DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/20/2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 5-6, 9, 11-12, 16, 19-20, 23, 25, 28 and 34 remain canceled.
Claims 1, 13, 21 and 29 have been amended.
Claims 1-4, 7-8, 10, 13-15, 17-18, 21-22, 24, 26-27 and 29-33 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
This subject matter eligibility analysis follows the latest guidance for Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Claims 1-4, 7-8, 10, 13-15, 17-18, 21-22, 24, 26-27 and 29-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
Claims 1 – 4, 7 – 8, 10, 21-22, 24, 26-27 and 29-33 are drawn to a system.
Claims 13 – 15 and 17 -18 are drawn to a method.
Thus, initially, under Step 1 of the analysis, it is noted that the claims are directed towards eligible categories of subject matter.
Step 2A:
Prong 1: Does the Claim recite an Abstract idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon?
Claims 1 – 4, 7 8 and 10 are exemplary because they require substantially the same operative limitations of the remaining claims (reproduced below.) Examiner has underlined the claim limitations which recite the abstract idea, discussed in detail in the paragraphs that follow.
1. (Currently Amended) A method of managing motion sickness in a virtual reality experience comprising:
generating a virtual reality experience on a display of an electronic device;
collecting data relating to a motion sickness factor from a plurality of users that have navigated between a predetermined first checkpoint and a second checkpoint in the virtual reality experience;
comparing the collected data with current data relating to the same motion sickness factor obtained from a current user that is currently navigating between the same predetermined first checkpoint and the second checkpoint in the virtual reality experience; and
in response to determining that the current data is within a threshold of the collected data for the same motion sickness factor, activating remedial actions for managing motion sickness, wherein the remedial actions include transmitting instructions to adjust lighting devices to increase illumination in the area of the current user.
The claims recite italicized limitations that fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG, namely, Mental processes and Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity
More specifically, under this grouping, the italicized limitations represent concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) , and managing interactions between people. For example, the italicized limitations are directed towards the monitoring and collection of motion sickness data from users navigating between points, comparing a current user for motion sickness data to a threshold and based on the comparison adjusting the lighting to mitigate motion sickness.
Prong 2: Does the Claim recite additional elements that integrate the exception in to a practical application of the exception?
Although the claims recite additional limitations, these limitations do not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. For example, the claims require additional limitations as follow, (emphasis added): various electronic devices, and displays
These additional limitations do not represent an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, (MPEP 2106.05(a)). Nor do they apply the exception using a particular machine, (MPEP 2106.05(b)). Furthermore, they do not effect a transformation. (MPEP 2106.05(c)). Rather, these additional limitations amount to an instruction to “apply” the judicial exception using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, since the additional limitations, individually or in combination, are indistinguishable from a computer used as a tool to perform the abstract idea, the analysis continues to Step 2B, below.
Step 2B:
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they amount to conventional and routine computer implementation and mere instructions for implementing the abstract idea on generic computing devices.
For example, as pointed out above, the claimed invention recites additional elements facilitating implementation of the abstract idea. Applicant has claimed various electronic devices, and displays. However, all of these elements viewed individually and as a whole, are indistinguishable from conventional computing elements known in the art. Therefore, the additional elements fail to supply additional elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea.
As the Alice court cautioned, citing Flook, patent eligibility cannot depend simply on the draftsman’s art. Here, amending the claims with generic computing elements does not (in this Examiner’s opinion), confer eligibility.
Regarding the Berkheimer decision, Applicant’s specification establishes that these additional elements are generic:
[0040] In some embodiments, at block 101, a gaming environment is displayed on a display device. The gaming environment may be an extended reality environment, which includes virtual reality, augmented reality, mixed reality, or any other virtual type of reality, including in the metaverse.
