DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-11, 13, 15, 17, 19-21, 24-27, and 29 are presented for examination based on the amended claims in the application filed on August 15, 2023. Claims 3, 8, 12, 14, 16, 18, 22-23, and 28 have been cancelled by the applicant.
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.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 9-11, 13, 20-21, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 5-6, 20, and 24-26 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 16-17, and 33 of U.S. Patent Application No. 18/274160 [herein “App. ‘160”] filed March 18, 2026.
Claims 2, 7, 9-11, 15, 17, 19, 21, and 27 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 16-17, and 33 of App. ‘160, as applied to claims 1 and 25, in further view of US 2014/0287806 A1 Balachandreswaran, Dhanushan.
Claim 4 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 16-17, and 33 of App. ‘160, as applied to claim 1, in further view of US 2020/0128106 A1 McCormack, Michael.
Claims 13 and 29 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 16-17, and 33 of App. ‘160 and Balachandreswaran, as applied to claims 10 and 28, in further view of Katragadda, Saimouli, Benedict A. Mondal, and Anil Deane. "Stereoscopic mixed reality in unmanned aerial vehicle search and rescue." In AIA A Scitech 2019 Forum, p. 0154. 2019.
Claims 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception, an abstract idea, it has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 1-2, 5-7, 9-11, 15, 17, 19-21, 24-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2014/0287806 A1 Balachandreswaran, Dhanushan.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Balachandreswaran, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of US 2020/0128106 A1 McCormack, Michael.
Claims 13 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Balachandreswaran, as applied to claims 10 and 27, respectively, and further in view of Katragadda, Saimouli, Benedict A. Mondal, and Anil Deane. "Stereoscopic mixed reality in unmanned aerial vehicle search and rescue." In AIA A Scitech 2019 Forum, p. 0154. 2019.
This action is made non-Final.
--- This page is left bank after this line ---
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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on September 26, 2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following informalities:
Fig. 1 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "121" and “122” have both been used to designate “controller”. Per Para. 0063, character “122” should be “display”.
Fig. 7 has an arrow above the first step 702 that does not indicate from where the arrow originates (e.g. no previous step/box).
Fig. 7 needs an arrow to show which step comes after step 710.
Fig. 8a needs an arrow to show which step comes after step 802.
Fig. 8a needs a “no” label next to the arrow below step 804 to annotate the respective decision at step 804.
Fig. 8a has an line below the last step/box that is labeled “Guarantee path” that does lead anywhere (e.g., step after the “Guarantee path” line).
Fig. 8b and 8C comprise of a plurality of decision steps that only have one path (e.g. the decision steps should have both “yes” path and a “no” path). Similarly, Fig. 9 has no steps following decision at step 905 nor has a “yes” path following decision at step 908.
It is unclear how Fig. 9 (Pg. 11) and Fig. 9 cont’d (Pg. 12) are connected to form a complete diagram. This is no element named or numbered that is shared between the figures or that is transcribed across the two pages to show where the first part (i.e. part on Fig. 9 on Pg. 11) ends and where the second part (i.e. part on Fig. 9 cont’d) continues. Fig. 9 on Pg. 11 should end at a box to indicate transfer to the next figure as similarly shown in Fig. 5 (i.e., “Proceed to figure 6”), and Fig, 9 cont’d should continue with a box as a continuation from the previous figure as similar shown in Fig. 6 (i.e. “From figure 5 fast track”).
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 a n 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 a s 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.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The following title is suggested: SYSTEM FOR GENERATING REAL AND VIRTUAL EVENTS IN REAL AND VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENTS BASED ON BEHAVIOUR MONITORING.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Para 0015, which recites “Figure 2 is a diagram similar to figure 2”, should be “Figure 2 is a diagram similar to figure 1”.
Para 0016, which recites “Figure 3 is a diagram similar to figure 2”, should be “Figure 3 is a diagram similar to figure 1”.
Para 0027, which recites “Figure 16 is similar to figure 16”, should be “Figure 16 is similar to figure 15”.
Para. 0029, which recites “Figure 18 comprises schematic diagrams illustrating relationships between synthetic and virtual events, should be “Figure 18 comprises schematic diagrams illustrating relationships between real and synthetic events”.
Para. 0043, which recites “Some examples of subject sensor data, optionally leading to a domain actuator being actuated, include but are not limited to:”, is not a complete sentence.
Para. 0044, which recites “e.g. vocal, sound being played”, should be “e.g. vocal[[,]] sound being played”.
Para. 0051, which recites “The server 120 shown in the figures”, should be “The server 120 shown in figures 1-3”.
Para. 0084, which recites “and an omni-directional treadmill Whether or not the subject sensors are wearable”, should have a period between “treadmill” and “Whether”.
Para. 0086, which recites “e.g. gaming venue, monitor”, should be “e.g. gaming venue[[,]] monitor”.
Para. 00132, which recites “target may "decide" to on an action”, should be “target may "decide" [[to]] on an action”.
Para. 00167, which recites “room 1301 may accommodate a subject acting as an operator of a mortar”, should be “room 1303 may accommodate a subject acting as an operator of a mortar”.
Para. 00167, which recites “the subject acting as mortar operator may be provided with a virtual environment, for example via a VR headset, representing what a real mortar operator would know of activity taking place in the domain 1300”, should be “the subject acting as mortar operator may be provided with a virtual environment, for example via a VR headset, allowing a real mortar operator to know of activity taking place in the domain 1300”.
Para. 00184, which recites “one two dimensional and one three dimensional, representing individuals” should be “one two-dimensional and one three-dimensional target, respectively, representing individuals”.
Para. 00187, which recites “Each such item may be which is moved”, should be “Each such item may be [[which is]] moved to”.
The use of the terms “Bluetooth”, “iPad”, “Samsung Galaxy”, and “Android Tactical Assault Kit "ATAK"”, which are trade names or marks used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore, the terms should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the terms. Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Appropriate correction is required.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-11, 13, 15, 17, 19-21, 25-27, and 29 are objected to because of the following informality: recitations of elements with a previous recitation. For example, claim 1, “a real individual” in Ln. 4, is improper because there has been a previous recitation of “a real individual” in Ln. 3. For the purpose of examination, “a real individual” in in Ln. 4 will be interpreted as “another real individual”. Alternatively, the examination recommends providing a number identifier to each real individual (e.g. a first real individual and a second real individual). Similarly, the following are objected under similar rationale:
Claim 1, which recites “the system comprising: apparatus” in Ln. 2-3, should be “the system comprising: an apparatus”.
Claim 1, which recites “an individual in a real environment” in Ln. 5, should be “the real individual in the real environment”. Claims 5, 11 and 13, having similar limitations of claim 1, are also objected.
Claim 1, which recites “a real environment” in Ln. 9, should be “the real environment”.
Claim 1, which recites “a real individual in the real environment” in Ln. 10, should be “the real individual in the real environment”. Claims 7, 10 and 17, having similar limitations of claim 1, are also objected.
Claim 4, which recites “a virtual environment” in Ln. 2-3, should be “the virtual environment”.
Claim 11, which recites “a real individual in the virtual environment” in Ln. 2, should be “the real individual in the virtual environment”.
Claim 17, which recites “cross from a real environment representing a first area into a real environment representing a second area” in Ln. 2-3, should be “cross from a real environment representing a first area into another real environment representing a second area”.
Claim 21, which recites “The system of claim 20 comprising apparatus” in Ln. 1, should be “The system of claim 20 comprising an apparatus”.
Claim 21, which recites “an event in real time for another real individual in the real environment” in Ln. 5, should be “the event in real time for another real individual in the real environment”.
Claim 25, which recites “the system comprising: simulation apparatus” in Ln. 2-3, should be “the system comprising: an simulation apparatus”.
All claims dependent on an objected base claim are objected based on their dependency.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-11, 13, 15, 17, 19-21, 24-27, and 29 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1, which cites “the simulation of an event in real time for another real individual” on in Ln. 8-9, is improper because there has been no previous recitation of “the simulation of an event in real time for another real individual”. For the purpose of examination, “the simulation of an event in real time for another real individual” will be interpreted as “a simulation of an event in real time for another real individual”. Similarly, the following are objected under similar rationale:
Claim 1, which recites “the simulation of an event in real time in the virtual environment for the other real individual” in Ln. 10-11, should be “a simulation of an event in real time in the virtual environment for the other real individual”.
Claim 2, which recites “the real and the virtual environments” in Ln. 1-2, should be “the real environment and the virtual environment”. Claim 10, having similar limitations of claim 2, is also objected.
Claim 2, which recites “the real individuals” in Ln. 3, should be “the real individual and the other real individual”.
Claim 9, which recites “respective virtual environments” in Ln. 2-3, should be “the virtual environment”.
Claim 13, which recites “the manner” in Ln. 2, should be “a manner”. Claim 29, having similar limitations of claim 13, is also objected.
Claim 13, which recites “the area displayed” in Ln. 2-3, should be “an area displayed”.
Claim 15, which recites “the different real environments” in Ln. 2-3, should be “the different geographically separated real environments”.
Claim 15, which recites “the distance” in Ln. 3, should be “a distance”.
Claim 15, which recites “the real distance” in Ln. 4, should be “a real distance”.
Claim 17, which recites “the subject” in Ln. 4, should be “a subject”. Claim 24, having similar limitations of claim 17, is also objected.
Claim 24, which recites “the subject’s behavior” in Ln. 5, should be “subject’s behaviour” or “a behavior of the individual”.
Claim 24, which recites “the subject sensor data” in Ln. 10, should be “the sensor data”.
Claim 24, which recites “the domain” in Ln. 11, should be “a domain”.
Claim 25, which recites “the one or more individuals” in Ln. 3, should be “one or more individuals”.
Claim 25, which recites “the domain” in Ln. 6, should be “the real domain”. Claim 26, having similar limitations of claim 25, is also objected.
Claim 29, which recites “The system of claim 28” in Ln. 1, should be “The system of claim 27”.
Claim 29, which recites “the device” in Ln. 2, should be “a device”.
Claim 29, which recites “the individual” in Ln. 2, should be “the one or more individuals”.
Claim 29, which recites “the area displayed” in Ln. 2-3, should be “a displayed area”.
All claims dependent on an objected base claim are objected based on their dependency.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The term “apparently” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “apparently” is not defined in the current claim; however, claim 6 does provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree of the term for which the term has be interpreted as meaning (see Claim 6, “the area apparently outside the real environment at least partially comprises the virtual environment”). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art could be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention (see MPEP § 2173.05(b)). To improve the legibility of the claim, the examiner recommends amending the claim 5, “an area apparently outside the real environment”, to incorporated the limitation of claim 6 to be “the virtual environment” or similar, as supported by the specification, to confine the claim into a clear meaning and eliminate the subjectivity of the claim language. Claim 25, having similar limitations as claim 5, has been interpreted under similar rationale. Claims 7 and claims 26-27 and 29, which are dependent on claims 5 and 25, respectively, have been interpreted under similar rationale.
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.
