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 .
Response to Amendment / Arguments
Applicant cancelled claim 25 and moved those features into claim 1. The examiner maintains her rejection of the claims, and claim 1 (now claim 1 and the previous features of claim 25). The language of claim 25 is relatively broad, and some of which is, respectfully, definitional to what “augmented reality” is. Here is the language of previous claim 25, now in claim 1:
wherein when the user-controllable object is displayed in the screen, the user- controllable object and the physical object are simultaneously viewable via the screen so that they provide an appearance of beinq in a spatial relationship with respect to each other, and
wherein the apparatus is confiqured to provide the image of the feature in association with the physical object after the virtual interaction between the user- controllable object and the physical object.
The first “wherein” clause is significantly definitional of what augmented reality is – having a “user-controllable object” (here, a virtual object) and a physical object, simultaneously viewable and in a spatial relationship with respect to each other. The “user-controllable object” and “physical object” are mapped earlier in claim 1.
The second “wherein” clause, basically describes the result of interaction of a user with the “user-controllable object”. When the interaction occurs, an image of a feature associated with the physical object is displayed. In the non-limiting example that was/is mapped in claim 1, the physical object is the mirror, and the image of the feature is a user dressed in an outfit – the mirror acting like a virtual mirror, when interaction with the “user controllable object” (virtual wardrobe application) occurs. This was mapped respectfully in the prior office action in the rejection to claim 1, and respectfully is maintained.
Accordingly, the rejections under 103 are maintained. Please see remainder of this office action for details.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 7, 8, 9, 16, 17, 19 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoover (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2018/0045963; cited in parent).
Regarding claim 1:
Hoover teaches: an apparatus configured to be head-worn by a user (para. 35, AR, VR, MR system as a wearable device), comprising:
a transparent screen configured to allow the user to see therethrough (Fig. 2:220);
a sensor system configured to sense a characteristic of a physical object in a physical environment in which the user is located (e.g. para. 42, which teaches an outward facing imaging system sensor; see also paras. 78-82, which teaches that sensory input from wearable devices, such as the outward facing imaging sensors or cameras, can be used to sense characteristics of objects in a physical environment. One example can be found in paras. 105-07, 115-16, which teaches obtaining characteristics of physical objects to associate virtual objects therewith. See also Fig. 8, 12A, 14A (physical environment is a room in these examples)); and
a processing unit coupled to the sensor system, the processing unit (paras. 42-43, processors. See also Fig. 2: 260) configured to:
cause the screen to display a user-controllable object (e.g., claim 1, the virtual object is user-controllable. Hoover has *many* examples of user-controllable objects, or user controllable virtual objects. See also Summary and, e.g. paras. 104-127), and
cause the screen to display an image of a feature that is resulted from a virtual interaction between the user-controllable object and the physical object, so that the feature will appear to be a part of the physical object in the environment or appear to be emitting from the physical object, wherein the image of the feature is different from the user-controllable object (non-limiting example: para. 106, user-controllable object is the virtual wardrobe application; image of feature resulted from virtual interaction with the user-controllable object (virtual wardrobe application) and physical object (mirror), is a simulated look of a user in different outfits. This simulated look of a user in different outfits (image of the feature) is different from the user-controllable object (the virtual wardrobe application), and the feature (simulated look) will appear to be part of the physical object (mirror) in the environment, or emitting from the physical object),
wherein when the user-controllable object is displayed in the screen, the user- controllable object and the physical object are simultaneously viewable via the screen so that they provide an appearance of being in a spatial relationship with respect to each other (see mapping above, this is augmented reality – to have virtual and physical objects in a spatial relationship with respect to teach other. See Background section of Hoover, for example), and wherein the apparatus is configured to provide the image of the feature in association with the physical object after the virtual interaction between the user- controllable object and the physical object (see non-limiting example above, the image of the feature (simulation of a user in different clothing outfits) is provided after the interaction between the virtual wardrobe application and the physical mirror).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified Hoover, in view of same, to have obtained the above, and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
The prior art included each element recited in claim 1, although not necessarily in a single embodiment, with the only difference being between the claimed element and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of certain elements in a single prior art embodiment, as described above.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 7:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of Applicant’s claims, to have further modified the applied ref in view of same to have obtained: the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processing unit is configured to cause the screen to display the image of the feature as a permanent overlay over the physical object, as an obvious design choice for one of ordinary skill.
