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 5, 11 – 18 and 22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 5 and 16, “to remedial actions” should read --to the remedial actions--.
Claim 11, line 4 and claim 22, line 4, "in cybersickness score" should read --in the cybersickness score--.
Claim 12, line 2, "communications circuitry" should read --a communications circuitry--.
Claim 12, line 3, "and control circuity" should read – and a control circuitry--.
Claims 12 – 18 and 22, “circuity” should read –circuitry--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 - 22 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 - 22 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 – 22 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 12, the claims recites a series of steps or acts, including determining that a plurality of users have experienced cybersickness while consuming a portion of XR content; identifying, based on user profiles of the plurality of users, at least one common demographic characteristic for the plurality of users; determining that a user wearing an extended reality (XR) device is about to consume the same portion of the XR content: in response to determining that the user profile of the user matches the at least one common demographic characteristic for the plurality of users: automatically executing a remedial action for the user.
These elements determining, identifying and executing of claims 1 and 12 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 “determining that a plurality of users have experienced cybersickness while consuming a portion of XR content” and “identifying, based on user profiles of the plurality of users, at least one common demographic characteristic for the plurality of users” steps can be performed by a practitioner mentally evaluating the cybersickness of a patient, then based on that determination, mentally identifying one common demographic characteristic for the plurality of users. Accordingly, the “determine” and “identify” limitations fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
These elements “communication circuitry” and “control circuit[r]y” of claim 12 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 circuitry 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 12 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: determine that a plurality of users have experienced cybersickness”, 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 – 11 depend from claim 1, and thus are directed to the same abstract idea as claim 1. 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 12 - 22 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 § 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.
Claims 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 4 and 15, “with a severity level” is unclear as it raises the question if this is the same or different than “threshold severity level”.
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 – 7, 10 – 18 and 21 – 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Delaney et al (US 20210016052 A1, hereinafter “Delaney”).
Regarding claims 12 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; and control circuity (“sickness reduction system 100”, [0031], Figure 1) configured to:
determine that a user has experienced cybersickness while consuming a portion of XR content (“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]);
identify, based on user profiles of the plurality of users, at least one common demographic characteristic for the plurality of users (“Based on historical data associated with a specific user, a group of users, or a general population, the ML algorithm may analyze the data associated with the current motion sickness event (e.g., symptoms, information associated with the specific user) with the historical data (e.g., symptoms, information associated with the users or population associated with historical data) to predict or determine the likelihood that a technique may be successful with the specific user.”, [0044]);
determine that a user wearing the XR device is about to consume the same portion of the XR content ([0024], [0029], [0044]):
in response to determining that the user profile of the user matches the at least one common demographic characteristic for the plurality of users (“Based on historical data associated with a specific user, a group of users, or a general population, the ML algorithm may analyze the data associated with the current motion sickness event (e.g., symptoms, information associated with the specific user) with the historical data (e.g., symptoms, information associated with the users or population associated with historical data) to predict or determine the likelihood that a technique may be successful with the specific user”, [0044], [0068]):
automatically execute a remedial action for the user ([0061] – [0063], [0065] – [0067], [0081], [0092] - [0093]),
wherein the remedial action is selected based on a cybersickness score of the plurality of users (“Based on historical data associated with a specific user, a group of users, or a general population, the ML algorithm may analyze the data associated with the current motion sickness event (e.g., symptoms, information associated with the specific user) with the historical data (e.g., symptoms, information associated with the users or population associated with historical data) to predict or determine the likelihood that a technique may be successful with the specific user”, [0044]).
Regarding claims 13 and 2, Delaney teaches all limitations of claims 1 and 12. Delaney teaches the system (abstract, [0011]) further comprising,
the control circuity (“sickness reduction system 100”, [0031], Figure 1) configured to determine whether the remedial action ([0029], [0036], [0061] – [0063], [0065] – [0067], [0081], [0092] - [0093]) executed for the user results in lowering the user's cybersickness score below a threshold severity level (“the sickness reduction program 116 may be activated if the user's physiological state detected by the monitoring unit 114A, 114B shows any difference from the user's normal physiological state.”, [0044], [0029], [0036]; [0006], Figure 2).
