DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “at least one ability factor associated with each of the multiple such that…” which appears to be missing a word. Appropriate correction is required.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-8, 12 and 14-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tal (pub. no. 20220343615).
Regarding claim 1, Tal discloses a method comprising: identifying a potential collision area for multiple users, wherein each of the multiple users have respective immersive experiences (”A system and a method for mixed reality immersive simulation that can be used for simulating a dynamically deformed virtual space that is extensive and spacious in comparison to the actual physical source space surrounding the participants. Said system and method may also provide a multiple spaces simulation, such as alternate combat arenas where several different participants may operate in different mixed reality sub-scenes, while sharing the same physical space as a source space, enabling maximized close quarter spaces”, abstract;
”The present invention provides a system and a method for MR immersive simulation that can be used for simulating a dynamically deformed virtual space that is extensive and spacious in comparison to the actual physical source space surrounding the participants. Said system and method may also provide a multiple spaces simulation, such as alternate combat arenas where several different participants may operate in different MR sub-scenes, while sharing the same physical space as a source space, enabling maximized close quarter spaces. Such a scenario, for example, may include participants combating on different stories of the same virtual building, or combating on different parts of a warfare arena.
Said system and method may further include applying a safety mechanism for the purpose of possible collision detection along with the supervising of participants' movements in relation to obstacles and barriers, thus, allow a real-world type movement of participants inside a certain, possibly confined, physical space while improving MR operation and immersion sensation“, [0023] & [0024];
“Reference is made to FIG. 2, which constitutes a schematic perspective view of a MR scenario enacted by the use of a MR immersive system 10 according to some embodiments of the invention. As shown, at least two participants, B and C, are occupying a restricted source space 24. According to some embodiments, controller 100 may execute a dynamic deformation to create an MR scenario that comprises extensive object space 20 having more than one object sub-spaces or in other words, a modified object space 20. For example, said MR scenario may be a tactical operation involving rooms clearing task as part of an urban warfare operation. According to some embodiments, the rooms to be cleared can be located on different stories at the same building and an MR scenario may divert participant B to climb up a staircase and clear a room located on the first floor, while participant C may be instructed to clear the room located on the ground floor. According to some embodiments, the MR scenario may comprise a staircase or a door as part of the object space layout 22, wherein the staircase may provide participant B with a real sensation of climbing to the first floor and the door may provide participants B and C with a real sensation of entering the building”, [0103]);
prioritizing the multiple users' immersive experiences; calculating an adaptation needed to be made to prevent a collision, based on the prioritization (“Reference is made to FIG. 6 which constitutes a diagram illustrating a source space and an object spaces and tiles forming a MR scenario enacted by the use of a MR immersive system 10, according to some embodiments of the invention. A person skilled in the art would appreciate that embodiments such as the aforementioned general mathematical representation that may include spatial alterations, shape transformations and other dynamically forming, can be materialized by various common mathematical means which dynamically deform and/or translate the object space into the available source space (available, because some of the source space may be already occupied by other MR operations/scenarios or physical objects). According to some embodiments, such deformation would be performed taking into account important scenario properties and their predefined scoring (as illustrated hereinafter in FIG. 7).
According to some embodiments, more important scenario properties will be maintained while object space and/or object tiles are mathematically deformed to fit into a source space. For example, object space 620 comprised of many potential object tiles 630, whereby object space 620 and object tiles 630 may be dynamically deformed so as to fit into source space 610. Such adaptation and selection of tiles to be deformed is operable by selection method (substantially illustrated hereinafter in FIG. 7.
According to some embodiments, some tiles 630 and their needed warping are predefined and stored in using controller 100 (not shown) to enable low system latency and for emulating a real-time user experience. According to some embodiments, tiles 630 and their needed warping are calculated on a consecutive basis in accordance with decision 720 (substantially illustrated hereinafter in FIG. 7) and thus saving on system resources. According to some embodiments, tiles 630 amount, type, characterization needed warping and so forth specifics are optimized while balancing between desired real-time user experience and system resources limitations or capacity.
Reference is made to FIG. 7 which constitutes a flowchart diagram illustrating an example for a method of using important scenario properties scoring for object tile selection, during a MR scenario enacted by the use of a MR immersive system 10, according to some embodiments of the invention. According to some embodiments, a feature or a certain situation that is considered essential to the completion of an operation can be defined as an “important scenario property”. For example, a constant and direct line of sight between participants from inside a room towards the reconnoiter participant on the walkway can be defined as an important scenario property (which allows, for example, sign communication between participants). Another example for important scenario property can be the firing distance from a participant to a target in comparison with a known firing range of a certain weapon. Another example for important scenario property can be an upcoming change in simulated virtual setting, such as an unexpected turn in a tunnel which trainee is mitigating. Another example for important scenario property can be the prioritizing of different participant's goals or actions.