Applicant’s specification does not describe or suggest that the permanence of a graphical image overlay is critical to the claimed invention or solves a stated problem. Instead, this is one of many optional design choices of Applicant’s specification (see e.g. para. 39 of specification as filed, in view of all the other optional design features of paras. 24-56).
Regarding claim 8:
Hoover teaches: the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processing unit is configured to change a configuration of the image of the feature based on a viewing orientation of the user (e.g. para. 57, image configuration will change based on pupil orientation; para. 85, use head pose to display images, 100, 118 – a;; examples of changing image configurations based on a viewing orientation).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of Applicant’s claims, to have further modified the applied references, in view of same, to have obtained the above. The motivation would be to provide an interactive and immersive VR/AR experience.
Regarding claim 9:
Hoover teaches: the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the virtual interaction between the user- controllable object and the physical object comprises a direction interaction or an indirect interaction (see mapping to claim 1, direct interactions are taught by Hoover, e.g. paras. 33, 90-131).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of Applicant’s claims, to have further modified the applied references, in view of same, to have obtained the above. The motivation would be to provide an interactive and immersive VR/AR experience.
Regarding claim 16:
Hoover teaches: the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the sensor system comprises a depth sensor configured to provide a sensor output (para. 78); and
wherein the processing unit is configured to determine a position of the physical object based on the sensor output (para. 78).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of Applicant’s claims, to have further modified the applied references, in view of same, to have obtained the above. The motivation would be to use available sensor technology to analyze and map surroundings.
Regarding claim 17:
Hoover teaches: the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the sensor system comprises a camera configured to provide an image of the environment (paras. 39-42 and 60) (see also mapping to claim 1 above); and wherein the processing unit is configured to identify the physical object in the image (e.g. paras. 39-42, 60, 78, 81 and 126).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of Applicant’s claims, to have further modified the applied references, in view of same, to have obtained the above. The motivation would be to use available sensor technology to analyze and map surroundings.
Regarding claim 19:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the user-controllable object comprises an image of a thrust, and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
Hoover teaches, at e.g. paras. 108-127 and 135-70, that users can interact with virtual objects and cause them to move as a result – the virtual objects can also be given affordances and other parameters to show physical effects. See also para. 33, 119-21 and 149, visualizations/representations of user action (here a yank) can be modeled in the virtual world. Hoover is also not particularly limiting with the types of user interaction with virtual objects, thereby teaching/suggesting displaying an image of a “thrust” as claimed. Alternatively, such a modification would have further been an obvious design choice for one of ordinary skill. Applicant’s specification does not describe or suggest that a graphical thrust is critical to the claimed invention or solves a stated problem but, instead, an optional design feature.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 22:
Hoover teaches: the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processing unit is configured to receive a user input, and to adjust a position of the user-controllable object being displayed on the screen based on the user input (see mapping to claim 1, users can move virtual objects).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of Applicant’s claims, to have further modified the applied references, in view of same, to have obtained the above. The motivation would be to provide an interactive and immersive VR/AR experience.
Claims 2-4, 6, 10, 11, 18, 20, 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoover in view of Cha, M., Han, S., Lee, J., & Choi, B. (2012). A virtual reality based fire training simulator integrated with fire dynamics data. Fire Safety Journal, 50, 12-24 (“Cha”) (cited in parent).
