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 .
Priority
Applicant is advised of possible benefits under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) and (f), wherein an application for patent filed in the United States may be entitled to claim priority to an application filed in a foreign country.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in the instant Application No. 18/113,252, filed on 2/23/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 2/23/2023, 2/19/2025, and 3/6/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Status
Claims 1-15 are pending.
Claims 1-15 are rejected.
Claim Interpretation
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.
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.
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 limitations are: “an acquisition part that acquires”, “a determination part that determines”, “a decision part that decides”, and “a transmission part that transmits” in claim 13, and “a reception part that receives”, “a specifying part that specifies”, and “an execution part that specifies…and executes” in claim 15. Paragraph [0057] of the specification provides sufficient detail for the acquision, determination, decision, and transmission parts of claim 13. Paragraph [0089] of the specification provides sufficient detail for the reception part of claim 15 as being generic and conventional elements of a computer such as those described in paragraph [0088] such as memory or programs stored within the memory. Paragraph [0097] of the specification provides sufficient detail for the specifying part of claim 15 as being generic and conventional elements of a computer such as those described in paragraph [0088] such as memory or programs stored within the memory. Paragraph [0139] of the specification provides sufficient detail for the execution part of claim 15 as being generic and conventional elements of a computer such as those described in paragraph [0088] such as memory or programs stored within the memory.
Because these claim limitations 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 § 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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more. The claims recite a method, device, CRM, and apparatus for presenting content of physical constitution based on genetic information. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because while claims 1-15 attempt to integrated the exception into a practical application, said application is either generically recited computer elements that do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea or it is insignificant extra solution activity and merely implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the computer elements only store and retrieve information in memory as well as perform basic calculations that are known to be well-understood, routine and conventional computer functions as recognized by the decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Framework with which to Analyze Subject Matter Eligibility:
Step 1: Are the claims directed to a category of stator subject matter (a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter)? [see MPEP § 2106.03]
Claims are directed to statutory subject matter, specifically a method (Claims 1-12), a device (Claim 13), a CRM (Claim 14), and an apparatus (Claim 15).
Step 2A Prong One: Do the claims recite a judicially recognized exception, i.e., an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon? [see MPEP § 2106.04(a)]
The claims herein recite abstract ideas, specifically mental processes and mathematical concepts.
With respect to the Step 2A Prong One evaluation, the instant claims are found herein to recite abstract ideas that fall into the grouping of mental processes and mathematical concepts.
Claims 1, 13-14: Determining a physical constitution, and deciding a presentation control program are processes of identifying, comparing/contrasting, and selecting information that can be done via pen and paper or within the human mind and are therefore abstract ideas, specifically mental processes.
Claim 2: The physical constitution being related to attentiveness or memory is merely further limiting the information itself, which is an abstract idea, specifically a mental process.
Claims 3 and 4: Determining whether attentiveness is low or high is a process of identifying, comparing/contrasting, and selecting information that can be done via pen and paper or within the human mind and is therefore an abstract idea, specifically a mental process. The presentation control program being the program specified is merely further limiting the information itself, which is an abstract idea, specifically a mental process.
Claim 5: Determining whether memory is bad or good is a process of identifying, comparing/contrasting, and selecting information that can be done via pen and paper or within the human mind and is therefore an abstract idea, specifically a mental process. The presentation control program being the program specified is merely further limiting the information itself, which is an abstract idea, specifically a mental process.
Claim 9: The gene information comprising information of the base sequence and nucleic acid is merely further limiting the information itself, which is an abstract idea, specifically a mental process.
Claim 10: Detecting a SNP and determining physical constitution based on the detection are processes of identifying, comparing/contrasting, and selecting information that can be done via pen and paper or within the human mind and are therefore abstract ideas, specifically mental processes.
Claim 11: The control information comprising the presentation control program is merely further limiting the information itself, which is an abstract idea, specifically a mental process.
Claim 12: The control information comprising the specified information is merely further limiting the information itself, which is an abstract idea, specifically a mental process.
Claim 15: The presentation control program being decided on the basis of a physical constitution of the user, specifying information of the surrounding user from detection data, specifies control information corresponding to identification information are processes of identifying, comparing/contrasting, and selecting information that can be done via pen and paper or within the human mind and are therefore abstract ideas, specifically mental processes.
Step 2A Prong Two: If the claims recite a judicial exception under prong one, then is the judicial exception integrated into a practical application? [see MPEP § 2106.04(d) and MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(c) & (e)-(h)]
Because the claims do recite judicial exceptions, direction under Step 2A Prong Two provides that the claims must be examined further to determine whether they integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
The following claims recite the following additional elements in the form of non-abstract elements:
Claims 1, and 13-14: Acquiring identification information and transmitting the acquired information are insignificant extra solution activities, specifically mere data gathering and necessary data outputting (See Performing clinical tests on individuals to obtain input for an equation, In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 839-40; 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1827-28 (Fed. Cir. 1989), PerkinElmer, Inc. v. Intema Ltd., 496 Fed. App'x 65, 73, 105 USPQ2d 1960, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (assessing or measuring data derived from an ultrasound scan, to be used in a diagnosis), Cutting hair after first determining the hair style, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1016-1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential), and Printing or downloading generated menus, Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1241-42, 120 USPQ2d at 1854-55) [See MPEP § 2106.05(g)].