According to some embodiments, whereby a participant operation in source space 711 is instigated by participant experiencing an object tile 710 and operating therein, the participant's said operations are evaluated against source space limitation 712 which may provide use with hard stop instructions 713 (such as to prevent collision with a physical wall), and against “soft” stops on user's 714 instigated by MR limitation score 715. According to some embodiments, the MR limitation score 715 is calculated in accordance with important scenario parameters 716 (which may incorporate various matters and issues such as real time evaluation considerations 717b, dynamic analysis of evolvement of scenario 717a, and so forth). The input of hard stop 713 on the participant, soft stop 714 on the participant and further important scenario parameters 716, are calculated so as to grade further scenario limitations 719”, [0119] - [0123]);
and adapting at least one of the multiple users' immersive experiences, based on the calculated adaptation, such that the collision is prevented (“According to some embodiments, in case hard stop 713 on the participant is of dominant value (i.e. actual collision with physical barrier is eminent) override 713a strongly affects selection of next object tile/s for user operation in MR scenario 720 so as to avert a detrimental effect to user's personal integrity; otherwise grade MR scenario limitations 719 are used to select next object tile for user operation in MR scenario 720”, [0124]).
Regarding claim 3, Tal discloses monitoring a physical location for each of the multiple users; and monitoring a virtual status of each of the multiple users such that the multiple users' immersive experiences can be prioritized ([0119] – [0123]).
Regarding claim 4, Tal discloses the calculation of the adaptation further includes: monitoring an upcoming trajectory for each of the multiple users to calculate upcoming physical locations of each of the multiple users such that the potential collision area can be identified ([0119] – [0123]).
Regarding claim 5, Tal discloses the calculation of the adaptation further includes: analyzing virtual environments of the multiple users, to calculate overlapping physical locations of the multiple users, such that the potential collision area can be identified ([0119] – [0123]).
Regarding claim 6, Tal discloses the prioritization of the multiple users' immersive experiences is based on at least one factor related to the immersive experience selected from the group comprising: an intensity factor, a significance factor and a state factor ([0122]).
Regarding claim 7, Tal discloses the adapting at least one of the multiple users' immersive experiences is processed by a central server that is connected to each of the multiple users' systems that provide the immersive experience (“Reference is made to FIG. 1, which constitutes a schematic perspective view of an MR scenario enacted by the use of a MR immersive system 10 according to some embodiments of the invention. As shown, MR immersive system 10 comprises 3 main devices:
1. A controller 100 such as a computer configured to execute a MR scenario and may control various devices comprising the MR immersive system 10. According to some embodiments, the controller 100 may be a separated device or may be integrated into a personal sensory apparatus 200 (disclosed hereinafter)”, [0087] & [0088]).
Regarding claim 8, Tal discloses the adapting at least one of the multiple users' immersive experiences is processed by the system of a user of the multiple users' that provide the immersive experience for the user ([0087] & [0088]).
Claims 12 and 14-19 are directed to systems that implement the methods of claims 1 and 3-8 respectively and are rejected for the same reasons as claims 1 and 3-8 respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 9-11 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tal (pub. no. 20220343615) in view of Newcombe et al (pat. no. 10,901,215).
Regarding claims 9-11, it is noted that Tal does not disclose an adaptation that changes the interaction mode, placing an object or changing content. Newcombe however, teaches an adaptation that changes the interaction mode, placing and object and changing content (“Referring now to FIGS. 9A-B, 10-B, and 11A-B, when the HMD device 200 presents a user with a virtual environment 900 and the user's location indicates an elevated risk of collision, the electronic display 125 may also present a portion of the model 500 to orient the user to his or her location relative to the real-world environment 400. As shown in FIG. 9A, a virtual environment 900 may be rendered and a portion of the virtual environment may be displayed in the HMD device 200 according to the position and orientation of the HMD device 200. Because the user controls the position and orientation of the HMD device 200 by walking around in the real-world environment 400 and by “looking” in a particular direction, the user can control what portion of the virtual environment 900 is displayed in the HMD device 200”, col. 14, lines 20-24).
Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Here both Tal and Newcombe are directed to virtual reality systems. To add displaying a model of the real world in collision scenarios as taught by Newcombe to the Tal invention would be to combine a prior art element according to a known method to yield a predicable result. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tal to include the Newcombe collision avoidance display. To do so would improve the safety of the system.
Claim 20 is directed to a system that implements the method of claim 9 and is rejected for the same reasons as claim 9.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 & 13 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The Applicant is directed to the attached “Notice of References Cited” for additional relevant prior art. The Examiner respectfully requests the Applicant to fully review each reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAWRENCE STEFAN GALKA whose telephone number is (571)270-1386. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6-9 & 12-5.
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, David Lewis can be reached at 571-272-7673. 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.
/LAWRENCE S GALKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715