DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
The Examiner appreciate Applicant’s explanation and amendments that clarify the limitations related to “at least one or A and B.” The Examiner appreciates the clarification.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 3-16, and 19-25 are pending. Claims 1, 3-5, 8-16, and 24-25 have been amended. Claims 2 and 17-18 have been cancelled. Claims 1, 3-5, 8-16, and 24-25 are rejected under 35 USC § 103.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s representative contends (Remarks p. 4):
PNG
media_image1.png
178
708
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s analyses.
(a) Inomata’s blurring is indeed depending on the rotational speed of a head mount display. However, it does not contradict with the claimed feature of “gradually increasing a level of blurring of the motion sickness regulation image.” The constraints and physics related to head turning by a real person creates the correlation between the head turning and the claimed feature through Inomata’s device.
The Examiner explained:
“In Patent Literature 1, there is described a method involving detecting an angular velocity of the movement of an image pickup apparatus and performing filter processing in which a blur amount for an outer peripheral part or a peripheral edge part with respect to a central part is set based on the angular velocity, to thereby prevent visually induced motion sickness.” Inomata ¶ 3.
“In the mode example of FIG. 6A, as the magnitude of the angular velocity is increased or decreased, the width of the peripheral region to be subjected to the processing of blurring an image and the degree of the image blurring can also be increased or decreased.” Inomata ¶ 70.
When a person’s head turns left, for example, the speed of turning, angular velocity, increases from 0 and decreases to 0 when the turning stops. Therefore, the blurring level increases first and decreases later. When the head turning is gradual, so are the changes to the blurring level that is changed according the head turning speed.
(b) Regarding the feature, “gradually increase or decrease the level of blurring of the motion sickness regulation image including the stimulus pattern at a start or an end of displaying the motion sickness regulation image,” summarized by Applicant, the mapping is achieved by the combination of the primary reference Benko and the secondary reference Inomata.
Benko teaches “motion sickness regulation image including the stimulus pattern,” which is not questioned by Applicant. Inomata teaches blurring to prevent visually induced motion sickness. Both Benko and Inomata respond to the same event: visually induced motion sickness, and the event’s duration. Consequently, Benko’s technique and Inomata’s technique are generally synchronized. Therefore, Benko in view of Inomata teaches “gradually increase or decrease the level of blurring . . . at a start or an end of displaying the motion sickness regulation image.”
Compact Prosecution
With respect to Claim Interpretation, the Examiner has provided many notes regarding “[BRI on the record]” throughout the Office Action, so that the record is clear about the scope of the claimed invention, and the record is also clear about the basis for the Examiner’s analyses. A clear record of the claim interpretation could expedite the examination by creating the condition to allow the examination to focus on Applicant’s inventive concept and its comparison with related prior art.
If there are disagreements, Applicant may present an alternative interpretation based on MPEP 2111. The Examiner will adopt Applicant’s interpretation on the record, if Applicant’s interpretation is reasonable and/or arguments are persuasive.
Applicant may amend claims relying on the Examiner’s claim interpretation provided on the record.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3-6, 13, 16, 19, 21, 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benko et al. (US 20170285344 A1) in view of Inomata et al. (US 20170221185 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Benko teaches A motion sickness regulation device (“The complementary content generated by the peripheral rendering component 112 can convey peripheral information and enhance situational awareness, while reducing motion sickness in nausea-susceptible users of the head mounted display device 100.” Benko ¶ 25.
PNG
media_image2.png
375
550
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
540
393
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Benko ¶¶ 43-45.) comprising:
processing circuitry
to generate stimulus information to be used for displaying a motion sickness regulation image for regulating a level of motion sickness occurring to a user viewing a gaze region as a region in which real scenery is visible or a region in which a gaze image as an image including a gaze target is displayed based on movement of the scenery or the gaze image in the gaze region (
[BRI on the record] the sentence structure of this limitation is very complex. The Examiner is reading the limitation to require the following 4 components:
(1) “to generate stimulus information to be used for displaying a motion sickness regulation image for regulating a level of motion sickness”
(2) “motion sickness occurring to a user viewing a gaze region”
(3) “. . . a gaze region as a region in which real scenery is visible or a region in which a gaze image as an image including a gaze target is displayed”
This limitation element is interpreted by the Examiner to mean: “. . . a gaze region, wherein the gaze region is (a) a region in which real scenery is visible or (b) a region in which a gaze image, including a gaze target, is displayed”
(4) “a level of motion sickness occurring . . . based on movement of the scenery or the gaze image in the gaze region”
[Mapping Analyses]
With respect to (1) “to generate stimulus information to be used for displaying a motion sickness regulation image for regulating a level of motion sickness”:
“The complementary content generated by the peripheral rendering component 112 can convey peripheral information and enhance situational awareness, while reducing motion sickness in nausea-susceptible users of the head mounted display device 100.” Benko ¶ 25.