Regarding claim 2:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined and modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the image of the feature comprises an image of a burnt mark for the physical object, and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
Cha teaches that images of burnt objects in VR settings, for example, are known (pages. 15-22 and Figs. 7-9). Modifying the applied references, such to include these graphics per Cha, is all of taught and suggested by the prior art, and would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Alternatively, such a modification would have further been an obvious design choice for one of ordinary skill. Applicant’s specification does not describe or suggest that a graphical burnt mark for display is critical to the claimed invention or solves a stated problem but, instead, an optional design feature.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 3:
Cha teaches: the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the image of the feature comprises an image of an explosion for the physical object (see e.g. p. 15-22 and Figs. 7-9). Modifying the applied references, in view of same, to have included the above, is all of taught and suggested by the prior art, and would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
Alternatively, such a modification would have been an obvious design choice for one of ordinary skill. Applicant’s specification does not describe or suggest that a graphical explosion for display is critical to the claimed invention or solves a stated problem but, instead, an optional design feature.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 4:
Cha teaches: the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the image of the feature comprises an image of a destroyed structure for the physical object (see e.g. p. 15-22 and Figs. 7-9). Modifying the applied references, in view of same, to have included the above, is all of taught and suggested by the prior art, and would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
Alternatively, such a modification would have been an obvious design choice for one of ordinary skill. Applicant’s specification does not describe or suggest that displaying a graphical destroyed structure is critical to the claimed invention or solves a stated problem but, instead, an optional design feature.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 5:
Cha teaches: the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the image of the feature comprises an image of smoke for the physical object (see e.g. p. 15-22 and Figs. 7-9). Modifying the applied references, in view of same, to have included the above, is all of taught and suggested by the prior art, and would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
Alternatively, such a modification would have been an obvious design choice for one of ordinary skill. Applicant’s specification does not describe or suggest that displaying graphical smoke is critical to the claimed invention or solves a stated problem but, instead, an optional design feature.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 6:
Cha teaches: the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processing unit is configured to cause the screen to display a transformation of the feature so that the feature disappears over time (see e.g. p. 15-22 and Figs. 7-9, simulation with time dependent factors).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of Applicant’s claims, to have further modified the applied refs in view of Cha to have obtained the above. The motivation would be to more accurately or realistically depict a fire simulation as it progresses over time.
Regarding claim 10:
Cha teaches: the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the image of the feature comprises a heat visualization (see e.g. p. 15-22 and Figs. 7-9). Modifying the applied references, in view of same, to have included the above, is all of taught and suggested by the prior art, and would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
Alternatively, such a modification would have been an obvious design choice for one of ordinary skill. Applicant’s specification does not describe or suggest that displaying heat, graphically, is critical to the claimed invention or solves a stated problem but, instead, an optional design feature.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 11:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the apparatus of claim 10, wherein a configuration of the heat visualization is variable depending on a virtual distance between a reference position associated with the user-controllable object and the physical object, and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
Hoover teaches that using or establishing reference positions for virtual objects (user-controllable object) and physical objects is known (see e.g. claims 12, 17 and 18, para. 5 and 31-33 and 112-27, determining virtual distances as claimed, in combination with para. 123, a reference position can be a centroid of the virtual object). Modifying Hoover, in view of same, such that the configuration of the heat visualization, per Cha, is variable depending on distance between a reference position and the physical object (i.e. centroid and physical object, such as the heat being larger the closer the distance, as one example), is all of taught and suggested by the prior art, would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill, and/alternatively, such a modification would have been an obvious design choice for one of ordinary skill. Applicant’s specification does not describe or suggest that the features of claim 11 are critical to the claimed invention or solves a stated problem but, instead, an optional design feature. In fact, Applicant’s specification as filed has no substantive description of claim 11, except to copy/paste claim language a few times.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 18:
Cha teaches: the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the user-controllable object --comprises an image of a vehicle (Figs. 7-9). Modifying the applied references, in view of same, such that the user-controllable object, per Hoover, is a vehicle, per Cha, is all of taught and suggested by the prior art, and, alternatively, such a modification would have been an obvious design choice for one of ordinary skill. Applicant’s specification does not describe or suggest that vehicle as a graphic is critical to the claimed invention or solves a stated problem but, instead, an optional design feature.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
Regarding claim 20:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the user-controllable object comprises an image of a vehicle, and
wherein the processing unit is also configured to receive a user input, and to cause the screen to display a thrust visualization in association with the image of the vehicle in response to the user input, and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
The first wherein clause is taught by Cha (Figs. 7-9). User inputs are taught by Hoover, see mapping to claim 1. In terms of displaying a thrust associated with the vehicle image in response to input, this would have been an obvious design choice for one of ordinary skill. Hoover teaches user interaction, such as in the context of interactive virtual objects, and games (see mapping to claim 1). The graphics of the second wherein clause is an obvious design choice in, i.e. a game, of display of vehicle and graphics associated. This also would have been an obvious design choice for one of ordinary skill. Applicant’s specification does not describe or suggest that displaying thrusts, graphically, is critical to the claimed invention or solves a stated problem but, instead, an optional design feature.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 21:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of Applicant’s claims, to have further modified the applied ref in view of same to have obtained: the apparatus of claim 20, wherein the processing unit is configured to cause the screen to display a change in the thrust visualization in response to a change in the user input, as an obvious design choice for one of ordinary skill. As mapped in claim 20, Hoover teaches user inputs with a VR/AR/MR system. Modifying graphics, such as a thrust visualization, responsive to user inputs, is both taught by Hoover and an obvious design choice with thrust graphics.
