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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in response to the claims as originally filed on April 24, 2023. Claims 1-12 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the memory resources and processors must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
The drawings also are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference signs mentioned in the description: Reference signs 80 and 85 are found in the specification but are absent in the drawings.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR § 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 § CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 6, 7, and 9-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 6, 11, and 12 recite “a lesson renders a the simulation classroom setting.” This should read --a lesson renders the simulation classroom setting--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 recites “claim 1 further wherein.” This should read -- claim 1, wherein -- or -- claim 1 further comprising:-- . Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 9 and 10 recite “method of claim 6 wherein the teacher feedback further comprising:”. This should read --method claim 6, wherein the teacher feedback further comprises:--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
In re claim 1, the claim recites “retrieve a user input via the virtual reality headsets and the virtual reality handheld units; wherein the user is one or a plurality of students and may include a teacher,” at lines 8-10. This language is confusing and/or unclear. The claim previously refers to one or a plurality of headsets. However, this recitation refers to headsets only in the plural. Therefore, it is unclear whether the claim can include an embodiment for a single headset. The language “the virtual reality handheld units” raises similar issues. In addition, the recitation “the user”, at line 10, lacks sufficient antecedent basis in the claim. In addition, the recitation wherein the user is one or a plurality of students and may include a teacher although awkwardly worded is not indefinite, but for clarity of the record, this recitation is interpreted as one of: the user is a student, there are a plurality of users, each one a student, or there are two users, one who is a student and one who is a teacher.
In re claim 2, the claim recites the limitation “the sensor data” at line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In re claim 3, the claim recites the limitation “the sensor” at line 2. This term lacks clear antecedent basis in the claim. In addition, claim 1 recites the headsets have multiple sensors (i.e., the plural is used) and claim 3 recites “the sensor of the virtual reality headset with sensors.” Therefore, it is unclear which of the plurality of sensors is “the sensor” as recited in claim 3. The claim also recites the limitation “the application programming interface provided by the virtual reality system” at line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In re claim 4, the claim recites the limitation “the sensor” at line 2. This term lacks clear antecedent basis. In addition, claim 1 recites the virtual reality handheld units have multiple sensors (i.e., the plural is used) and claim 3 recites “the sensor of the virtual reality handheld units with sensors.” Therefore, it is unclear which of the plurality of sensors is “the sensor” as recited in claim 4. The claim also recites the limitation “the application programming interface provided by the virtual reality system” at line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In re claim 5, the claim recites the limitation “the sensor data” at line 3 and “the virtual reality application” at lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
In re claim 6, the claim recites the limitation “the application programming interface” at line 2, “the selection of a simulation lesson” at line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. In addition, the claims recite “the application programing interface comprising:” however, the elements following the colon do not appear to be components of an application interface. For example, it’s unclear how a user determination (an action by the user) is an element of the API. The claim also recites the limitation “the student” at line 8. This term lacks clear antecedent basis in the claim. Claim 1 recites “a plurality of students.” Therefore, it is unclear which of the plurality of students is “the student” as recited in claim 6.
In re claim 7, the claim recites the limitation “the simulation lesson” at line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In re claim 8, recites “wherein the student further comprising: an avatar.” In is unclear how the student can comprise an avatar. The student can be represented by an avatar, but the avatar is not the student. The claim also recites “determining whether to further customize the avatar.” This language implies a previous customization of the avatar; however, no other customization is recited.
In re claim 9, the claim recites the limitation “the number of questions” at line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In re claim 10, the claim recites the limitation “the number of tasks the student completes correctly” at line 4 and “storing and recording points for the correctly answered questions” at line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
In re claim 11, the claim recites the limitations “the selection of a simulation lesson or a simulation classroom setting” at lines 10-11, “the teacher” at line 14, “the student” at line 14, and “the students” at line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. In addition, the claim recites “A non-transitory computer-readable medium with instructions for a virtual reality system stored thereon that, responsive to execution by a processing device, cause the processing device to perform operations comprising:” however, a number of the operations that follow are recited as performed by the teacher and the students. It is not clear how a processing device can perform operations of a teacher or a student. The examiner suggests language such as “determining a simulation condition; the simulation condition comprising a selection of a simulation lesson or a simulation classroom setting by the student” and “launching the simulation classroom setting, wherein the classroom is launched in response to a teacher input and the student await teacher instruction in the classroom or similar language for these operations. Similar changes should be made for the rest of the operations claimed.