The claimed “motion sickness regulation image” is mapped to the disclosed “complementary content rendered by the peripheral rendering component.”
“Pursuant to an example, the countervection visualization can cause a series of vertical bars to be displayed in the periphery portion 906 of the display 902. The vertical bars can be placed in a spherical arrangement around a person's avatar and can be visible only in the periphery portion 906 (e.g., not visible in the central portion 904 of the display 902). The visualization creation component 916 does not alter the sphere responsive to physical head motions. Rather, when the user's avatar moves or rotates (e.g., due to user input), the visualization creation component 916 can shift the bars (e.g., via texture manipulation) so that the bars are moved in the same direction as the virtual motion (which is a direction opposite to what typically would occur). This movement of the bars can be referred to herein as an optical flow (or a countervection cue). The optical flow opposes the motion cues of the central portion 904 of the display 902 and thus reduce the feeling of vection (self-motion). By way of illustration, if a user walks forward, the bars will also move forward. According to an example, the bars can be moved slightly slower than the actual motion. Accordingly, the countervection visualization can partially cancel the vection experienced in the periphery portion 906.” Benko ¶ 74.
The claimed “stimulus information” is mapped to the moving “vertical bars to be displayed in the periphery portion.”
With respect to (2) “motion sickness occurring to a user viewing a gaze region,” (3) “. . . a gaze region as a region in which real scenery is visible or a region in which a gaze image as an image including a gaze target is displayed,” and (4) “a level of motion sickness occurring . . . based on movement of the scenery or the gaze image in the gaze region”:
“Simulator sickness is a type of motion sickness induced by visual information that conflicts with vestibular and proprioceptive sensory cues. A source of simulator sickness can be induced perception of self-motion, or vection, caused by motion cues in a visual field that are not corroborated by vestibular sensory data. In turn, vection can be derived from visual cues with a central visual field playing a relatively small role.” Benko ¶ 33.
The claimed “movement of the scenery” is mapped to the disclosed “motion cues in a visual field.”
The claimed “gaze image in the gaze region” is mapped to the disclosed moving “visual cues with a central visual field.” Objects in the central visual field may correspond to “gaze target.”
“Now referring to FIG. 4, illustrated is a diagram 400 showing a visual field of view of human vision. The diagram 400 depicts boundaries of a foveal region, a parafoveal region, a perifoveal region, a near periphery region, and a far periphery region of the field of view of human vision.” Benko ¶ 46. “According to yet another embodiment, a head mounted display device can output a peripheral countervection visualization to reduce effects of simulator sickness by presenting motion simulation on a retina that counters virtual motion not generated by movement of a user of the head mounted display device.” Benko ¶ 5.),
the gaze region existing in the vicinity of a center of a screen of a display or in the vicinity of a center of the screen in a horizontal direction or in the vicinity of a center of the screen in a vertical direction (
Benko:
PNG
media_image2.png
375
550
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
540
393
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, showing the gaze region in the vicinity of the center of a display.
In addition, the Examiner will later show the secondary reference Inomata teaches HMD display and screen as well; which are similar or improved versions of Benko’s display according to figs. 3-4. After the combination of the references, features of the displays will be incorporated.),
the motion sickness regulation image including a stimulus pattern made up of moving one or more objects (
“Pursuant to an example, the countervection visualization can cause a series of vertical bars to be displayed in the periphery portion 906 of the display 902. . . . Rather, when the user's avatar moves or rotates (e.g., due to user input), the visualization creation component 916 can shift the bars (e.g., via texture manipulation) so that the bars are moved in the same direction as the virtual motion (which is a direction opposite to what typically would occur). This movement of the bars can be referred to herein as an optical flow (or a countervection cue). The optical flow opposes the motion cues of the central portion 904 of the display 902 and thus reduce the feeling of vection (self-motion). By way of illustration, if a user walks forward, the bars will also move forward. According to an example, the bars can be moved slightly slower than the actual motion. Accordingly, the countervection visualization can partially cancel the vection experienced in the periphery portion 906.” Benko ¶ 74.
The claimed “one or more objects” is mapped to the disclosed “vertical bars.”); and
to generate the motion sickness regulation image based on the stimulus information, to specify a motion sickness regulation region as a region as part or a whole of a region excluding the gaze region (
[BRI on the record] With respect to “motion sickness regulation,” it includes motion sickness mitigation. “Regulation” does not require mitigation. For example, “motion sickness simulation” could also be considered to be “motion sickness regulation.”
