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 .
The Office acknowledges the amendment dated 09 October 2025, in which:
Claims 1-13 are currently pending.
Claims 1 and 6-9 are amended.
Claims 10-13 are newly added.
Response to Arguments/Amendments/Remarks
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-10 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references used in the current rejection.
Applicant argues that Asukai only recognizes "situations" (e.g., train, car) and does not calculate "safety scores." The Office respectfully disagrees. Asukai’s recognition of a "train" or "road" inherently provides the data necessary for a safety assessment. Kapinos bridges this gap by explicitly teaching that these recognized environmental contexts (sidewalks, hallways, etc.) are rated for danger (Kapinos, Para. [0012]). Assigning a numerical "score" to a "danger level" is a well-known data processing technique.
Applicant further argues the "reference output" and "correction degree" hierarchy is missing. As explained above, Kapinos provides a baseline output based on the environment and movement, while Asukai providing brain-state data creates the motivation to fine-tune that baseline. This hierarchical control (Reference + Correction) is a universal engineering principle used to combine static and dynamic variables. Its application to AR safety represents a predictable use of known elements.
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 of this title, 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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asukai (US 2021/0145340) in view of Kapinos et al. (US 2019/0035124, hereinafter “Kapinos”).
With respect to Claim 1 (Currently Amended), Asukai teaches an information providing device that provides information to a user (Para. [0061]), comprising:
an output unit including a display unit configured to output a visual stimulus (Fig. 2, display unit 131),
a sound output unit configured to output an auditory stimulus (Fig. 2, sound output unit 132), and
a sensory stimulus output unit configured to output a sensory stimulus other than the visual stimulus and the auditory stimulus (Para. [0074], [0089], feedback type may be tactile stimuli (electricity, temperature, wind, pressure, and the like), olfaction (smell), and the like in addition to auditory stimuli (sound) and vision (video));
an environment sensor configured to detect, as environment information surrounding the information providing device, position information of the information providing device (Para. [0097], [0070], [0079], sensor unit 122 including a location information acquisition unit (e.g., GNSS) which is used to recognize the user’s situation, such as being “one the way to work” or on a “train”);
a biological sensor configured to detect, as biological information of the user, cerebral activation degree of the user (Para. [0124], a biological sensor as part of the sensor unit 122 for brainwaves to determine a positive/negative (P/N) emotional state, which is a functional equivalent of the claimed “cerebral activation degree” as both are metrics derived from brain activity to quantify the user’s internal state for system adaptation);
an output selecting unit configured to select, based on the environment information, one of the display unit, the sound output unit, and the sensory stimulus output unit (Para. [0089], Fig. 2, feedback selection unit 104 selects an output (e.g., sound, video, tactile stimulus) based on the situation (environment) and the identified P/N state);
a user state identifying unit configured to calculate an output specification correction degree for correcting the reference output specification, based on the cerebral activation degree of the user (Para. [0085] – [0086], identification unit 103 that identifies the user’s P/N emotional state based on the situation and action. This identified P/N state is functionally equivalent to the claimed “output specification correction degree,” as both are values derived from the user’s state that are used to determine the final output).
Asukai does not expressly teach deciding on a reference output specification based solely on position information and then correcting this reference specification using a correction degree derived from the user's brain activity.
However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the system, as taught by Asukai, to incorporate this specific control logic. Asukai teaches a complete system with all the necessary hardware and provides clear motivation to adapt system output based on both the user's environment (location) and internal state (brain activity). The disclosed method of using a pre-populated database to map a (Situation, Action, P/N) tuple to a specific feedback package (See Fig. 4 and corresponding disclosure) is one possible implementation. A hierarchical control loop, where a baseline or "reference" is set by a relatively static context variable (like location) and then fine-tuned or "corrected" by a dynamic user state variable (like brain activity), is a standard and well-known design pattern in the field of adaptive control and human-computer interaction. Implementing such a control scheme in the system of Asukai would be a matter of routine engineering and an obvious design choice to potentially improve system scalability and responsiveness compared to maintaining an exhaustive database for every possible scenario. Therefore, the claimed invention would have been obvious.
Applicant argues that Asukai fails to teach an output specification deciding unit that uses safety scores to decide on a reference output specification, which is then corrected based on a correction degree from brain activity.
