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, 4, 5, 9, 12-15, 18 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities: at line 17 of claim 1, “immersion vessel;” should apparently read –immersion vessel; and--; at lines 1, 5 and 10 of claim 4, “rendering” should apparently read –rendering the--; at line 1 of claim 5, “rendering” should apparently read –rendering the--; at line 5 of claim 9, “between sixth value” should apparently read –between the sixth value--; at line 2 of claim 12, “rendering” should apparently read –rendering the--; at line 1 of claims 13-15, “rendering” should apparently read –rendering the--; at line 4 of claim 18, “in response” should apparently read –and in response--; and at line 3 of claim 19, “for the user” should apparently read –of the user--. 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 1-5 and 7-20 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 at line 4 recites the limitation "the physiological state". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “approximately” in claims 7-9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately” is not defined by the claim(s), the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would expect to be provided with an acceptable range of what would constitute “approximately” with respect to time, however such appears to be absent from the disclosure.
Claim 8 at line 3 recites the limitation "the set of actuators". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 at line 3 recites the limitation "the digital scent device". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 at line 5 recites the limitation "the second target value". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-4, 7-10, 12, 13 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a method for providing an experience to a user through mental processes and display/showing of images to the user. The step of “calculating a target value of a first bioindicator of the physiological state of the user” could amount to a practitioner observing a patient’s physiological state and making a judgement of what a target value should be of the patient based on the observation. The step of “rendering sensory representations of a set of elements…within the sensory immersion vessel” (and also “at a second time…rendering the sensory representations…”) could amount to a practitioner showing the patient a set of elements on a piece of paper; or amount to generic steps performed by a computer display (which will be addressed below). The step of “calculating a first rate of progression….based on a difference between a first value…and the target value” could amount to the practitioner looking at data collected during the rendering of representations and mentally determining the difference between the newly collected data and the target value. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims, as written, can be performed in a practitioner’s mind.
While claim 1 recites the additional elements of a display and a set of speakers, these additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the steps of “rendering…a set of elements”; “rendering a set of visual objects…at a display” and “outputting a set of auditory signals…at a set of speakers” are merely being implemented on generic computer elements (a display and speakers) and thus do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea since they simply amount to implementing the abstract idea on generic computer components (display/speakers). Further, computer displays and speakers are well-understood, generic and conventional components in the virtual environment arts as suggested by U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0154148 and U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0046432.
Dependent claims 2-4, 12, 13 and 16-20 merely further limit the mental steps, or the steps of rendering sensory representations as noted above.
Dependent claim 7 further limits the “outputting a set of auditory signals at the set of speakers” step, which is addressed above, but does not amount to significantly more.
Dependent claim 8 does recite outputting a tactile signal and a set of actuators, which can read on a set of headphones, which is also is a well-understood and conventional component of a generic computer in the virtual environment arts as suggested by U.S. Patent No. 11,213,683.
Dependent claim 9 does recite outputting an olfactory signal at a digital scent device, but outputting a scent is also is a well-understood and conventional component of a generic computer in the virtual environment arts as suggested by U.S. Pub. No 2018/0296794 at paragraph [0052].