[Mapping Analyses]
“The peripheral countervection visualization can be designed to reduce effects of simulator sickness by presenting motion stimulation on the retina that counters virtual motion included in the graphical content displayed on the primary display 102 that is not generated by motion of the user.” Benko ¶ 31.
“Various technologies pertaining to a peripheral display for a head mounted display device and/or a countervection visualization for display in a peripheral region (e.g., a peripheral display, viewable in a far periphery region of a field of view of human vision of a user, etc.) of a head mounted display device are now described with reference to the drawings, wherein like reference numerals are used to refer to like elements throughout.” Benko ¶ 19.
The claimed “region as part or a whole of a region excluding the gaze region” is included in the disclosed “peripheral region.”), and
to have the motion sickness regulation image displayed in the motion sickness regulation region (
“The complementary content generated by the peripheral rendering component 112 can convey peripheral information and enhance situational awareness, while reducing motion sickness in nausea-susceptible users of the head mounted display device 100. The peripheral display 104 can fill the periphery of the head mounted display device 100.” Benko ¶ 25.) which is arranged around the gaze region and is a region displayed on a display (
“Various technologies pertaining to a peripheral display for a head mounted display device and/or a countervection visualization for display in a peripheral region (e.g., a peripheral display, viewable in a far periphery region of a field of view of human vision of a user, etc.) of a head mounted display device are now described with reference to the drawings, wherein like reference numerals are used to refer to like elements throughout.” Benko ¶ 19.
“The LEDs included in the left perimeter display 306, the right perimeter display 308, the left far periphery display 310, and the right far periphery display 312 are represented as circles (such as LED 404) in FIG. 4. As illustrated in FIG. 4, the LEDs included in the peripheral display of the head mounted display device 300 of FIG. 3 are positioned to be in the far periphery region of the field of view of human vision.” Benko ¶ 46.),
Benko does not explicitly disclose
wherein the processing circuitry
executes at least one process selected from the group consisting of
a process of gradually increasing a level of blurring of the motion sickness regulation image including the stimulus pattern from a low value to a high value at a start of displaying the motion sickness regulation image including the stimulus pattern and
a process of gradually decreasing the level of the blurring of the motion sickness regulation image including the stimulus pattern from a high value to a low value at an end of displaying the motion sickness regulation image including the stimulus pattern, or
executes at least one process selected from the group consisting of
a process of gradually decreasing a level of blurring of the motion sickness regulation image including the stimulus pattern from a high value to a low value at a start of displaying the motion sickness regulation image including the stimulus pattern and
a process of gradually increasing the level of the blurring of the motion sickness regulation image including the stimulus pattern from a low value to a high value at an end of displaying the motion sickness regulation image including the stimulus pattern.
Inomata teaches
a head-mounted display (
PNG
media_image4.png
306
320
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
496
714
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
442
532
media_image6.png
Greyscale
);
wherein the processing circuitry
executes at least one process selected from the group consisting of
a process of gradually increasing a level of blurring of the motion sickness regulation image including the stimulus pattern from a low value to a high value at a start of displaying the motion sickness regulation image including the stimulus pattern and
a process of gradually decreasing the level of the blurring of the motion sickness regulation image including the stimulus pattern from a high value to a low value at an end of displaying the motion sickness regulation image including the stimulus pattern (
“In Patent Literature 1, there is described a method involving detecting an angular velocity of the movement of an image pickup apparatus and performing filter processing in which a blur amount for an outer peripheral part or a peripheral edge part with respect to a central part is set based on the angular velocity, to thereby prevent visually induced motion sickness.” Inomata ¶ 3.
“In the mode example of FIG. 6A, as the magnitude of the angular velocity is increased or decreased, the width of the peripheral region to be subjected to the processing of blurring an image and the degree of the image blurring can also be increased or decreased.” Inomata ¶ 70.
When a person’s head turns left, for example, the speed of turning, angular velocity, increases from 0 and decreases to 0 when the turning stops. Therefore, the blurring level increases first and decreases later. When the head turning is gradual, so are the changes to the blurring level that is changed according the head turning speed.