Claim 6: The display mode including a change in contrast or a change in size is an insignificant extra solution activity, specifically necessary data outputting (See Performing clinical tests on individuals to obtain input for an equation, In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 839-40; 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1827-28 (Fed. Cir. 1989), PerkinElmer, Inc. v. Intema Ltd., 496 Fed. App'x 65, 73, 105 USPQ2d 1960, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (assessing or measuring data derived from an ultrasound scan, to be used in a diagnosis), Cutting hair after first determining the hair style, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1016-1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential), and Printing or downloading generated menus, Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1241-42, 120 USPQ2d at 1854-55) [See MPEP § 2106.05(g)].
Claim 7: The display mode including a change in display position, time, or number of times is an insignificant extra solution activity, specifically necessary data outputting (See Performing clinical tests on individuals to obtain input for an equation, In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 839-40; 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1827-28 (Fed. Cir. 1989), PerkinElmer, Inc. v. Intema Ltd., 496 Fed. App'x 65, 73, 105 USPQ2d 1960, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (assessing or measuring data derived from an ultrasound scan, to be used in a diagnosis), Cutting hair after first determining the hair style, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1016-1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential), and Printing or downloading generated menus, Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1241-42, 120 USPQ2d at 1854-55) [See MPEP § 2106.05(g)].
Claim 8: The apparatus being an augmented reality apparatus is an insignificant extra solution activity, specifically necessary data outputting (See Performing clinical tests on individuals to obtain input for an equation, In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 839-40; 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1827-28 (Fed. Cir. 1989), PerkinElmer, Inc. v. Intema Ltd., 496 Fed. App'x 65, 73, 105 USPQ2d 1960, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (assessing or measuring data derived from an ultrasound scan, to be used in a diagnosis), Cutting hair after first determining the hair style, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1016-1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential), and Printing or downloading generated menus, Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1241-42, 120 USPQ2d at 1854-55) [See MPEP § 2106.05(g)].
Claim 13: A control device, an apparatus, acquisition part, a determination part, a decision part, and a transmission part are generic and non-specific elements of a computer that do not improve the functioning of any computer or technology described herein [See MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1) and MPEP § 2106.05(d)].
Claim 14: A non-transitory computer readable medium, program, computer, apparatus, and content, are generic and non-specific elements of a computer that do not improve the functioning of any computer or technology described herein [See MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1) and MPEP § 2106.05(d)].
Claim 15: An apparatus, content, reception part, memory, sensor, specifying part, and execution part are generic and non-specific elements of a computer that do not improve the functioning of any computer or technology described herein [See MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1) and MPEP § 2106.05(d)]. Receiving control information and identification information are insignificant extra solution activities, specifically mere data gathering (See Performing clinical tests on individuals to obtain input for an equation, In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 839-40; 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1827-28 (Fed. Cir. 1989), PerkinElmer, Inc. v. Intema Ltd., 496 Fed. App'x 65, 73, 105 USPQ2d 1960, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (assessing or measuring data derived from an ultrasound scan, to be used in a diagnosis), Cutting hair after first determining the hair style, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1016-1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential), and Printing or downloading generated menus, Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1241-42, 120 USPQ2d at 1854-55) [See MPEP § 2106.05(g)].
Step 2B: If the claims do not integrate the judicial exception, do the claims provide an inventive concept? [see MPEP § 2106.05]
Because the additional claim elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, the claims are further examined under Step 2B, which evaluates whether the additional elements, individually and in combination, amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself by providing an inventive concept.
The claims do not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims recite additional elements that are generic, conventional or nonspecific. These additional elements include:
The additional elements of a non-transitory computer readable medium, program, computer, content control device, an apparatus, acquisition part, a determination part, a decision part, a transmission part, reception part, memory, sensor, specifying part, and execution part are all generic and nonspecific elements of a computer that do not improve the functioning of any computer or technology described herein (Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information), Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values), and Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015)) [See MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1) and MPEP § 2106.05(d)]. Therefore, taken both individually and as a whole, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception by providing an inventive concept.
The additional elements of acquiring identification information (Conventional: Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)), transmitting the acquired information (Conventional: Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)), the display mode including a change in contrast or a change in size (Conventional: Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)), the display mode including a change in display position, time, or number of times (Conventional: Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)), the apparatus being an augmented reality apparatus (Conventional: Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)), and receiving control information and identification information (Conventional: Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)), are insignificant extra solution activities, specifically mere data gathering and necessary data outputting (See Performing clinical tests on individuals to obtain input for an equation, In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 839-40; 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1827-28 (Fed. Cir. 1989), PerkinElmer, Inc. v. Intema Ltd., 496 Fed. App'x 65, 73, 105 USPQ2d 1960, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (assessing or measuring data derived from an ultrasound scan, to be used in a diagnosis), Cutting hair after first determining the hair style, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1016-1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential), and Printing or downloading generated menus, Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1241-42, 120 USPQ2d at 1854-55) [See MPEP § 2106.05(g)]. Therefore, taken both individually and as a whole, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception by providing an inventive concept.
Therefore, claims 1-15, when the limitations are considered individually and as a whole, are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salous et al. (EEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics (2019) 1664-1671), Preuschhof et al. (Neuropsychologia (2010) 402-408), and Ross et al. (US 20180224928 A1).
Claim 1 is directed to a method for presenting content by using genetic information to infer memory and/or attention of a user to adapt an augmented reality UI based upon a physical constitution derived from said memory and/or attention information.
