DETAILED ACTION
Status
1. This Office Action is responsive to claims filed for Application No. 18026324 on March 14, 2023. Please note claims 1-29 are cancelled and claims 30-48 are pending and have been examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
4. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
5. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “acquiring a state inside and outside….”; “estimating a state of sickness….” And “executing a restricting process of …” in claims 30, 36 and 42. The corresponding structure of “acquiring a state inside and outside….” is found in Fig. 4, “various sensors 5” and “HMD 3” in paragraph [0040]-[0043]; the corresponding structure of “estimating a state of sickness….” is found in Fig. 4, “estimation unit 12c” of control unit 12 such as Micro Processing Unit (MPU) in paragraph [0065]-0070]; and the corresponding structure of “executing a restricting process of …” is found in Fig. 4, “restraint processing unit 12d” of control unit 12 such as Micro Processing Unit (MPU) in paragraph [0065]-[0070].
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent.
7. Claims 30-33 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Watson (US 20180296921 A1).
Regarding claim 30, Watson discloses: An information processing device for a digital content including virtual space experience configured to execute processes of (see Fig. 1, Figs. 6, discloses the head mounted display (HMD) system/method for presenting virtual reality/augmented reality with multimedia content):
acquiring a state inside (see Fig. 1, Figs. 6, step 604/step 622, [0080] and [0086] discloses the monitoring the physical characteristics of the user using camera such as any signs of motion sickness (such as tracking of the eyes, facial expressions, body movements) i. e. within user’s status) and outside related to a user of a digital content (see Fig. 1, Fig. 6B, [0080], [0086], discloses monitoring the HMD is presenting a virtual reality with multimedia content, such as rate of game progress, current game intensity, or rate of change of display);
estimating a state of sickness of the user based on a state that is acquired in the acquiring (see Fig. 6B, operation 624 for determining if the user is experiencing motion sickness based on the monitoring of the physical characteristics of the user while the virtual reality is being presented); and
executing a restraining process of sickness related to a sound of the digital content in accordance with the state of sickness of the user that is estimated in the estimating (see Fig. 6B, [0088]-[0089], discloses if the user is experiencing motion sickness, the method flows to operation 628, where supplemental sound is delivered to the user. The supplemental sound is combined with sound from the multimedia content for delivery to the user, and the supplemental sound is defined to decrease the motion sickness experienced by the user).
Regarding claim 31, Watson teaches the limitations of parent claim 30, Watson further teaches wherein the information processing device is further configured to execute processes of: executing, as the restraining process, a reducing process of sound image localization feeling in the sound of the digital content (Figs. 6, [0082], step 608 and [0108], discloses the sound localization module 812, which performs sound localization for sounds to be delivered to speakers or headphones, providing a 3D sound simulation for objects rendered or displayed in the HMD to provide real-time 3D effect sounds for reducing the motion sickness).
Regarding claim 32, Watson teaches the limitations of parent claim 30, Watson further teaches wherein the information processing device is further configured to execute processes of: executing, as the restraining process, a reducing process of a sound-volume changing speed in the sound of the digital content (see [0042] and [0055]).
Regarding claim 33, Watson teaches the limitations of parent claim 30, Watson further teaches wherein the information processing device is further configured to execute processes of: executing, as the restraining process, a restricting process of a volume changing width in the sound of the digital content (see [0055], discloses reducing the volume, reducing the spectrum for the game sound for control the motion sickness).
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 34 and 35 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Shouldice et al. (US 20200383580 A1) discloses for people prone to motion sickness, a nap or sleep time with an initial relax phase using deep breathing (with optional audio cues or synchronized music provided by the processing device 100 to guide the user to achieve deep breathing) with eyes closed, can help reduce any such sickness. The vehicle suspension may be controlled by the processing device to perform more correcting actions in order to reduce the feeling of motion sickness, and may move a sleeping position (e.g., a controllably adjustable seat) towards the front of the vehicle if many corners and bumps or grade changes are expected on the route (see [0233]).
Morimoto et al. (US 20090002142 A1) discloses to reduce motion sickness of a backseat passenger, a method is also proposed for informing the backseat passenger through an auditory sense or a visual sense that the brake will be applied on the vehicle or that the vehicle will turn left/right, by providing audio guidance such as "the car will decelerate" or "the car will turn right" and by displaying a rightward arrow when the vehicle turns right, in response to operation information from the steering wheel, the brake, and the turn signal ([0006]).
Rober et al. (US 20180089900 A, Rober reference is provided in IDS) discloses general teachings of a VR system for vehicles that may implement methods that address problems with vehicles in motion that may result in motion sickness for passengers in which audio cues may be played to indicate upcoming maneuvers; for example, a sound or tone may be played to the left ear to indicate an upcoming left turn, and to the right ear to indicate an upcoming right turn, with different tones or sounds played to both ears to indicate upcoming descents or climbs for passenger to help prevent motion sickness (Abstract, [0087]).