Benko teaches “motion sickness regulation image including the stimulus pattern,” which is not questioned by Applicant. Inomata teaches blurring to prevent visually induced motion sickness. Both Benko and Inomata respond to the same event: visually induced motion sickness, and the event’s duration. Consequently, Benko’s technique and Inomata’s technique are generally synchronized. Therefore, Benko in view of Inomata teaches “gradually increase or decrease the level of blurring . . . at a start or an end of displaying the motion sickness regulation image.”), or
executes at least one process selected from the group consisting of
a process of gradually decreasing a level of blurring of the motion sickness regulation image including the stimulus pattern from a high value to a low value at a start of displaying the motion sickness regulation image including the stimulus pattern and
a process of gradually increasing the level of the blurring of the motion sickness regulation image including the stimulus pattern from a low value to a high value at an end of displaying the motion sickness regulation image including the stimulus pattern (
Inomata ¶¶ 3, 70. Note this limitation is an alternative option because of the recitation of “or.”
The difference between the previous limitation and this one is caused by a user’s different patterns of motions; while the same motion sickness mitigation strategy (Inomata ¶¶ 3, 70) applies. For the previous limitation, it applies to the situation: stationary[Wingdings font/0xE0]motion[Wingdings font/0xE0]stationary, an example of which is when a user turns his/her head.
For this limitation, the same motion sickness mitigation strategy is applied to the situation: motion V [Wingdings font/0xE0] less motion [Wingdings font/0xE0] motion V, an example could be a user on spinning simulator. For example, the user is spinning at a constant speed V1, the spinning slows to V2, and the spinning goes back to V1. ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Inomata’s blurring strategy to mitigation motion sickness, with Benko. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to reduce motion sickness. Inomata ¶ 3. “In Patent Literature 1, there is described a method involving detecting an angular velocity of the movement of an image pickup apparatus and performing filter processing in which a blur amount for an outer peripheral part or a peripheral edge part with respect to a central part is set based on the angular velocity, to thereby prevent visually induced motion sickness.” Inomata ¶ 3.
Regarding Claim 3, Benko as modified teaches The motion sickness regulation device according to claim 1, wherein a moving direction of the one or more objects is a direction opposite to a moving direction of the scenery or the gaze image in the gaze region (
“Rather, when the user's avatar moves or rotates (e.g., due to user input), the visualization creation component 916 can shift the bars (e.g., via texture manipulation) so that the bars are moved in the same direction as the virtual motion (which is a direction opposite to what typically would occur). This movement of the bars can be referred to herein as an optical flow (or a countervection cue). The optical flow opposes the motion cues of the central portion 904 of the display 902 and thus reduce the feeling of vection (self-motion). By way of illustration, if a user walks forward, the bars will also move forward. According to an example, the bars can be moved slightly slower than the actual motion. Accordingly, the countervection visualization can partially cancel the vection experienced in the periphery portion 906. ” Benko ¶ 74.
Here, for example, when a user walks forward towards an stationary object in front of you in your gaze, the stationary object moves towards you, when “the bars will also move forward.” Therefore, the “moving direction” of the disclosed “bars” is a “direction opposite to a moving direction of the scenery or the gaze image in the gaze region.”).
Regarding Claim 4, Benko teaches The motion sickness regulation device according to claim 1, wherein a moving direction of the one or more objects is a same direction as a moving direction of the scenery or the gaze image in the gaze region, and a moving speed of the one or more objects is equal to or lower than a moving speed of the scenery or the gaze image in the gaze region (
“Rather, when the user's avatar moves or rotates (e.g., due to user input), the visualization creation component 916 can shift the bars (e.g., via texture manipulation) so that the bars are moved in the same direction as the virtual motion (which is a direction opposite to what typically would occur). This movement of the bars can be referred to herein as an optical flow (or a countervection cue). The optical flow opposes the motion cues of the central portion 904 of the display 902 and thus reduce the feeling of vection (self-motion). By way of illustration, if a user walks forward, the bars will also move forward. According to an example, the bars can be moved slightly slower than the actual motion. Accordingly, the countervection visualization can partially cancel the vection experienced in the periphery portion 906. ” Benko ¶ 74.
Here, Benko teaches that moving artificial objects, e.g., bars, in the peripheral areas has an impact on overall perceived vection cues. According to KSR, it would have been obvious to try choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. There are two different moving direction and the speed that equals to “a moving speed of the scenery or the gaze image in the gaze region” are known and predictable options. Further, any speed “lower than a moving speed of the scenery or the gaze image in the gaze region,” e.g., ½ of moving speed, could also be chosen and predictable. The outcome is predictable, because the claim does not require motion sickness mitigation; instead, the claim only requires “motion sickness regulation.”).
