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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This communication is responsive to Amendment filed on 08/27/2025.
Claims 1-19 and 21 are pending in this application. Claims 1, 10 and 19 are independent claims. This Office Action is made Final.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-9 and 13-18 are objected to as being dependent upon the rejected base claims because claims 4, 6, 13 and 15 recite the allowable subject matter, but would be allowable if the mentioned allowable subject matter claims are rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Examiner Notes
The prior art rejections below cite particular paragraphs, columns, and/or line numbers in the references for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 10-12, 19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agarwal et al. (“Agarwal”, US PG-Pub. 2018/0046609 A1) in view of Berliner et al. (“Berliner”, US PG-Pub. 2022/0254120 A1).
Re-claim 1,
Agarwal teaches a system comprising:
a processing system (Fig. 2, [0032]. Agarwal describes the processor unit 204); and
at least one memory (Fig. 2, [0032]. Agarwal describes the memory 206) storing instructions that, when executed by the processing system, cause the system to perform a method comprising:
initiating an authoring session to generate a context aware policy that defines an action to be triggered upon satisfaction of one or more context conditions within virtual environment; obtaining, via input from the user during the authoring session, one or more of the one or more context conditions and the action for the context aware policy; generating validation scenes based on past context instances of the user and the context aware policy (Fig. 9, [0102]. Agarwal describes the system generating a user interface template for display of user interface components corresponding to validation rules and contextual data of the user and platform stored in a context database shown in steps 902 -912);
rendering at least one of the validation scenes on the display in a virtual environment allowing the user to act out the at least one of the validation scenes in the virtual environment with immersive activities and active selections of contexts to validate whether the context aware policy behaves as expected from the user's perspective in the virtual environment (Fig. 9, [0022, 0102]. Agarwal describes “the display of the user interface components within the user interface changing based on a real-time assessment of a cognitive state of the user while performing a task on a data processing system platform, context of the data processing system platform, and the validation rules” and in paragraph [0022] describes “…with reference to FIGS. 1-3, diagrams of data processing environments are provided in which illustrative embodiments may be implemented. It should be appreciated that FIGS. 1-3 are only meant as examples and are not intended to assert or imply any limitation with regard to the environments in which different embodiments may be implemented. Many modifications to the depicted environments may be made.” that indicates the data processing environments is not limited the depicted environment but the inventive concept can be implemented on any other environments (i.e. the extended reality environment));
obtaining, via input from the user during the authoring session, a modification to one or more of the one or more context conditions and the action of the context aware policy based on the validation of the context aware policy (Fig. 4, [0071]. Agarwal describes “At step 408, the developer manually modifies the user interface template. The developer modifies the template code to address variations in resource object type and user interface rules and is aided by the platform's model-driven run time technology and rules library”); and
updating the context aware policy based on the modification to one or more of the one or more context conditions and the action (Fig. 4, [0071]. Agarwal describes “Then at step 410, the platform selects widgets for resource object attributes based on the rules and developer modifications”).
Agarwal fails to teach:
an extended reality system comprising: a head-mounted device comprising a display that displays content to a user and one or more cameras that capture images of a visual field of the user wearing the head-mounted device.
However, Berliner teaches:
an extended reality system comprising: a head-mounted device comprising a display that displays content to a user and one or more cameras that capture images of a visual field of the user wearing the head-mounted device (Fig. 13, [0077]. Berliner describes an extended reality system with the head-mounted device 110 and the visual field 1310).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the feedforward context aware policy validation and modification teachings of Agarwal with the extended reality environment teaching of Berliner to apply this innovative concept and adapt to various and diversity environments for the modern user demands.
Re-claim 2,
in addition to what Agarwal-Berliner teaches the system in claim 1, Agarwal also teaches the system, wherein generating the validation scenes comprises combining historical contextual data with a validation case generation algorithm to determine what is relevant to the user in the virtual environment and eliminate inaccuracies of the context aware policy (Fig. 9, [0093]. Agarwal describes “the computer extracts data corresponding to a context of a user and platform stored in a context database (step 908)” that indicates the historical contextual data is used to generate the user interface template).
Agarwal fails to teach:
the extended reality environment.
However, Berliner teaches:
the extended reality environment (Fig. 13, [0077]. Berliner describes an extended reality system with the head-mounted device 110 and the visual field 1310).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the feedforward context aware policy validation and modification teachings of Agarwal with the extended reality environment teaching of Berliner to apply this innovative concept and adapt to various and diversity environments for the modern user demands.