Claim 13 is directed to a device for presenting content by using genetic information to infer memory and/or attention of a user to adapt an augmented reality UI based upon a physical constitution derived from said memory and/or attention information.
Claim 14 is directed to a CRM for presenting content by using genetic information to infer memory and/or attention of a user to adapt an augmented reality UI based upon a physical constitution derived from said memory and/or attention information.
Claim 15 is directed to an apparatus for presenting content by using genetic information to infer memory and/or attention of a user to adapt an augmented reality UI based upon a physical constitution derived from said memory and/or attention information.
Salous et al. teaches in the abstract “Human Computer Interaction (HCI) performance can be impaired by several HCI obstacles. Cognitive adaptive systems should dynamically detect such obstacles and compensate them with suitable User Interface (UI) adaptation. UI adaptations for both types of obstacles are discussed and analyzed”, on page 1664, column 2, paragraph 1 “One important example of a transient interaction obstacle is increased memory load, caused by a secondary task. It may lead to a user forgetting already presented information or getting lost in a navigation hierarchy of the UI… While such an obstacle can be tackled statically by enabling users to customize the color-scheme in the UI, an online detection and compensation of color blindness interaction obstacle would be with greater acceptance from all potential users”, on page 1664, column 2, paragraph 3 “Our ultimate goal is to develop a fully automatic cognitive adaptive system that detects such interaction obstacles, examines possible UI adaptations and applies one or more UI adaptations that best fit the impeded user to improve the HCI performance”, and on page 1665, column 1, paragraph 3 “Several approaches discussed memory obstacle in HCI. While many approaches e.g. [1], [2], [3] detect memory-based obstacles (simulated as secondary task) from observed physiological sensory data (e.g. electroencephalography EEG), other approaches e.g. Putze et al. [4] introduced an LSTM model to detect memory-based obstacle in HCI from pure behavioral data, i.e. from encoded user actions and without any noisy sensory data. Moreover, for memory based HCI obstacles and UI adaptation, Sguerra et al. [5] investigated the online UI adaptation based on real-time tracking of human working memory”.
Salous et al. does not teach the acquisition or use of genetic data in accordance with augmented reality UI changes.
Preuschhof et al. teaches in the abstract “Individual differences in episodic memory are highly heritable. Several studies have linked a polymorphism in the gene encoding the KIBRA protein to episodic memory performance…Given that both KIBRA and CLSTN2 are expressed in the medial temporal lobe and have been linked to synaptic plasticity, we investigated whether KIBRA and CLSTN2 interactively modulate episodic memory performance (n = 383). We replicated the beneficial effect of the KIBRA T-allele on episodic memory, and discovered that this effect increases with the associative demands of the memory task. Importantly, the memory-enhancing effect of the KIBRA T-allele was boosted by the presence of the CLSTN2 C-allele, which positively affected memory performance in some previous studies. In contrast, the presence of CLSTN2 C-allele led to reduced performance in subjects homozygous for the KIBRA C-allele. Overall, these findings suggest that KIBRA and CLSTN2 interactively modulate episodic memory performance, and underscore the need for delineating the interactive effects of multiple genes on brain and behavior”, on page 402, column 2, paragraph 2 “A genome-wide association study by Papassotiropoulos et al. (2006) showed that a single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) in the KIBRA gene, leading to a common C→T substitution within intron 9 (rs17070145), is associated with individual differences in episodic memory. Carriers of the rs17070145 T-allele exhibited a clear advantage in delayed episodic recall compared to individuals lacking the T-allele. This effect was confirmed in two independent cohorts of young Swiss and young to very old US subjects”, and on page 406, column 1, paragraph 3 “Carriers of the KIBRA rs17070145 T-allele showed higher episodic memory performance than carriers of the C/C genotype… Further, consistent with expectations, we found that the positive effect of the KIBRA T-allele was enhanced by the CLSTN2 rs6439886 C-allele: KIBRA T-allele carriers who also carried the CLSTN2 C-allele, which was previously reported to be beneficial to episodic memory, outperformed subjects with the other genotype combinations. Subjects who also carried the CLSTN2 C-allele but were homozygous for the KIBRA C-allele performed as poorly as the other two genotype groups”.
Ross et al. teaches in the abstract “A system and/or method that uses a body posture of a user to determine and modulate a content mode of a virtual reality system. The content mode may define the manner in which virtual reality content is presented to the user and/or the manner in which the user interacts with the virtual reality content. The user's body posture and/or a change in body posture may cause the content mode and/or the virtual reality content to change accordingly. In some implementations, primary content may be presented to the user according to a first content mode in response to the user sitting. Secondary virtual reality content may be presented to the user according to the second content mode in response to the user standing. As such, a user may initiate a change in the virtual reality content and/or the content mode by standing from a sitting posture and/or sitting from a standing posture”, in paragraph [0003] “Virtual reality presents a problem for storytellers that want to provide a rich passive experience and for users that may prefer the ability to switch or alternate to an active interaction with the virtual space. Typically, it is difficult for a storyteller to provide a rich story telling experience with seamless transitions between interactive content while managing and/or maintaining the attention of an audience member”, in paragraph [0011] “the system may comprise one or more of, a sensor, a user interface, a processor, electronic storage, and/or other components. The sensor may be configured to generate output signals conveying information related to body posture of the user and/or other information”, and paragraph [0033] “Responsive to the user changing his body posture from the first body posture to the second body posture (e.g., from sitting to standing), the user may then able to interact with in the secondary virtual reality content according to the second mode, and/or based on other information”, reading on a control method of an apparatus that presents a content, comprising: by a computer acquiring identification information for specifying a user and gene information of the user associated with the identification information; determining a physical constitution of the user on the basis of the acquired gene information; deciding a presentation control program for controlling presentation of the content on the basis of the determined physical constitution; and transmitting, in association with each other, the acquired identification information and control information for causing the apparatus to execute the decided presentation control program.
