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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 9. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim 14 is dependent on duplicate claim 10. The Examiner believes claim 14 should be dependent on claim 9 instead. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 8, 15 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jerauld (US Patent No. 9019174) in view of Bohannon et al. (PGPUB Document No. US 2021/0216773).
Regarding claim 8, Jerauld teaches a computer system for socializing, the computer system comprising:
One or more processors, one or more computer-readable memories, and program instructions stored on at least one of the one or more computer-readable memories for execution by at least one of the one or more processors to cause the computer system to:
Program instructions to identify a plurality of social communications between one or more individuals wearing an AR device (determining emotional states between users based on expression, speech and word analysis (Jerauld: col.19, line 48-54) (col.21, line 45 – col.22, line 7) (FIG.10A-B));
Program instructions to assign an identifier to a participant associated with at least one of the social communications (the user can select people who are in the contact list, wherein the Examiner submits that each person in the contact list is assigned respective identifiers (Jerauld: col.23, line 4-17));
Program instructions analyze content of the at least one social communication (analysis step 916 of FIG. 9 illustrated in FIG.10A (Jerauld: col.19, line 48-54) (col.21, line 45 – col.22, line 7) (FIG.10A-B));
And program instructions generate an augmented reality (AR) based representation of the content for presentation on an augmented reality device associated with the user, the augmented reality device presenting the content for visualization (color indicators indicating whether the user is happy or not, and/or AR objects such as 1610 indicating the user is bored (Jerauld: col.24, line 53 – col.25, line 12)) based at least in-part on the identifier (corresponds to the case when the user has selected a person to interact with based on a contact list (Jerauld: col.23, line 4-17)).
Jerauld does not expressly teach but Bohannon teaches the user wearing personal protective equipment (PPE), wherein the content for visualization replacing PPE (personal protective equipment (PPE) configured to present an (AR) augmented reality display to a user and at least one computing device (Bohannon: abstract, 0006)).
Jerauld contained a device which differed the claimed process by the substitution of the steps of the AR device being an HMD.
Bohannon teaches the substituted step of the AR device being an PPE.
The AR devices of Jerauld and Bohannon are known in the art to effectively present AR information.
Jerauld’s HMD could have been substituted with the PPE of Bohannon.
The results would have been predictable and resulted in equally presenting AR information. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 are corresponding method claim(s) of claim(s) 8. The limitations of claim(s) 1 are substantially similar to the limitations of claim(s) 8. Therefore, it has been analyzed and rejected substantially similar to claim(s) 1.
Regarding claim 7, the combined teachings above teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the PPE is selected from the group comprising a face mask, clothing and goggles communicatively coupled to the computing device (HMD device comprising a processor 210 (Jerauld: col.15, line 7-25 & FIG.6A)).
Claim(s) 15 and 20 are corresponding computer program product claim(s) of claim(s) 8 and 7. The limitations of claim(s) 15 and 20 are substantially similar to the limitations of claim(s) 8 and 7. Therefore, it has been analyzed and rejected substantially similar to claim(s) 15 and 20. Note, Jerauld teaches computer readable instructions stored in memory (Jerauld: col.27, line 37-52).
Claim(s) 2, 9 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jerauld in view of Bohannon as applied to the claim(s) above, and further in view of Dolan et al. (PGPUB Document No. US 2018/0139203).
Regarding claim 9, the combined teachings above do not expressly teach but Dolan teaches the computer system of claim 8, wherein the program instructions to generate the AR based representation further comprise:
Program instructions to determine whether a QR code on the PPE worn by the participant is associated with the identifier (authenticating one another using QR codes (Dolan: 0033, 0035, FIG.1));
And program instructions to depict the AR based representation of the content for presentation to the augmented reality device associated with the user responsive to the determination the QR code is associated with the identifier (establishing a connection with another user as the user selects a person on the contact list (Jerauld: col.23, line 4-17) utilizing the verification process of Dolan. The verification process establishes a transfer between users upon a verification signal 120 identifying a QR code of users (Dolan: 0035)).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art to modify the combined teachings above such as to authenticate user in the manner taught by Dolan, because this enables improved security (Dolan: 0010, 0021).
