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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 5, and claim 16, line 8 "the cyber sickness score" should read --the cybersickness score--.
Claim 5, line 2, and claim 20, line 2, "monitoring biometric data measurements" should be --monitoring the plurality of biometric data measurements--.
Claim 5, line 2, and claim 20, line 2 "during playing of the content item" should read --during the playing of the content item--.
Claim 16, line 2, "communications circuitry" should read --a communications circuitry--.
Claim 16, line 2, "control circuitry" should read --a control circuitry--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1 – 2, 4 – 7, 9 – 11, 14, 16 – 17, 19 – 22, 24 – 26, and 29 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the cybersickness" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the cybersickness" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the real-world environment" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the real-world environment" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "that the same content item" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "that the same content item" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the severity level" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the severity level" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11, line 2, and claim 26, line 2 it is unclear what "the comparison" entails as what is being compared to.
Claim 14 and lines 2 - 3 and claim 29, line 3, it is unclear if "a real world" is the same or different from "real-world environment".
Claims 22 and 7, the limitation “the second user’s XR device” is unclear as it raises the question if this is the same or different from the previously recited XR device.
Claims 6 and 21, the limitation “the same content item” is unclear as it raises the question what “the same content item” entails.
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.
Claims 1 – 2, 4 – 7, 9 – 11, 14, 16 – 17, 19 – 22, 24 – 26, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1 – 2, 4 – 7, 9 – 11, 14, 16 – 17, 19 – 22, 24 – 26, and 29 are directed to a method of obtaining measurements, determining a cybersickness score, executing a remedial action, and storing a metatag, which is an abstract idea. In addition to concepts that can be performed by a human.
Claims 1 – 2, 4 – 7, 9 – 11, 14, 16 – 17, 19 – 22, 24 – 26, and 29 do not include additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application or that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons provided below which are in line with the 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility (Federal Register, Vol. 79, No. 241, p 74618, December 16, 2014), the July 2015 Update on Subject Matter Eligibility (Federal Register, Vol. 80, No. 146, p. 45429, July 30, 2015), the May 2016 Subject Matter Eligibility Update (Federal Register, Vol. 81, No. 88, p. 27381, May 6, 2016), and the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 4, page 50, January 7, 2019).
Regarding claim 1 and 16, the claims recites a series of steps or acts, including obtaining a plurality of biometric data measurements for a user wearing an extended reality (XR) device during a portion of playing of a content item played using the XR device; determining a cybersickness score based on the plurality of biometric data measurements; in response to determining that the cyber sickness score exceeds a severity threshold: automatically executing a remedial action selected based on the cybersickness score to mitigate the cybersickness; and storing a metadata tag in association with the portion of the content item.
These elements obtaining, determining, executing and storing of claims 1 and 16 are drawn to an abstract idea since (1) they involve mathematical concepts in the form of mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and/or mathematical calculations; (2) they involve a mental process that can be practically performed in the human mind including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion and using pen and paper; and/or (3) they involve methods of organizing human activity such as managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). In particular, the “obtaining a plurality of biometric data measurements for a user wearing an extended reality (XR) device during a portion of playing of a content item played using the XR device” and “determining a cybersickness score based on the plurality of biometric data measurements” steps can be performed by a practitioner mentally evaluating biometric data measurements to determine cybersickness of the patient, then based on that determination, mentally performing some subsequent “first processing” (which is undefined in the claim) (e.g., making a judgement that the subject is likely to then fall asleep based on their determined state). Accordingly, the “obtain” and “determine” limitations fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
These elements “communication circuitry” and “control circuit[r]y” of claim 1 and 16 do not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. In particular, the element communication circuitry is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, i.e., mere data communication at a higher level of generality - see MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the element control circuit[r]y is merely an instruction to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 1 and 16 do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. The recitation “communications circuitry configured to access an extended reality (XR) device” and “control circuit[r]y configured to: obtain a plurality of biometric data measurements”, as noted above, amounts to insignificant extrasolution activity, e.g., mere data gathering employed in conjunction with the abstract idea that uses conventional, routine, and well known elements or simply displaying the results of the algorithm that uses conventional, routine, and well known elements. Such circuitry are conventional as evidenced by:
Krueger (US 20160167672 A1) discloses “each of the preprocessors, processors or interfaces can be connected to the central processing unit 232, which can be a digital microprocessor that interacts with the memory unit 234 to store and analyze data” (Krueger: [0151], Figures 3 and 4, [0153]) and “FIG. 4 an interface unit 238, that is connected to the central processing unit 232 of the local electronic device 220, transmits and/or receives data with an interface unit 256 that is connected to the controller 254 of the remote electronic device 250.” (Krueger: [0152], [0153]).