Regarding claims 14 and 3, Delaney teaches all limitations of claims 2 and 13. Delaney teaches in response to determining that the remedial action ([0029], [0036], [0061] – [0063], [0065] – [0067], [0081], [0092] - [0093]) executed for the user does not result in lowering the user's cybersickness score below the threshold severity level ([0081], [0085], [0086], [0088], [0091] – [0093]),
the control circuity (“sickness reduction system 100”, [0031], Figure 1) configured to execute a second remedial action that is different than the remedial action executed ([0081], [0085], [0086], [0088], [0091] – [0093]).
Regarding claim 15 and 4, Delaney teaches all limitations of claims 2 and 13. Delaney teaches determining whether the remedial action ([0029], [0036], [0061] – [0063], [0065] – [0067], [0081], [0092] - [0093]) lowers the user's cybersickness score below the threshold severity level ([0042] - [0043], [0085], [0089], [0092], Figure 2) further comprises, the control circuity (“sickness reduction system 100”, [0031], Figure 1) configured to:
obtain a biometric reading of the user ([0022], [0028], [0043]) while the user consumes the same portion of the XR content ([0043], [0050], [0053], [0066], [0081]);
associate the biometric reading ([0043], [0050], [0053], [0066], [0081]) with a severity level ([0022], [0043], [0050], [0053], [0066], [0081]); and
determine whether the severity level is below a predetermined severity level ([0042] - [0043], [0085], [0089], [0092], Figure 2).
Regarding claims 16 and 5, Delaney teaches all limitations of claims 2 and 13. Delaney teaches further comprising, the control circuity (“sickness reduction system 100”, [0031], Figure 1) configured to store information relating to remedial actions ([0029], [0036], [0061] – [0063], [0065] – [0067], [0081], [0092] - [0093]) and the resultant effects ([0085] – [0089], Figure 2) of the remedial actions (“the sickness reduction program may create a profile and store the used technique and the associated components in a database”, [0029], [0044], Figure 2).
Regarding claims 17 and 6, Delaney teaches all limitations of claims 1 and 12. Delaney teaches further comprising, the control circuity (“sickness reduction system 100”, [0031], Figure 1) configured to:
access medical history of each of the plurality of users from one or more medical databases that store the medical histories (“In this embodiment, such generic techniques may be captured via research of effective motion sickness reduction techniques. In the present embodiment, research may be collected from hardcoded medical studies, trusted Internet sources, medical journals, patient records, and any other reliable sources, including authoritative and/or relevant sources, that may provide information about motion sickness reduction to the sickness reduction program.”, [0026]);
determine a common medical characteristic from the accessed medical history (“Machine learning algorithms may utilize techniques, such as classification or regression, to infer with some level of confidence that the probability that such input (e.g. the physiological state of the user) has exceeded such defined threshold. Based on historical data associated with a specific user, a group of users, or a general population, the ML algorithm may analyze the data associated with the current motion sickness event (e.g., symptoms, information associated with the specific user) with the historical data (e.g., symptoms, information associated with the users or population associated with historical data) to predict or determine the likelihood that a technique may be successful with the specific user.”, [0044]);
determine that the user's medical history contains the same common medical characteristic ([0044]); and
execute, for the user, a same remedial action ([0029], [0036], [0044], [0061] – [0063], [0065] – [0067], [0081], [0092] - [0093]) as executed for the plurality of users in response to determining that the user's medical history contains the same common medical characteristic as the medical histories of the plurality of users ([0029], [0036], [0044], [0061] – [0063], [0065] – [0067], [0081], [0092] - [0093]).