Applicant’s specification does not describe or suggest that thrust graphics are critical to the claimed invention or solves a stated problem. Instead, this is one of many optional design choices of Applicant’s specification.
Regarding claim 23:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the applied references, in view of same, to have obtained: the apparatus of claim 10, wherein the heat visualization has a first configuration when a virtual distance between a reference position associated with the user-controllable object and the physical object has a first value; and
wherein the heat visualization has a second figuration when the virtual distance between the reference position associated with the user-controllable object and the physical object has a second value that is different from the first value, and the results of the modification would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
Hoover teaches that more than one thresholds can be assigned, associated or applied to a virtual environment and/or object resulting in some physical or image-based change (e.g. para. 151). Cha teaches this with respect to fire simulations, and the many conditions, scenarios and nature of an evolving fire (see e.g. p. 14-21). In one of many examples, the system can be designed such that the heat visualization changes as the fire moves closer to a physical object or spreads. This is one example of the combined teachings of the prior art.
Modifying the applied references, such that the heat visualization changes, per Cha, based on a change in distance (i.e. first and second value), per Hoover and also suggested by Cha, is all of taught, suggested and obvious over the prior art.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 12, 13, 14, 15 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoover in view of Cha and further in view of Cordes (U.S. Patent No. 10,796,489 B1).
Regarding claim 12:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the apparatus of claim 10, wherein the heat visualization has a first configuration when a virtual distance between the reference position associated with the user-controllable object and the physical object is less than a first threshold, and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
See above mapping to claim 11 re: virtual distance between a reference position and physical object. In terms of multiple configurations of the heat visualization based on the virtual distance, see Cordes. The reference of Cordes teaches that it is known, for games and mixed reality environments, to program visual effects (i.e. such as heat visualizations) as a developer desires for a desired effect. See C12-14, 25, 26 31, 32. The visual effects (i.e. heat visualization) can be programmed to have different configurations based on placement in the scene. This is taught by Cordes and, alternatively, would have been an obvious design choice over the prior art. Claim 12 is one example embodiment of a programmer/developer/author of an interactive AR/MR or game environment (relevant to all three references), programming a visual effect, such as a heat visualization, as desired, based on distances in the game/interactive experience. Claim 12 is taught by Cordes and, alternatively, would have been an obvious design choice over the prior art.