Dependent claim 10, while referencing arranging the recited values into a time series, and storing the time series in a user profile, such a recitation does not require any instructions to be performed by a specialized computer and therefore can read on a practitioner recording the values taken at specific times and then storing such times in a user profile, all of which can be implemented via pen/paper.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. Claims 1, 2, 12, 13, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hodges et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,012,926). Regarding claim 1, Hodges et al. (hereinafter Hodges) teaches a method for delivering a digital experience with a user of a sensory immersion vessel (Abstract, Figs. 1, 2, 4 and 11), comprising:
calculating a target value of a first bioindicator of the physiological state of the user (Fig. 3 and col. 8, lines 35-58: target is to reduce stress in patient when exposed to heights);
at an initial time, rendering sensory representations of a set of elements in a multi-sensory virtual environment within the sensory immersion vessel at an initial rate of progression (“initial exposure level” - Figs. 3, 5 and 8A; col. 9, lines 11-22 and col. 10, lines 18-29);
calculating a first rate of progression through the digital experience based on a first difference between a first value of the first bioindicator sampled at a first time and the target value of the first bioindicator (col. 9, lines 4-9: anxiety level sensed via a sensor for detecting pulse rate, blood pressure or epidermal moisture; and anxiety level monitored as described at step 102 in Fig. 3 and at col. 9, lines 23-38; also see Fig. 5); and
at a second time succeeding the first time, rendering the sensory representations of the set of elements in the multi-sensory virtual environment at the first rate of progression (virtual elevator may be elevated at a constant rate or varied as described at col. 9, lines 18-44), which comprises:
rendering a set of visual objects in the multi-sensory virtual environment at a display within the sensory immersion vessel (col. 10, lines 2-51 and Figs. 8A-8D); and
outputting a set of auditory signals corresponding to a first subset of the set of visual objects at a set of speakers 24 within the sensory immersion vessel (Fig. 1 and col. 13, lines 4-17).
Regarding claim 2, the method further comprises at a third time succeeding the second time during the digital experience, sampling a second value of the first bioindicator; calculating a second rate of progression through the digital experience based on a second difference between the second value of the first bioindicator and the target value of the first bioindicator; and at a fourth time succeeding the third time, rendering sensory representations of the set of elements in the multi-sensory virtual environment at the second rate of progression (as shown in Figs. 5 and 6, and at steps 155/158 and 175/176/177/186, anxiety levels will continuously be sampled/measured and the elevator rate of movement along with balcony scene may be changed or maintained consistent (Figs. 8A-9; col .9, lines 18-56; and col. 10, lines 66-67 – col. 11, lines 1-55).
Regarding claim 12, the method further comprises at the second time, rendering sensory representations of the set of elements in the multi-sensory virtual environment at a first sensory output magnitude (rate/speed) proportional to the first value of the first bioindicator (level of anxiety detected) (col. 9, lines 10-44).
Regarding claim 13, rendering sensory representations of the set of elements in the multi-sensory virtual environment at the first sensory output magnitude proportional to the first value of the first bioindicator comprises rendering movement of a first set of visual objects (different elevator levels) in the multi-sensory virtual environment at a rate proportional to a heart rate of the user (col. 10, lines 66-67 – col. 1-56).
Regarding claim 16, the method further comprises at a third time, succeeding the second time, measuring a second value of the first bioindicator; calculating a second difference between the second value of the first bioindicator and the target value of first bioindicator; and in response to determining that the second difference is less than the first difference: correlating a third difference between the first value of the first bioindicator and the second value of the first bioindicator with the first sensory output magnitude, and rendering the sensory representations of the set of elements in the multi-sensory virtual environment at a second sensory output magnitude (speed) that is less than the first sensory output magnitude (as shown in Figs. 5 and 6, and at steps 155/158 and 175/176/177/186, anxiety levels will continuously be sampled/measured and the elevator rate of movement along with balcony scene may be changed or maintained consistent (Figs. 8A-9; col 9, lines 18-56; and col. 10, lines 66-67 – col. 11, lines 1-55; also see specifically col. 9, lines 21-23: “Based upon the patient anxiety, the speed or rate at which the elevator ascends or descends may be controllably varied”).