Regarding Claim 1, such limitations are “apparatus for providing” and “simulation apparatus for simulating”. Regarding claim 21, such limitation is “apparatus for providing multiple virtual environments”. Regarding claim 24, such limitations are “simulation apparatus for simulating”, “a subject device to receive”, and “a domain device to receive”. Regarding claim 25, such limitation is “simulation apparatus for simulating”. Regarding claim 29, such limitation is “device is configured to control”. Claims 2, 4-7, 9-11, 13, 15, 17, 19-21, 26-27, and 29 also be interpreted based on their claim dependencies.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/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.
The following limitations are interpreted as invoking 34 U.S.C 112(f) of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C 112, sixth paragraph:
In claim 1, “apparatus for providing a virtual environment to a real individual”. The corresponding structure in the discloser for performing the claimed providing a virtual environment is the virtual reality headset as shown in Claim 4 (“wherein the apparatus for providing a virtual environment comprises a virtual reality headset”) and Para. 00162 (“subjects may experience a virtual environment, for example using a virtual reality headset”). Therefore, the interpretation of “apparatus for providing a virtual environment to a real individual” is a virtual reality headset. Similarly claim 21, “apparatus for providing multiple virtual environments” is also the virtual reality headset.
In claim 1 and claim 25, “a simulation apparatus for simulating events for an individual in a real environment using physical effects”. The corresponding structure in the discloser for performing the claimed simulating events using physical effects is an actuator as shown in Para. 00189 (“Any of these actuators, either associated with the domain or the subject or a combination of both, may provide simulation apparatus for simulating events for a real individual in a real environment using physical effects”). Therefore, the interpretation of “a simulation apparatus for simulating events for an individual in a real environment using physical effects” is an actuator.
In claim 24, “a simulation apparatus for simulating events for an individual in a real environment comprising a plurality of subject sensors for monitoring the subject's behaviour including one or more body worn or carried sensors and one or more remote sensors”. As discussed above, the corresponding structure in the discloser for performing the claimed simulating events is an actuator. However, this claim limitation also requires that the apparatus comprise of a sensor. Thus, there is no corresponding structure in the disclosure to perform both the claimed simulating events and comprising a sensor to monitor behavior of this limitation. Therefore, the disclosure is devoid of any clear structure that performs the functions in the claims.
In claim 24, “a subject device to be worn by the subject and to receive sensor data from the body worn sensors and from the remote sensors”. The corresponding structure in the discloser for performing the claimed receiving sensor data and worn by a subject is a computer in Para. 0039 (“The system further comprises a subject device 110a to be worn by the subject and to receive sensor data from the body worn sensors and from the remote sensors”) and Para. 0076 (“The subject device is shown to be a wearable computer”). Therefore, the interpretation of “a subject device to be worn by the subject and to receive sensor data from the body worn sensors and from the remote sensors” is a computer.
In claim 24, “a domain device to be located in the domain and to receive instructions from the server”. The corresponding structure in the discloser for performing the claimed receiving instructions from a server and located in a domain is a computer in Para. 0040 (“The system 100 may further comprise a domain device 130a to be located in the domain and to receive instructions from the server 120”) and Para. 0060 (“Any of the subject and domain devices 110a,b; 130a,b and the server 120 may comprise computing devices comprising one or more processors and memory as is known in the art, and may be configured to perform operations described here through suitably programming the one or more processors”), i.e., a subject device, a computer. Therefore, the interpretation of “a domain device to be located in the domain and to receive instructions from the server” is a computer.
In claim 29, “device is configured to enable the individual to control the area displayed in the manner of controlling an aerial vehicle”. The corresponding structure in the discloser for performing the claimed controlling an aerial vehicle to control a displayed area is a computer in Para. 00181 (“an individual in the real environment may in some systems be able to view the virtual environment, for example via a subject device seeing for example the drone feed”) and Para. 00173 (“A virtual drone is indicated at 1410. This may be "controlled" by a subject in the real environment. In other words a system may be configured for a real individual to control the visual display in the manner of controlling an aerial vehicle to determine the area displayed”), i.e., controlling visual display by a subject device, a computer. Therefore, the interpretation of “device is configured to enable the individual to control the area displayed in the manner of controlling an aerial vehicle” is a computer.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and
of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to
enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to
make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor
of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and
process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person
skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the
same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 24, the original disclosure lacks structure for “a simulation apparatus for simulating events for an individual in a real environment comprising a plurality of subject sensors for monitoring the subject's behaviour including one or more body worn or carried sensors and one or more remote sensors”. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the respective claimed functions and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim fails to comply with the written description requirement and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph (see MPEP § 2181). Claims 2-5, which are dependent on claim 1, are similarly rejected.
The Applicant may:
Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph;
Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. § 132(a)); or
Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. § 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. § 132(a)); or
Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR § 1.75(d) and MPEP § 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9-11, 13, 20-21, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites “one or more physical targets for use in the real environment to represent one or more individuals in respective virtual environments”. This phrase renders the claim indefinite, because it merely recites a use without any steps delimiting the use (See MPEP § 2173.05(q), “Attempts to claim a process without setting forth any steps involved in the process generally raises an issue of indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph”).
Claim 10 recites “visual display for use by a real individual in the real environment”. This phrase renders the claim indefinite, because it merely recites a use without any steps delimiting the use (See MPEP § 2173.05(q), “Attempts to claim a process without setting forth any steps involved in the process generally raises an issue of indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph”). Claims 11 and 13, which are dependent on claim 10, are similarly rejected.
Claim 20 recites “configured for use by multiple users”. This phrase renders the claim indefinite, because it merely recites a use without any steps delimiting the use (See MPEP § 2173.05(q), “Attempts to claim a process without setting forth any steps involved in the process generally raises an issue of indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph”). Claim 21, which is dependent on claim 20, are similarly rejected.
Claim 24 limitation “a simulation apparatus for simulating events for an individual in a real environment comprising a plurality of subject sensors for monitoring the subject's behaviour including one or more body worn or carried sensors and one or more remote sensors” invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim fails to comply with the written description requirement and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph (see MPEP § 2181). Claims 2-5, which are dependent on claim 1, are similarly rejected.
The Applicant may:
Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph;
Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. § 132(a)); or
Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. § 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. § 132(a)); or
Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR § 1.75(d) and MPEP § 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
This is a provisional double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 5-6, 20, and 24-26 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 16-17, and 33 of copending Application No. 18/274160 [herein “App. ‘160”] filed March 18, 2026. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because App. ‘160 teaches:
As per claim 1, App. ‘160 teaches “A system allowing virtual and real events to take place contemporaneously and to influence each other” (Claim 33, A system allowing virtual and real events to take place contemporaneously and to influence each other),
“the system comprising: apparatus for providing a virtual environment to a real individual” (Claim 33, the system comprising: an apparatus for providing a virtual environment to a real individual);
“one or more sensors for sensing activity by a real individual in a real environment” (Claim 33, one or more sensors for sensing activity by a real individual in a real environment);
“and a simulation apparatus for simulating events for an individual in a real environment using physical effects” (Claim 33, and a simulation apparatus for simulating events for an individual in a real environment using physical effects);
“the system being configured such that: an action by a real individual in the virtual environment causes the simulation of an event in real time for another real individual in a real environment, by the simulation apparatus” (Claim 33, the system being configured such that: an action by a real individual in the virtual environment causes the simulation of an event in real time for another real individual in a real environment, by the simulation apparatus);
“and an action by a real individual in the real environment causes the simulation of an event in real time in the virtual environment for the other real individual” (Claim 33, an action by a real individual in the real environment causes the simulation of an event in real time in the virtual environment for the other real individual; wherein the simulation apparatus for simulating events for an individual in a real environment comprises a system according to claim 1).
As per claim 5, App. ‘160 teaches “provide to an individual in the real environment a view of an area apparently outside the real environment in which the individual in the real environment is able to move” (Claim 16, provide the subject with a simulated view of an area in which a domain is apparently situated; and Claim 17, provide the subject with a simulated view of the domain from a perspective not available to the subject).
As per claim 6, App. ‘160 teaches “the area apparently outside the real environment at least partially comprises the virtual environment” (Claim 16, provide the subject with a simulated view of an area in which a domain is apparently situated; and Claim 17, provide the subject with a simulated view of the domain from a perspective not available to the subject).
As per claim 20, App. ‘160 teaches “use by multiple users in one or both of virtual and real environments” (Claim 1, a plurality of subject devices to be worn by respective subjects).
As per claim 24, App. ‘160 teaches “A system for allowing virtual and real events to take place contemporaneously and to influence each other” (Claim 33, A system allowing virtual and real events to take place contemporaneously and to influence each other),
“the system comprising: a simulation apparatus for simulating events for an individual in a real environment comprising a plurality of subject sensors for monitoring the subject's behaviour including one or more body worn or carried sensors and one or more remote sensors” (Claim 33, the system comprising a simulation apparatus for simulating events for an individual in a real environment using physical effects; Claim 1, a plurality of subject sensors for the respective subjects for monitoring the respective subject's behavior including one or more body worn or carried sensors; and Claim 9, further comprising a plurality of domain sensors arranged to detect one or more events in one of the respective domains);
“a subject device to be worn by the subject and to receive sensor data from the body worn sensors and from the remote sensors” (Claim 1, a plurality of subject devices to be worn by respective subjects…each subject device arranged to receive sensor data from the plurality of subject sensors monitoring the behavior of the respective subject; and Claim 9, wherein the server is arranged to receive sensor data from the plurality of domain sensors);
“a server arranged to receive sensor data from the subject device and to transmit instructions based on the subject sensor data” (Claim 1, a server arranged to receive sensor data from the plurality of subject devices and to transmit instructions based on data from the plurality of subject sensors; and Claim 9, transmit instructions based on data from the plurality of domain sensors);
“a domain device to be located in the domain and to receive instructions from the server” (Claim 1, a plurality of domain devices to be located in respective domains and to receive instructions from the server); and
“a plurality of domain actuators for causing one or more events in the domain in response to instructions from the domain device” (Claim 1, a plurality of domain actuators for causing one or more events in the respective domains in response to instructions form the plurality of domain devices).
As per claim 25, App. ‘160 teaches “A system for simulating an environment to one or more individuals, the system comprising: simulation apparatus for simulating events for the one or more individuals in a real domain using physical effects” (Claim 33, the system comprising a simulation apparatus for simulating events for an individual in a real environment using physical effects);
“wherein the system is configured to provide to the one or more individuals a synthesized view of or from area or space apparently outside the domain” (Claim 16, provide the subject with a simulated view of an area in which a domain is apparently situated; and Claim 17, provide the subject with a simulated view of the domain from a perspective not available to the subject).
As per claim 26, App. ‘160 teaches “provide to the one or more individuals a simulated view of the domain from a perspective not available to the one or more individuals” (Claim 16, provide the subject with a simulated view of an area in which a domain is apparently situated; and Claim 17, provide the subject with a simulated view of the domain from a perspective not available to the subject).
Claims 2, 7, 9-11, 15, 17, 19, 21, and 27 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 16-17, and 33 of App. ‘160, as applied to claims 1 and 25, in further view of US 2014/0287806 A1 Balachandreswaran, Dhanushan [herein “Balachandreswaran”].
As per claim 2, App. ‘160 does not teach “the real and the virtual environments are separated from each other so that it is not possible for real interactions between the real individuals to take place”.