[0042] In some embodiments, these systems utilize an extended reality device, such as a VR headset, VR glasses, or a mobile phone that can act as a VR device. The extended reality device may include a display screen for displaying the simulated virtual environment. The extended reality device may be worn on the user's head such that the display of the extended reality device is in front of the user's eyes, allowing the user to view the extended reality 3D simulated environment depicted on the display of the extended reality device. In some embodiment, when references are made to navigation along a path, the references are associated with virtual reality device, such as a virtual reality headset or glasses. In other embodiments, when references are made to augmented reality embodiments where real world view is used, the references are associated with augmented reality device, such as an augmented reality headset or glasses through which a real world environment, as well as virtual overlays on the real world environment, can be visualized via the headset or glasses.
[0043] In some embodiments, the extended reality device may also include any one or more of a camera that is facing inward to track the user's gaze, speakers for sound effects, and motion producing components, such as vibration modules to give the user a sense of feeling effects displayed in the virtual world, such as an earthquake, etc. It may also include accelerometers, gyroscopes, and proximity sensors. It may include a processor, such as a system on a chip (SoC), and memory.
[0047] In some embodiments, the extended reality devices (such as headsets, either augmented reality, virtual reality, or headsets with dual functionality, or virtual glasses, etc.) use head tracking technology to track the movement of the user's head while they are wearing the device on their head. Such tracking captures the user's head movement as the means of manipulating the camera and viewing things in the virtual world. For example, if the user orients their head to the left, then objects or assets that should be on the left side appear to the user. As such, the visuals change for the user according to how they orient their head, i.e., the extended reality headset.
Therefore, these elements fail to supply additional elements that yield significantly more than the underlying abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea).
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Moreover, the claims do not recite improvements to another technology or technical field. Nor, do the claims improve the functioning of the underlying computer itself -- they merely recite generic computing elements. Furthermore, they do not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing: the underlying computing elements remain the same.
Concerning preemption, the Federal Circuit has said in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., V. Sequenom, Inc., (Fed Cir. June 12, 2015):
The Supreme Court has made clear that the principle of preemption is the basis for the judicial exceptions to patentability. Alice, 134 S. Ct at 2354 (“We have described the concern that drives this exclusionary principal as one of pre-emption”). For this reason, questions on preemption are inherent in and resolved by the § 101 analysis. The concern is that “patent law not inhibit further discovery by improperly tying up the future use of these building blocks of human ingenuity.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). In other words, patent claims should not prevent the use of the basic building blocks of technology—abstract ideas, naturally occurring phenomena, and natural laws. While preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility. In this case, Sequenom’s attempt to limit the breadth of the claims by showing alternative uses of cffDNA outside of the scope of the claims does not change the conclusion that the claims are directed to patent ineligible subject matter. Where a patent’s claims are deemed only to disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the Mayo framework, as they are in this case, preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot. (Emphasis added.)
For these reasons, it appears that the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-8, 10, 13, 17-18, 21-22, 24, 26-27, 29, 32 and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wan et al (US 11,034,360) in view of Rico (US 2017/0278306) in view of Lev et al (US 2021/0154430).