Regarding Claim 5, Benko as modified teaches The motion sickness regulation device according to claim 1,
wherein the stimulus pattern includes a plurality of regularly arranged objects or a plurality of randomly arranged objects (
“Pursuant to an example, the countervection visualization can cause a series of vertical bars to be displayed in the periphery portion 906 of the display 902. The vertical bars can be placed in a spherical arrangement around a person's avatar and can be visible only in the periphery portion 906 (e.g., not visible in the central portion 904 of the display 902).” Benko ¶ 74.
The disclosed “vertical bars” are “regularly arranged” or “randomly arranged.”).
Regarding Claim 6, Benko as modified teaches The motion sickness regulation device according to claim 5, wherein the plurality of regularly arranged objects are a plurality of regularly arranged stripes (
“Pursuant to an example, the countervection visualization can cause a series of vertical bars to be displayed in the periphery portion 906 of the display 902.” Benko ¶ 74.).
Regarding Claim 13, Benko teaches The motion sickness regulation device according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry executes at least one process selected from the group consisting of
a process of gradually increasing or decreasing a size of the one or more objects at a start of displaying the motion sickness regulation image and
a process of gradually decreasing or increasing the size of the one or more objects at an end of displaying the motion sickness regulation image (
[BRI on the record] The Examiner is treating “decreasing or increasing” to be the same as “increasing or decreasing.”
[Mapping Analyses]
“The optical flow opposes the motion cues of the central portion 904 of the display 902 and thus reduce the feeling of vection (self-motion). By way of illustration, if a user walks forward, the bars will also move forward. According to an example, the bars can be moved slightly slower than the actual motion. Accordingly, the countervection visualization can partially cancel the vection experienced in the periphery portion 906. ” Benko ¶ 74.
When the “bars” move forward, their size appears to be “decreasing or increasing.” When the user moves forward and stops, the bars in the “motion sickness regulation image” will be “increasing or decreasing” at the beginning and the end of the motion sickness mitigation.
When a person moves gradually, so will the change to the objects.).
Regarding Claim 16, Benko as modified teaches The motion sickness regulation device according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry executes at least one process selected from the group consisting of
a process of gradually increasing a moving speed of the one or more objects at a start of displaying the motion sickness regulation image and
a process of gradually decreasing the moving speed of the one or more objects at an end of displaying the motion sickness regulation image (
“The optical flow opposes the motion cues of the central portion 904 of the display 902 and thus reduce the feeling of vection (self-motion). By way of illustration, if a user walks forward, the bars will also move forward. According to an example, the bars can be moved slightly slower than the actual motion. Accordingly, the countervection visualization can partially cancel the vection experienced in the periphery portion 906. ” Benko ¶ 74.
When a user walks gradually forward and stops, the moving speed of the user gradually increases his/her speed first and the user gradually decreases his/stop speed in the end. The “bars” move forward in a similar fashion as the user according to the disclosed motion sickness mitigation strategy.).
Regarding Claim 19, Benko as modified teaches The motion sickness regulation device according to claim 1,
wherein the motion sickness regulation region is a region around the gaze region and adjoining the gaze region, regions respectively adjoining the gaze region upward and downward, regions respectively adjoining the gaze region leftward and rightward, or a region arranged with spacing from the gaze region (
[BRI on the record] The claim language is complex; and the Examiner is reading the limitation to mean:
wherein the motion sickness regulation region is (a) a region around the gaze region and adjoining the gaze region, (b) regions respectively adjoining the gaze region upward and downward, (c) regions respectively adjoining the gaze region leftward and rightward, or (d) a region arranged with spacing from the gaze region.
In other words, it is “wherein the motion sickness regulation region is (a), (b), (c), or (d).
[Mapping Analyses]
“Various technologies pertaining to a peripheral display for a head mounted display device and/or a countervection visualization for display in a peripheral region (e.g., a peripheral display, viewable in a far periphery region of a field of view of human vision of a user, etc.) of a head mounted display device are now described with reference to the drawings, wherein like reference numerals are used to refer to like elements throughout.” Benko ¶ 19.
“The LEDs included in the left perimeter display 306, the right perimeter display 308, the left far periphery display 310, and the right far periphery display 312 are represented as circles (such as LED 404) in FIG. 4. As illustrated in FIG. 4, the LEDs included in the peripheral display of the head mounted display device 300 of FIG. 3 are positioned to be in the far periphery region of the field of view of human vision.” Benko ¶ 46.
PNG
media_image2.png
375
550
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
540
393
media_image3.png
Greyscale
).