However, in the same field of endeavor namely providing visualizations in a simulated gaming environment, Balachandreswaran teaches “the real and the virtual environments are separated from each other so that it is not possible for real interactions between the real individuals to take place”. (Para. 0042, “When looking through the visor 12 the user sees an augmented view of a physical environment” [the real and the virtual environments]. Claim 1, “A dynamic environment and location based augmented reality (AR) system wherein one or more users enacting in a physical environment and communicating physically and virtually based on augmented reality, said AR system comprising: a. a scanning system to scan and analyze said physical environment and to develop a map; b. plurality of local positioning systems to identify the location of said users with respect to said physical environment, said users being in the same or different locations” and Claim 14, “whereby said users interact through said central console even if said users are at different locations and having different physical environment” [i.e. the real and the virtual environments are separated from each other so that it is not possible for real interactions between the real individuals to take place]. Further see Claim 1, Claim 14, Para. 0042, and Para. 0070. The examiner has interpreted that users enact and communicate virtually in augmented reality system that provides users with an augmented view of the physical environment where the users are at different locations and have different physical environments in a physical environment in different locations as the real and the virtual environments are separated from each other so that it is not possible for real interactions between the real individuals to take place.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add “the real and the virtual environments are separated from each other so that it is not possible for real interactions between the real individuals to take place” as conceptually seen from the teaching of Balachandreswaran, into that of App. ‘160 because this modification of having a distinct real and virtual environments for the advantageous purpose of providing a greater level of game play and surreal effects between interactions of users (Balachandreswaran, Para. 0009 and 0058). Further motivation to combine be that App. ‘160 and Balachandreswaran are analogous art to the current claim as directed to providing visualizations in a simulated gaming environment.
As per claim 7, App. ‘160 does not teach “a real individual in the real environment and a real individual in the virtual environment are invisible to each other or one is invisible to the other but not vice versa”.
However, Balachandreswaran teaches “a real individual in the real environment and a real individual in the virtual environment are invisible to each other or one is invisible to the other but not vice versa”. (Para. 0043, “The augmentation can be generated by the visor 12 or by the central server 11. Users will be able to see the same types of augmentation. For example, in a game of augmented reality laser tag, if a player is behind another player, the player in front will be able to see the augmented laser beam fired by the player from behind” [firing at another player’s back, i.e. one is invisible to the other but not vice versa]. Further see Para. 0040- 0043 and 0069-0073. The examiner has interpreted when a player is behind another player and is being fired at as one is invisible to the other but not vice versa.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add “a real individual in the real environment and a real individual in the virtual environment are invisible to each other or one is invisible to the other but not vice versa” as conceptually seen from the teaching of Balachandreswaran, into that of App. ‘160 because this modification of allowing a player to see another player but not the other way around for the advantageous purpose of providing a greater level of game play and surreal effects between interactions of users (Balachandreswaran, Para. 0009 and 0058). Further motivation to combine be that App. ‘160 and Balachandreswaran are analogous art to the current claim as directed to providing visualizations in a simulated gaming environment.
As per claim 9, App. ‘160 does not teach “comprising one or more physical targets for use in the real environment to represent one or more individuals in respective virtual environments”.
However, Balachandreswaran teaches “comprising one or more physical targets for use in the real environment to represent one or more individuals in respective virtual environments”. (Para. 0051, “The visor 12 can also have receiver sensors 129. These sensor will be able to determine, for example, if another user has successfully fired upon a user's head, otherwise known as a "head shot"” [comprising one or more physical targets for use in the real environment to represent one or more individuals in respective virtual environments]. Further see Para. 0054, “Events on other users are detected using the receiver 14 which can be a vest. Output sensors are placed on or in the vest which transfer information to the visor's processor. For example, if the vest was hit with a laser tag gun, the vest's area of impact can signal infrared (IR) LEDs to turn on, and this creates an input parameter for the visor to see. The visor can see IR sources through image processing and can then create effects such as blood, gore, explosions, smoke or other forms of special effects in and around the area of impact. This can create a real-time live game environment which can provide amazing surreal effects between users” and Para. 0074, “The receiver 14 is an accessory with the main responsibility of accepting and processing IR emissions from the emitter 13. It also provides physical feedback to the user wearing the receiver 14 and provides a visual input to other users' visors 12 to see the virtual damage on the receiver 14” [comprising one or more physical targets for use in the real environment to represent one or more individuals in respective virtual environments]. Further see Para. 0036, 0051-0058, and 0071-0074. The examiner has interpreted that receiver sensors that detects and displays through the visor the virtual damage taken using special effects as comprising one or more physical targets for use in the real environment to represent one or more individuals in respective virtual environments.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add “comprising one or more physical targets for use in the real environment to represent one or more individuals in respective virtual environments” as conceptually seen from the teaching of Balachandreswaran, into that of App. ‘160 because this modification of providing physical representation of simulated objects for the advantageous purpose of providing user effects when target is hit in the game and surreal effects between interactions of users (Balachandreswaran, Para. 0054 and 0058). Further motivation to combine be that App. ‘160 and Balachandreswaran are analogous art to the current claim as directed to providing visualizations in a simulated gaming environment.
As per claim 10, App. ‘160 does not teach “comprising a visual display for use by a real individual in the real environment, the system being configured to provide a simulated aerial view of one or both of the real and virtual environments”.
However, Balachandreswaran teaches “comprising a visual display for use by a real individual in the real environment, the system being configured to provide a simulated aerial view of one or both of the real and virtual environments”. (Para. 0055, “the visor 12 can have a scanning laser rangefinder (LRF) or an ultrasonic rangefinder (USRF) 125 which maps out the environment by shooting a laser beam and calculating the time it takes to hit an obstacle and return or by the angle of the laser paths return. The scanning LRF 125 and/or the USRF 125 can map precisely the 2D or 3D environment based on obstacles, thereby allowing the user to navigate safely and accurately when interacting with the augmented reality space. It can scan and map long distances so that the system will know what is ahead before the user visibly notices the area or allowed to be visible by the visor's CGI effects or video inputs. The visor can create a "fog of war", limiting the view of the user to a certain distance (radius), as it calculates and develops the CGI required to create an environmental continuity by sensing obstacles outside of the visible radius of the user. The system can calculate and input game related characters, special effects, obstacles, etc., by having mapped and knowing the physical environment floor plan the users are situated in. Each user can generate their individual virtual map of the area they are exploring or the team can conjointly explore the same area via a singular mapping device, both of which can be stored in a central console. The scanning LRF 125 can see into corridors, doors, rooms, and even floors by looking scanning ahead, and mapping the area, and storing that data locally on the visor” [i.e. comprising a visual display for use by a real individual in the real environment, the system being configured to provide a simulated aerial view of one or both of the real and virtual environment]. Further see Para. 0055. The examiner has interpreted that a visor that maps out environment to create an individual virtual map of the area being explored by looking ahead and mapping the physical environment floor plan to allow the user to safely navigate the augmented space as comprising a visual display for use by a real individual in the real environment, the system being configured to provide a simulated aerial view of the virtual environment.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add “comprising a visual display for use by a real individual in the real environment, the system being configured to provide a simulated aerial view of one or both of the real and virtual environments” as conceptually seen from the teaching of Balachandreswaran, into that of App. ‘160 because this modification of providing users with a map view of the environment for the advantageous purpose of looking ahead and allowing the user to navigate safely through the map (Balachandreswaran, Para. 0055). Further motivation to combine be that App. ‘160 and Balachandreswaran are analogous art to the current claim as directed to providing visualizations in a simulated gaming environment.
As per claim 11, App. ‘160 does not teach “one or more predetermined actions by a real individual in the virtual environment are simulated to an individual in the real environment via the visual display”.
However, Balachandreswaran teaches “one or more predetermined actions by a real individual in the virtual environment are simulated to an individual in the real environment via the visual display”. (Para. 0063. “CGI animation which is within the realms of the simulated environment can be animated with techniques which consolidate related elements of animated entities into a set of attributes, such as creating effects of snow, rain, fog and etc. In short, procedural modelling can be used to capture the essence of various natural objects in the environment like the ruggedness of mountains, the wispy texture of clouds or even the rippling waves of bodies of water. This technique can be used to create simulations when in crowded areas, or used to create traffic in wide and barren areas. Cut scenes and cinematic are also possible. Expression based techniques can be used to automate graphical animation in a predictable way such as controlling facial and bone behaviour which would be quite useful for boss encounters and other game related characters” [e.g., a predicting a character smiling to generate an animation, i.e. one or more predetermined actions by a real individual in the virtual environment]. Para. 0073, “The detection through the visor will see augmented CGI based special effects like wounds, bullet firing, blood, gore or other types of effects 181. Also real world environment overlaid with CGI effects and animations” [are simulated to an individual in the real environment via the visual display]. Further see Para. 0063 and 0073. The examiner has interpreted that displaying through the visor computer-generated imagery (CGI) effects and animations such as executing the predictable facial behavior of encounter characters as one or more predetermined actions by a real individual in the virtual environment are simulated to an individual in the real environment via the visual display.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add “one or more predetermined actions by a real individual in the virtual environment are simulated to an individual in the real environment via the visual display” as conceptually seen from the teaching of Balachandreswaran, into that of App. ‘160 because this modification of providing users with predetermined actions for the advantageous purpose of animating encounters within the game (Balachandreswaran, Para. 0063). Further motivation to combine be that App. ‘160 and Balachandreswaran are analogous art to the current claim as directed to providing visualizations in a simulated gaming environment.
As per claim 15, App. ‘160 does not teach “different real individuals to act in different geographically separated real environments in which the different real environments are inserted into a virtual space in which the distance between and/or relative orientation of the real environments is different from the real distance and/or relative orientation”.
However, Balachandreswaran teaches “different real individuals to act in different geographically separated real environments in which the different real environments are inserted into a virtual space in which the distance between and/or relative orientation of the real environments is different from the real distance and/or relative orientation”. (Para. 0042, “When looking through the visor 12 the user sees an augmented view of a physical environment” [the real and the virtual environments]. Claim 1, “plurality of local positioning systems to identify the location of said users with respect to said physical environment, said users being in the same or different locations” [different real individuals to act in different geographically separated real environments]. Claim 14, “whereby said users interact through said central console even if said users are at different locations and having different physical environment, and wherein said individual maps from each user being combined to make a central game environment” [combining different parts from different locations of the players to make a complete map, i.e. in which the different real environments are inserted into a virtual space in which the distance between the real environments is different from the real distance]. Further Fig. 8 shows the complete map for players in the same location, this would be similar for players in different locations, by combing the parts into a complete, unified single map, i.e. which the distance between the real environments is different from the real distance. Further see Claim 1, Claim 14, Para. 0042, and Para. 0070. The examiner has interpreted that providing users with an augmented view of the physical environment where the users are at different locations and have different physical environments in a physical environment in different locations that are combined into a single central game environment as different real individuals to act in different geographically separated real environments in which the different real environments are inserted into a virtual space in which the distance between of the real environments is different from the real distance.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add “different real individuals to act in different geographically separated real environments in which the different real environments are inserted into a virtual space in which the distance between and/or relative orientation of the real environments is different from the real distance and/or relative orientation” as conceptually seen from the teaching of Balachandreswaran, into that of App. ‘160 because this modification of combining together different areas for the advantageous purpose of being together players with different locations into a single combine map and a greater level of game play (Balachandreswaran, Para. 0063 and Claim 1/14). Further motivation to combine be that App. ‘160 and Balachandreswaran are analogous art to the current claim as directed to providing visualizations in a simulated gaming environment.