Regarding claim 18, the method further comprises at a third time, succeeding the second time, sampling a second value of the first bioindicator; calculating a second difference between the second value of the first bioindicator and the target value of first bioindicator; and in response to determining that the second difference is less than the first difference: correlating a third difference between the first value of the first bioindicator and the second value of the first bioindicator with the first sensory output magnitude, and rendering the sensory representations of the set of elements in the multi-sensory virtual environment at a second sensory output magnitude (speed) that is less than the first sensory output magnitude (as shown in Figs. 5 and 6, and at steps 155/158 and 175/176/177/186, anxiety levels will continuously be sampled/measured and the elevator rate of movement along with balcony scene may be changed or maintained consistent (Figs. 8A-9; col 9, lines 18-56; and col. 10, lines 66-67 – col. 11, lines 1-55; also see specifically col. 9, lines 21-23: “Based upon the patient anxiety, the speed or rate at which the elevator ascends or descends may be controllably varied”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. Claims 3, 4, 7, 8, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hodges et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,012,926). Regarding claim 3, while Hodges does not disclose explicitly calculating a target value of a second bioindicator of the physiological state of the user, the target value of the second bioindicator corresponding to the target physiological state of the user; at a third time succeeding the second time during the digital experience, sampling a first value of the second bioindicator; calculating a second rate of progression through the digital experience based on a difference between the first value of the second bioindicator and the target value of the second bioindicator; and at a third time succeeding the second time, rendering the sensory representations of the set of elements in the multi-sensory virtual environment at the second rate of progression, Hodges makes such obvious as Hodges teaches that other bioindicators can be used to determine the stress levels (col. 9, lines 4-9 and col. 11, lines 12-15), and further requires continuous monitoring/testing of the patient’s anxiety levels, comparing such to thresholds, and rendering different representations of the set of elements in the virtual imagery such as halting the virtual experience, or altering/maintaining it (such as seen in Figs. 8A-8D) to achieve the desired target state of the user which is the reduction of anxiety in the user (col. 10, lines 66-67 – col. 11, lines 1-55 and col .9, lines 18-56). Additionally, even if the patient’s anxiety level is high, Hodges discloses maintaining a higher floor, or even increase of elevation of the floors (or rate of progression), in order to achieve an overall reduction in stress levels through exposure therapy (col. 9, lines 44-55).
Regarding claim 4, Hodges teaches wherein rendering the sensory representations of the set of elements in the multi-sensory virtual environment at the initial rate of progression comprises rendering a set of visual objects moving at an initial speed, corresponding to the initial rate of progression, within the multi-sensory virtual environment: wherein rendering sensory representations of the set of elements in the multi-sensory virtual environment at the first rate of progression comprises rendering the set of visual objects moving at a first speed, corresponding to the first rate of progression, within the multi-sensory virtual environment (col. 9, lines 23-56 and col. 11, lines 31-67 – col. 12, lines 1-5); and wherein rendering sensory representations of the set of elements in the multi-sensory virtual environment at the second rate of progression comprises rendering movement of the set of visual objects at a second speed corresponding to the second rate of progression (increase/decrease rate/speed as cited above).
Regarding claim 7, while Hodges does not disclose explicitly: at a third time, succeeding the first time, sampling a second value of the first bioindicator; at approximately the third time, outputting a second set of audio signals at the set of speakers; after outputting the second set of audio signals, sampling a third value of the first bioindicator; and calculating a second difference between the third value of the first bioindicator and the second value of the first bioindicator,
Hodges makes such obvious as Hodges teaches that the method further requires continuous monitoring/testing of the patient’s anxiety levels, comparing such to thresholds, and rendering different representations of the set of elements in the virtual imagery such as halting the virtual experience, or altering/maintaining it (such as seen in Figs. 8A-8D) to achieve the desired target state of the user which is the reduction of anxiety in the user (col. 10, lines 66-67 – col. 11, lines 1-55 and col .9, lines 18-56). Additionally, Hodges discloses that different audio signals are provided according to the imagery displayed (col. 13, lines 4-17 and col. 5, lines 16-31). Further, while Hodges does not explicitly disclose calculating a sensitivity of the first bioindicator to auditory stimuli based on the second difference, Hodges further makes such obvious in light of the teaching that a sensor 25 provided to the headgear monitors the position and movement of a user’s head then adjusts the images and sound emitted to the user accordingly (col. 5, lines 16-31), such sensing of which would obviate a sensitivity to auditory stimulation as a user would move their head away from a sound which induces anxiety in the virtual environment.