The prior art included each element recited in claim 12, although not necessarily in a single embodiment, with the only difference being between the claimed element and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of certain elements in a single prior art embodiment, as described above.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 13:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the apparatus of claim 12, wherein the heat visualization has a second configuration that is different from the first configuration when the virtual distance between the reference position associated with the user-controllable object and the physical object is less than a second threshold, wherein the second threshold is less than the first threshold, and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
See above mapping to claim 12a, which applies here. Claim 13 is one example embodiment of a programmer/developer/author of an interactive AR/MR or game environment (relevant to all three references), programming a visual effect, such as a heat visualization, as desired, based on distances in the game/interactive experience. Claim 12b is taught by Cordes and, alternatively, would have been an obvious design choice for one of ordinary skill over the prior art.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 14:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the apparatus of claim 13, wherein the first configuration of the heat visualization comprises a first burnt mark, and the second configuration of the heat visualization comprises a second burnt mark that is more severe than the first burnt mark, and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
Cha teaches the types of fire related graphics of claim 14 (see p. 15-22 and Figs. 7-9). Modifying the applied refs, in view of same, such to include the above graphics as burnt marks, is all of taught and suggested by the prior art and would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A). This also, per Hoover, is an example of taking into account parameters such as speed and acceleration of movement and other physical parameters of the fire, as well as various laws of physics (see Hoover, paras. 119-122). And, alternatively, claim 14 would have been an obvious design choice for one of ordinary skill over the prior art.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 15:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the apparatus of claim 13, wherein the first configuration of the heat visualization comprises a burnt mark, and the second configuration of the heat visualization comprises an image of fire, an image of a destroyed structure, or an image of an explosion, and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
Cha teaches the types of fire related graphics of claim 15 (see p. 15-22 and Figs. 7-9). Modifying the applied refs, in view of same, such to include the above graphics as burnt marks, is all of taught and suggested by the prior art and would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A). And, alternatively, claim 15 would have been an obvious design choice for one of ordinary skill over the prior art.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 23:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the applied references, in view of same, to have obtained: the apparatus of claim 10, wherein the heat visualization has a first configuration when a virtual distance between a reference position associated with the user-controllable object and the physical object has a first value; and
wherein the heat visualization has a second figuration when the virtual distance between the reference position associated with the user-controllable object and the physical object has a second value that is different from the first value, and the results of the modification would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
See above mapping to claim 11 re: virtual distance between a reference position and physical object. In terms of multiple configurations of the heat visualization based on the virtual distance, see Cordes. The reference of Cordes teaches that it is known, for games and mixed reality environments, to program visual effects (i.e. such as heat visualizations) as a developer desires for a desired effect. See C12-14, 25, 26 31, 32. The visual effects (i.e. heat visualization) can be programmed to have different configurations based on placement in the scene. This is taught by Cordes and, alternatively, would have been an obvious design choice over the prior art.
The prior art included each element recited in claim 23, although not necessarily in a single embodiment, with the only difference being between the claimed element and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of certain elements in a single prior art embodiment, as described above.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoover in view of Cha and further in view of Chen, X. S., Liu, C. C., & Wu, I. C. (2018). A BIM-based visualization and warning system for fire rescue. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 37, 42-53 (“Chen”) (cited in parent).
Regarding claim 24:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the apparatus of claim 10, wherein the processing unit is configured to configure the heat visualization based on a characteristic relating to a material of the physical object, and
to cause the screen to display the configured heat visualization to indicate an interaction between the physical object and the graphical item as perceived by the user through the screen, and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
The reference of Chen, relevant to BIM based visualizations including those of fire (see Abstract), teaches that BIM (Building Information Modeling) contains information such as building materials and quantities as (quoting from the Introduction of Chen): Fire trends are highly related to the building materials, and these parameters are crucial to the simulation. Different materials have different densities and physical attributes, so their burning rates also vary. The elemental properties of the material could be said to be one of the major factors governing the intensity of the fire [8]. Hence, information from a BIM model could be inputted to a Fire Dynamics Simulator (FDS) for a more accurate prediction of the fire situation. …. See also Chen, Section 2. In the last “to cause” feature of claim 24, the claim language as best understood by the examiner is taught by Hoover and mapped in claim 10. That is, displaying (here, a heat visualization) as an interaction (mapped in claim 1) as perceived by the user through the screen (user is in AR/VR in claim 1, and Hoover). Stated differently, this is basically claim language to indicate, somewhat redundantly or repetitively, that the feature (now, a heat visualization as mapped in claim 10) is displayed (even though claim 1 requires it to be displayed).
Modifying the applied references such to include material properties of physical objects for a more realistic representation, as per Chen, would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
The prior art included each element recited in claim 24, although not necessarily in a single embodiment, with the only difference being between the claimed element and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of certain elements in a single prior art embodiment, as described above.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sarah Lhymn whose telephone number is (571)270-0632. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM EST.
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, Xiao Wu can be reached on 571-272-7761. 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.
Sarah Lhymn
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2613
/Sarah Lhymn/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2613
Prosecution Insights