Regarding Claim 21, Benko as modified teaches The motion sickness regulation device according to claim 1,
wherein the processing circuitry judges whether the motion sickness regulation image is necessary or not based on the movement of the scenery or the gaze image in the gaze region (
“The visualization creation component 916 can further detect a mismatch between the actual motion of the user specified by the motion information (e.g., received from the motion track component 912) and the virtual motion included in the graphical content displayed on the central portion 904 of the display 902 by the head mounted display device 900. Such mismatch can conventionally cause the user of the head mounted display device 900 to experience vection. Responsive to detecting the mismatch, the visualization creation component 916 can create an optical flow that moves in a direction of the virtual motion included in the graphical content.” Benko ¶ 66.).
Claim 24, a method claim, is substantially similar to Claim 1, and the rejection analyses for Claim 1 is applied to Claim 24.
Claim 25 is substantially similar to Claim 1, and the rejection analyses for Claim 1 is applied to Claim 25. In addition, Claim 25 recites “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for storing a motion sickness regulation program that causes a computer to execute processing comprising” (Benko ¶¶ 25, 78.).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benko et al. in view of Inomata et al. as applied to Claim 5, in further view of Miyazaki et al. (US 20120075530 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Benko in view of Inomata teaches The motion sickness regulation device according to claim 5.
Benko in view of Inomata does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of randomly arranged objects include one or more object sets among an object set made up of a plurality of dots, an object set made up of a plurality of figures and an object set made up of a plurality of creatures.
However, Miyazaki teaches wherein the plurality of randomly arranged objects include one or more object sets among an object set made up of a plurality of dots, an object set made up of a plurality of figures and an object set made up of a plurality of creatures (
[BRI on the record]
With respect to “one or more object sets among an object set made up of a plurality of dots, an object set made up of a plurality of figures and[,] an object set made up of a plurality of creatures,” the Examiner is reading the limitation to be “one or more object sets selected from a group consisting of an object set made up of a plurality of dots, an object set made up of a plurality of figures and, an object set made up of a plurality of creatures.”
With respect to “the plurality of randomly arranged objects,” the limitation is optional according to Claim 7’s parent, claim 5. Therefore, the mapping for this limitation is optional to the Examiner to reject the claim.
[Mapping Analyses]
“More specifically, a random dot pattern is generated and superimposed in a video to output a signal to the video control apparatus 6 to decrease the sensation of the motion in the specific direction which is perceived by the viewer.” Miyazaki ¶ 32.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Miyazaki’s teaching of a strategy to decrease the sensation of the motion, with Benko in view of Inomata. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to decrease the sensation of the motion. Miyazaki ¶ 32.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benko et al. in view of Inomata et al. as applied to Claim 1, in further view of Boyd et al. (US 20060214935 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Benko in view of Inomata teaches The motion sickness regulation device according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry executes at least one process selected from the group consisting of a process of fading inremoving the motion sickness regulation image at an end of displaying the motion sickness regulation image (
“Moreover, the visualization creation component 916 can fade in countervection cues when the user begins to move via external input, such as a joystick (e.g., the external input causes the virtual motion). Thus, the visualization creation component 916 can fade in countervection cues when the person is experiencing visual-vestibular mismatch. This allows the user to attain the benefit of a wider field of view (e.g., enhanced immersion, more information) while also benefiting from reduced vection (e.g., reduced visual-vestibular conflict) of the countervection visualization.” Benko ¶ 75.
The “motion sickness regulation image,” containing countervection cues, fades in, when experiencing visual-vestibular mismatch starts.
The “motion sickness regulation image,” containing countervection cues, are removed when visual-vestibular mismatch ends.).
However, Benko in view of Inomata does not explicitly disclose changing transmittance to fade in an image, or changing the transmittance to fade out to remove the image.
Boyd teaches changing transmittance to fade in an image, or changing the transmittance to fade out to remove/blur the image (
“In one embodiment, if the effect is more general, for example, the user wants the text be completely transparent at frame 1, opaque at frames 60-90, and become transparent by frame 120, he should use the Fade In/Fade Out behavior. In one embodiment, behaviors generate a range of values that are applied to an object's parameters, animating those parameters over the duration of the behavior.” Boyd ¶ 1196.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Boyd’s fading in and out images by controlling transparency, with Benko in view of Inomata. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated not to surprise and/or alarm a viewer by introducing visual change subtly.
Claims 9, 11, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benko et al. in view of Inomata et al. as applied to Claim 1, in further view of Leontaris et al. (US 20090086814 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Benko in view of Inomata teaches The motion sickness regulation device according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry executes at least one process selected from the group consisting of a process of fading in removing the motion sickness regulation image
“Moreover, the visualization creation component 916 can fade in countervection cues when the user begins to move via external input, such as a joystick (e.g., the external input causes the virtual motion). Thus, the visualization creation component 916 can fade in countervection cues when the person is experiencing visual-vestibular mismatch. This allows the user to attain the benefit of a wider field of view (e.g., enhanced immersion, more information) while also benefiting from reduced vection (e.g., reduced visual-vestibular conflict) of the countervection visualization.” Benko ¶ 75.