As per claim 1, Wan discloses:
collecting data relating to a motion sickness factor from a plurality of users that have navigated between a predetermined first checkpoint and a second checkpoint…; (Wan discloses the collecting of rider profile information and trip information as it relates to a motion sickness probability, (Wan 8:49 – 64) wherein the trip information comprises routes comprising route stops (i.e. checkpoints) (Wan 6:6 – 9) and collecting information pertaining to other riders with similar profiles who became motion sick on similar routes (Wan 6:1 – 5)
comparing the collected data with current data relating to the same motion sickness factor obtained from a current user that is currently navigating between the same predetermined first checkpoint and the second checkpoint …; and (Wan discloses the collecting of rider current sensor data about the rider (Wan 9:51 – 57). Wan discloses the rider profile information may comprise data about the motion sickness history of the rider, places the rider has become sick, motion sickness history of other riders (whether other riders with similar profiles as the rider have become motion sick on similar routes, susceptibility of other riders with similar profiles as the rider to motion sickness, etc.) (Wan 5:58 – 6:5). The Examiner notes that a route comprises a starting point and an endpoint (i.e. checkpoints). Wan further discloses the comparison of rider profile information and current rider sensor data to determine the probability of getting motion sickness on a particular route the rider is on. Wan states “According to an exemplary embodiment, the controller 101 of the apparatus that addresses motion sickness 100 may be configured to receive rider profile information, trip information, environmental information and vehicle dynamics information, determine a probability that a rider will suffer from motion sickness during a ride based on the rider profile information, the trip information, the environmental information and the vehicle dynamics information, in response to the determined probability being greater than a predetermined threshold probability corresponding to a rider, perform motion sickness mitigation, delaying or prevention functions, and in response to the probability being less than the predetermined threshold probability corresponding to the rider, monitoring the rider to detect rider response information indicating whether the rider will suffer from motion sickness during the ride.” (Wan 8:49 – 64). Wan further states “The controller may transform the rider profile information, the environmental information, the trip information, the vehicle dynamics information, and the rider response information into matrices, numbers, etc., modeling how each piece of information affects the probability of motion sickness. The transformed information may then be input into functions that calculate the effect of the information on the probability that a rider will suffer from motion sickness. For example, the controller may transform information from a heart rate sensor about the current heart rate and heart rate variance into a model. The model may be compared to a personalized model or threshold.”) (Wan 9:4 – 15)
in response to determining that the current data is within a threshold of the collected data for the same motion sickness factor, activating remedial actions for managing motion sickness. (Wan discloses use of motion sickness mitigation functions with respect to the determined motion sickness probability. Wan further discloses the mitigation functions can be the adjustments of a route the vehicle is travelling) (Wan 8:49-64; 10:29-37)
Wan fails to disclose:
generating a virtual reality experience on a display of an electronic device;
or that the checkpoints are within a virtual reality experience.
Or
“transmitting instructions to adjust lighting devices to increase illumination in the area of the current user”
However, in a similar field of endeavor Rico teaches a system for mitigating the effects of motion sickness when a user travels from one point to another in a virtual reality experience (Rico 0018, 0050 – 0054) by modifying the virtual reality experience of the user by applying one or multiple cadence profiles (Rico 0052) to help alleviate or prevent motion sickness due to appear to slide around in the virtual environment) (Rico 0102 – 0104).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Wan in view of Rico to apply the known a real-world technique of determining when multiple travelers may experience motion sickness along a traveled route and apply a mitigation function to prevent or alleviate the motion sickness in a virtual world that simulates travel between locations. This would be beneficial as Rico recognizes traveling in a virtual reality world may induce motion sickness when users navigate between destinations. By alleviating or preventing motion sickness, user will be able to engage with the virtual reality experience for longer periods of time, thus increasing their enjoyment.
However, in a similar field of endeavor Lev teaches a system for mitigating the effects of motion sickness while traveling in a vehicle by changing lighting for the user. Lev teaches “The motion sickness prevention measures can be configured to include one or more of: providing a first subliminal or explicit visual cue that is indicative of a global horizon to at least one passenger of the driverless autonomous vehicle, using subliminal or explicit indicator system; providing a second subliminal or explicit visual cue that is indicative of a predicted next turn of the vehicle along the driving route to the at least one passenger, using subliminal or explicit indicator system; correlating visual content provided to the at least one passenger to the driving route, giving rise to correlated content, using adaptive content system; changing the vehicle's windows transparency, using transparency adjustment system; displaying the content provided to the at least one passenger in infinity, using infinity content display system; changing the driverless autonomous vehicle's internal lighting strength, using display adjustment system; changing a temperature within the driverless autonomous vehicle, using temperature regulating device; projecting encoring lights to be viewed by the at least one passenger, using encoring lights display system; projecting flashing lights towards the at least one passenger, using flashing lights display system;…” (Lev 244)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Wan in view of Lev to provide a mechanism and instructions to said mechanism to adjust a lighting effect that is in the area of a user to provide more or less light to a user. This would beneficial as some individuals find lighting to help mitigate the adverse effects of motion sickness when traveling.