Palmieri (US 20170345212 A1) discloses where audio cues are added to the audio for the virtual reality display to provide non-visual movement cues to the user. For example, high-velocity nearby objects (which are likely to cause high optic flow) may cause increasing directional turbulence noise as they approach. By reducing the disconnect between visual and non-visual cues, such audio signals can further reduce the occurrence of kinetosis. Similarly, when the user's virtual avatar is turning, more noise in one ear (such as the outside ear of the turn) can provide a non-visual cue corresponding to the visual display ([0032]).
As per independent claim 34, the prior art, whether considered alone or in combination, fail to disclose or suggest the technical features of executing balance adjustment between the restraining process related to the sound and the restraining process related to the image in accordance with the state of sickness of the user, in the context of restricting motion sickness of a user due to a digital content including virtual space experience, as a whole, in the manner claimed is not sufficiently taught or suggested in the prior art.
As per independent claim 35, the prior art, whether considered alone or in combination, fail to disclose or suggest the technical features of executing a restraining process of sickness for urging the user by using a sound to take a behavior that reduces his/her sickness, in accordance with the state of sickness of the user that is estimated in the estimating, in the context of restricting motion sickness of a user due to a digital content including virtual space experience, as a whole, in the manner claimed is not sufficiently taught or suggested in the prior art.
Reasons for Allowance
9. Claims 36-48 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement for reasons for allowance, after thorough updated search and consideration:
Regarding clam 36, the closest prior art Watson (US 20180296921 A1) discloses: An information processing device for a digital content including virtual space experience configured to execute processes of (see Fig. 1, Figs. 6, discloses the head mounted display (HMD) system/method for presenting virtual reality/augmented reality with multimedia content):
acquiring a state inside (see Fig. 1, Figs. 6, step 604/step 622, [0080] and [0086] discloses the monitoring the physical characteristics of the user using camera such as any signs of motion sickness (such as tracking of the eyes, facial expressions, body movements) i. e. within user’s status) and outside related to a user of a digital content (see Fig. 1, Fig. 6B, [0080], [0086], discloses monitoring the HMD is presenting a virtual reality with multimedia content, such as rate of game progress, current game intensity, or rate of change of display);
estimating a state of sickness of the user based on a state that is acquired in the acquiring (see Fig. 6B, operation 624 for determining if the user is experiencing motion sickness based on the monitoring of the physical characteristics of the user while the virtual reality is being presented); and
executing a restraining process of sickness related to at least one of a sound or an image of the digital content in accordance with the state of sickness of the user that is estimated in the estimating see Fig. 6B, [0088]-[0089], discloses if the user is experiencing motion sickness, the method flows to operation 628, where supplemental sound is delivered to the user. The supplemental sound is combined with sound from the multimedia content for delivery to the user, and the supplemental sound is defined to decrease the motion sickness experienced by the user).
However, the closest prior arts Watson (US 20180296921 A1), Shouldice et al. (US 20200383580 A1), Morimoto et al. (US 20090002142 A1), Rober et al. (US 20180089900 A1) and Palmieri (US 20170345212 A1), whether considered alone or in combination, fail to disclose or suggest the technical features of when executing the restraining process, executing a balance adjustment between the restraining process related to the sound and the restraining process related to the image in accordance with the state of sickness of the user, in the context of restricting motion sickness of a user due to a digital content including virtual space experience, as a whole, in the manner claimed is not sufficiently taught or suggested in the prior art.
Regarding claim 42, the closest prior art Watson discloses: An information processing device for a digital content including virtual space experience configured to execute processes of (see Fig. 1, Figs. 6, discloses the head mounted display (HMD) system/method for presenting virtual reality/augmented reality with multimedia content):
acquiring a state inside (see Fig. 1, Figs. 6, step 604/step 622, [0080] and [0086] discloses the monitoring the physical characteristics of the user using camera such as any signs of motion sickness (such as tracking of the eyes, facial expressions, body movements) i. e. within user’s status) and outside related to a user of a digital content (see Fig. 1, Fig. 6B, [0080], [0086], discloses monitoring the HMD is presenting a virtual reality with multimedia content, such as rate of game progress, current game intensity, or rate of change of display);
estimating a state of sickness of the user based on a state that is acquired in the acquiring (see Fig. 6B, operation 624 for determining if the user is experiencing motion sickness based on the monitoring of the physical characteristics of the user while the virtual reality is being presented); and
However, the closest prior arts Watson (US 20180296921 A1), Shouldice et al. (US 20200383580 A1), Morimoto et al. (US 20090002142 A1), Rober et al. (US 20180089900 A1) and Palmieri (US 20170345212 A1), whether considered alone or in combination, fail to disclose or suggest the technical features of executing a restraining process of sickness for urging the user by using a sound to take a behavior that reduces his/her sickness, in accordance with the state of sickness of the user that is estimated in the estimating, in the context of restricting motion sickness of a user due to a digital content including virtual space experience, as a whole, in the manner claimed is not sufficiently taught or suggested in the prior art.
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISHNA P. NEUPANE whose telephone number is (571)270-7291. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 8:30am-5:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, BENJAMIN C. LEE can be reached on (571) 272-2963. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KRISHNA P NEUPANE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2629