In re claim 12, the claim recites the limitations “the user” at line 6, “the selection of a simulation lesson or a simulation classroom setting” at lines 7-8, “the teacher” at line 11, “the student” at line 11, and “the students” at line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Claim 12 recites “the processing device configured to access the memory and execute the instructions, wherein the instructions cause the processing device to perform operations comprising:” however, as pointed out above for claim 11, the operations that follow are performed by the teacher and student (and not the processor). The examiner suggests making similar changes as those recommend above for claim 11.
Claims 2-10 depend from a rejected base claim, and therefore are rejected for at least the reasons provided for the base claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
A patent may be obtained for “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court has held that this provision contains an important implicit exception: laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972) (“Phenomena of nature, though just discovered, mental processes, and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work.”). Notwithstanding that a law of nature or an abstract idea, by itself, is not patentable, the application of these concepts may be deserving of patent protection. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1293-94 (2012). In Mayo, the Court stated that “to transform an unpatentable law of nature into a patent eligible application of such a law, one must do more than simply state the law of nature while adding the words ‘apply it.” Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294 (citation omitted).
In Alice, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the framework set forth previously in Mayo “for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of these concepts.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. The first step in the analysis is to “determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts.” Id. If the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, then the second step in the analysis is to consider the elements of the claims “individually and ‘as an ordered combination” to determine whether there are additional elements that “transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Id. (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1298, 1297). In other words, the second step is to “search for an ‘inventive concept’-i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.” Id. (brackets in original) (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294). The prohibition against patenting an abstract idea “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment or adding insignificant post-solution activity.” Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610-11 (2010) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The Court in Alice noted that “[s]imply appending conventional steps, specified at a high level of generality,’ was not ‘enough’ [in Mayo] to supply an ‘inventive concept.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300, 1297, 1294).
Examiners must perform a Two-Part Analysis for Judicial Exceptions. In Step 1, it must be determined whether the claimed invention is directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
Claims 1-12 are directed to method, system, and non-transitory computer readable medium. As such, the claimed invention falls into the broad categories of invention. However, even claims that fall within one of the four subject matter categories may nevertheless be ineligible if they encompass laws of nature, physical phenomena, or abstract ideas. See Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. at 309.
In Step 2A, it must be determined whether the claimed invention is ‘directed to’ a judicially recognized exception. According to the specification, “The present invention is a software application that combines existing educational standards and lesson plans with virtual reality technology (VR) to create a 3-D learning environment for students, which is controlled and operated by educators.” (par. 18).
Independent claim 1 recites the following (with emphasis):
A computer-implemented method for a virtual reality system to simulate a classroom environment, the method comprising:
one or a plurality of computing resources, one or a plurality of processors, one or a plurality of virtual reality headsets with sensors, one or a plurality of virtual reality handheld units with sensors;
one or a plurality of memory resources storing instructions that when executed by one or the plurality of processors cause the virtual reality system to simulate a classroom environment to:
retrieve a user input via the virtual reality headsets and the virtual reality handheld units; wherein the user is one or a plurality of students and may include a teacher; and the user starts the virtual reality system to simulate the classroom environment.
Independent claim 11 recites the following (with emphasis):
A non-transitory computer-readable medium with instructions for a virtual reality system stored thereon that, responsive to execution by a processing device, cause the processing device to perform operations comprising:
retrieving from sensor data from a virtual reality headset and a virtual reality handheld unit, sensor data corresponding to a situational environment of a user;
providing the sensor data to an application programming interface of a virtual reality application; the virtual reality application on a computing device managing utilization of computing resources and executing computing instructions based on the application programming interface;
the user determining a simulation condition; the simulation condition comprising the selection of a simulation lesson or a simulation classroom setting; wherein the simulation lesson comprises a grade, a subject, a standard, and a lesson renders a the simulation classroom setting;
the teacher launching the simulation classroom setting and the student awaiting teacher instructions;
the teacher providing the students with instructions for the simulation lesson;
the students receiving instructions from the teacher and engaging in the simulation lesson;
the students completing the simulation lesson and the teacher providing feedback..
The underlined portions of claims 1 and 11 generally encompass the abstract idea, with substantially identical features of claim 11 in claim 12. Claims 2-10 further define the abstract idea such as by defining the simulation of a lesson provided by the method. Under prong 2, the claimed invention encompasses an abstract idea in the form of certain methods of organizing human activity and/or mental processes. The claims recite a method of how to conduct a classroom lesson. This is a method of organizing human activity because it is drawn to a method of managing personal behavior during the training sessions (i.e., teaching) using virtual reality. In addition, claims an additional abstract idea directed to mental processes, such as how to teach a lesson, evaluate and make determinations about the lesson to provide a result, score or feedback.
The use of visual aids, simulation, providing lessons, providing instructions from a teacher, engaging in a lesson with students, including providing questions and answers and providing feedback in response to the answers fundamentally basic to the learning process. The methods and systems in the instant application simply seek to automate this well-known activity using generic computers systems recited at a high level of generality, and, therefore, the claims are directed to the abstract concept sub-grouping of "managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people" including teaching and following rules or instructions, for example, an instructor conducting a lesson in a virtual classroom.
In addition, the claims 6-12 further recites mental processes for carrying out teaching lesson including making judgements about student input and providing feedback. But for the recitation of the recitation of computer readable medium storing instructions executed on one more computing systems and computer implemented, nothing in the claimed method or operations precludes the recitations from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of recitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Therefore, under prong 2, the claimed invention encompasses an abstract idea in the form of certain methods of organizing human activity.
Under prong 2, the instant claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. In other words, the claims do not (1) improve the functioning of a computer or other technology, (2) effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (3) are not applied with any particular machine, (4) do not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state, and (5) are not applied in any meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim, as a whole, is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, the claims are directed to the judicially recognized exception of an abstract idea. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h).
While certain physical elements (i.e., elements that are not an abstract idea) are present in the claims, such features do not affect an improvement in any technology or technical field and are recited in generic (i.e., not particular) ways. Similarly, the abstract idea does not improve the functioning of these physical elements. In recent cases, the CAFC has made it clear that the term “practical application” means providing a technical solution to a technical problem in computers or networks per se. To be patent-eligible, the claimed invention must improve the computer as a computer or network as a network. Applicant’s invention does not meet these requirements. Applicant’s invention uses a VR system to present learning material to simulate a classroom. There is no disclosure of any improvement to the technology of these systems and Applicant appears to simply use off the self-components for their intended purpose. Applicant’s invention uses generic computers and components found in any VR system as a tool to implement the abstract idea of teaching a user and/or simulating a classroom. As such, the claims are not eligible under Section 101.
Step 2B requires that if the claim encompasses a judicially recognized exception, it must be determined whether the claimed invention recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements or combination of elements other than the abstract idea per se amounts to no more than: a system having a computer a memory and virtual reality units (headsets and/or handheld units) configured to perform the abstract idea.
These elements amount to generic, well-understood and conventional computer components. The use of computers to present learning material represents well-understood, routine, conventional activity previously known to the industry and/or constitutes extra-solution activity. As demonstrated by Berkheimer v. HP, such computer functions cannot save an otherwise ineligible claim under §101. In short, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. The claimed VR systems including headsets, displays and sensors have been used in the gaming and training environments to provide interactive simulated environments for decades. As presently recited, these components along with the processing circuitry are recited at a high level of generality and used as a tool according to their common usage to carry out the abstract idea. As such, the additional physical components do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Considered as an ordered combination, only generic computer components are present. Viewed as a whole, the claims simply recite the concept of making judgments by a generic computer. The claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Instead, the claims at issue amount to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using some unspecified, generic computer. Under relevant court precedents, that is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
As a result, claims 1-12 are not patent eligible
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Publication No. 2023/0124899 by Lu et al. (“Lu”).
In re claim 1, Lu discloses a computer-implemented method for a virtual reality system to simulate a classroom environment [¶¶5-7, 61, describe a virtual reality simulating a classroom environment], the method comprising: one or a plurality of computing resources, one or a plurality of processors, one or a plurality of virtual reality headsets with sensors, one or a plurality of virtual reality handheld units with sensors [Fig. 6, ¶¶5-7, 30, 39, 53-60, among others, describe different computing resources, processor, a virtual reality headset with sensors (e.g., camera, accelerometer, gyroscope, eye tracker) and hand-held controllers that may also be used in conjunction with the VR headset]; one or a plurality of memory resources storing instructions that when executed by one or the plurality of processors cause the virtual reality system to simulate a classroom environment to [¶¶5-7, describe, a memory containing instructions for a processor]: retrieve a user input via the virtual reality headsets and the virtual reality handheld units; wherein the user is one or a plurality of students and may include a teacher; and the user starts the virtual reality system to simulate the classroom environment [¶¶27, 30-34, 39, 49, among others, describe input from a user using an HDM and handheld controller to engaging in a lesson of a virtual classroom that may include two or more students and a teacher].
In re claim 5, Lu discloses the virtual reality system retrieves content from one or more databases over a network based on the sensor data and provides the retrieved content to the virtual reality application [¶¶27, 30,31, among others, describe an individually tailor educational environment providing access via a network to a database information retrieval system with a corpus of knowledge that includes information about a variety of educational topics].
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.
Claims 2-4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lu in view of US Publication No. 2015/0339942 by Ben-Naim (“Ben-Naim”).
In re claim 2, Lu discloses a virtual reality system to simulate the classroom environment accesses the sensor data. Lu does not explicitly teach an application programming interface provided by the virtual reality system.
Ben-Naim teaches a simulated learning environment for students to complete tasks and receive feedback wherein an application programming interface is provided by the virtual reality system [¶¶88, 127-129, 137, 138, 151, 186, describe the use of application programming interface (API) to control the inspection and manipulation of data sources including user interface controls and simulations and provide data to other components].
Lu and Ben-Naim are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of virtual learning. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the virtual classroom of Lu to provide an API for handling of data from components, such as sensors, as taught by Ben-Naim, in order enhancing productivity and efficiency, for example, by allowing different software applications to communicate with each other and allowing developers to integrate data and services from other applications without building them from scratch.
In re claim 3, Lu discloses the sensor of the virtual reality headset with sensors tracks a head position and a line of vision direction of the user and provides the head position and the line of vision direction provided by the virtual reality system [¶¶21,23, 30, 39, 59, 60, describe VR headsets with sensors (e.g., an accelerometer, gyroscope, magnetic compass, camera, eye tracker). VR headsets include the optics and electronics for rendering a display in front of eyes that displays a view of the virtual environment. Two autofocus lenses are generally placed between the screen and the eyes that adjust based on individual eye movement and positioning virtual reality is head tracking. In addition, the VR headsets accelerometers to detect three-dimensional movement, gyroscopes for angular movement, and/or a magnetic compass to identify the orientation of a user. As the user moves their head, the display presented to the user is updated in real time, making the user feel as if they are “looking around” in the virtual environment.].
Lu does not explicitly teach an application programming interface provided by the virtual reality system.
Ben-Naim teaches a simulated learning environment for students to complete tasks and receive feedback wherein an application programming interface provided by the virtual reality system [¶¶88, 127-129, 137, 138, 151, 186, describe the use of application programming interface (API) to control the inspection and manipulation of data sources including user interface controls and simulations and provide data to other components].
Lu and Ben-Naim are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of virtual learning. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the virtual classroom of Lu to provide an API for handling of data from components, such as sensors, as taught by Ben-Naim, in order enhancing productivity and efficiency, for example, by allowing different software applications to communicate with each other and allowing developers to integrate data and services from other applications without building them from scratch.
In re claim 4, Lu discloses the sensor of the virtual reality handheld units with sensors tracks a hand and a body position and a direction of motion of the user and provides the hand and the body position and the direction of motion by the virtual reality system [¶¶21, 23, 39, 59, 60, VR headsets with sensors (e.g., an accelerometer, gyroscope, magnetic compass, camera, eye tracker). The VR headsets may include devices such as accelerometers to detect three-dimensional movement, gyroscopes for angular movement, and/or a magnetic compass to identify the orientation of a user. A camera mounted on the virtual reality headset tracks hand movement of the user].
Lu does not explicitly teach an application programming interface provided by the virtual reality system.
Ben-Naim teaches a simulated learning environment for students to complete tasks and receive feedback wherein an application programming interface provided by the virtual reality system [¶¶88, 127-129, 137, 138, 151, 186, describe the use of application programming interface (API) to control the inspection and manipulation of data sources including user interface controls and simulations and provide data to other components].
Lu and Ben-Naim are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of virtual learning. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the virtual classroom of Lu to provide an API for handling of data from components, such as sensors, as taught by Ben-Naim, in order enhancing productivity and efficiency, for example, by allowing different software applications to communicate with each other and allowing developers to integrate data and services from other applications without building them from scratch.
Claims 6, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lu in view of US Publication No. 2020/0066049 by Sun et al. (“Sun”).
In re claim 6, Lu discloses: the simulation lesson comprises a grade, a subject, a standard, and a lesson renders a the simulation classroom setting; the teacher launching the simulation classroom setting and the student awaiting teacher instructions; the teacher providing the students with instructions for the simulation lesson; the students receiving instructions from the teacher and engaging in the simulation lesson; the students completing the simulation lesson and the teacher providing feedback [¶¶27, 34, 37, 39, 41-47, 48, 61, among others, describe a virtual classroom rendered with lesson (solving a math problem) with grade (3rd grade), subject (algebra), standard (difficulty) including instruction by a teacher while engaging in a simulated lesson and are provide real-time evaluation and feedback, for example, in response to detecting a correct answer, the VSM system issues compliments “Nice work, Billy!” to provide positive reinforcement].
Lu lacks, but Sun teaches the application programming interface and a user determining a simulation condition; the simulation condition comprising the selection of a simulation lesson or a simulation classroom setting [¶¶105, 113, 129-136, among others, describe a specific collaborative educational activity and/or video can be selected and downloaded from a contents database on the host, directly by individual teachers within the school. An individual teacher can then host the activity for students to access using VR gear within a classroom environment, as part of a lesson within a subject in a field of study prescribed by the school. The VR application includes low-level API, which provides complete control through a socket like interface and high-level API, which provides a simple and secure client/server network model].
Lu and Sun are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of virtual learning. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the virtual classroom of Lu to selection of a lesson and to provide an API for handling of data for a VR application, as taught by Sun, in order to improved user experience, for example, by allowing control of which lesion is taught, and by enhancing productivity and efficiency, for example, by allowing different software applications to communicate with each other and allowing developers to integrate data and services from other applications without building them from scratch.