As per claim 2, Wan discloses: determining a current user's background factor; and determining whether the background factor contributes to the motion sickness. (Wan discloses the determination of a user’s demographics or background) (Wan 1:61 – 65, 3:7 – 11)
As per claim 3, Wan discloses: wherein the background factor is selected from a group consisting of ethnicity, age, field dependency, medical history, interpupillary distance, and heritability. (Wan discloses the determination of a user’s demographics or background, including medical history) (Wan 1:61 – 65, 3:7 – 11)
As per claim 4, Wan discloses: calculating a metric data based on the data collected from the plurality of users that relates to the motion sickness factor; and comparing the collected data to the current data comprises using the metric calculated from the collected data for the comparison. (Wan disclose the calculation and comparison of a motion sickness probability from multiple users to current data such as the route the user will travel) (Wan 5:57 – 6:9)
As per claim 7, Wan discloses: wherein the remedial actions include a recommendation provided to the current user is for the current user to change from their current path to a new path. (Wan discloses the recommendation or adjusting of the route in response to motion sickness) (Wan 10:34 – 37, 10:60 – 11:3)
As per claim 8, Wan discloses: determining a motion sickness value for the current path and the new path; and recommending the current user to take the new path instead of the current path, wherein the new path has a lesser motion sickness value than the current path. (Wan discloses that when a motion sickness probability is high enough for a particular route, the system will adjust the route to be a route that alleviates the motion sickness, thus the new route will have a lesser motion sickness probability) (Wan 10:1 – 9, 34 – 37)
As per claim 10, wherein the remedial actions include a recommendation is to a content creator to change a layout of the virtual reality experience by reducing the number of challenges that cause motion sickness. (Combination of Wan in view of Rico, wherein Wan disclose adjusting the route to have less bumps, turns, traffic etc. (i.e. challenges that cause motion sickness) (Wan 10:34 – 47).
As per claim 13, Wan discloses:
determining a first checkpoint and a second checkpoint …; (Wan discloses the determination of a route comprising of route stops) (Wan 6:6-9)
determining a median path based on data from a plurality of users that have navigated between the first checkpoint and the second checkpoint; (Wan discloses the determination of a route between stops that is of “similar routes” to other users) (Wan 6:1 – 5)
determining a location in the median path where a threshold number of users, from the plurality of users, experienced motion sickness; ( Wan discloses the determination of motion sickness history that includes “motion sickness history information of rider (e.g., a count of the times the rider has become motion sick, places where the rider has become motion sick, types of vehicle motion that cause the rider motion sickness, time to first sign of motion sickness, rider's first symptom of motion sickness), motion sickness history information of other riders (whether other riders with similar profiles as the rider have become motion sick on similar routes, susceptibility of other riders with similar profiles as the rider to motion sickness, etc.) (Wan 5:57 – 6:5)
determining whether a path taken by a current user is aligned with the median path; and(Wan discloses the determination of a route between stops that is of “similar routes” to other users) (Wan 6:1 – 5)
in response to determining that the current user's path is aligned with the median path, taking remedial actions prior to the user reaching the location in the median path where the threshold number of users experienced motion sickness. (Wan discloses use of motion sickness mitigation functions with respect to the determined motion sickness probability) (Wan 8:49-64)
Wan fails to disclose:
generating a virtual reality experience on a display of an electronic device;
generating a virtual reality experience on a display of an electronic device;
Or
“transmitting instructions to adjust lighting devices to increase illumination in the area of the current user.