However, Kapinos explicitly teaches an AR/VR system that identifies real-world objects and assigns them a "danger level" or "danger rating" (Kapinos, Para. [0012], [0060]). These "danger ratings" (e.g., for stairs, sidewalks, or high-traffic areas) are the functional equivalent of the claimed "safety scores" calculated from environment information. Kapinos further teaches altering the presentation of the virtual rendition (the "reference output specification") based on these danger levels, such as changing transparency or size (Kapinos, Para. [0012], [0070]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) to combine Asukai’s biological state monitoring (brain activity) with Kapinos’s danger-rated safety interface. The motivation to do so is to enhance user safety: specifically, using the user's real-time cognitive state (Asukai) to correct the baseline safety settings determined by the environment (Kapinos, Para. [0012]). For example, if Kapinos sets a "reference" transparency level due to a detected hazard (low safety score), but Asukai’s biological sensor indicates the user is inattentive (low cerebral activation), it would be a routine design choice to calculate a "correction degree" to further increase transparency or sound volume to ensure the user perceives the risk.
Claims 8 and 9 are directed to a method and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, respectively, that recite the same functional limitations as the apparatus of claim 1. For the same reasons that claim 1 is considered obvious over Asukai, claims 8 and 9 are also obvious over the Asukai disclosure.
Regarding Claims 10-11 (Visual Stimulus Size/Transparency):
Kapinos explicitly teaches that the "transparency and/or rendering of the virtual rendition may depend on the user's velocity/speed" and "danger level" (Kapinos, Para. [0013], [0016]). Kapinos teaches that virtual objects may be made larger to create a "buffer space" (Kapinos, Para. [0016], [0075]) and that objects become more transparent if they are impediments in the user's path (Kapinos, Para. [0012], [0070]). It is a predictable application of these teachings to correlate a "lower safety score" with "smaller image size" (to reduce occlusion) or "higher transparency," as recited in Claims 10-11.
Regarding Claims 12-13 (Auditory Stimulus Volume):
Asukai teaches multimodal feedback including auditory stimuli (Asukai, Para. [0089]). Kapinos teaches using "audible notifications" to alert users of real-world objects (Kapinos, Para. [0076]). A PHOSITA would find it obvious to increase the sound volume (Claim 13) when a safety score is low to ensure the user hears a warning in a high-risk environment, as this is a common-sense safety feature in alerting systems.
With respect to Claim 2, Asukai teaches the information providing device according to claim 1, wherein the output selecting unit is configured to select, based on the environment information and the biological information of the user, one of the display unit, the sound output unit, and the sensory stimulus output unit (Para. [0089], feedback selection unit 104 selects feedback based on the P/N identification result (biological information) in addition to the recognized situation (environmental information)).
With respect to Claim 3, Asukai teaches the information providing device according to claim 2, wherein
when at least one of a first condition in which position of the information providing device is within a predetermined area and the cerebral activation degree is equal to or smaller than a cerebral activation degree threshold value and a second condition in which variation in position of the information providing device per unit time is equal to or smaller than a predetermined variation threshold value and in which the cerebral activation degree is equal to or lower than the cerebral activity degree threshold value is satisfied, the output selecting unit is configured to select the display unit, and when neither the first condition nor the second condition is satisfied, the output selecting unit is configured not to select the display unit (Asukai teaches the principle of creating specific rules based on location and user state, for example, identifying a negative action when a user is “walking with his/her head down” during a “commuting” situation, Para. [0115] – [0116] and Fig. 6. While Asukai does not expressly disclose specific activation degree thresholds, establishing such specific operational rules to achieve a desired outcome (e.g., user safety) would have been a matter of routine design and experimentation for one of ordinary skill in the art, not rising to the level of an inventive step).
With respect to Claim 4, Asukai teaches the information providing device according to claim 3, wherein the predetermined area is on a railway track or on a road (Fig. 14, situation R6 is “train & sitting” and R7 is “train & delay”).
With respect to Claim 5, Asukai teaches the information providing device according to claim 1, wherein the sensory stimulus output unit is configured to output a tactile stimulus as the sensory stimulus (Para. [0074], providing feedback in the form of tactile stimulation on the body).
Regarding Claims 6 and 7, these claims recite systems that are subsets of the system taught by Asukai. Asukai teaches a system that decides its output based on a combination of environmental and biological information. A system that decides output based on only environmental information (claim 6) or only biological information (claim 7) would be an obvious, simplified version of the more comprehensive system disclosed in the disclosure of Asukai.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN EARLES whose telephone number is (571)272-4628. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday at 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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, William Boddie can be reached on 571-272-0666. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRYAN EARLES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2625
Prosecution Insights