As per claim 17, App. ‘160 does not teach “enable a real individual to cross from a real environment representing a first area into a real environment representing a second area which the subject has viewed in the virtual environment”.
However, Balachandreswaran teaches “enable a real individual to cross from a real environment representing a first area into a real environment representing a second area which the subject has viewed in the virtual environment.” (Para. 0041, “Since mapping is dynamic, one room is able to provide one or more unique environments using Computer-Generated-Imagery (CGI). For example, if a player is playing a game where the walls are based in medieval times, he or she may enter the room and the walls may be just brick, but when the player exits the room and re-enters, the walls may now be brick with flora growing on them. This implies that the user is in another part of the game, however, in the same physical environment. This allows for essentially an infinite amount of augmented environments that the system can produce with a fixed number of physical environments” [i.e. enable a real individual to cross from a real environment representing a first area into a real environment representing a second area]. Para. 0055, “the visor 12 can have a scanning laser rangefinder (LRF) or an ultrasonic rangefinder (USRF) 125 which maps out the environment by shooting a laser beam and calculating the time it takes to hit an obstacle and return or by the angle of the laser paths return. The scanning LRF 125 and/or the USRF 125 can map precisely the 2D or 3D environment based on obstacles, thereby allowing the user to navigate safely and accurately when interacting with the augmented reality space. It can scan and map long distances so that the system will know what is ahead before the user visibly notices the area or allowed to be visible by the visor's CGI effects or video inputs. The visor can create a "fog of war", limiting the view of the user to a certain distance (radius), as it calculates and develops the CGI required to create an environmental continuity by sensing obstacles outside of the visible radius of the user. The system can calculate and input game related characters, special effects, obstacles, etc., by having mapped and knowing the physical environment floor plan the users are situated in. Each user can generate their individual virtual map of the area they are exploring or the team can conjointly explore the same area via a singular mapping device, both of which can be stored in a central console. The scanning LRF 125 can see into corridors, doors, rooms, and even floors by looking scanning ahead, and mapping the area, and storing that data locally on the visor” [i.e. which the subject has viewed in the virtual environment]. Further see Para. 0041 and 0055-0057. The examiner has interpreted that providing augmented environments within a fixed number of physical environments to allow players to exit a room and re-enter the room to make different rooms in different parts of the game when the visor that maps out environment to create an individual virtual map of the area being explored by looking ahead and mapping the physical environment floor plan to allow the user to safely navigate the augmented space as enable a real individual to cross from a real environment representing a first area into a real environment representing a second area which the subject has viewed in the virtual environment.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add “enable a real individual to cross from a real environment representing a first area into a real environment representing a second area which the subject has viewed in the virtual environment” as conceptually seen from the teaching of Balachandreswaran, into that of App. ‘160 because this modification of allowing players to see other areas of the map for the advantageous purpose of looking ahead and allowing the user to navigate safely through the map (Balachandreswaran, Para. 0055). Further motivation to combine be that App. ‘160 and Balachandreswaran are analogous art to the current claim as directed to providing visualizations in a simulated gaming environment.
As per claim 19, App. ‘160 does not teach “wherein the real environment includes one or more items in a fixed location that is represented by a movable item in the virtual environment and which is moved to the fixed location in the virtual environment as a subject viewing the virtual environment moves into the real environment”.
Balachandreswaran teaches “wherein the real environment includes one or more items in a fixed location that is represented by a movable item in the virtual environment and which is moved to the fixed location in the virtual environment as a subject viewing the virtual environment moves into the real environment.” (Para. 0061, “augmented environment 230 created by central console station or locally at each visor 210 can place game characters in play by sensing the map 215 of the dynamic environment through the systems dynamic mapping technology” [wherein the real environment includes one or more items in a fixed location that is represented by a movable item in the virtual environment and which is moved to the fixed location in the virtual environment] and Para. 0055, “As the players move across and explore a changing environment, the game learns and adapts to the newly created map(s)” [as a subject viewing the virtual environment moves into the real environment]. Further see Para. 0055-0061. The examiner has interpreted that the augmented environment placing fame characters in play by sensing the map of the dynamic environment as players move across and explore the changing environment to create new maps as wherein the real environment includes one or more items in a fixed location that is represented by a movable item in the virtual environment and which is moved to the fixed location in the virtual environment as a subject viewing the virtual environment moves into the real environment.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add “wherein the real environment includes one or more items in a fixed location that is represented by a movable item in the virtual environment and which is moved to the fixed location in the virtual environment as a subject viewing the virtual environment moves into the real environment” as conceptually seen from the teaching of Balachandreswaran, into that of App. ‘160 because this modification of placing characters when exploring the map for the advantageous purpose of looking ahead and providing a correct and dynamic map for the players (Balachandreswaran, Para. 0040, 0055, and 0061). Further motivation to combine be that App. ‘160 and Balachandreswaran are analogous art to the current claim as directed to providing visualizations in a simulated gaming environment.
As per claim 21, App. ‘160 teaches “the system being configured such that: an action by any one of the real individuals in the virtual environments causes the simulation of an event in real time for another real individual in the real environment, by the simulation apparatus” (Claim 33, the system being configured such that: an action by a real individual in the virtual environment causes the simulation of an event in real time for another real individual in a real environment, by the simulation apparatus).
App. ‘160 does not teach “apparatus for providing multiple virtual environments to respective real individuals”.
However, Balachandreswaran teaches “apparatus for providing multiple virtual environments to respective real individuals”. (Para. 0055, “the visor 12 can have a scanning laser rangefinder (LRF) or an ultrasonic rangefinder (USRF) 125 which maps out the environment by shooting a laser beam and calculating the time it takes to hit an obstacle and return or by the angle of the laser paths return…Each user can generate their individual virtual map of the area they are exploring” [apparatus for providing multiple virtual environments to respective real individuals]. Further see Para. 0055. The examiner has interpreted that a visor that scans the environment to create a map for each player individually as apparatus for providing multiple virtual environments to respective real individuals.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add “apparatus for providing multiple virtual environments to respective real individuals” as conceptually seen from the teaching of Balachandreswaran, into that of App. ‘160 because this modification of creating multiple virtual environments for the advantageous purpose of allowing each player to map out his own area (Balachandreswaran, Para., 0055). Further motivation to combine be that App. ‘160 and Balachandreswaran are analogous art to the current claim as directed to providing visualizations in a simulated gaming environment.
As per claim 27, App. ‘160 does not teach “wherein the simulated view includes a simulated image of the one or more individuals”.
However, Balachandreswaran teaches “wherein the simulated view includes a simulated image of the one or more individuals.” (Para. 0061, “All users 201, 202 and 203 wearing the game visor can visually see special effects such as guns fires of their weapon and also all users in play by knowing the position of all accessories and users, the system can generate virtual global effects for all users regardless of their position” [wherein the simulated view includes a simulated image of the one or more individuals]. Further see Para. 0061. The examiner has interpreted that all players that can see users in play and their special and virtual global effects as wherein the simulated view includes a simulated image of the one or more individuals.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add “wherein the simulated view includes a simulated image of the one or more individuals” as conceptually seen from the teaching of Balachandreswaran, into that of App. ‘160 because this modification of providing a simulated view of the player for the advantageous purpose of providing a greater level of game play and surreal effects between interactions of users (Balachandreswaran, Para. 0009 and 0058). Further motivation to combine be that App. ‘160 and Balachandreswaran are analogous art to the current claim as directed to providing visualizations in a simulated gaming environment.
Claim 4 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 16-17, and 33 of App. ‘160, as applied to claim 1, in further view of US 2020/0128106 A1 McCormack, Michael [herein “McCormack”].
As per claim 4, App. ‘160 does not teach “the apparatus for providing a virtual environment comprises a virtual reality headset and the real environment is visible to a user with naked eyes”.
However, in the same field of endeavor namely providing visualizations in a simulated gaming environment, McCormack teaches “wherein the apparatus for providing a virtual environment comprises a virtual reality headset”. (Para. 0020-0023, “ the invention disclosed herein is able to provide. 1. Allow users located in different geographic locations AR, VR, Tablet/Phone, and PC users to view and interact with the same content simultaneously in a collaborative experience. 2. Allow AR, VR, Tablet, and PC users to easily create new content for distribution through the platform using the end-user application or third party software applications. 3. Allow AR, VR, Tablet, and PC users to see virtual avatars of each other inside the virtual environment” [wherein the apparatus for providing a virtual environment]. Para. 0172, “Turning to FIG. 12 one embodiment shows the System 100 operating on a Server Device and a plurality of Client Devices. Referring to the aforementioned real-estate use case, the real estate scenario or presentation is retrieved from the server devices 520 by the End-user Application Modules which are running on the augmented reality glasses 510, a virtual reality headset 511” [wherein the apparatus for providing a virtual environment comprises a virtual reality headset]. Further see Para. 0020-0023 and 0172. The examiner has interpreted that using a virtual reality (VR) headset to see virtual avatars of each other inside the virtual environment as wherein the apparatus for providing a virtual environment comprises a virtual reality headset.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add “wherein the apparatus for providing a virtual environment comprises a virtual reality headset” as conceptually seen from the teaching of McCormack, into that of App. ‘160 because this modification of using a virtual reality headset for the advantageous purpose of creating an immersive experience to the user (McCormack, Para. 0002). Further motivation to combine be that App. ‘160 and McCormack are analogous art to the current claim as directed to providing visualizations in a simulated gaming environment.
Claims 13 and 29 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 16-17, and 33 of App. ‘160 and Balachandreswaran, as applied to claims 10 and 28, in further view of Katragadda, Saimouli, Benedict A. Mondal, and Anil Deane. "Stereoscopic mixed reality in unmanned aerial vehicle search and rescue." In AIA A Scitech 2019 Forum, p. 0154. 2019 [herein “Katragadda”].
As per claim 13, App. ‘160 does not teach “a real individual to control the visual display in the manner of controlling an aerial vehicle to determine the area displayed”.