Regarding claims 18 and 7, Delaney teaches all limitations of claims 1 and 12. Delaney teaches the system (abstract, [0011]) further comprising, the control circuity (“sickness reduction system 100”, [0031], Figure 1) configured to:
train a machine learning algorithm with data from the user profiles of the plurality of users (“for a certain reaction, result, or condition to occur (e.g., for the sickness reduction program 116 to terminate). The threshold may be defined automatically by a machine learning (ML) algorithm that is trained from previously used data stored locally, in the database 112A or remotely, in the database 112B. Machine learning algorithms may utilize techniques, such as classification or regression, to infer with some level of confidence that the probability that such input (e.g. the physiological state of the user) has exceeded such defined threshold.”, [0044]); and
select a remedial action ([0029], [0036], [0044], [0061] – [0063], [0065] – [0067], [0081], [0092] - [0093]) for the user based on relevance of the data to the user's profile ([0044]; ([0029], [0036], [0061] – [0063], [0065] – [0067], [0081], [0092] - [0093]).
Regarding claims 21 and 10, Delaney teaches all limitations of claims 1 and 12. Delaney teaches the user profiles of the plurality of users are populated by the control circuitry based on information accessed from any one of a medical server, pharmacy server, social media server, or a motion sickness server ([0013], [0014], [0025], [0030] – [0031]).
Regarding claims 22 and 11, Delaney teaches all limitations of claims 1 and 12. Delaney teaches the system further comprising, the control circuity (“sickness reduction system 100”, [0031], Figure 1) configured to:
select a first remedial action ([0029], [0036], [0044], [0061] – [0063], [0065] – [0067], [0081], [0092] - [0093], Figure 2), from a selection between the first remedial action and a second remedial action ([0076], [0092]), for automatically executing the remedial action for the user ([0076], [0092], [0093]),
wherein the first remedial action is selected based on a faster reduction in cybersickness score below a predetermined threshold severity level than the second remedial action (“personalized ameliorative techniques (i.e. specific techniques) are obtained at 210. Specific techniques may include methods that were effective for the specific user of the sickness reduction program 116 in the current time”, [0071]).
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 8 – 9 and 19 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delaney in view of Bathina et al (US 20200375527 A1, hereinafter “Bathina”).
Regarding claims 19 and 8, Delaney teaches all limitations of claims 1 and 12. Delaney does not teach the common demographic characteristic is age.
However, Bathina discloses a “method comprises provisioning a virtual reality device with at least one sleep program configured to provide an immersive experience to facilitate a sleep session for a user” (abstract) and teaches a common demographic characteristic is age (“demographic information, in one embodiment may include (gender, race, age, annual income, number of children, marital status, hobbies, etc.)”, [0038]).
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 such that the common demographic characteristic is age, as taught by Bathina, for the benefit of providing an effective recommendation for the user (Bathina: [0038]).
Regarding claims 20 and 9, Delaney teaches all limitations of claims 1 and 12. Delaney does not teach the common demographic characteristic is ethnicity.
However, Bathina discloses a “method comprises provisioning a virtual reality device with at least one sleep program configured to provide an immersive experience to facilitate a sleep session for a user” (abstract) and teaches a common demographic characteristic is ethnicity (“demographic information, in one embodiment may include (gender, race, age, annual income, number of children, marital status, hobbies, etc.)”, [0038]).
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 such that the common demographic characteristic is ethnicity, as taught by Bathina, for the benefit of providing an effective recommendation for the user (Bathina: [0038]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kwatra et al (US 20220001238 A1) discloses a “method, a computer program product, and a computer system determine a customized augmented reality workout based on a cognitive state of a user” (abstract) and “demographics such as nationality, age, gender, etc., access to a gym and/or workout equipment, etc.), etc. The preference settings may include various subjective indications personal tastes” ([0032]).
Khaderi et al (US 20170293356 A1) discloses “methods and systems for modifying a media, such as Virtual Reality, Augmented Reality, or Mixed Reality (VR/AR/MxR) media based on a vision profile and a target application. In embodiments of the specification, a Sensory Data Exchange (SDE) is created that enables identification of various vision profiles for users and user groups” (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