It would have been obvious at the time of first filing to have modified the teachings of Salous et al. for the modification/adaptation of UI elements based on memory and attention, with the teachings of Preuschhof et al. for the use of genetic information in attention and memory, with the teachings of Ross et al. in the modification of augmented reality UI based on physicality, as Salous et al. is specifically examining the effects of memory and attentiveness, along with other obstacles in human computer interactions, with Preuschhof et al. linking specific mutations and genetic alleles with increases or decreases in cognitive memory/attentiveness, and Ross et al. applying physical limitations to adaptive changes in UI for augmented reality. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success given that the only obvious leap would be the use of the genetic information, however as the specification points out it is merely the presence or absence of an allele which determines the shift in UI contrast/placement, not the use of any complex mathematics or risk score, which makes incorporation of the genetic information an obvious next step, particularly in view of the results from Preuschhof et al. on memory/attentiveness. Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of first filing to have modified the teachings of each and to be successful.
Claim 2 is directed to the method of claim 1 but further specifies that the physical constitution be related to attentiveness and/or memory of a user.
Salous et al. teaches in the abstract “Human Computer Interaction (HCI) performance can be impaired by several HCI obstacles. Cognitive adaptive systems should dynamically detect such obstacles and compensate them with suitable User Interface (UI) adaptation. UI adaptations for both types of obstacles are discussed and analyzed”, on page 1664, column 2, paragraph 1 “One important example of a transient interaction obstacle is increased memory load, caused by a secondary task. It may lead to a user forgetting already presented information or getting lost in a navigation hierarchy of the UI… While such an obstacle can be tackled statically by enabling users to customize the color-scheme in the UI, an online detection and compensation of color blindness interaction obstacle would be with greater acceptance from all potential users”, reading on wherein the physical constitution is a physical constitution related to at least one of attentiveness and memory of a user.
Claim 3 is directed to the method of claim 2 and thus claim 1, but further specifies determining whether attentiveness is low or high on the basis of gene information and changing the presentation control program accordingly.
The specification provides that “Attentiveness represents ability to concentrate on one thing, which is a concept including concentration. Examples of genes related to attentiveness include KIBRA and SLC6A2. KIBRA is a gene that produces one type of phosphorylated protein. When the gene has a TT type and a TC type, a human being tends to have high attentiveness. Therefore, when KIBRA has the 'Tl' type and the TC type, the determination part 212 determines that attentiveness is high”.
Preuschhof et al. teaches in the abstract “Individual differences in episodic memory are highly heritable. Several studies have linked a polymorphism in the gene encoding the KIBRA protein to episodic memory performance…Given that both KIBRA and CLSTN2 are expressed in the medial temporal lobe and have been linked to synaptic plasticity, we investigated whether KIBRA and CLSTN2 interactively modulate episodic memory performance (n = 383). We replicated the beneficial effect of the KIBRA T-allele on episodic memory, and discovered that this effect increases with the associative demands of the memory task. Importantly, the memory-enhancing effect of the KIBRA T-allele was boosted by the presence of the CLSTN2 C-allele, which positively affected memory performance in some previous studies. In contrast, the presence of CLSTN2 C-allele led to reduced performance in subjects homozygous for the KIBRA C-allele. Overall, these findings suggest that KIBRA and CLSTN2 interactively modulate episodic memory performance, and underscore the need for delineating the interactive effects of multiple genes on brain and behavior”, on page 402, column 2, paragraph 2 “A genome-wide association study by Papassotiropoulos et al. (2006) showed that a single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) in the KIBRA gene, leading to a common C→T substitution within intron 9 (rs17070145), is associated with individual differences in episodic memory. Carriers of the rs17070145 T-allele exhibited a clear advantage in delayed episodic recall compared to individuals lacking the T-allele. This effect was confirmed in two independent cohorts of young Swiss and young to very old US subjects”, and on page 406, column 1, paragraph 3 “Carriers of the KIBRA rs17070145 T-allele showed higher episodic memory performance than carriers of the C/C genotype… Further, consistent with expectations, we found that the positive effect of the KIBRA T-allele was enhanced by the CLSTN2 rs6439886 C-allele: KIBRA T-allele carriers who also carried the CLSTN2 C-allele, which was previously reported to be beneficial to episodic memory, outperformed subjects with the other genotype combinations. Subjects who also carried the CLSTN2 C-allele but were homozygous for the KIBRA C-allele performed as poorly as the other two genotype groups”, reading on wherein the determination includes determining whether the attentiveness is low or high on the basis of the gene information.