However, in the same field of endeavor namely providing visualizations in a simulated gaming environment, Katragadda teaches “a real individual to control the visual display in the manner of controlling an aerial vehicle to determine the area displayed.” (Pg. 2, Sect. III “The system consists of two main parts: the payload aboard the UAV and the ground control station (GCS). The payload contains a stereoscopic gimbal system housing two cameras. The pilot operates the gimbal system from the GCS through an Oculus Rift HMD. The pilot’s head rotation data is obtained from the Oculus Rift and is transmitted to the UAV; the gimbal rotates in accordance to the received data to mimic the pilot’s head movements. Video data from the cameras on the payload is transmitted to the HMD, enabling the pilot to see from the UAV’s perspective through VR” [a real individual to control the visual display in the manner of controlling an aerial vehicle]. Pg. 1 Sect. II, “we build a physical prototype that is capable of aiding SAR operations by letting the UAV pilot to visualize the environment” [a real individual to control the visual display in the manner of controlling an aerial vehicle to determine the area displayed]. Further see Sect. II-III. The examiner has interpreted that a pilot that operates an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) to visualize the environment by wearing an virtual reality head-mounted display (HMD) and rotating their head to rotate a camera on the UAV to transmit a video of the UAV’s perspective to the pilot’s HMD as a real individual to control the visual display in the manner of controlling an aerial vehicle to determine the area displayed.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add “a real individual to control the visual display in the manner of controlling an aerial vehicle to determine the area displayed” as conceptually seen from the teaching of Katragadda, into that of App. ‘160 and Balachandreswaran because this modification of using an aerial vehicle to capture the area for the advantageous purpose of better visualizing the environments (Katragadda, Pg. 1 Sect. II). Further motivation to combine be that App. ‘160, Balachandreswaran, and Katragadda are analogous art to the current claim as directed to providing visualizations in a simulated gaming environment.
Re Claim 29, it is a system claim, having similar limitations of claim 13. Thus, claim 29 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 13.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception, an abstract idea, it has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below. The examiner recommends that claim 25 be amended to incorporate the limitations of claim 29 such as so the claim does not recite an abstract idea, or similar as supported by the specification, to overcome this rejection.
Step 1:
Claims 25-27 are directed to a system and fall within the statutory category of a machine. Therefore, “Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry “Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?” we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claim 25: The limitation of “provide to the one or more individuals a synthesized view of or from area or space apparently outside the domain”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally create or draw with pen and paper a simulated view of an area outside the environment that has another individual in that outside area.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Therefore, yes, claim 25 recites an judicial exception. The claims have been identified to recite judicial exceptions, Step 2A Prong 2 will evaluate whether the claims are directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2:
Claim 25: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements: “A system for simulating an environment to one or more individuals” and “wherein the system is configured to” which is merely a recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to implement the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) with the broadest reasonable interpretation, which does not integrate a judicial exception into elements. Further, the following additional element “simulation apparatus for simulating events for the one or more individuals in a real domain using physical effects” is merely a recitation of insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. The insignificant extra-solution activities are further addressed below under step 2B as also being Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional (WURC).
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?” No, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
After having evaluated the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that claims 1 and 7 not only recite a judicial exception but that the claims are directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into practical application.
Step 2B:
Claim 25: The claim do not include any additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than generic computing components which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further, the insignificant extra-solution activities are also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)) since generating feedback using real effects to a user has been shown in the art to be Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional (see US 10,115,274 B1 Mandeville et al. Col. 1 Ln. 22-39 , “Conventional video game devices or controllers use visual and auditory cues to provide feedback to a user. In some controller or peripheral devices, kinesthetic feedback (such as active and resistive haptic feedback) and/or tactile feedback (such as vibration, texture, and heat) is also provided to the user, more generally known collectively as “haptic feedback” or “haptic effects.” Haptic feedback can provide cues that enhance and simplify the user controller or peripheral device. For example, vibration effects, or vibrotactile haptic effects, may be useful in providing cues to users of electronic devices to alert the user to specific events, or provide realistic feedback to create greater sensory immersion within a simulated or virtual environment. Conventional haptic feedback systems for gaming and other devices generally include an actuator for generating the haptic feedback attached to the housing of the controller/peripheral”).
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?” No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Having concluded the analysis within the provided framework, claim 25 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 26, it recites an additional limitation of “provide to the one or more individuals a simulated view of the domain from a perspective not available to the one or more individuals”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally create or draw with pen and paper a simulated view of an area outside the environment that has another individual in that outside area.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Regarding claim 27, it recites an additional limitation of “wherein the simulated view includes a simulated image of the one or more individuals”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper. For example, a person can mentally create or draw with pen and paper a simulated view of an area outside the environment that has another individual in that outside area.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Prong I step 2A.
Therefore, having concluded the analysis within the provided framework, claims 25-27 do not recite patent eligible subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception, an abstract idea, that has not been integrated into a practical application. The claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 26-27 are also rejected for incorporating the deficiency of their dependent claims 25, respectively. As previously mentioned, if claim 25 were to be amended to incorporate the limitations of claim 29 such as to not recite an abstract idea, or similar as supported by the specification, then the rejection would be overcome.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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.
Claims 1-2, 5-7, 9-11, 15, 17, 19-21, 24-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2014/0287806 A1 Balachandreswaran, Dhanushan [herein “Balachandreswaran”].
As per claim 1, Balachandreswaran teaches “A system allowing virtual and real events to take place contemporaneously and to influence each other, the system comprising: apparatus for providing a virtual environment to a real individual; one or more sensors for sensing activity by a real individual in a real environment; and a simulation apparatus for simulating events for an individual in a real environment using physical effects”. (Para. 0009, “The system utilizes the three high tech devices to create a level of game play or training that occurs simultaneously through real world environment sensor inputs and computer generated augmented special effects and or virtual worlds” [A system allowing virtual and real events to take place contemporaneously]. Para. 0036, “Each system comprises of several sub-systems. Each subsystem comprises of, but not limited to, a visor 12, an emitter 13, and a receiver 14” [the system comprising]. Para. 0054, “the visor 12 can detect events in the game play world or on other users. Events in the game play world, which are CGI, can be generated by the visor 12 or the central console. Events on other users are detected using the receiver 14 which can be a vest. Output sensors are placed on or in the vest which transfer information to the visor's processor. For example, if the vest was hit with a laser tag gun, the vest's area of impact can signal infrared (IR) LEDs to turn on, and this creates an input parameter for the visor to see. The visor can see IR sources through image processing and can then create effects such as blood, gore, explosions, smoke or other forms of special effects in and around the area of impact. This can create a real-time live game environment which can provide amazing surreal effects between users” [A system allowing virtual and real events to take place contemporaneously and to influence each other, the system comprising: apparatus for providing a virtual environment to a real individual]. Para. 0077, “The receiver can also be fitted with eccentric mass motors for more haptic feedback and biometric sensors. These sensors will measure health statistics such as heart rate and blood pressure, among others” [one or more sensors for sensing activity by a real individual in a real environment]. Para. 0070, “For example, an emitter 13 can be used as a laser tag gun in conjunction with recoil feedback, haptic feedback vibrations and as well as other features that can be used to tag another user's receiver(s) 14 (vest)” [a simulation apparatus for simulating events for an individual in a real environment using physical effects]. Further see Para. 0009, 0035-0040, 0053-0056, and 0070-0079. The examiner has interpreted that a system that creates a real-time live game environment to provide effects to users that occurs simultaneously through the real world and the virtual world that comprises of a visor that generates events and effects in the game play world, a receiver that has biometric sensors that measure heart rate and blood pressure, and an emitter that has recoil feedback and haptic feedback vibrations as a system allowing virtual and real events to take place contemporaneously and to influence each other, the system comprising: apparatus for providing a virtual environment to a real individual; one or more sensors for sensing activity by a real individual in a real environment; and a simulation apparatus for simulating events for an individual in a real environment using physical effects.)
Balachandreswaran teaches “the system being configured such that: an action by a real individual in the virtual environment causes the simulation of an event in real time for another real individual in a real environment, by the simulation apparatus”. (Para. 0042, “When looking through the visor 12 the user sees an augmented view of a physical environment” [the virtual environment]. “The augmentation can be generated by the visor 12 or by the central server 11. Users will be able to see the same types of augmentation. For example, in a game of augmented reality laser tag, if a player is behind another player, the player in front will be able to see the augmented laser beam fired by the player from behind” [the system being configured such that: an action by a real individual in the virtual environment, by the simulation apparatus]. Para. 0054, “the visor 12 can detect events in the game play world or on other users. Events in the game play world, which are CGI, can be generated by the visor 12 or the central console. Events on other users are detected using the receiver 14 which can be a vest. Output sensors are placed on or in the vest which transfer information to the visor's processor. For example, if the vest was hit with a laser tag gun, the vest's area of impact can signal infrared (IR) LEDs to turn on, and this creates an input parameter for the visor to see. The visor can see IR sources through image processing and can then create effects such as blood, gore, explosions, smoke or other forms of special effects in and around the area of impact. This can create a real-time live game environment which can provide amazing surreal effects between users” [causes the simulation of an event in real time for another real individual in a real environment]. Further see Para. 0072, “If the user's state of health changes, the haptic sensors are triggered to change the firing impact of the device” [e.g., user was “hit” by an another user, an action by a real individual in the virtual environment]. “Sensors read the health status of the user and cause the emitter 13 to vibrate” [causes the simulation of an event in real time for another real individual in a real environment]. Further see Para. 0042, 0053-0056, and 0071-0073. The examiner has interpreted that a visor that shows augmented view of the physical environment and lasers fired by another player that cause a user’s state of health to change and the emitter to vibrate and infrared LEDs to turn on as the system being configured such that: an action by a real individual in the virtual environment causes the simulation of an event in real time for another real individual in a real environment, by the simulation apparatus.)
Balachandreswaran teaches “the system being configured such that an action by a real individual in the real environment causes the simulation of an event in real time in the virtual environment for the other real individual.” (Para. 0069, “The emitter may have recoil feedback 134. This may be realized using a solenoid that is triggered every time the emitter is activated. The emitter may be activated using a push button or strain gauge. These may send signals back to the microprocessor to signal that the user has sent a request. For example, in a game of laser tag, the user may activate the trigger by pressing a push button that sends a request to emit an IR beam” [the system being configured such that an action by a real individual in the real environment]. Para. 0070, “The emitter 13 is equipped with a color wheel 132 or other colored or light emitted source(s) that, when triggered, will change colors at a specified frequency. Seen through the visor's visual inputs, special effects can be generated that mimic firing of weapons, laser beams or other forms of CGI effects” [causes the simulation of an event in real time in the virtual environment for the other real individual]. Further see Para. 0043, “The augmentation can be generated by the visor 12 or by the central server 11. Users will be able to see the same types of augmentation. For example, in a game of augmented reality laser tag, if a player is behind another player, the player in front will be able to see the augmented laser beam fired by the player from behind” [an action by a real individual in the real environment causes the simulation of an event in real time in the virtual environment for the other real individual]. Further see Para. 0040- 0043 and 0069-0073. The examiner has interpreted that when a player fires the emitter by pressing a push button that shows a laser beam to the player being fired at using the visors visual effects and augmented reality as the system being configured such that an action by a real individual in the real environment causes the simulation of an event in real time in the virtual environment for the other real individual.)
As per claim 2, Balachandreswaran teaches “the real and the virtual environments are separated from each other so that it is not possible for real interactions between the real individuals to take place.” (Para. 0042, “When looking through the visor 12 the user sees an augmented view of a physical environment” [the real and the virtual environments]. Claim 1, “A dynamic environment and location based augmented reality (AR) system wherein one or more users enacting in a physical environment and communicating physically and virtually based on augmented reality, said AR system comprising: a. a scanning system to scan and analyze said physical environment and to develop a map; b. plurality of local positioning systems to identify the location of said users with respect to said physical environment, said users being in the same or different locations” and Claim 14, “whereby said users interact through said central console even if said users are at different locations and having different physical environment” [i.e. the real and the virtual environments are separated from each other so that it is not possible for real interactions between the real individuals to take place]. Further see Claim 1, Claim 14, Para. 0042, and Para. 0070. The examiner has interpreted that users enact and communicate virtually in augmented reality system that provides users with an augmented view of the physical environment where the users are at different locations and have different physical environments in a physical environment in different locations as the real and the virtual environments are separated from each other so that it is not possible for real interactions between the real individuals to take place.)