Regarding claim 8, while Hodges does not disclose explicitly: at a fourth time, succeeding the first time, sampling a fourth value of the first bioindicator; at approximately the fourth time, outputting a tactile signal at the set of actuators; after outputting the tactile signal, sampling a fifth value of the first bioindicator; calculating a third difference between the fifth value of the first bioindicator and the fourth value of the first bioindicator, Hodges makes such obvious as Hodges teaches that the method further requires continuous monitoring/testing of the patient’s anxiety levels, comparing such to thresholds, and rendering different stimuli in conjunction with the virtual imagery such as vibrating the elevator platform in conjunction with the simulated movement of the elevator within the virtual environment in order to add to the sense of movement visually apparent to the user (col. 10, lines 18-59) to achieve the desired target state of the user which is the reduction of anxiety in the user (col. 10, lines 66-67 – col. 11, lines 1-55 and col .9, lines 18-56). Further, while Hodges does not explicitly disclose calculating a sensitivity of the first bioindicator to tactile stimuli based on the third difference. Hodges further makes such obvious in light of the teaching that a sensor a sensor tracks movement of the hand in the vicinity of the handrail (col. 10, lines 31-51). Such sensing would indicate a user’s level of anxiety due to gripping or release of a grip, which would indicate a sensitivity of the first bioindicator to tactile stimuli based on the third difference.
Regarding claim 19, while Hodges does not disclose explicitly: in response to detecting that the user has sustained the target physiological state for a predetermined duration: rendering sensory representations of the set of elements in the multi-sensory virtual environment at a second sensory output magnitude greater than the first sensory output magnitude; sampling a second value of the first bioindicator; and in response to determining that a second difference between the second value of the first bioindicator and the target value of the first bioindicator falls below a threshold difference, rendering sensory representations of the set of elements in the multi-sensory virtual environment at a third sensory output magnitude greater than the second sensory output magnitude, Hodges makes such obvious as Hodges teaches that in response to detecting that the user has sustained the target physiological state, which may be a decrease in anxiety level for some period of time, increasing ascension of levels of the elevator and the speed/rate of rise of the elevators while continuously monitoring/sampling the user’s anxiety levels (col. 1, lines 40-62 and col. 9, lines 10-56).
Regarding claim 20, while Hodges does not disclose explicitly at the second time, rendering sensory representations of the set of elements in the multi-sensory virtual environment at a first sensory output magnitude proportional to a first value of a second bioindicator different from the first bioindicator, Hodges makes such obvious as Hodges teaches that other bioindicators can be used to determine the stress levels (col. 9, lines 4-9 and col. 11, lines 12-15), and further requires continuous monitoring/testing of the patient’s anxiety levels, comparing such to thresholds, and rendering different representations of the set of elements in the virtual imagery such as halting the virtual experience, altering/maintaining it (such as seen in Figs. 8A-8D), or changing the speed/rate at which the elevators ascend or descend to achieve the desired target state of the user which is the reduction of anxiety in the user (col. 10, lines 66-67 – col. 11, lines 1-55 and col 9, lines 18-56).
20. Claims 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hodges et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,012,926) in view of Bretschneider et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0275722). Regarding claim 5, Hodges teaches that rendering sensory representations of the set of elements in the multi-sensory virtual environment comprises: outputting tactile representations of a second subset of visual objects at a set of actuators within the sensory immersion vessel (col. 10, lines 51-59: via vibration of “the elevator platform in conjunction with a simulated movement of the elevator within the virtual environment”). However, Hodges fails to disclose outputting olfactory representations of a third subset of visual objects at a digital scent device within the sensory immersion vessel. Bretschneider et al. (hereinafter Bretschneider) teaches an immersion pod comprising a virtual environment for providing a virtual environment which compares to that of a physical environment (see Abstract and [0024]), as likewise disclosed by Hodges, wherein various environmental representations fo the virtual device may be generated to, and detected by, the user [0070], in order to provide the user of a combination of sensory cues of the physical environment being emulated by the virtual device such as smells, elevation changes, and vibrations [0024]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a digital scent device as taught by Bretschneider, into a method for providing a virtual environment for reducing anxiety levels in a user as Hodges recognizes the use of a virtual elevator and its associated sensory generations such as elevation changes and vibration, and Bretschneider teaches that a virtual environment which includes a combination of cues from the physical environment such as elevation changes, vibration, and smells may create an immersive experience for a user by involving many, if not all, of the user's senses [0024].