Salous et al. teaches in the abstract “Human Computer Interaction (HCI) performance can be impaired by several HCI obstacles. Cognitive adaptive systems should dynamically detect such obstacles and compensate them with suitable User Interface (UI) adaptation. UI adaptations for both types of obstacles are discussed and analyzed”, on page 1664, column 2, paragraph 1 “One important example of a transient interaction obstacle is increased memory load, caused by a secondary task. It may lead to a user forgetting already presented information or getting lost in a navigation hierarchy of the UI… While such an obstacle can be tackled statically by enabling users to customize the color-scheme in the UI, an online detection and compensation of color blindness interaction obstacle would be with greater acceptance from all potential users”, on page 1664, column 2, paragraph 3 “Our ultimate goal is to develop a fully automatic cognitive adaptive system that detects such interaction obstacles, examines possible UI adaptations and applies one or more UI adaptations that best fit the impeded user to improve the HCI performance”, and on page 1665, column 1, paragraph 3 “Several approaches discussed memory obstacle in HCI. While many approaches e.g. [1], [2], [3] detect memory-based obstacles (simulated as secondary task) from observed physiological sensory data (e.g. electroencephalography EEG), other approaches e.g. Putze et al. [4] introduced an LSTM model to detect memory-based obstacle in HCI from pure behavioral data, i.e. from encoded user actions and without any noisy sensory data. Moreover, for memory based HCI obstacles and UI adaptation, Sguerra et al. [5] investigated the online UI adaptation based on real-time tracking of human working memory”, reading on the presentation control program decided in a case where the attentiveness is determined to be low is a program that changes at least one of a display mode and a display method of the content so as to make the content be conspicuous as compared with the presentation control program decided in a case where the attentiveness is determined to be high.
Claim 4 is directed to the method of claim 2 and thus claim 1, but further specifies determining whether attentiveness is low or high on the basis of gene information and changing the presentation control program accordingly.
The specification provides that “Attentiveness represents ability to concentrate on one thing, which is a concept including concentration. Examples of genes related to attentiveness include KIBRA and SLC6A2. KIBRA is a gene that produces one type of phosphorylated protein. When the gene has a TT type and a TC type, a human being tends to have high attentiveness. Therefore, when KIBRA has the 'Tl' type and the TC type, the determination part 212 determines that attentiveness is high”.
Preuschhof et al. teaches in the abstract “Individual differences in episodic memory are highly heritable. Several studies have linked a polymorphism in the gene encoding the KIBRA protein to episodic memory performance…Given that both KIBRA and CLSTN2 are expressed in the medial temporal lobe and have been linked to synaptic plasticity, we investigated whether KIBRA and CLSTN2 interactively modulate episodic memory performance (n = 383). We replicated the beneficial effect of the KIBRA T-allele on episodic memory, and discovered that this effect increases with the associative demands of the memory task. Importantly, the memory-enhancing effect of the KIBRA T-allele was boosted by the presence of the CLSTN2 C-allele, which positively affected memory performance in some previous studies. In contrast, the presence of CLSTN2 C-allele led to reduced performance in subjects homozygous for the KIBRA C-allele. Overall, these findings suggest that KIBRA and CLSTN2 interactively modulate episodic memory performance, and underscore the need for delineating the interactive effects of multiple genes on brain and behavior”, on page 402, column 2, paragraph 2 “A genome-wide association study by Papassotiropoulos et al. (2006) showed that a single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) in the KIBRA gene, leading to a common C→T substitution within intron 9 (rs17070145), is associated with individual differences in episodic memory. Carriers of the rs17070145 T-allele exhibited a clear advantage in delayed episodic recall compared to individuals lacking the T-allele. This effect was confirmed in two independent cohorts of young Swiss and young to very old US subjects”, and on page 406, column 1, paragraph 3 “Carriers of the KIBRA rs17070145 T-allele showed higher episodic memory performance than carriers of the C/C genotype… Further, consistent with expectations, we found that the positive effect of the KIBRA T-allele was enhanced by the CLSTN2 rs6439886 C-allele: KIBRA T-allele carriers who also carried the CLSTN2 C-allele, which was previously reported to be beneficial to episodic memory, outperformed subjects with the other genotype combinations. Subjects who also carried the CLSTN2 C-allele but were homozygous for the KIBRA C-allele performed as poorly as the other two genotype groups”, reading on wherein the determination includes determining whether the attentiveness is low or high.
Salous et al. teaches in the abstract “Human Computer Interaction (HCI) performance can be impaired by several HCI obstacles. Cognitive adaptive systems should dynamically detect such obstacles and compensate them with suitable User Interface (UI) adaptation. UI adaptations for both types of obstacles are discussed and analyzed”, on page 1664, column 2, paragraph 1 “One important example of a transient interaction obstacle is increased memory load, caused by a secondary task. It may lead to a user forgetting already presented information or getting lost in a navigation hierarchy of the UI… While such an obstacle can be tackled statically by enabling users to customize the color-scheme in the UI, an online detection and compensation of color blindness interaction obstacle would be with greater acceptance from all potential users”, on page 1664, column 2, paragraph 3 “Our ultimate goal is to develop a fully automatic cognitive adaptive system that detects such interaction obstacles, examines possible UI adaptations and applies one or more UI adaptations that best fit the impeded user to improve the HCI performance”, and on page 1665, column 1, paragraph 3 “Several approaches discussed memory obstacle in HCI. While many approaches e.g. [1], [2], [3] detect memory-based obstacles (simulated as secondary task) from observed physiological sensory data (e.g. electroencephalography EEG), other approaches e.g. Putze et al. [4] introduced an LSTM model to detect memory-based obstacle in HCI from pure behavioral data, i.e. from encoded user actions and without any noisy sensory data. Moreover, for memory based HCI obstacles and UI adaptation, Sguerra et al. [5] investigated the online UI adaptation based on real-time tracking of human working memory”, reading on the presentation control program decided in a case where the attentiveness is determined to be high is a program that changes at least one of a display mode and a display method of the content so as to make the content be less conspicuous as compared with the presentation control program decided in a case where the attentiveness is determined to be low.