As per claim 5, Balachandreswaran teaches “provide to an individual in the real environment a view of an area apparently outside the real environment in which the individual in the real environment is able to move.” (Para. 0041, “Since mapping is dynamic, one room is able to provide one or more unique environments using Computer-Generated-Imagery (CGI). For example, if a player is playing a game where the walls are based in medieval times, he or she may enter the room and the walls may be just brick, but when the player exits the room and re-enters, the walls may now be brick with flora growing on them. This implies that the user is in another part of the game, however, in the same physical environment. This allows for essentially an infinite amount of augmented environments that the system can produce with a fixed number of physical environments” and Para. 0057, “each player 201, 202, 203 and 204 explores the unknown map. The central console station 11 or at each local visor; the scanned physical mapped inputs from all users is being constructed to form a map of the area. The computer uses this information to dynamically add game material to the mapped locations. All Players of the game will share the explored maps, positions, orientation etc. with the central game management system which can be a console 11 or server based gaming engine” [i.e. provide to an individual in the real environment a view of an area apparently outside the real environment in which the individual in the real environment is able to move]. Further see Para. 0041 and 0057. The examiner has interpreted that providing augmented environments within a fixed number of physical environments to allow players to exit a room and re-enter the room to make different rooms in different parts of the game to explore unknown parts of the map to create a central game environment as provide to an individual in the real environment a view of an area apparently outside the real environment in which the individual in the real environment is able to move.)
As per claim 6, Balachandreswaran teaches “the area apparently outside the real environment at least partially comprises the virtual environment.” (Para. 0041, “Since mapping is dynamic, one room is able to provide one or more unique environments using Computer-Generated-Imagery (CGI). For example, if a player is playing a game where the walls are based in medieval times, he or she may enter the room and the walls may be just brick, but when the player exits the room and re-enters, the walls may now be brick with flora growing on them. This implies that the user is in another part of the game, however, in the same physical environment. This allows for essentially an infinite amount of augmented environments that the system can produce with a fixed number of physical environments” and Para. 0057, “each player 201, 202, 203 and 204 explores the unknown map. The central console station 11 or at each local visor; the scanned physical mapped inputs from all users is being constructed to form a map of the area. The computer uses this information to dynamically add game material to the mapped locations. All Players of the game will share the explored maps, positions, orientation etc. with the central game management system which can be a console 11 or server based gaming engine” [i.e. the area apparently outside the real environment at least partially comprises the virtual environment]. Further see Para. 0041 and 0057. The examiner has interpreted that providing augmented environments within a fixed number of physical environments to allow players to exit a room and re-enter the room to make different rooms in different parts of the game to explore unknown parts of the map to create a central game environment as the area apparently outside the real environment at least partially comprises the virtual environment.)
As per claim 7, Balachandreswaran teaches “a real individual in the real environment and a real individual in the virtual environment are invisible to each other or one is invisible to the other but not vice versa.” (Para. 0043, “The augmentation can be generated by the visor 12 or by the central server 11. Users will be able to see the same types of augmentation. For example, in a game of augmented reality laser tag, if a player is behind another player, the player in front will be able to see the augmented laser beam fired by the player from behind” [firing at another player’s back, i.e. one is invisible to the other but not vice versa]. Further see Para. 0040- 0043 and 0069-0073. The examiner has interpreted when a player is behind another player and is being fired at as one is invisible to the other but not vice versa.)
As per claim 9, Balachandreswaran teaches “comprising one or more physical targets for use in the real environment to represent one or more individuals in respective virtual environments.” (Para. 0051, “The visor 12 can also have receiver sensors 129. These sensor will be able to determine, for example, if another user has successfully fired upon a user's head, otherwise known as a "head shot"” [comprising one or more physical targets for use in the real environment to represent one or more individuals in respective virtual environments]. Further see Para. 0054, “Events on other users are detected using the receiver 14 which can be a vest. Output sensors are placed on or in the vest which transfer information to the visor's processor. For example, if the vest was hit with a laser tag gun, the vest's area of impact can signal infrared (IR) LEDs to turn on, and this creates an input parameter for the visor to see. The visor can see IR sources through image processing and can then create effects such as blood, gore, explosions, smoke or other forms of special effects in and around the area of impact. This can create a real-time live game environment which can provide amazing surreal effects between users” and Para. 0074, “The receiver 14 is an accessory with the main responsibility of accepting and processing IR emissions from the emitter 13. It also provides physical feedback to the user wearing the receiver 14 and provides a visual input to other users' visors 12 to see the virtual damage on the receiver 14” [comprising one or more physical targets for use in the real environment to represent one or more individuals in respective virtual environments]. Further see Para. 0036, 0051-0058, and 0071-0074. The examiner has interpreted that receiver sensors that detects and displays through the visor the virtual damage taken using special effects as comprising one or more physical targets for use in the real environment to represent one or more individuals in respective virtual environments.)
As per claim 10, Balachandreswaran teaches “comprising a visual display for use by a real individual in the real environment, the system being configured to provide a simulated aerial view of one or both of the real and virtual environments.” (Para. 0055, “the visor 12 can have a scanning laser rangefinder (LRF) or an ultrasonic rangefinder (USRF) 125 which maps out the environment by shooting a laser beam and calculating the time it takes to hit an obstacle and return or by the angle of the laser paths return. The scanning LRF 125 and/or the USRF 125 can map precisely the 2D or 3D environment based on obstacles, thereby allowing the user to navigate safely and accurately when interacting with the augmented reality space. It can scan and map long distances so that the system will know what is ahead before the user visibly notices the area or allowed to be visible by the visor's CGI effects or video inputs. The visor can create a "fog of war", limiting the view of the user to a certain distance (radius), as it calculates and develops the CGI required to create an environmental continuity by sensing obstacles outside of the visible radius of the user. The system can calculate and input game related characters, special effects, obstacles, etc., by having mapped and knowing the physical environment floor plan the users are situated in. Each user can generate their individual virtual map of the area they are exploring or the team can conjointly explore the same area via a singular mapping device, both of which can be stored in a central console. The scanning LRF 125 can see into corridors, doors, rooms, and even floors by looking scanning ahead, and mapping the area, and storing that data locally on the visor” [i.e. comprising a visual display for use by a real individual in the real environment, the system being configured to provide a simulated aerial view of one or both of the real and virtual environment]. Further see Para. 0055. The examiner has interpreted that a visor that maps out environment to create an individual virtual map of the area being explored by looking ahead and mapping the physical environment floor plan to allow the user to safely navigate the augmented space as comprising a visual display for use by a real individual in the real environment, the system being configured to provide a simulated aerial view of the virtual environment.)
As per claim 11, Balachandreswaran teaches “one or more predetermined actions by a real individual in the virtual environment are simulated to an individual in the real environment via the visual display.” (Para. 0063. “CGI animation which is within the realms of the simulated environment can be animated with techniques which consolidate related elements of animated entities into a set of attributes, such as creating effects of snow, rain, fog and etc. In short, procedural modelling can be used to capture the essence of various natural objects in the environment like the ruggedness of mountains, the wispy texture of clouds or even the rippling waves of bodies of water. This technique can be used to create simulations when in crowded areas, or used to create traffic in wide and barren areas. Cut scenes and cinematic are also possible. Expression based techniques can be used to automate graphical animation in a predictable way such as controlling facial and bone behaviour which would be quite useful for boss encounters and other game related characters” [e.g., a predicting a character smiling to generate an animation, i.e. one or more predetermined actions by a real individual in the virtual environment]. Para. 0073, “The detection through the visor will see augmented CGI based special effects like wounds, bullet firing, blood, gore or other types of effects 181. Also real world environment overlaid with CGI effects and animations” [are simulated to an individual in the real environment via the visual display]. Further see Para. 0063 and 0073. The examiner has interpreted that displaying through the visor computer-generated imagery (CGI) effects and animations such as executing the predictable facial behavior of encounter characters as one or more predetermined actions by a real individual in the virtual environment are simulated to an individual in the real environment via the visual display.)
As per claim 15, Balachandreswaran teaches “different real individuals to act in different geographically separated real environments in which the different real environments are inserted into a virtual space in which the distance between and/or relative orientation of the real environments is different from the real distance and/or relative orientation.” (Para. 0042, “When looking through the visor 12 the user sees an augmented view of a physical environment” [the real and the virtual environments]. Claim 1, “plurality of local positioning systems to identify the location of said users with respect to said physical environment, said users being in the same or different locations” [different real individuals to act in different geographically separated real environments]. Claim 14, “whereby said users interact through said central console even if said users are at different locations and having different physical environment, and wherein said individual maps from each user being combined to make a central game environment” [combining different parts from different locations of the players to make a complete map, i.e. in which the different real environments are inserted into a virtual space in which the distance between the real environments is different from the real distance]. Further Fig. 8 shows the complete map for players in the same location, this would be similar for players in different locations, by combing the parts into a complete, unified single map, i.e. which the distance between the real environments is different from the real distance. Further see Claim 1, Claim 14, Para. 0042, and Para. 0070. The examiner has interpreted that providing users with an augmented view of the physical environment where the users are at different locations and have different physical environments in a physical environment in different locations that are combined into a single central game environment as different real individuals to act in different geographically separated real environments in which the different real environments are inserted into a virtual space in which the distance between of the real environments is different from the real distance.)
As per claim 17, Balachandreswaran teaches “enable a real individual to cross from a real environment representing a first area into a real environment representing a second area which the subject has viewed in the virtual environment.” (Para. 0041, “Since mapping is dynamic, one room is able to provide one or more unique environments using Computer-Generated-Imagery (CGI). For example, if a player is playing a game where the walls are based in medieval times, he or she may enter the room and the walls may be just brick, but when the player exits the room and re-enters, the walls may now be brick with flora growing on them. This implies that the user is in another part of the game, however, in the same physical environment. This allows for essentially an infinite amount of augmented environments that the system can produce with a fixed number of physical environments” [i.e. enable a real individual to cross from a real environment representing a first area into a real environment representing a second area]. Para. 0055, “the visor 12 can have a scanning laser rangefinder (LRF) or an ultrasonic rangefinder (USRF) 125 which maps out the environment by shooting a laser beam and calculating the time it takes to hit an obstacle and return or by the angle of the laser paths return. The scanning LRF 125 and/or the USRF 125 can map precisely the 2D or 3D environment based on obstacles, thereby allowing the user to navigate safely and accurately when interacting with the augmented reality space. It can scan and map long distances so that the system will know what is ahead before the user visibly notices the area or allowed to be visible by the visor's CGI effects or video inputs. The visor can create a "fog of war", limiting the view of the user to a certain distance (radius), as it calculates and develops the CGI required to create an environmental continuity by sensing obstacles outside of the visible radius of the user. The system can calculate and input game related characters, special effects, obstacles, etc., by having mapped and knowing the physical environment floor plan the users are situated in. Each user can generate their individual virtual map of the area they are exploring or the team can conjointly explore the same area via a singular mapping device, both of which can be stored in a central console. The scanning LRF 125 can see into corridors, doors, rooms, and even floors by looking scanning ahead, and mapping the area, and storing that data locally on the visor” [i.e. which the subject has viewed in the virtual environment]. Further see Para. 0041 and 0055-0057. The examiner has interpreted that providing augmented environments within a fixed number of physical environments to allow players to exit a room and re-enter the room to make different rooms in different parts of the game when the visor that maps out environment to create an individual virtual map of the area being explored by looking ahead and mapping the physical environment floor plan to allow the user to safely navigate the augmented space as enable a real individual to cross from a real environment representing a first area into a real environment representing a second area which the subject has viewed in the virtual environment.)