Perdigón Rodriguez et al (US 20170106277 A1) discloses “microprocessor board 7” (Perdigón Rodriguez et al: [0031]) and “The wireless communication module 15 may allow the interactive movement detection system to send and receive data to and from a computing device interface 29 providing an interactive virtual environment on a computing device 50, such as, a personal computer, a data collection station, a Web server, a virtual reality visor, an augmented reality visor and a video game console, as illustrated in FIG. 5 discussed below.” (Perdigón Rodriguez et al: [0032], Figure 5).
Ruttler et al (US 20170324437 A1) discloses “[0119] FIG. 51 is a system diagram of a smart aviation communication headset 100, in accordance with an embodiment of the invention. In one embodiment, an aviation communication headset 100 includes, but is not limited to, at least one microphone 114; one or more speakers 112; one or more physiological sensors 118; and at least one control unit 106 configured by one or more executable instructions stored on computer memory 108 to perform operations including at least: obtaining one or more values from the one or more physiological sensors at 5108 and outputting information regarding the one or more values via augmented reality glasses or synthetic vision goggles at 5110” (Ruttler et al: [0119], Figure 51).
Further, the “communications circuitry” and “communications circuit[r]y” elements do not qualify as significantly more because these limitations are simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry (see Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014)) and/or a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than being stored on a computer readable medium which is a well-understood, routine and conventional activity previously known in the industry (see Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014); SAP Am. v. InvestPic, 890 F.3d 1016 (Fed. Circ. 2018)).
In view of the above, the additional elements individually do not integrate the exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the above-judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination (that is, as a whole) adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taking individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, for example, or improves any other technology. There is no indication that the combination of elements permits automation of specific tasks that previously could not be automated. There is no indication that the combination of elements includes a particular solution to a computer-based problem or a particular way to achieve a desired computer-based outcome. Rather, the collective functions of the claimed invention merely provide conventional computer implementation, i.e., the computer is simply a tool to perform the process.
Claims 2, 4 – 7, 9 – 11, and 14 depend from claim 1, and thus are directed to the same abstract idea as claim 20. These claims further limit steps practically performed in the mind of a practitioner in performance of the abstract idea and/or further specify insignificant data gathering. Thus, when considered alone and in combination with the sensor elements, these claims do not provide additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 16 – 17, 19 – 22, 24 – 26, and 29 are rejected as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, by the same reasoning as that of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 2, 5 – 6, 10 – 11, 16 – 17, 20 – 21 and 25 - 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Delaney et al (US 20210016052 A1, hereinafter Delaney).
Regarding claims 16 and 1, Delaney teaches a system (abstract, [0011]) comprising:
communications circuitry (“communication network 102”, [0031] - [0032], Figure 1) configured to access an extended reality (XR) device (“augmented reality (AR) device”, abstract, [0021], [0068]); and
control circuity (“monitoring unit 114A (114B)”, [0035], Figure 1) configured to:
obtain a plurality of biometric data measurements ([0035], [0043], [0081]) for a user ([0035], [0043], [0081]) wearing the extended reality (XR) device (“augmented reality (AR) device”, abstract, [0021], [0068]) during a portion of playing of a content item played using the XR device (“augmented reality (AR) device”, abstract, [0021], [0068]);
determine a cybersickness score based on the plurality of biometric data measurements (“at 214, the sickness reduction program 116 determines whether a threshold has been reached. In the example embodiment, the sickness reduction program 116 may collect user physiological data subsequent to the implementation of a technique. User physiological data may be collected automatically”, [0081]);
in response to determining that the cyber sickness score exceeds a severity threshold (“If the sickness reduction program 116 determines the threshold is reached at 214 (i.e., decision 214 “YES” branch), the sickness reduction program 116, at 216, updates the database.”, [0085], [0093]; [0061] – [0063], [0065] – [0067],):
automatically execute a remedial action selected based on the cybersickness score to mitigate the cybersickness ([0061] – [0063], [0065] – [0067], [0093]); and
store a metadata tag ([0092] – [0093]) in association with the portion of the content item ([0061] – [0063], [0065] – [0067], [0092] – [0093]).