The “motion sickness regulation image,” containing countervection cues, fades in, when experiencing visual-vestibular mismatch starts.
The “motion sickness regulation image,” containing countervection cues, are removed when visual-vestibular mismatch ends.).
Benko in view of Inomata does not explicitly disclose fading in by gradually increasing luminance, or removing an image by gradually decreasing the luminance, thereby from a high value to a low value.
Leontaris teaches fading in by gradually increasing luminance, or removing an image by gradually decreasing the luminance, thereby from a high value to a low value (
“Fade-ins occur at the beginning of a scene and are generally associated with gradual increases in average luminance. Fade-outs occur at the end of a scene and are generally associated with gradual decreases in average luminance. Fade-ins can be identified using process 1400 (FIG. 14), as discussed further below.” Leontaris ¶ 147. ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Leontaris’ fading in and out images by controlling luminance, with Benko in view of Inomata. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated not to surprise and/or alarm a viewer by introducing visual change gradually.
Regarding Claim 11, Benko in view of Inomata teaches The motion sickness regulation device according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry executes at least one process selected from the group consisting of a process of fading in fading out
“Moreover, the visualization creation component 916 can fade in countervection cues when the user begins to move via external input, such as a joystick (e.g., the external input causes the virtual motion). Thus, the visualization creation component 916 can fade in countervection cues when the person is experiencing visual-vestibular mismatch. This allows the user to attain the benefit of a wider field of view (e.g., enhanced immersion, more information) while also benefiting from reduced vection (e.g., reduced visual-vestibular conflict) of the countervection visualization.” Benko ¶ 75.
The “motion sickness regulation image,” containing countervection cues, fades in, when experiencing visual-vestibular mismatch starts.
The “motion sickness regulation image,” containing countervection cues, are removed when visual-vestibular mismatch ends.).
Benko in view of Inomata does not explicitly disclose fading in by gradually increasing color density, or removing an image by gradually decreasing the color density, thereby from a high value to a low value.
Leontaris teaches fading in by gradually increasing color density, or removing an image by gradually decreasing the color density, thereby from a high value to a low value (
“As discussed above, fade scenes are characterized by relatively large, gradual changes in the average luminance of a current frame when compared to preceding frames. In addition to classification as fade-ins and fade-outs, fade scenes can also be classified as fades to/from black, fades to/from white, and fades to/from a solid color. Also, cross-fades are fading transitions from one scene to the next scene.” Leontaris ¶ 152. ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Leontaris’ fading in and out images by controlling color density, with Benko in view of Inomata. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated not to surprise and/or alarm a viewer by introducing visual change gradually.
Regarding Claim 12, Benko in view of Inomata and Leontaris teaches The motion sickness regulation device according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry executes at least one process selected from the group consisting of a process of gradually decreasing color density of the motion sickness regulation image from a high value to a low value at a start of displaying the motion sickness regulation image and a process of gradually increasing the color density of the motion sickness regulation image from a low value to a high value at an end of displaying the motion sickness regulation image (
Leontaris ¶ 152. Note the differences between Claims 11 and 12.
The difference is caused by a user’s different patterns of motions; while the same motion sickness mitigation strategy (Leontaris ¶ 152) applies. For Claim 11, it applies to the situation: stationary[Wingdings font/0xE0]motion[Wingdings font/0xE0]stationary, an example of which is when a user turns his/her head.
For Claim 12, the same motion sickness mitigation strategy is applied to the situation: motion V [Wingdings font/0xE0] less motion [Wingdings font/0xE0] motion V, an example could be that a person sitting on a moving platform like a car.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Leontaris’ fading in and out images by controlling luminance, with Benko in view of Inomata. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated not to surprise and/or alarm a viewer by introducing visual change gradually.
Claims 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benko et al. in view of Inomata et al. as applied to Claim 1, in further view of Farmani et al. (Viewpoint Snapping to Reduce Cybersickness in Virtual Reality) and Boyd et al. (US 20060214935 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Benko in view of Inomata teaches The motion sickness regulation device according to claim 1.