Regarding claim 9, while Hodges does not disclose explicitly: at a fifth time, succeeding the first time, sampling a sixth value of the first bioindicator, at approximately the fifth time, outputting an sensory signal at an actuator; after outputting the sensory signal, sampling a sixth value of the first bioindicator; and calculating a fourth difference between sixth value of the first bioindicator and the fifth value of the first bioindicator, Hodges makes such obvious as Hodges teaches that the method further requires continuous monitoring/testing of the patient’s anxiety levels, comparing such to thresholds, and rendering different stimuli in conjunction with the virtual imagery such as vibrating the elevator platform in conjunction with the simulated movement of the elevator within the virtual environment in order to add to the sense of movement visually apparent to the user (col. 10, lines 18-59) to achieve the desired target state of the user which is the reduction of anxiety in the user (col. 10, lines 66-67 – col. 11, lines 1-55 and col .9, lines 18-56).
However, Hodges fails to disclose explicitly that the sensory signal output to an actuator is an olfactory signal at a digital scent device. Bretschneider teaches an immersion pod comprising a virtual environment for providing a virtual environment which compares to that of a physical environment (see Abstract and [0024]), as likewise disclosed by Hodges, wherein various environmental representations of the virtual device may be generated to, and detected by, the user [0070], in order to provide the user of a combination of sensory cues of the physical environment being emulated by the virtual device such as smells, elevation changes, and vibrations [0024]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a digital scent device as taught by Bretschneider, into a method for providing a virtual environment for reducing anxiety levels in a user as Hodges recognizes the use of a virtual elevator and its associated sensory generations such as elevation changes and vibration, and Bretschneider teaches that a virtual environment which includes a combination of signals/cues from the physical environment such as elevation changes, vibration, and smells may create an immersive experience for a user by involving many, if not all, of the user's senses [0024].
Further, while Hodges does not explicitly disclose calculating a sensitivity of the first bioindicator to olfactory stimuli based on the fourth difference, Hodges further makes such obvious in light of the teaching that a sensor 25 provided to the headgear monitors the position and movement of a user’s head then adjusts the images and sound emitted to the user accordingly (col. 5, lines 16-31), such sensing of which would obviate a sensitivity to olfactory stimulation as a user would move their head away from a scent which induces anxiety in the virtual environment.
Double Patenting
21. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
22. Claims 1-5 and 7-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 and 6-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,527,318. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the instant claims and those of the patent disclose a method for delivering a digital experience with a user of a sensory immersion vessel comprising: calculating a target value of a first bioindicator of the physiological state of the user; at an initial time, rendering sensory representations of a set of elements in a multi-sensory virtual environment within the sensory immersion vessel at an initial rate of progression; calculating a first rate of progression through the digital experience based on a first difference between a first value of the first bioindicator sampled at a first time and the target value of the first bioindicator; and at a second time succeeding the first time, rendering the sensory representations of the set of elements in the multi-sensory virtual environment at the first rate of progression, which comprises: rendering a set of visual objects in the multi-sensory virtual environment at a display within the sensory immersion vessel; and outputting a set of auditory signals corresponding to a first subset of the set of visual objects at a set of speakers within the sensory immersion vessel, with dependent claims 2-5 and 7-20 of the instant application corresponding to claims 2-4 and 6-19 of the patent.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: U.S. Patent No. 6,896,655; and U.S. Patent No. 9,646,509.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE HOPKINS MATTHEWS whose telephone number is (571)272-9058. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 am - 4:00 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, Charles A Marmor, II can be reached at (571) 272-4730. 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.
/CHRISTINE H MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights