DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 1-3, 7-11, and 15-16, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailenson et al. (US 2023/0104870) in view of Bradford et al. (US 2006/0147890) and Clark (US 11,631,339).
Regarding claims 1, 9, Bailenson discloses a training system comprising an XR computer training environment to assess knowledge retention, a skill, an understanding, validating a lesson learning objective, and diagnosing failures, comprising performing an exercise scenario and recording trainee performance, and determining by comparison to standards whether or not the trainee achieved the objectives of skill, knowledge, and understanding. See paragraph 0019. Bailenson discloses selection of a bounded training area within a larger area, each with a respective length and width. See paragraphs 0026 and 0064 (the insertion of objects based upon position into the larger AR setting).
Bailenson does not disclose a training report. However, this is a common feature of training systems, as is disclosed by Bradford in paragraph 0016. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing, to consider this with the Bailenson system, in order to effectively provide performance results.
Bailenson discloses wherein the system is general purpose, but nevertheless does not teach wherein the training pertains to EOD search tasks. However, such training schemes are established, as is disclosed by the simulation system of Clark in col. 2: 20-31. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing, to consider this with the Bailenson system, in order to provide various training scenarios.
With regard to claim 9, Bailenson discloses wherein the system operates as computer algorithms in paragraph 0102.
Regarding claims 2, 8, 10, 16, Bailenson does not explicitly disclose wherein process can repeat over remedial iterations. However, this is common with regard to training systems, as is disclosed by Bradford in paragraph 0016. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing, to consider this with the Bailenson system, in order to provide focused training (i.e. the established advantage of the concept).
Regarding claims 3, 11, Bailenson discloses gaze tracking for performance analysis. See paragraph 0019.
Regarding claims 7, 15, Bailenson does not disclose wherein trainee performances can be compared to identify learning trends. However, this is an established concept with regard to training systems, as is disclosed by Bradford in paragraph 0016. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to consider such analysis with the Bailenson system, in order to provide focused training scenarios.
Claims 4-6 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailenson et al. (US 2023/0104870) in view of Bradford et al. (US 2006/0147890) and Clark (US 11,631,339). and also Rios et al. (US 11,730,543).
Regarding claims 4-6 and 12-14, Bailenson does not disclose a haptics method for performance analysis. However, this is established with regard training systems, as is disclosed by the system of Rios in col. 8 :32-35. Note the hand gesture tracking with the gloves and sensors for spatial position described in col. 12: 7-24. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to consider such gloves and sensory schemes with the Bailenson system, in order to provide various training scenarios.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Derickson et al. (US 2022/0108622) in view of Ahmed et al. (US 2025/0014200).
Regarding claim 17, Derickson discloses a training system wherein 3D training elements are developed from various open-source intelligence, and utilized in a virtual training environment. See paragraph 0077. It is disclosed wherein these sources can include technical diagrams (e.g. layouts) in paragraph 0047.
Derickson does not specify image collections or neural radiance fields. However, use of these to generate 3D models are established, as disclosed by Ahmed in paragraphs 0044 and 0052. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing, to consider these information sources with the Derickson system, in order to provide various training scenarios.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Derickson et al. (US 2022/0108622) in view of Ahmed et al. (US 2025/0014200) and Bailenson et al. (US 2023/0104870) and Clark (US 11,631,339).
Regarding claim 18, Derickson discloses location-based learning objectives in paragraph 0077 (e.g. exit locations), and the system can be used multiple times (i.e. a second time as per claim 19). Derickson does not disclose EOD tasks and learning objectives, skill assessments, or understanding assessments. However, These concepts are disclosed by Bailenson and Clark, as described above with regard to claim 1. It would have been obvious to include such features with the Derickson system in order to provide various training scenarios.
Regarding claim 19, see the rejection of claim 2 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY A MUSSELMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1814. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8:00AM - 4:00PM.
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, PETER S VASAT can be reached at 571-570-7625. 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.
TIMOTHY A. MUSSELMAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3715
/TIMOTHY A MUSSELMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715