Regarding claims 17 and 2, Delaney teaches all limitations of claims 16 and 1. Delaney teaches the remedial action includes the control circuity (Delaney: “monitoring unit 114A (114B)”, [0035], Figure 1) configured to alter or skip the portion of the content item (“Such data ay allow the sickness reduction program 116 to introduce varying levels of stimuli, utilizing an augmented reality device, relative to a user's sensitivity to the stimuli, ability to adapt to the stimuli, and time factor of the user's response to the motion sickness. The sickness reduction program 116 may further advance current technology by dynamically removing, obfuscating, or changing the previously detected secondary artifacts. Additionally, the sickness reduction program 116 is capable of further advancing traditional methods by affixing proper contextual artifacts to the user's visual field using augmented reality.” [0093]).
Regarding claims 20 and 5, Delaney teaches all limitations of claims 16 and 1. Delaney teaches the system (abstract, [0011]) further comprising, the control circuity (“monitoring unit 114A (114B)”, [0035], Figure 1) configured to:
monitor biometric data measurements of the user ([0035], [0043], [0081]) during playing of the content item ([0035], [0043], [0081]);
determine that the cybersickness score during a plurality of portions of the XR content exceeds the severity threshold (“at 214, the sickness reduction program 116 determines whether a threshold has been reached. In the example embodiment, the sickness reduction program 116 may collect user physiological data subsequent to the implementation of a technique. User physiological data may be collected automatically”, [0081]; Examiner interprets user physiological data to be collected throughout the XR contents.); and
tag each of the plurality of portions of the XR content during which the cybersickness score exceeds the severity threshold with a metadata tag that identifies the severity level ([0092] – [0093]).
Regarding claims 21 and 6, Delaney teaches all limitations of claims 20 and 5. Delaney teaches the system (abstract, [0011]) further comprising, the control circuity (“monitoring unit 114A (114B)”, [0035], Figure 1) configured to:
determine that the same content item is displayed on an XR device of a second user ([0024] – [0026], “the sickness reduction program may update the user's profile to include the techniques used to reduce the motion sickness of the user. In such embodiment, the sickness reduction program may analyze the length of time of the motion sickness event, previously obtained, and will determine how effective the technique was in comparison to other techniques previously used in which such previously used techniques may be found in the user's profile.” [0029]);
determine that a portion of the XR content, from the plurality of portions that are tagged ([0092] – [0093]), is being displayed on the second user's XR device ([0024] – [0026], [0029], [0044], [0056], [0061] – [0063], [0065] – [0067]); and
in response to such determination:
automatically execute a remedial action selected based on the severity level of the tagged portion of content that is being displayed ([0061] – [0063], [0065] – [0067], [0092] - [0093]).
Regarding claims 25 and 10, Delaney teaches all limitations of claims 16 and 1. Delaney teaches the system (abstract, [0011]) further comprising, the control circuity configured to:
obtain, after executing the remedial action, an updated plurality of biometric data measurements for the user wearing the XR device during the playing of the portion of the content item played using the XR device ([0024] – [0026], [0029], [0056], [0061] – [0063], [0066] – [0067]);
compare the updated plurality of biometric data measurements with the plurality of biometric data measurements obtained prior to executing of the remedial action ([0024] – [0026], “the sickness reduction program may update the user's profile to include the techniques used to reduce the motion sickness of the user. In such embodiment, the sickness reduction program may analyze the length of time of the motion sickness event, previously obtained, and will determine how effective the technique was in comparison to other techniques previously used in which such previously used techniques may be found in the user's profile.” [0029], [0044], [0056], [0061] – [0063], [0066] – [0067]); and
based on the comparison, determine whether the cybersickness score was reduced based on the automatic execution of the remedial action ([0024] – [0026], “the sickness reduction program may update the user's profile to include the techniques used to reduce the motion sickness of the user. In such embodiment, the sickness reduction program may analyze the length of time of the motion sickness event, previously obtained, and will determine how effective the technique was in comparison to other techniques previously used in which such previously used techniques may be found in the user's profile.” [0029], [0044], [0061] – [0063], [0066] – [0067]).