Claim 5 is directed to the method of claim 2 and thus claim 1, but further specifies determining whether memory is low or high on the basis of gene information and changing the presentation control program accordingly.
The specification provides that “Attentiveness represents ability to concentrate on one thing, which is a concept including concentration. Examples of genes related to attentiveness include KIBRA and SLC6A2. KIBRA is a gene that produces one type of phosphorylated protein. When the gene has a TT type and a TC type, a human being tends to have high attentiveness. Therefore, when KIBRA has the 'Tl' type and the TC type, the determination part 212 determines that attentiveness is high”, and in paragraph [0071] “Although the determination part 212 determines memory by using all of KIBRA and SLC6A2, this is an example, and attentiveness may be determined using one of them”.
Preuschhof et al. teaches in the abstract “Individual differences in episodic memory are highly heritable. Several studies have linked a polymorphism in the gene encoding the KIBRA protein to episodic memory performance…Given that both KIBRA and CLSTN2 are expressed in the medial temporal lobe and have been linked to synaptic plasticity, we investigated whether KIBRA and CLSTN2 interactively modulate episodic memory performance (n = 383). We replicated the beneficial effect of the KIBRA T-allele on episodic memory, and discovered that this effect increases with the associative demands of the memory task. Importantly, the memory-enhancing effect of the KIBRA T-allele was boosted by the presence of the CLSTN2 C-allele, which positively affected memory performance in some previous studies. In contrast, the presence of CLSTN2 C-allele led to reduced performance in subjects homozygous for the KIBRA C-allele. Overall, these findings suggest that KIBRA and CLSTN2 interactively modulate episodic memory performance, and underscore the need for delineating the interactive effects of multiple genes on brain and behavior”, on page 402, column 2, paragraph 2 “A genome-wide association study by Papassotiropoulos et al. (2006) showed that a single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) in the KIBRA gene, leading to a common C→T substitution within intron 9 (rs17070145), is associated with individual differences in episodic memory. Carriers of the rs17070145 T-allele exhibited a clear advantage in delayed episodic recall compared to individuals lacking the T-allele. This effect was confirmed in two independent cohorts of young Swiss and young to very old US subjects”, and on page 406, column 1, paragraph 3 “Carriers of the KIBRA rs17070145 T-allele showed higher episodic memory performance than carriers of the C/C genotype… Further, consistent with expectations, we found that the positive effect of the KIBRA T-allele was enhanced by the CLSTN2 rs6439886 C-allele: KIBRA T-allele carriers who also carried the CLSTN2 C-allele, which was previously reported to be beneficial to episodic memory, outperformed subjects with the other genotype combinations. Subjects who also carried the CLSTN2 C-allele but were homozygous for the KIBRA C-allele performed as poorly as the other two genotype groups”, reading on wherein the determination includes determining whether the memory is bad or good.
Salous et al. teaches in the abstract “Human Computer Interaction (HCI) performance can be impaired by several HCI obstacles. Cognitive adaptive systems should dynamically detect such obstacles and compensate them with suitable User Interface (UI) adaptation. UI adaptations for both types of obstacles are discussed and analyzed”, on page 1664, column 2, paragraph 1 “One important example of a transient interaction obstacle is increased memory load, caused by a secondary task. It may lead to a user forgetting already presented information or getting lost in a navigation hierarchy of the UI… While such an obstacle can be tackled statically by enabling users to customize the color-scheme in the UI, an online detection and compensation of color blindness interaction obstacle would be with greater acceptance from all potential users”, on page 1664, column 2, paragraph 3 “Our ultimate goal is to develop a fully automatic cognitive adaptive system that detects such interaction obstacles, examines possible UI adaptations and applies one or more UI adaptations that best fit the impeded user to improve the HCI performance”, and on page 1665, column 1, paragraph 3 “Several approaches discussed memory obstacle in HCI. While many approaches e.g. [1], [2], [3] detect memory-based obstacles (simulated as secondary task) from observed physiological sensory data (e.g. electroencephalography EEG), other approaches e.g. Putze et al. [4] introduced an LSTM model to detect memory-based obstacle in HCI from pure behavioral data, i.e. from encoded user actions and without any noisy sensory data. Moreover, for memory based HCI obstacles and UI adaptation, Sguerra et al. [5] investigated the online UI adaptation based on real-time tracking of human working memory”, reading on the presentation control program decided in a case where the memory is determined to be bad is a program that changes at least one of a display mode and a display method of the content so as to enable the user to better memorize as compared with the presentation control program decided in a case where the memory is determined to be good.
Claim 6 is directed to the method of claim 3 and thus claim 1, but further specifies that the change in display mode includes a change in contrast and/or a change in size of the content.