However, in a similar field of endeavor Rico teaches a system for mitigating the effects of motion sickness when a user travels from one point to another in a virtual reality experience (Rico 0018, 0050 – 0054) by modifying the virtual reality experience of the user by applying one or multiple cadence profiles (Rico 0052) to help alleviate or prevent motion sickness due to appear to slide around in the virtual environment) (Rico 0102 – 0104).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Wan in view of Rico to apply the known a real-world technique of determining when multiple travelers may experience motion sickness along a traveled route and apply a mitigation function to prevent or alleviate the motion sickness in a virtual world that simulates travel between locations. This would be beneficial as Rico recognizes traveling in a virtual reality world may induce motion sickness when users navigate between destinations. By alleviating or preventing motion sickness, user will be able to engage with the virtual reality experience for longer periods of time, thus increasing their enjoyment.
However, in a similar field of endeavor Lev teaches a system for mitigating the effects of motion sickness while traveling in a vehicle by changing lighting for the user. Lev teaches “The motion sickness prevention measures can be configured to include one or more of: providing a first subliminal or explicit visual cue that is indicative of a global horizon to at least one passenger of the driverless autonomous vehicle, using subliminal or explicit indicator system; providing a second subliminal or explicit visual cue that is indicative of a predicted next turn of the vehicle along the driving route to the at least one passenger, using subliminal or explicit indicator system; correlating visual content provided to the at least one passenger to the driving route, giving rise to correlated content, using adaptive content system; changing the vehicle's windows transparency, using transparency adjustment system; displaying the content provided to the at least one passenger in infinity, using infinity content display system; changing the driverless autonomous vehicle's internal lighting strength, using display adjustment system; changing a temperature within the driverless autonomous vehicle, using temperature regulating device; projecting encoring lights to be viewed by the at least one passenger, using encoring lights display system; projecting flashing lights towards the at least one passenger, using flashing lights display system;…” (Lev 244)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Wan in view of Lev to provide a mechanism and instructions to said mechanism to adjust a lighting effect that is in the area of a user to provide more or less light to a user. This would beneficial as some individuals find lighting to help mitigate the adverse effects of motion sickness when traveling.
As per claim 17, wherein the remedial action is to perform home automation. (Combination of Wan in view of Rico as applied above, Wan discloses a remedial action such as an automation such as lowering temperature of an automobile cabin) (Wan 0056)) Rico further discloses the application of a cadence profile to an HMD (i.e. home automation) (Rico 0100).
As per claim 18, wherein home automation includes automatically turning on a smart home device to reduce motion sickness. (Combination of Wan in view of Rico as applied above, Wan discloses a remedial action such as an automation such as lowering temperature of an automobile cabin or control lights) (Wan 9:1-3, 10:1 – 8)). Rico further discloses the application of a cadence profile to an HMD (i.e. home automation) (Rico 0100).
As per claim 21, Wan discloses:
communications circuitry configured to access an electronic device; and control circuitry configured to: (Wan Fig 1, #205, #203)
collect data relating to a motion sickness factor from a plurality of users that have navigated between a predetermined first checkpoint and a second checkpoint…;(Wan discloses the collecting of rider profile information and trip information as it relates to a motion sickness probability, (Wan 8:49 – 64) wherein the trip information comprises routes comprising route stops (i.e. checkpoints) (Wan 6:6 – 9) and collecting information pertaining to other riders with similar profiles who became motion sick on similar routes (Wan 6:1 – 5)
compare the collected data with current data relating to the same motion sickness factor obtained from a current user that is currently navigating between the same predetermined first checkpoint and the second checkpoint …; and (Wan discloses the collecting of rider profile information and trip information as it relates to a motion sickness probability, (Wan 8:49 – 64) wherein the trip information comprises routes comprising route stops (i.e. checkpoints) (Wan 6:6 – 9) and collecting information pertaining to other riders with similar profiles who became motion sick on similar routes (Wan 6:1 – 5). (Wan discloses the collecting of rider current sensor data about the rider (Wan 9:51 – 57). Wan discloses the rider profile information may comprise data about the motion sickness history of the rider, places the rider has become sick, motion sickness history of other riders (whether other riders with similar profiles as the rider have become motion sick on similar routes, susceptibility of other riders with similar profiles as the rider to motion sickness, etc.) (Wan 