Regarding claims 26 and 11, Delaney teaches all limitations of claims 25 and 10. Delaney teaches the system (abstract, [0011]) further comprising, the control circuity (“monitoring unit 114A (114B)”, [0035], Figure 1) configured to:
in response to determining, based on the comparison ([0081], [0085], [0086]), that the cybersickness score was not reduced after the automatic execution of the remedial action, execute a different type of remedial action than the remedial action previously executed ([0088], [0091] – [0093]).
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.
Claims 4, 9, 19 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delaney in view of Cohen (US 20080094417 A1).
Regarding claims 19 and 4, Delaney teaches all limitations of claims 16 and 1. Delaney teaches the remedial action (Delaney: [0085], [0092] – [0093]) includes the control circuity (Delaney: “monitoring unit 114A (114B)”, [0035], Figure 1).
Delaney does not teach the control circuitry is configured to switch a camera of the XR device to a pass-through mode that allows the real-world environment to be viewed via the XR device.
Cohen discloses “a mixed reality are presented” (abstract) and teaches a control circuitry ([0023] – [0024], [0026] – [0027], [0029], [0031]) is configured to switch a camera (“camera 115” [0024], [0026] – [0027], [0029]) of a XR device (“mobile device 110 as a command or control interface for mixed reality objects” [0021]) to a pass-through mode that allows a real-world environment (“Camera 115 captures image data of real-world object 120 by capturing still images, video images, streamed images, or other image data” [0026] – [0027]) to be viewed via the XR device ([0023] – [0024], [0026] – [0027], [0029], [0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system and method of Delaney to incorporate the control circuitry is configured to switch a camera of the XR device to a pass-through mode that allows the real-world environment to be viewed via the XR device, as taught by Cohen, for the benefit of providing ease of use and prevent injuries during XR device usage.
Regarding claims 24 and 9, Delaney teaches all limitations of claims 16 and 1. Delaney teaches the system further comprising, the control circuity (“monitoring unit 114A (114B)”, [0035], Figure 1) configured to:
determine that the cybersickness score relates to a highest level of severity (“at 214, the sickness reduction program 116 determines whether a threshold has been reached. In the example embodiment, the sickness reduction program 116 may collect user physiological data subsequent to the implementation of a technique. User physiological data may be collected automatically”, [0081]; Examiner interprets the reaching the threshold as a highest level of severity and suggests to amend detailing what a “highest level of severity” entails in the claims.); and
in response to the determination, switch a camera (Delaney: “camera”, [0053] [0060]) of the XR device (“augmented reality (AR) device”, abstract, [0021], [0068]).
Delaney does not teach a pass-through mode such that a real-world environment can be viewed through the XR device.
However, Cohen discloses “a mixed reality are presented” (abstract) and teaches a pass-through mode such that a real-world environment (“Camera 115 captures image data of real-world object 120 by capturing still images, video images, streamed images, or other image data” [0026] – [0027]) can be viewed through a XR device (“mobile device 110 as a command or control interface for mixed reality objects” [0021]) ([0023] – [0024], [0026] – [0027], [0029], [0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system and method of Delaney to a pass-through mode such that a real-world environment can be viewed through the XR device, as taught by Cohen, for the benefit of providing ease of use and prevent injuries during XR device usage.
Claims 7 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delaney in view of Smith et al (US 20200124845 A1, hereinafter “Smith”).
Regarding claims 22 and 7, Delaney teaches all limitations of claims 21 and 6. Delaney teaches the remedial action is transmitting ([0085], [0061] – [0063], [0065] – [0067], [0092] - [0093]), the second user ([0024] – [0026], “information associated with the users” [0044] [0029], [0044], [0056], [0061] – [0063], [0065] – [0067]), to the severity level of the tagged portion of content that is being displayed ([0024] – [0026], [0029], [0044], [0056], [0061] – [0063], [0065] – [0067]).