In re claim 11, Lu discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium with instructions for a virtual reality system stored thereon that, responsive to execution by a processing device, cause the processing device to perform operations [¶¶5-7,27] comprising: retrieving from sensor data from a virtual reality headset and a virtual reality handheld unit, sensor data corresponding to a situational environment of a user [¶¶27, 30-35, 39, 49, 53-60, among others, describe different computing resources, processor, a virtual reality headset with sensors (e.g., camera, accelerometer, gyroscope, eye tracker) and hand-held controllers that may also be used in conjunction with the VR headset]; providing the sensor data to a virtual reality application [¶¶27, 30-34, 39, 49, among others, teaches input from a user using an HDM and handheld controller for a virtual reality application to engage in a lesson of a virtual classroom that may include two or more students and a teacher]; the virtual reality application on a computing device managing utilization of computing resources and executing computing instructions including a simulation lesson or a simulation classroom setting [¶¶27, 30-34, 39, 49, among others, teaches input from a user using an HDM and handheld controller to engaging in a lesson of a virtual classroom that may include two or more students and a teacher]; where the simulation lesson comprises a grade, a subject, a standard, and a lesson renders a the simulation classroom setting; the teacher launching the simulation classroom setting and the student awaiting teacher instructions; the teacher providing the students with instructions for the simulation lesson; the students receiving instructions from the teacher and engaging in the simulation lesson; the students completing the simulation lesson and the teacher providing feedback [¶¶27, 34, 37, 39, 41-47, 48, 61, among others, describe a virtual classroom rendered with lesson (solving a math problem) with grade (3rd grade), subject (algebra), standard (difficulty) including instruction by a teacher while student is engaging in a simulated lesson and providing real-time evaluation and feedback, for example, in response to detecting a correct answer, the VSM system issues compliments “Nice work, Billy!” to provide positive reinforcement].
Lu lacks, but Sun teaches the application programming interface and a user determining a simulation condition; the simulation condition comprising the selection of a simulation lesson or a simulation classroom setting [¶¶105,113, 129-136, among others, describe a specific collaborative educational activity and/or video can be selected and downloaded from a contents database on the host, directly by individual teachers within the school. An individual teacher can then host the activity for students to access using VR gear within a classroom environment, as part of a lesson within a subject in a field of study prescribed by the school. The VR application includes low-level API, which provides complete control through a socket like interface and high-level API, which provides a simple and secure client/server network model].
Lu and Sun are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of virtual learning. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the virtual classroom of Lu to allow user selection of a lesson and to provide an API for handling of data for a VR application, as taught by Sun, in order to improved user experience, for example, by allowing control of which lesion is taught, and by enhancing productivity and efficiency, for example, by allowing different software applications to communicate with each other and allowing developers to integrate data and services from other applications without building them from scratch.
In re claim 12, Lu discloses a system comprising: a memory with instructions stored thereon; and a processing device, coupled to the memory, the processing device configured to access the memory and execute the instructions wherein the instructions cause the processing device to perform operations [¶¶5-7,27] comprising: simulating lesson or simulating a classroom setting [¶¶27, 30-34, 39, 49, among others, teaches input from a user using an HDM and handheld controller to engaging in a lesson of a virtual classroom that may include two or more students and a teacher]; where the simulation lesson comprises a grade, a subject, a standard, and a lesson renders a the simulation classroom setting; the teacher launching the simulation classroom setting and the student awaiting teacher instructions; the teacher providing the students with instructions for the simulation lesson; the students receiving instructions from the teacher and engaging in the simulation lesson; the students completing the simulation lesson and the teacher providing feedback [¶¶27, 34, 37, 39, 41-47, 48, 61, among others, describe a virtual classroom rendered with lesson (solving a math problem) with grade (3rd grade), subject (algebra), standard (difficulty) including instruction by a teacher while student is engaging in a simulated lesson and providing real-time evaluation and feedback, for example, in response to detecting a correct answer, the VSM system issues compliments “Nice work, Billy!” to provide positive reinforcement].
Lu lacks, but Sun teaches simulating a virtual leaning environment wherein the simulation operations include a user determining a simulation condition; the simulation condition comprising the selection of a simulation lesson or a simulation classroom setting [¶¶105,113, 129-136, among others, describe a specific collaborative educational activity and/or video can be selected and downloaded from a contents database on the host, directly by individual teachers within the school. An individual teacher can then host the activity for students to access using VR gear within a classroom environment, as part of a lesson within a subject in a field of study prescribed by the school. The VR application includes low-level API, which provides complete control through a socket like interface and high-level API, which provides a simple and secure client/server network model].
Lu and Sun are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of virtual learning. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the virtual classroom of Lu to allow user selection of a lesson, as taught by Sun, in order to improved user experience, for example, by allowing control of which lesion is taught.