Claims 2 and 16 are similar in scope to claim 9.
Claim(s) 3, 6, 11, 14, 17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jerauld in view of Bohannon as applied to the claim(s) above, and further in view of Winton et al. (PGPUB Document No. US 2019/0202349).
Regarding claim 11, the combined teachings above teach the computer system of claim 8, wherein the program instructions to analyze content further comprise:
Program instructions to apply speech and word analysis to the content to determine a sentiment of the content (speech and word analysis to determine emotional states (Jerauld: col.19, line 48-54) (col.21, line 45 – col.22, line 7) (FIG.10A-B));
Program instructions to define one or more expressions based on the sentiment (the determined emotional state based on the analysis);
Wherein program instructions to generate the AR based representation of the content further comprise: program instructions to include the one or more expressions in the AR based representation (color indicators indicating whether the user is happy or not, and/or AR objects such as 1610 indicating the user is bored (Jerauld: col.24, line 53 – col.25, line 12)).
However, the combined teachings above do not expressly teach but Winton teaches the speech and word analysis being natural language processing (Winton: 0052).
The combined teachings above contained a device which differed the claimed process by the substitution of the steps of utilizing speech and word analysis.
Dolan teaches the substituted step of utilizing NPL.
Both teachings were known in the art to effectively determine the sentiment from speech.
The word and speech analysis of the combined teachings above teach steps of could have been substituted with the NPL of Winton.
The results would have been predictable and resulted in equally determining user sentiment. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 14, the combined teachings above teach the computer system of claim 9, wherein the program instructions to generate the AR based representation further comprise:
Program instructions to continuously integrate the one or more expressions in the AR based representation to actively reflect the sentiment of the participant (color indicators indicating whether the user is happy or not, and/or AR objects such as 1610 indicating the user is bored (Jerauld: col.24, line 53 – col.25, line 12));
Wherein the one or more expressions are derived from utilizing speech and word analysis for sentiments of the participant (speech and word analysis to determine emotional states (Jerauld: col.19, line 48-54) (col.21, line 45 – col.22, line 7) (FIG.10A-B)).
However, the combined teachings above do not expressly teach but Winton teaches the speech and word analysis being natural language processing (Winton: 0052).
The combined teachings above contained a device which differed the claimed process by the substitution of the steps of utilizing speech and word analysis.
Dolan teaches the substituted step of utilizing NPL.
Both teachings were known in the art to effectively determine the sentiment from speech.
The word and speech analysis of the combined teachings above teach steps of could have been substituted with the NPL of Winton.
The results would have been predictable and resulted in equally determining user sentiment. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 3 and 17 are similar in scope to claim 11.
Claims 6 and 19 are similar in scope to claim 14.
Claim(s) 4, 5, 12, 13 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jerauld in view of Bohannon as applied to the claim(s) above, and further in view of
Regarding claim 12, the combined teachings above do not expressly teach but Joo teaches the computer system of claim 8, wherein the identifier is associated with a role assigned to the participant on a centralized platform hosting the plurality of social communications (Joo teaches the concept of a contact list comprising one or more groups (company, family or friend) and applying a function (set geofence) only to a specific group (Joo: 0090)).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art to modify the combined teachings above such as to utilize the contact list of Joo, because this enables the user to further customize/categorize people in the contact list.
Regarding claim 13, the combined teachings above teach the computer system of claim 12, wherein the program instructions to assign the identifier further comprise: program instructions to group a plurality of participants associated with the plurality of social communications based on the role (grouping of people in the contact list to groups such as company, family and friend (Joo: 0090)); wherein at least one participant of the plurality of participants dons the PPE (Bohannon: abstract, 0006).
Claims 4 and 18 are similar in scope to claim 12.
Claim 5 is similar in scope to claim 13.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David H Chu whose telephone number is (571)272-8079. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30 - 1:30pm, 3:30-8:30pm.
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, Daniel F Hajnik can be reached at (571) 272-7642. 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.
/DAVID H CHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2616