Re-claim 3,
in addition to what Agarwal-Berliner teaches the system in claim 2, Agarwal also teaches the system, wherein determining what is relevant to the user comprises generating a prediction for what the user intends based on the historical contextual data, a correlation of context factors within the historical contextual data, and a frequency of context instances involving the context factor, and wherein comparing the prediction against context factors included within the context-aware policy to determine if the context-aware policy includes underspecified and/or overspecified inaccuracies (Fig. 10, [0098-0100]. Agarwal describes “The computer also identifies exceptions to the set of rules corresponding to the combined relevant components (step 1012)”).
Re-claims 10 and 19,
claims 10 and 19 are the method and medium claims, respectively, having similar limitations in scope of claim 1; therefore, they are rejected under similar rationale.
Re-claim 11,
in addition to what Agarwal-Berliner teaches in claims 10, claim 11 is the method claim having similar limitations in scope of claim 2; therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale.
Re-claim 12,
in addition to what Agarwal-Berliner teaches in claim 11, claim 12 is a method having similar limitations in scope of claim 3; therefore, they are rejected under similar rationale.
Re-claim 21,
in addition to what Agarwal-Berliner teaches the system in claim 1, Agarwal also teaches the system, further comprising: rendering an in-situ placed virtual content of the at least one of the validation scenes on the display in the virtual environment allowing the user to act out the at least one of the validation scenes in the virtual environment with immersive activities and active selections of the in-situ placed virtual content to validate whether the context aware policy behaves as expected from the user's perspective in the virtual environment (Fig. 9, [0022, 0102]. Agarwal describes “the display of the user interface components within the user interface changing based on a real-time assessment of a cognitive state of the user while performing a task on a data processing system platform, context of the data processing system platform, and the validation rules” and in paragraph [0022] describes “…with reference to FIGS. 1-3, diagrams of data processing environments are provided in which illustrative embodiments may be implemented. It should be appreciated that FIGS. 1-3 are only meant as examples and are not intended to assert or imply any limitation with regard to the environments in which different embodiments may be implemented. Many modifications to the depicted environments may be made.” that indicates the data processing environments is not limited the depicted environment but the inventive concept can be implemented on any other environments (i.e. the extended reality environment)).
Agarwal fails to teach:
the extended reality environment.
However, Berliner teaches:
the extended reality environment (Fig. 13, [0077]. Berliner describes an extended reality system with the head-mounted device 110 and the visual field 1310).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the feedforward context aware policy validation and modification teachings of Agarwal with the extended reality environment teaching of Berliner to apply this innovative concept and adapt to various and diversity environments for the modern user demands.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's argument filed on 08/27/2025 with respect to claims 1, 10 and 19 have been considered but it is not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 10-13 regarding to amended claims 1, 10 and 19 that Agarwal fails to teach the feature “rendering at least one of the validation scenes on the display in an extended reality environment allowing the user to act out the at least one of the validation scenes in the extended reality environment with immersive activities and active selections of contexts to validate whether the context aware policy behaves as expected from the user's perspective in the extended reality environment”.
Examiner respectfully submit that Agarwal teaches the main concept of the invention in the regular virtual environment that rendering at least one of the validation scenes on the display in a virtual environment allowing the user to act out the at least one of the validation scenes in the virtual environment with immersive activities and active selections of contexts to validate whether the context aware policy behaves as expected from the user's perspective in the virtual environment (Fig. 9, [0022, 0102]. Agarwal describes “the display of the user interface components within the user interface changing based on a real-time assessment of a cognitive state of the user while performing a task on a data processing system platform, context of the data processing system platform, and the validation rules” and in paragraph [0022] describes “…with reference to FIGS. 1-3, diagrams of data processing environments are provided in which illustrative embodiments may be implemented. It should be appreciated that FIGS. 1-3 are only meant as examples and are not intended to assert or imply any limitation with regard to the environments in which different embodiments may be implemented. Many modifications to the depicted environments may be made.” that indicates the data processing environments is not limited the depicted environment but the inventive concept can be implemented on any other environments (i.e. the extended reality environment)). Berliner teaches the extended reality environment (Fig. 13, [0077]. Berliner describes an extended reality system with the head-mounted device 110 and the visual field 1310).
It would have been obvious to one having the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the feedforward context aware policy validation and modification teachings of Agarwal with the extended reality environment teaching of Berliner to apply this innovative concept and adapt to various and diversity environments for the modern user demands. Therefore, Agarwal in view of Berliner still teaches the argument feature.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new but same references ground(s) of rejections presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUAN S NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7612. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9-5).
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, Fred Ehichioya can be reached 571-272-4034. 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.
/TUAN S NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2179