Claim 7 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lu in view of US Publication No. 2020/0388183 by Bramlet et al. (“Bramlet”).
In re claim 7, Lu lacks, but Bramlet teaches the simulation lesson comprising: the selection of a manual guide more or an automatic guide mode; wherein the manual guide mode allows the student to control how the simulation starts, stops, and results in the student navigating the simulation lesson at a self-determine pace [¶¶157, 177, 224, among others, describes selection of an experience perception approach. The approaches include a manual approach where session control information from the learner takes control. In one example, the instance experience module 290 interprets learner input information 174 from the learner to produce learning session control information. For example, the instance experience module 290 interprets the learner input information 174 with respect to the learner output information 172 to identify one or more commands (e.g., change view, zoom, and perspective, snap to a perspective viewpoint, change dimensions, i.e., two-dimensional to three-dimensional, static time, streaming time, jump to a time reference, stop, pause, rewind, fast-forward, set playback rate, set playback direction, object manipulation information, i.e., pointer position, click select, selecting learning objectives, selection of lessons, and accessing index information). In response to the human output 162, the human interface module 18 receives human input 164 (e.g., to manipulate a viewpoint and perspective for the learner 28-1 and to control a pace of the learning experience].
Lu and Bramlet are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of virtual learning. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the virtual classroom of Lu to provide controls to allow student to control pace of learning, as taught by Bramlet, in order to improve user experience, for example, by providing the user with increased control over their environment, reduce stress by user and/or increase the probability the user is able to learn the material, see, e.g., ¶¶197,202.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lu in view of Sun and further in view of US Publication No. 2013/0244218 by Cook et al. (“Cook”).
In re claim 8, Lu discloses the student further comprising an avatar [¶¶37, 40], but lacks further determining whether to further customize the avatar comprising: wherein customizing the avatar comprises a physical feature, a facial feature, a complexion feature, a hair feature, a clothing feature, an accessory feature, a signature gesture feature; and when finished customizing the avatar a student is awaiting teacher instructions.
Sun teaches an educational system providing a virtual learning environment for students in which students can customize the appearance of their Avatar [¶14,24, 155, 247, 259, describe customization of avatars and their associated animations].
Sun does not provide the specifics of all aspects of Avatar customization. However, Green teaches customization of avatars including providing a library of avatars, a library of customization options, and on-screen tools that show a user how to modify the avatar using the customization options. For example, to edit an avatar, the present invention may provide “views” wherein a user may select avatar “physical” features options, animation options, text options, apparel options, audio options, and other creator customization options. The user may select the general body style of the avatar, then move on to selecting the avatar's skin tone, facial features, clothing, hair and hairstyle, accessories, and so forth. This particular customized avatar may be saved in the user's avatar library or added to a library accessible by more than one user [col. 12, l. 12-col. 13 l. 67].
Lu, Sun, and Cook, are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of virtual reality using avatars. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the virtual classroom of Lu to provide customization of Avatars, as taught by Sun and Cook, in order to improve user experience, for example, by providing the user with increased control of their virtual appearance.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lu in view of Sun and further in view of Bramlet.
In re claims 9 and 10, Lu lacks, but Bramlet teaches wherein the teacher feedback further comprising: determining whether the simulation lesson generates questions; calculating the number of questions/tasks the student answers/performs correctly; and storing and recording points for the correctly answered questions [¶¶90, 210-220 describes providing questions and task to a learner and performing an evaluation including determining whether the user answers/performs the tasks and associated questions correctly, including points associated with the question, an evaluation score, and determining a percentage of the correctly answer questions (calculating number answered correctly)].
Lu and Bramlet are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of virtual learning. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the virtual classroom of Lu to determination of correct answers/task as feedback, as taught by Bramlet, in order to allow the student and teaches to understand how the student is progressing with their learning.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is listed on the attached Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrew Bodendorf whose telephone number is (571) 272-6152. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM ET.
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, Xuan Thai can be reached on (571) 272-7147. 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 Electro