was made to use headphones and output to binaural using a head related transfer function (HRTF) as the user would be wearing an HMD, which provided head tracking information. The head tracking information can be used to decode the B format file to a binaural stream via the HRTF to produce the correct binaural response given the particular view direction in the sound field. The KEMAR HRTF dataset was used for this process [27]. Debattista at pg. 36, col. 2.
Claim 10
Debattista discloses:
wherein the microphone is implemented as a multi-channel microphone.
The sound recording was performed using a TetraMic [25], which is an Ambisonic soundfield microphone with four capsules arranged in a tetrahedral fashion that record in A format. Debattista at pg. 36, col. 2.
Claims 11-14
Claims 11-14 recite a method that is substantially the same as the device recited in claims 1-5. Accordingly, for at least the same reasons and based on the same prior art as claims 1-5, claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Debattista in view of Stein.
Claims 15-16
Claims 15-16 recite a method that is substantially the same as the device recited in claims 6-7. Accordingly, for at least the same reasons and based on the same prior art as claims 1-5, claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Debattista in view of Stein and Salcudean.
Claims 8-9 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Debattista in view of Stein, Salcudean, and further in view of Fung, et al., (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2021/0001170, hereinafter “Fung”).
Claim 8
Debattista and Stein do not appear to disclose:
wherein the processor is configured to: construct the virtual environment by tuning a haptic controller and a VR device;
tune a haptic vibration profile intensity based on a visual change of the VR device; and
analyze a haptic stimulus influence through sensation of immersion analysis on the tuned haptic vibration profile intensity, and realize the sensation of immersion by reflecting a result of analyzing the haptic stimulus influence.
Fung, which is analogous art, discloses:
wherein the processor is configured to: construct the virtual environment by tuning a haptic controller
Through various arrangements of tethers 110 a-n and tether sensors (as described below, referring to FIGS. 2-3), it may be possible to enable a variety of immersive ways for a user to interact with software applications, as well as to receive haptic feedback from applications. Fung at [0047].
and a VR device
The elasticity limits may be designed for physical safety (i.e., stumble, trip, or fall protection) while wearing a VR headset or by individuals suffering from diminished motor control such as physical rehabilitation, recent surgeries, or age-related decline. Fung at [0060].
tune a haptic vibration profile intensity based on a visual change of the VR device; and
By applying haptic feedback of varying form and intensity (as is described in greater detail below, referring to FIG. 2), applications may provide physical indication to a user of software events, such as applying tension to resist movement, pulling or tugging on a tether to move or “jerk” a user in a direction, or varying feedback to multiple tethers such as tugging and releasing in varying order or sequence to simulate more complex effects such as (for example, in a gaming use case) explosions, riding in a vehicle, or walking through foliage. Fung at [0047].
analyze a haptic stimulus influence through sensation of immersion analysis on the tuned haptic vibration profile intensity, and realize the sensation of immersion by reflecting a result of analyzing the haptic stimulus influence.
[A]pplications may provide physical indication to a user of software events, such as applying tension to resist movement, pulling or tugging on a tether to move or “jerk” a user in a direction, or varying feedback to multiple tethers such as tugging and releasing in varying order or sequence to simulate more complex effects such as (for example, in a gaming use case) explosions, riding in a vehicle, or walking through foliage. Fung at [0047].
Fung is analogous art to the claimed invention because both are related to a simulator that combines both visuals and haptic sensations. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to combine Fung with Debattista and Stein to result in a simulator that synchs haptic sensations with visual representations provided to the user. Motivation to combine includes a more realistic simulation by giving the user haptic feedback that relates to visual representations provided to the user.
Claim 9
Debattista and Stein do not appear to disclose:
wherein the processor is configured to perform the sensation of immersion analysis using a headset where correction logic considering head rotation is applied.
Fung discloses:
wherein the processor is configured to perform the sensation of immersion analysis using a headset where correction logic considering head rotation is applied.
[M]ore complicated motion sensing input devices 490 can be used to identify different parts of the body and their relative positions and directions (e.g., arms, legs, torso and limbs, head, etc.), as well as being combined with other sensors to confirm such actions as jumping and twisting motions. Another example is a sensor device that inserts into a user's shoe that can supplement additional details for gait analysis and a balance profile. Fung at [0064].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to combine Fung with Debattista and Stein to result in a simulator that compensates for head movement of the user. Motivation to combine includes compensating for user movement during the simulation and therefore ensuring a better immersion experience.
Claims 17-18
Claims 17-18 recite a method that is substantially the same as the device recited in claims 8-9. Accordingly, for at least the same reasons and based on the same prior art as claims 8-9, claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Debattista in view of Stein and Fung.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
U.S. Pat. No. 11,614,796
U.S. Pat. No. 9,480,928
U.S. Pat. No. 9,338,200
U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2016/0241980
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH MORRIS whose telephone number is (703)756-5735. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached at (571) 272-4071. 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.
JOSEPH MORRIS
Examiner
Art Unit 2188
/JOSEPH P MORRIS/Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Prosecution Insights