As per claim 19, Balachandreswaran teaches “wherein the real environment includes one or more items in a fixed location that is represented by a movable item in the virtual environment and which is moved to the fixed location in the virtual environment as a subject viewing the virtual environment moves into the real environment.” (Para. 0061, “augmented environment 230 created by central console station or locally at each visor 210 can place game characters in play by sensing the map 215 of the dynamic environment through the systems dynamic mapping technology” [wherein the real environment includes one or more items in a fixed location that is represented by a movable item in the virtual environment and which is moved to the fixed location in the virtual environment] and Para. 0055, “As the players move across and explore a changing environment, the game learns and adapts to the newly created map(s)” [as a subject viewing the virtual environment moves into the real environment]. Further see Para. 0055-0061. The examiner has interpreted that the augmented environment placing fame characters in play by sensing the map of the dynamic environment as players move across and explore the changing environment to create new maps as wherein the real environment includes one or more items in a fixed location that is represented by a movable item in the virtual environment and which is moved to the fixed location in the virtual environment as a subject viewing the virtual environment moves into the real environment.)
As per 20, Balachandreswaran teaches “use by multiple users in one or both of virtual and real environments.” (Claim 1, “plurality of local positioning systems to identify the location of said users with respect to said physical environment, said users being in the same or different locations” [use by multiple users]. Claim 14, “whereby said users interact through said central console even if said users are at different locations and having different physical environment” [use by multiple users in real environments]. Para. 0042, “When looking through the visor 12 the user sees an augmented view of a physical environment. The augmentation can be generated by the visor 12 or by the central server 11. Users will be able to see the same types of augmentation” [use by multiple users in virtual environment]. Further see Claim 1, Claim 14, Para. 0036-0042, 0054-0065, ad 0070, and 0083-0088. The examiner has interpreted that providing users with an augmented view of the physical environment where the users are at different locations and have different physical environments in a physical environment in different locations that are combined into a single central game environment as use by multiple users in virtual environment.)
As per claim 21, Balachandreswaran teaches “apparatus for providing multiple virtual environments to respective real individuals”. (Para. 0055, “the visor 12 can have a scanning laser rangefinder (LRF) or an ultrasonic rangefinder (USRF) 125 which maps out the environment by shooting a laser beam and calculating the time it takes to hit an obstacle and return or by the angle of the laser paths return…Each user can generate their individual virtual map of the area they are exploring” [apparatus for providing multiple virtual environments to respective real individuals]. Further see Para. 0055. The examiner has interpreted that a visor that scans the environment to create a map for each player individually as apparatus for providing multiple virtual environments to respective real individuals.)
Balachandreswaran teaches “the system being configured such that: an action by any one of the real individuals in the virtual environments causes the simulation of an event in real time for another real individual in the real environment, by the simulation apparatus.” (Para. 0042, “When looking through the visor 12 the user sees an augmented view of a physical environment” [the virtual environment]. “The augmentation can be generated by the visor 12 or by the central server 11. Users will be able to see the same types of augmentation. For example, in a game of augmented reality laser tag, if a player is behind another player, the player in front will be able to see the augmented laser beam fired by the player from behind” [the system being configured such that: an action by a real individual in the virtual environment, by the simulation apparatus]. Para. 0054, “the visor 12 can detect events in the game play world or on other users. Events in the game play world, which are CGI, can be generated by the visor 12 or the central console. Events on other users are detected using the receiver 14 which can be a vest. Output sensors are placed on or in the vest which transfer information to the visor's processor. For example, if the vest was hit with a laser tag gun, the vest's area of impact can signal infrared (IR) LEDs to turn on, and this creates an input parameter for the visor to see. The visor can see IR sources through image processing and can then create effects such as blood, gore, explosions, smoke or other forms of special effects in and around the area of impact. This can create a real-time live game environment which can provide amazing surreal effects between users” [causes the simulation of an event in real time for another real individual in a real environment]. Further see Para. 0072, “If the user's state of health changes, the haptic sensors are triggered to change the firing impact of the device” [e.g., user was “hit” by an another user, an action by a real individual in the virtual environment]. “Sensors read the health status of the user and cause the emitter 13 to vibrate” [causes the simulation of an event in real time for another real individual in a real environment]. Further see Para. 0042, 0053-0056, and 0071-0073. The examiner has interpreted that a visor that shows augmented view of the physical environment and lasers fired by another player that cause a user’s state of health to change and the emitter to vibrate and infrared LEDs to turn on as the system being configured such that: an action by a real individual in the virtual environment causes the simulation of an event in real time for another real individual in a real environment, by the simulation apparatus.)
As per claim 24, Balachandreswaran teaches “A system for allowing virtual and real events to take place contemporaneously and to influence each other, the system comprising: a simulation apparatus for simulating events for an individual in a real environment comprising a plurality of subject sensors for monitoring the subject's behaviour including one or more body worn or carried sensors and one or more remote sensors”. (Para. 0009, “The system utilizes the three high tech devices to create a level of game play or training that occurs simultaneously through real world environment sensor inputs and computer generated augmented special effects and or virtual worlds” [A system for allowing virtual and real events to take place contemporaneously]. Para. 0036, “Each system comprises of several sub-systems. Each subsystem comprises of, but not limited to, a visor 12, an emitter 13, and a receiver 14” [the system comprising]. Para. 0054, “the visor 12 can detect events in the game play world or on other users. Events in the game play world, which are CGI, can be generated by the visor 12 or the central console. Events on other users are detected using the receiver 14 which can be a vest. Output sensors are placed on or in the vest which transfer information to the visor's processor. For example, if the vest was hit with a laser tag gun, the vest's area of impact can signal infrared (IR) LEDs to turn on, and this creates an input parameter for the visor to see. The visor can see IR sources through image processing and can then create effects such as blood, gore, explosions, smoke or other forms of special effects in and around the area of impact. This can create a real-time live game environment which can provide amazing surreal effects between users” [A system allowing virtual and real events to take place contemporaneously and to influence each other]. Para. 0068, “The emitter 13 comprises of a Micro Controller Unit (MCU) 131, a Inertial Measurement System (IMU) 127, an ultrasonic/RF or other 3D wireless positioning devices 128, a color wheel for visual image 132, an IR LED and support electronics 133, a wireless communication hardware 126, a solenoid for recoil feedback 134, a battery pack and management supply 135, a vibration motor 136, a biometric sensing 137, a trigger switches and LED source 138, a LCD screen 139 and optics 140 that connects through wired or wireless communication hardware” [a simulation apparatus for simulating events for an individual in a real environment comprising a plurality of subject sensors for monitoring the subject's behaviour including one or more body worn sensors]. Para. 0082, “2D/3D Local Positioning System (LPS) Each user's device location is known through a means of wireless positioning. This can be accomplished in a variety of ways such as ultrasonic, RF, RFID, Wi-Fi, GPS, magnetic sensing or other wireless communication peripherals…. In the design featured below, an ultrasonic positioning system was used as it is the low cost, high precision positioner. Ultrasound is confined to the area in which it operates and thus will require transponders or repeaters for multi room locations. Here, the base station or console station will have several receivers at its base location and the transmitters will be located on the devices” [one or more remote sensors]. Further see Para. 0009, 0035-0040, 0053-0056, and 0068-0082. The examiner has interpreted that a system that creates a real-time live game environment to provide effects to users that occurs simultaneously through the real world and the virtual world that comprises a emitter that has biometric sensors and an wireless transponder of a local positioning system in multiple rooms to determine the positioning of the players as a system for allowing virtual and real events to take place contemporaneously and to influence each other, the system comprising: a simulation apparatus for simulating events for an individual in a real environment comprising a plurality of subject sensors for monitoring the subject's behaviour including one or more body worn or carried sensors and one or more remote sensors.)
Balachandreswaran teaches “a subject device to be worn by the subject and to receive sensor data from the body worn sensors and from the remote sensors”. (Para. 0049, “The visor 12 may be a variation of a helmet. On the top of the helmet may be a 2D or 3D wireless local positioning system (LPS) 128, using either ultrasonic signals, radio frequency (RF) signals, magnetic sensing, or another type of wireless or magnetic tracking technology. An LPS 128, using ultrasonic and RF signals may be realized by using a system that has one or more beacons. These beacons may transmit signals to a receiver located on the visor 12” [a subject device to be worn by the subject and to receive sensor data from the remote sensors]. Para. 0069, “Biometric sensors on the emitter also send information about the user's health status, such as heart rate, to the visor” [to receive sensor data from the body worn sensors]. Further see Para. 0049 and 0069. The examiner has interpreted that a visor being a variation of a helmet that receiving information from biometric sensors and wireless signals from the beacon transponders of the local position system as a subject device to be worn by the subject and to receive sensor data from the body worn sensors and from the remote sensors.)
Balachandreswaran teaches “a server arranged to receive sensor data from the subject device and to transmit instructions based on the subject sensor data”. (Para. 0036, “The visor 12 then sends this information wirelessly to the central server 300 so it can update the global stats” [a server arranged to receive sensor data from the subject device]. Fig. 2 shows communication between visor and central server and Para. 0040, “The central server 11 solves any conflicts that occur between subsystems in the field, especially conflicts that involve time. For example, during a laser tag game, two players may tag each other at the same time. The central server 11 will have a higher level of time accuracy so it will be able to determine who tagged who first based on the timestamps of the tags. Other conflicts that may be solved involve positioning and mapping. When two players are in the same area, they will be on the same map. The central server 11 will make sure the players are positioned correctly on the map so any CGI effects produced make sense” [determine who hit who first and positioning i.e., to transmit instructions based on the subject sensor data]. Further see Para. 0036-0044. The examiner has interpreted that a visor that send information to a central server to update stats, determine health priority, and positioning for the players as a server arranged to receive sensor data from the subject device and to transmit instructions based on the subject sensor data.)