Salous et al. teaches on page 1665, columns 1-2, paragraph 4 “An early work presented by Jefferson et al. [7] introduced an interactive interface for users with color vision deficiency. Users can customize the colours of any region of the screen. Thus, it is a specific interface for such a user group and it permits the user to capture, clear, copy, save the image, and view the correction control window”, reading on wherein a change of the display mode includes at least one of a change in contrast of the content and a change in size of the content.
Claim 7 is directed to the method of claim 3 and thus claim 1, but further specifies that the change in display mode includes a change in the position of the content, time of the content, or number of times displaying the content.
Ross et al. teaches in the abstract “A system and/or method that uses a body posture of a user to determine and modulate a content mode of a virtual reality system. The content mode may define the manner in which virtual reality content is presented to the user and/or the manner in which the user interacts with the virtual reality content. The user's body posture and/or a change in body posture may cause the content mode and/or the virtual reality content to change accordingly. In some implementations, primary content may be presented to the user according to a first content mode in response to the user sitting. Secondary virtual reality content may be presented to the user according to the second content mode in response to the user standing. As such, a user may initiate a change in the virtual reality content and/or the content mode by standing from a sitting posture and/or sitting from a standing posture”, in paragraph [0003] “Virtual reality presents a problem for storytellers that want to provide a rich passive experience and for users that may prefer the ability to switch or alternate to an active interaction with the virtual space. Typically, it is difficult for a storyteller to provide a rich story telling experience with seamless transitions between interactive content while managing and/or maintaining the attention of an audience member”, in paragraph [0011] “the system may comprise one or more of, a sensor, a user interface, a processor, electronic storage, and/or other components. The sensor may be configured to generate output signals conveying information related to body posture of the user and/or other information”, and paragraph [0033] “Responsive to the user changing his body posture from the first body posture to the second body posture (e.g., from sitting to standing), the user may then able to interact with in the secondary virtual reality content according to the second mode, and/or based on other information”, reading on wherein a change of the display method includes at least one of a change in a display position of the content, a change in a display time of the content, and a change in the number of times of displaying the content.
Claim 8 is directed to the method of claim 1 but further specifies that the apparatus is an augmented reality apparatus.
Ross et al. teaches in the abstract “A system and/or method that uses a body posture of a user to determine and modulate a content mode of a virtual reality system. The content mode may define the manner in which virtual reality content is presented to the user and/or the manner in which the user interacts with the virtual reality content. The user's body posture and/or a change in body posture may cause the content mode and/or the virtual reality content to change accordingly. In some implementations, primary content may be presented to the user according to a first content mode in response to the user sitting. Secondary virtual reality content may be presented to the user according to the second content mode in response to the user standing. As such, a user may initiate a change in the virtual reality content and/or the content mode by standing from a sitting posture and/or sitting from a standing posture”, reading on wherein the apparatus is an augmented reality apparatus.
Claim 9 is directed to the method of claim 1 but further specifies that the gene information includes information including base sequences.
Preuschhof et al. teaches on page 402, column 2, paragraph 2 “A genome-wide association study by Papassotiropoulos et al. (2006) showed that a single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) in the KIBRA gene, leading to a common C→T substitution within intron 9 (rs17070145), is associated with individual differences in episodic memory. Carriers of the rs17070145 T-allele exhibited a clear advantage in delayed episodic recall compared to individuals lacking the T-allele. This effect was confirmed in two independent cohorts of young Swiss and young to very old US subjects”, and on page 406, column 1, paragraph 3 “Carriers of the KIBRA rs17070145 T-allele showed higher episodic memory performance than carriers of the C/C genotype… Further, consistent with expectations, we found that the positive effect of the KIBRA T-allele was enhanced by the CLSTN2 rs6439886 C-allele: KIBRA T-allele carriers who also carried the CLSTN2 C-allele, which was previously reported to be beneficial to episodic memory, outperformed subjects with the other genotype combinations. Subjects who also carried the CLSTN2 C-allele but were homozygous for the KIBRA C-allele performed as poorly as the other two genotype groups”, reading on wherein the gene information includes information indicating a base sequence of a nucleic acid of the user.
Claim 10 is directed to the method of claim 1 but further specifies that the determination includes the detecting of SNPs and these be used to determine physical constitution.
Preuschhof et al. teaches on page 402, column 2, paragraph 2 “A genome-wide association study by Papassotiropoulos et al. (2006) showed that a single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) in the KIBRA gene, leading to a common C→T substitution within intron 9 (rs17070145), is associated with individual differences in episodic memory. Carriers of the rs17070145 T-allele exhibited a clear advantage in delayed episodic recall compared to individuals lacking the T-allele. This effect was confirmed in two independent cohorts of young Swiss and young to very old US subjects”, and on page 406, column 1, paragraph 3 “Carriers of the KIBRA rs17070145 T-allele showed higher episodic memory performance than carriers of the C/C genotype… Further, consistent with expectations, we found that the positive effect of the KIBRA T-allele was enhanced by the CLSTN2 rs6439886 C-allele: KIBRA T-allele carriers who also carried the CLSTN2 C-allele, which was previously reported to be beneficial to episodic memory, outperformed subjects with the other genotype combinations. Subjects who also carried the CLSTN2 C-allele but were homozygous for the KIBRA C-allele performed as poorly as the other two genotype groups”, reading on wherein the determination includes detecting a single nucleotide polymorphism of the gene information, and determining the physical constitution on the basis of a detection result.