5:58 – 6:5). The Examiner notes that a route comprises a starting point and an endpoint (i.e. checkpoints). Wan further discloses the comparison of rider profile information and current rider sensor data to determine the probability of getting motion sickness on a particular route the rider is on. Wan states “According to an exemplary embodiment, the controller 101 of the apparatus that addresses motion sickness 100 may be configured to receive rider profile information, trip information, environmental information and vehicle dynamics information, determine a probability that a rider will suffer from motion sickness during a ride based on the rider profile information, the trip information, the environmental information and the vehicle dynamics information, in response to the determined probability being greater than a predetermined threshold probability corresponding to a rider, perform motion sickness mitigation, delaying or prevention functions, and in response to the probability being less than the predetermined threshold probability corresponding to the rider, monitoring the rider to detect rider response information indicating whether the rider will suffer from motion sickness during the ride.” (Wan 8:49 – 64). Wan further states “The controller may transform the rider profile information, the environmental information, the trip information, the vehicle dynamics information, and the rider response information into matrices, numbers, etc., modeling how each piece of information affects the probability of motion sickness. The transformed information may then be input into functions that calculate the effect of the information on the probability that a rider will suffer from motion sickness. For example, the controller may transform information from a heart rate sensor about the current heart rate and heart rate variance into a model. The model may be compared to a personalized model or threshold.”) (Wan 9:4 – 15)
in response to determining that the current data is within a threshold of the collected data for the same motion sickness factor, execute remedial actions for managing motion sickness. (Wan discloses use of motion sickness mitigation functions with respect to the determined motion sickness probability) (Wan 8:49-64)
Wan fails to disclose:
generating a virtual reality experience on a display of an electronic device;
or that the checkpoints are within a virtual reality experience.
Or
“transmitting instructions to adjust lighting devices to increase illumination in the area of the current user.”
However, in a similar field of endeavor Rico teaches a system for mitigating the effects of motion sickness when a user travels from one point to another in a virtual reality experience (Rico 0018, 0050 – 0054) by modifying the virtual reality experience of the user by applying one or multiple cadence profiles (Rico 0052) to help alleviate or prevent motion sickness due to appear to slide around in the virtual environment) (Rico 0102 – 0104).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Wan in view of Rico to apply the known a real-world technique of determining when multiple travelers may experience motion sickness along a traveled route and apply a mitigation function to prevent or alleviate the motion sickness in a virtual world that simulates travel between locations. This would be beneficial as Rico recognizes traveling in a virtual reality world may induce motion sickness when users navigate between destinations. By alleviating or preventing motion sickness, user will be able to engage with the virtual reality experience for longer periods of time, thus increasing their enjoyment.
However, in a similar field of endeavor Lev teaches a system for mitigating the effects of motion sickness while traveling in a vehicle by changing lighting for the user. Lev teaches “The motion sickness prevention measures can be configured to include one or more of: providing a first subliminal or explicit visual cue that is indicative of a global horizon to at least one passenger of the driverless autonomous vehicle, using subliminal or explicit indicator system; providing a second subliminal or explicit visual cue that is indicative of a predicted next turn of the vehicle along the driving route to the at least one passenger, using subliminal or explicit indicator system; correlating visual content provided to the at least one passenger to the driving route, giving rise to correlated content, using adaptive content system; changing the vehicle's windows transparency, using transparency adjustment system; displaying the content provided to the at least one passenger in infinity, using infinity content display system; changing the driverless autonomous vehicle's internal lighting strength, using display adjustment system; changing a temperature within the driverless autonomous vehicle, using temperature regulating device; projecting encoring lights to be viewed by the at least one passenger, using encoring lights display system; projecting flashing lights towards the at least one passenger, using flashing lights display system;…” (Lev 244)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Wan in view of Lev to provide a mechanism and instructions to said mechanism to adjust a lighting effect that is in the area of a user to provide more or less light to a user. This would beneficial as some individuals find lighting to help mitigate the adverse effects of motion sickness when traveling.