Balachandreswaran teaches “a domain device to be located in the domain and to receive instructions from the server; and a plurality of domain actuators for causing one or more events in the domain in response to instructions from the domain device”. (Para. 0058, “The visor 12 can detect events on other systems, such as damages to other players in a game of laser tag, through events calculated by the central console 11” [a domain device to be located in the domain and to receive instructions from the server]. Para. 0072, “If the user's state of health changes, the haptic sensors are triggered to change the firing impact of the device. Sensors read the health status of the user and cause the emitter 13 to vibrate” [a plurality of domain actuators for causing one or more events in the domain in response to instructions from the domain device]. Further see Para. 0058 and 0069-0072. The examiner has interpreted that events calculated by the central console such has damage to players and changes to users’ health to cause an emitter to vibrate as a domain device to be located in the domain and to receive instructions from the server; and a plurality of domain actuators for causing one or more events in the domain in response to instructions from the domain device.)
As per claim 25, Balachandreswaran teaches “A system for simulating an environment to one or more individuals, the system comprising: simulation apparatus for simulating events for the one or more individuals in a real domain using physical effects”. (Para. 0036, “Each system comprises of several sub-systems. Each subsystem comprises of, but not limited to, a visor 12, an emitter 13, and a receiver 14” [A system]. Para. 0054, “the visor 12 can detect events in the game play world or on other users. Events in the game play world, which are CGI, can be generated by the visor 12 or the central console. Events on other users are detected using the receiver 14 which can be a vest. Output sensors are placed on or in the vest which transfer information to the visor's processor. For example, if the vest was hit with a laser tag gun, the vest's area of impact can signal infrared (IR) LEDs to turn on, and this creates an input parameter for the visor to see. The visor can see IR sources through image processing and can then create effects such as blood, gore, explosions, smoke or other forms of special effects in and around the area of impact. This can create a real-time live game environment which can provide amazing surreal effects between users” [A system allowing virtual and real events to take place contemporaneously and to influence each other, the system comprising: apparatus for providing a virtual environment to a real individual]. Para. 0070, “For example, an emitter 13 can be used as a laser tag gun in conjunction with recoil feedback, haptic feedback vibrations and as well as other features that can be used to tag another user's receiver(s) 14 (vest)” [a simulation apparatus for simulating events for an individual in a real environment using physical effects]. Further see Para. 0009, 0035-0040, 0053-0056, and 0070-0079. The examiner has interpreted that a system that creates a real-time live game environment to provide effects to users that occurs simultaneously through the real world and the virtual world that comprises of a visor that generates events and effects in the game play world, and an emitter that has recoil feedback and haptic feedback vibrations as a system for simulating an environment to one or more individuals, the system comprising: simulation apparatus for simulating events for the one or more individuals in a real domain using physical effects.)
Balachandreswaran teaches “wherein the system is configured to provide to the one or more individuals a synthesized view of or from area or space apparently outside the domain.” (Para. 0041, “Since mapping is dynamic, one room is able to provide one or more unique environments using Computer-Generated-Imagery (CGI). For example, if a player is playing a game where the walls are based in medieval times, he or she may enter the room and the walls may be just brick, but when the player exits the room and re-enters, the walls may now be brick with flora growing on them. This implies that the user is in another part of the game, however, in the same physical environment. This allows for essentially an infinite amount of augmented environments that the system can produce with a fixed number of physical environments” and Para. 0057, “each player 201, 202, 203 and 204 explores the unknown map. The central console station 11 or at each local visor; the scanned physical mapped inputs from all users is being constructed to form a map of the area. The computer uses this information to dynamically add game material to the mapped locations. All Players of the game will share the explored maps, positions, orientation etc. with the central game management system which can be a console 11 or server based gaming engine” [i.e. wherein the system is configured to provide to the individual a synthesized view of area apparently outside the domain]. Further see Para. 0041 and 0057. The examiner has interpreted that providing augmented environments within a fixed number of physical environments to allow players to exit a room and re-enter the room to make different rooms in different parts of the game to explore unknown parts of the map to create a central game environment as wherein the system is configured to provide to the one or more individuals a synthesized view of or from area or space apparently outside the domain.)
As per claim 26, Balachandreswaran teaches “provide to the one or more individuals a simulated view of the domain from a perspective not available to the one or more individuals.” (Para. 0054, “the visor 12 can detect events in the game play world or on other users. Events in the game play world, which are CGI, can be generated by the visor 12 or the central console. Events on other users are detected using the receiver 14 which can be a vest. Output sensors are placed on or in the vest which transfer information to the visor's processor. For example, if the vest was hit with a laser tag gun, the vest's area of impact can signal infrared (IR) LEDs to turn on, and this creates an input parameter for the visor to see. The visor can see IR sources through image processing and can then create effects such as blood, gore, explosions, smoke or other forms of special effects in and around the area of impact. This can create a real-time live game environment which can provide amazing surreal effects between users” [provide to the one or more individuals a simulated view of the domain from a perspective not available to the one or more individuals]. Further see Para. 0054. The examiner has interpreted that a visor that generates events and effects in the game play world as provide to the one or more individuals a simulated view of the domain from a perspective not available to the one or more individuals.)
As per claim 27, Balachandreswaran teaches “wherein the simulated view includes a simulated image of the one or more individuals.” (Para. 0061, “All users 201, 202 and 203 wearing the game visor can visually see special effects such as guns fires of their weapon and also all users in play by knowing the position of all accessories and users, the system can generate virtual global effects for all users regardless of their position” [wherein the simulated view includes a simulated image of the one or more individuals]. Further see Para. 0061. The examiner has interpreted that all players that can see users in play and their special and virtual global effects as wherein the simulated view includes a simulated image of the one or more individuals.)
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Balachandreswaran, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of US 2020/0128106 A1 McCormack, Michael [herein “McCormack”].
As per claim 4, Balachandreswaran teaches “wherein the real environment is visible to a user with naked eyes.” (Para. 0061, “The visors are also equipped with a transparent or non-transparent display to provide a stereoscopic heads-up display (HUD) of the environment” [i.e., the real environment is visible to a user with naked eyes]. Furthermore see 0051 and 0061. The examiner has interpreted that using a visor that is equipped with a transparent stereoscopic heads-up display of the environment as wherein the real environment is visible to a user with naked eyes.)
Balachandreswaran does not specifically teach “wherein the apparatus for providing a virtual environment comprises a virtual reality headset”.
However, in the same field of endeavor namely providing visualizations in a simulated gaming environment, McCormack teaches “wherein the apparatus for providing a virtual environment comprises a virtual reality headset”. (Para. 0020-0023, “ the invention disclosed herein is able to provide. 1. Allow users located in different geographic locations AR, VR, Tablet/Phone, and PC users to view and interact with the same content simultaneously in a collaborative experience. 2. Allow AR, VR, Tablet, and PC users to easily create new content for distribution through the platform using the end-user application or third party software applications. 3. Allow AR, VR, Tablet, and PC users to see virtual avatars of each other inside the virtual environment” [wherein the apparatus for providing a virtual environment]. Para. 0172, “Turning to FIG. 12 one embodiment shows the System 100 operating on a Server Device and a plurality of Client Devices. Referring to the aforementioned real-estate use case, the real estate scenario or presentation is retrieved from the server devices 520 by the End-user Application Modules which are running on the augmented reality glasses 510, a virtual reality headset 511” [wherein the apparatus for providing a virtual environment comprises a virtual reality headset]. Further see Para. 0020-0023 and 0172. The examiner has interpreted that using a virtual reality (VR) headset to see virtual avatars of each other inside the virtual environment as wherein the apparatus for providing a virtual environment comprises a virtual reality headset.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add “wherein the apparatus for providing a virtual environment comprises a virtual reality headset” as conceptually seen from the teaching of McCormack, into that of Balachandreswaran because this modification of using a virtual reality headset for the advantageous purpose of immersive experience to the user (McCormack, Para. 0002). Further motivation to combine be that Balachandreswaran and McCormack are analogous art to the current claim as directed to providing visualizations in a simulated gaming environment.
Claims 13 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Balachandreswaran, as applied to claims 10 and 27, respectively, and further in view of Katragadda, Saimouli, Benedict A. Mondal, and Anil Deane. "Stereoscopic mixed reality in unmanned aerial vehicle search and rescue." In AIA A Scitech 2019 Forum, p. 0154. 2019. [herein “Katragadda”].
As per claim 13, Balachandreswaran does not specifically teach “a real individual to control the visual display in the manner of controlling an aerial vehicle to determine the area displayed.”
However, in the same field of endeavor namely providing visualizations in a simulated gaming environment, Katragadda teaches “a real individual to control the visual display in the manner of controlling an aerial vehicle to determine the area displayed.” (Pg. 2, Sect. III “The system consists of two main parts: the payload aboard the UAV and the ground control station (GCS). The payload contains a stereoscopic gimbal system housing two cameras. The pilot operates the gimbal system from the GCS through an Oculus Rift HMD. The pilot’s head rotation data is obtained from the Oculus Rift and is transmitted to the UAV; the gimbal rotates in accordance to the received data to mimic the pilot’s head movements. Video data from the cameras on the payload is transmitted to the HMD, enabling the pilot to see from the UAV’s perspective through VR” [a real individual to control the visual display in the manner of controlling an aerial vehicle]. Pg. 1 Sect. II, “we build a physical prototype that is capable of aiding SAR operations by letting the UAV pilot to visualize the environment” [a real individual to control the visual display in the manner of controlling an aerial vehicle to determine the area displayed]. Further see Sect. II-III. The examiner has interpreted that a pilot that operates an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) to visualize the environment by wearing an virtual reality head-mounted display (HMD) and rotating their head to rotate a camera on the UAV to transmit a video of the UAV’s perspective to the pilot’s HMD as a real individual to control the visual display in the manner of controlling an aerial vehicle to determine the area displayed.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add “a real individual to control the visual display in the manner of controlling an aerial vehicle to determine the area displayed” as conceptually seen from the teaching of Katragadda, into that of Balachandreswaran because this modification of using an aerial vehicle to capture the area for the advantageous purpose of better visualizing the environments (Katragadda, Pg. 1 Sect. II). Further motivation to combine be that Balachandreswaran and Katragadda are analogous art to the current claim as directed to providing visualizations in a simulated gaming environment.
Re Claim 29, it is a system claim, having similar limitations of claim 13. Thus, claim 29 is also rejected under the similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 13.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2018/0373323 A1 Ghanchi, Muhammad et al. teaches a virtual reality simulation for sports gaming that provides the user with haptic feedback when playing a live-action sports game with tracking devices, actuators, and sensors.
Pollock, Brice, Eliot Winer, Stephen Gilbert, and Julio de la Cruz. "LVC interaction within a mixed-reality training system." In The Engineering Reality of Virtual Reality 2012, vol. 8289, pp. 175-184. SPIE, 2012 teaches using live, virtual, and constructive (LVC) training systems to for military training.
Mao, Chia-Chi, and Fei-Yi Chen. "Augmented reality and 3-D visualization effects to enhance battlefield situational awareness." In International Conference on Human Interaction and Emerging Technologies, pp. 303-309. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2019 teaches using augmented reality technology to learn battlefield situation awareness to support tactile operations.
Examiner’s Note: The examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the reference that applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing response, to fully consider the references in in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. In the case of amending the claimed invention, the applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for the proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bound of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Simeon P Drapeau whose telephone number is (571)-272-1173. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. 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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached on (571) 272-4071. 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.
/SIMEON P DRAPEAU/Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Prosecution Insights