Claim 11 is directed to the method of claim 1 but further specifies that the control information includes the presentation control program.
Ross et al. teaches in the abstract “The content mode may define the manner in which virtual reality content is presented to the user and/or the manner in which the user interacts with the virtual reality content…In some implementations, primary content may be presented to the user according to a first content mode in response to the user sitting. Secondary virtual reality content may be presented to the user according to the second content mode in response to the user standing”, reading on wherein the control information includes the presentation control program.
Claim 12 is directed to the method of claim 1 but further specifies that the control information includes information for a plurality of presentation control programs.
Ross et al. teaches in the abstract “The content mode may define the manner in which virtual reality content is presented to the user and/or the manner in which the user interacts with the virtual reality content…In some implementations, primary content may be presented to the user according to a first content mode in response to the user sitting. Secondary virtual reality content may be presented to the user according to the second content mode in response to the user standing”, reading on wherein the control information includes information for causing the apparatus having a plurality of presentation control programs to execute the decided presentation control program.
Double Patenting
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.
Claims 1, 10, and 13-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, and 10-13 of U.S. Application 18/113,166. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because while a different term is used (apparatus control program vs presentation control program) these do not change the effective limitations of the claims.
Instant Application: 18/113,252
US Patent Application 18/113 ,166
Claim 1: A control method of an apparatus that presents a content, comprising: by a computer acquiring identification information for specifying a user and gene information of the user associated with the identification information; determining a physical constitution of the user on the basis of the acquired gene information; deciding a presentation control program for controlling presentation of the content on the basis of the determined physical constitution; and transmitting, in association with each other, the acquired identification information and control information for causing the apparatus to execute the decided presentation control program.
Claim 1: control method of an apparatus, the method comprising: by a computer acquiring identification information for specifying a user and gene information of the user associated with the identification information, determining a physical constitution of the user on the basis of the acquired gene information, deciding an apparatus control program for controlling the apparatus on the basis of the determined physical constitution, and transmitting, in association with each other, the acquired identification information and control information for causing the apparatus to execute the decided apparatus control program.
Claim 10: The control method according to claim 1, wherein the determination includes detecting a single nucleotide polymorphism of the gene information, and determining the physical constitution on the basis of a detection result.
Claim 10: The control method according to claim 1, wherein the determination includes detecting a single nucleotide polymorphism of the gene information, and determining the physical constitution on the basis of a detection result.
Claim 13: A control device of an apparatus that presents a content, comprising: an acquisition part that acquires identification information for specifying a user and gene information of the user associated with the identification information; a determination part that determines a physical constitution of the user on the basis of the acquired gene information; a decision part that decides a presentation control program for controlling presentation of the content on the basis of the determined physical constitution; and a transmission part that transmits, in association with each other, the acquired identification information and control information for causing the apparatus to execute the decided presentation control program.
Claim 11: A control device of an apparatus, comprising: an acquisition part that acquires identification information for specifying a user and gene information of the user associated with the identification information; a determination part that determines a physical constitution of the user on the basis of the acquired gene information; a decision part that decides an apparatus control program for controlling the apparatus on the basis of the determined physical constitution; and a transmission part that transmits the acquired identification information and control information for causing the apparatus to execute the decided apparatus control program in association with each other.
Claim 14: A non-transitory computer readable recording medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute a control method of an apparatus that presents a content, the program causing the computer to: acquire identification information for specifying a user and gene information of the user associated with the identification information; determine a physical constitution of the user on the basis of the acquired gene information; decide a presentation control program for controlling presentation of the content on the basis of the determined physical constitution; and transmit the acquired identification information and control information for causing the apparatus to execute the decided presentation control program in association with each other.
Claim 12: A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute a control method of an apparatus, the program causing the computer to: acquiring identification information for specifying a user and gene information of the user associated with the identification information; determining a physical constitution of the user on the basis of the acquired gene information; deciding an apparatus control program for controlling the apparatus on the basis of the determined physical constitution; and transmitting the acquired identification information and control information for causing the apparatus to execute the decided apparatus control program in association with each other.
Claim 15: An apparatus that presents a content, comprising: a reception part that receives control information for controlling execution of a presentation control program for controlling presentation of the content, and identification information of a user associated with the control information, the presentation control program being decided on the basis of a physical constitution of the user determined from gene information of the user; a memory that stores the control information and the identification information in association with each other; a sensor that detects a surrounding user; a specifying part that specifies identification information of the surrounding user from detection data of the sensor; and an execution part that specifies control information corresponding to the specified identification information from the memory and executes a presentation control program corresponding to the specified control information.
Claim 13: An apparatus comprising: a reception part that receives control information for controlling execution of an apparatus control program decided on the basis of a physical constitution of a user determined from gene information of the user, and identification information of the user associated with the control information; a memory that stores the control information and the identification information in association with each other; a sensor for detecting a surrounding user; a specifying part that specifies identification information of the surrounding user from detection data of the sensor; and an execution part that specifies control information corresponding to the specified identification information from the memory and executes an apparatus control program corresponding to the specified control information.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEENAN NEIL ANDERSON-FEARS whose telephone number is (571)272-0108. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, alternate F, 8-5.
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, Karlheinz Skowronek can be reached at 571-272-9047. 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.
/K.N.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1687
/LARRY D RIGGS II/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1686
Prosecution Insights