As per claim 22, Wan discloses:
determine a current user's background factor; and determine whether the background factor contributes to the motion sickness. (Wan discloses the determination of a user’s demographics or background, including medical history) (Wan 1:61 – 65, 3:7 – 11)
As per claim 24, Wan discloses: calculate median data based on the data collected from the plurality of users that relates to the motion sickness factor; (Wan discloses the of “similar routes” to other users) (Wan 6:1 – 5) and compare the collected data to the current data comprises using the median data calculated from the collected data for the comparison. (Wan discloses the comparison of the collected data to the median data) (Wan 6:1 – 5).
As per claim 26, Wan discloses: wherein the remedial actions include a recommendation provided by the control circuitry to the current user is for the current user to change from their current path to a new path. (Wan discloses the recommendation or adjusting of the route in response to motion sickness) (Wan 10:34 – 37, 10:60 – 11:3)
As per claim 27, Wan discloses: determine a motion sickness value for the current path and the new path; and recommend the current user to take the new path instead of the current path, wherein the new path has a lesser motion sickness value than the current path. (Wan discloses that when a motion sickness probability is high enough for a particular route, the system will adjust the route to be a route that alleviates the motion sickness, thus the new route will have a lesser motion sickness probability) (Wan 10:1 – 9, 34 – 37)
Independent claim(s) 29 is/are made obvious by the combination of Wan Rico and Lev based on the same analysis set forth for claim(s) 1, 13 and 21, which are similar in claim scope.
Dependent claim(s) 32 is/are made obvious by the combination of 17 based on the same analysis set forth for claim(s) Wan Rico and Lev, which are similar in claim scope.
As per claim 33, wherein home automation includes the control circuitry configured to automatically turn on a smart home device to reduce motion sickness, wherein the smart home device is selected from a group consisting of a fan, air conditioner, lights, a window opening device, and chair reclining device. (Combination of Wan in view of Rico as applied above, Wan discloses a remedial action such as an automation such as lowering temperature by means of a of an automobile cabin or control lights) (Wan 9:1-3, 10:1 – 8)) Rico further discloses the application of a cadence profile to an HMD (i.e. home automation) (Rico 0100).
Claim(s) 14, 15, 30 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wan et al (US 11,034,360) in view of Rico (US 2017/0278306) in view of Lev (US 2021/0154430) in view of Mazzella et al (US 2018/0023967)
As per claim 14, Wan fails to disclose:
wherein determining whether the path taken by the current user is aligned with the median path comprises: determining a first set of coordinates of the median path; comparing the first set of coordinates with a current set of coordinates associated with the current path taken by the user; determining whether the current set of coordinates are within a threshold distance of the first set of coordinates.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Mazzella teaches a system wherein a detour route is generated based upon coordinates of the current route and the detour route further based upon a distance threshold (Mazzella claim 1).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Wan in view of Mazzella to utilize known techniques of similar systems to generate an alternate route based upon the coordinates of the current route and the recommended route based upon a distance threshold. This would enable the system to recommend routes that are reasonably close to the original route a user desires to travel.
As per claim 15, further comprising, in response to determining that the current set of coordinates are within a threshold distance of the first set of coordinates, determining that the current path is aligned with the median path. (Combination of Wan in view of Mazzella as applied above, Mazzella teaches a system wherein a detour route is generated based upon coordinates of the current route and the detour route further based upon a distance threshold (Mazzella claim 1).)
Dependent claim(s) 30 and 31 is/are made obvious by the combination of Wan Rico and Lev and Mazzella based on the same analysis set forth for claim(s) 14 and 15, which are similar in claim scope.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4, 7-8, 10, 13-15, 17-18, 21-22, 24, 26-27 and 29-33 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Please see above rejection in light of the newly found prior art to Lev.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROSS A WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-5911. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am - 4pm.
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, Kang Hu can be reached on (571)270-1344. 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.
/RAW/ Examiner, Art Unit 3715
2/25/2026 /KANG HU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715