Delaney does not teach an alert by the control circuitry to a user's XR device,
wherein the alert includes information relating to a severity level.
However, Smith discloses “systems and methods for detecting and mitigating motion sickness in augmented and virtual reality systems that include head-mounted displays” ([0001]) and teaches an alert (“an alert or warning 676”, [0077]) by a control circuitry (“motion sickness controller 600”, [0077]) to a user's XR device (“head-mounted display device” [0077]) (“in response to detecting a condition associated with motion sickness or visual fatigue, motion sickness controller 660 may be operable to transmit data representing an alert or warning 676 to graphics driver 658 for display on the head-mounted display device.”, [0077]),
wherein the alert includes information relating to a severity level ([0077], [0092]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system and method of Delaney an alert by the control circuitry to the user's XR device, wherein the alert includes information relating to a severity level, as taught by Smith, for the benefit of prompting user to execute actions to decrease motion sickness or visual fatigue (Smith: [0077], [0092]).
Claims 14 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delaney in view of Van Deventer et al (WO 2019043025 A1, see attached, hereinafter “Van Deventer”).
Regarding claims 29 and 14, Delaney teaches all limitations of claims 16 and 1. Delaney teaches the remedial action ([0093]) selected by the control circuitry is based on the cybersickness score (“at 214, the sickness reduction program 116 determines whether a threshold has been reached. In the example embodiment, the sickness reduction program 116 may collect user physiological data subsequent to the implementation of a technique. User physiological data may be collected automatically”, [0081]).
Delaney does not teach to reduce velocity or acceleration of an action performed by the user in a real world when the velocity or acceleration is applied to the portion of the content in a virtual world.
However, Van Deventer discloses “an omnidirectional video or image may be displayed in virtual or augmented reality” (abstract) and teaches to reduce velocity or acceleration of an action performed by the user in a real world when the velocity or acceleration is applied to the portion of the content in a virtual world (“Similarly, controlling the zooming functionality may comprise selecting the size of the zoom region (inversely) proportional to the amount of head movement or acceleration of the user. For example, the zoom region may decrease when the user moves or accelerates his head so the user experiences a larger non-zoomed region to reduce or prevent nausea.” page 6, paragraph 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system and method of Delaney to incorporate reducing velocity or acceleration of an action performed by the user in a real world when the velocity or acceleration is applied to the portion of the content in a virtual world, as taught by Van Deventer, for the benefit of adjusting features of the XR device and “reduc[ing] or prevent[ing] nausea” (Van Deventer: page 6, paragraph 4).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fedorovskaya et al (US 20120134543 A1) discloses a “method to determine the propensity of an image-sequence to induce motion sickness” (abstract).
Rober et al (US 20180089901 A1) discloses a “VR system for vehicles that may implement methods that address problems with vehicles in motion that may result in motion sickness for passengers” (abstract).
Mallinson (US 20180096517 A1) discloses a “method for reducing discomfort when viewing virtual reality (VR) content for use in head mounted displays (HMDs)”.
Watson (US 20160228771 A1) discloses “methods, systems, and programs for managing motion sickness while wearing a head-mounted device (HMD)” ([0002]).
Krueger (US 8690750 B2) discloses “a human user with symbology to ameliorate, prevent or shorten the duration of disorientation or motion sickness effects” (abstract).
Morgan et al (US 10943407 B1) discloses “using augmented reality and/or XR with pass-through video combined with ML/AI models to utilize real-world objects, facial expressions, and/or places, as subject matter for either personalized attention-bias assessment and/or attention-bias modification therapy” (column 100, lines 44 - 48).
Miller et al (US 6623428 B2) discloses “the processing and display of digital image sequences and, more particularly, to ameliorating motion sickness induced in viewers of the image sequences” (abstract).
Rober (WO 2018057980 A1) discloses a “VR system for vehicles that may implement methods that address problems with vehicles in motion that may result in motion sickness for passengers” (abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIE T TRAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4677. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 8:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Alexander Valvis can be reached at (571) 272-4233. 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.
/JULIE THI TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3791 /ALEX M VALVIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791