Benko in view of Inomata does not explicitly disclose wherein the processing circuitry executes at least one process selected from the group consisting of a process of gradually decreasing luminance of the motion sickness regulation image from a high value to a low value at a start of displaying the motion sickness regulation image and a process of gradually increasing the luminance of the motion sickness regulation image from a low value to a high value at an end of displaying the motion sickness regulation image.
Farmani teaches
wherein the processing circuitry executes at least one process selected from the group consisting of a process of gradually decreasing luminance of the motion sickness regulation image from a high value to a low value at a start of displaying the motion sickness regulation image and
a process of
PNG
media_image7.png
218
317
media_image7.png
Greyscale
During transition, what a viewer sees, including the “motion sickness regulation image,” darkens (decreasing luminance) initially, and brightens (increasing) luminance during the end of the transition.
Farmani also teaches gradual fading in, stating “If rotation speed is above 25°/s in a given yaw direction, the fading animation starts and the camera snaps in 22.5° increments in the specified direction;” and “Upon reaching the next rotation increment, the fading transition stops (the transition speed is around 800ms).” Farmani p. 4 right col.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Farmani’s transition with darkened viewing images, with Benko in view of Inomata. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to reduce one type of motion sickness. Farmani Abstract.
Benko in view of Inomata and Farmani does not explicitly disclose fading out gradually, although Farmani teaches fading in gradually.
Boyd teaches fading out gradually (“In one embodiment, if the effect is more general, for example, the user wants the text be completely transparent at frame 1, opaque at frames 60-90, and become transparent by frame 120, he should use the Fade In/Fade Out behavior. In one embodiment, behaviors generate a range of values that are applied to an object's parameters, animating those parameters over the duration of the behavior.” Boyd ¶ 1196.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Boyd’s fading in and out images by controlling transparency, with Benko in view of Inomata and Farmani. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated not to surprise and/or alarm a viewer by introducing visual change gradually.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benko et al. in view of Inomata et al. as applied to Claim 1, in further view of Mallinson (US 20180096518 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Benko in view of Inomata teaches The motion sickness regulation device according to claim 1.
However, Benko in view of Inomata does not explicitly disclose wherein the processing circuitry executes at least one process selected from the group consisting of a process of gradually decreasing a size of the gaze region from a large value to a small value at a start of displaying the motion sickness regulation image and a process of gradually increasing the size of the gaze region from a small value to a large value at an end of displaying the motion sickness regulation image.
Mallinson teaches wherein the processing circuitry executes at least one process selected from the group consisting of
a process of gradually decreasing a size of the gaze region from a large value to a small value at a start of displaying the motion sickness regulation image and
a process of gradually increasing the size of the gaze region from a small value to a large value at an end of displaying the motion sickness regulation image (
PNG
media_image8.png
556
757
media_image8.png
Greyscale
“FIG. 3C is an illustration of a VR environment 350 and the application of FOV throttling within the view of a user 100 through an HMD 102, as the head of a user is physically sweeping through the VR environment 350 from left to right, in accordance with one embodiment of the present disclosure. At the beginning of the sweep, the user is viewing a soldier 361 in a FOV 351 that may encompass 120 degrees, for example, as shown in the middle graph. As the user 100 sweeps to the right, the FOV will be reduced. For example, FOV 352 may encompass 110 degrees. As the sweeps further to the right, FOV 353 may encompass 90 degrees. Sweeping even further to the right, FOV 354 is at its smallest at approximately 60 degrees. The rate of change of the sweeping motion (e.g., head movement) may be linear between FOV 351 to FOV 354, as shown by the bottom graph. In addition, the FOV may shrink in overall size also as FOV 351 both has a larger range (e.g., 120 degrees) and also a larger height, than FOV 354, which has the min range (e.g., 60 degrees) and the smallest height, in one embodiment.” Mallinson ¶ 79.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Mallinson’s teaching of motion sickness mitigation strategy, with Benko in view of Inomata et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to regulate/mitigate motion sickness. Mallinson ¶ 82.
Regarding Claim 15, Benko in view of Inomata teaches The motion sickness regulation device according to claim 1.
However, Benko in view of Inomata does not explicitly disclose wherein the processing circuitry executes at least one process selected from the group consisting of a process of gradually increasing a size of the gaze region from a small value to a large value at a start of displaying the motion sickness regulation image and a process of gradually decreasing the size of the gaze region from a large value to a small value at an end of displaying the motion sickness regulation image.
Mallinson teaches wherein the processing circuitry executes at least one process selected from the group consisting of
a process of gradually increasing a size of the gaze region from a small value to a large value at a start of displaying the motion sickness regulation image and
a process of gradually decreasing the size of the gaze region from a large value to a small value at an end of displaying the motion sickness