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
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Amendments to the claims have been recorded.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant argues are fully addressed with the new rejections made to the newly provided amendments.
Regarding amendments of “while the vehicle remains in the autonomous mode, automatically operating a motion simulated accessory within the vehicle based on either data associated with the immersive content or data indicative of current and future motion status of the vehicle;” Applicant argues “if an occupant in Moustafa interacts with the driving controls, the driver would take control, i.e., the autonomous mode ends, based on the manual intervention of the user. Examiner agrees, however the limitation clearly states “while the vehicle remains in the autonomous mode” clearly stating that driver has not takin control and the vehicle remains in autonomous mode. As such Moustafa teaches "while the vehicle remains in the autonomous mode, automatically operating a motion simulated accessory within the vehicle based on either data associated with the immersive content or data indicative of current and future motion status of the vehicle," as recited in amended claim 1.”
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, 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 1-8, 12-19, 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moustafa US 2022026864 in view of Rochford US 20190243599.
1.Moustafa teaches a method comprising:
determining a navigation path including one or more autonomous mode segments and one or more non-autonomous mode segments; 166; Such autonomous driving stacks may allow vehicles to self-control or provide driver assistance to detect roadways, navigate from one point to another, 286; The exchange and collection of behavioral models; operating in an autonomous mode or human driver mode
determining that a vehicle is entering an autonomous mode, for an autonomous mode segment of the one or more autonomous mode segments, based on at least one of real-time location data associated with the vehicle or metadata associated with the navigation path that the vehicle is traveling along; 217; vehicle's in-vehicle computing system may be programmed to support operation in multiple different autonomous driving levels and may be manually or automatically (e.g., in response to a detected event or condition) toggled between levels. 286; The exchange and collection of behavioral models; operating in an autonomous mode or human driver mode. 315; the data sources can be used in conjunction or in isolation to extract and generate metadata/tags related to location.
based on determining that the vehicle is entering the autonomous mode, initiating a virtual journey view on one or more displays integrated within the vehicle, including causing presentation of immersive content on the one or more displays; 183; user interfaces (e.g., 230), may include driving controls (e.g., a physical or virtual steering wheel, accelerator, brakes, clutch, etc.) to allow a human driver to take control from the autonomous driving system (e.g., in a handover or following a driver assist action).
while the vehicle remains in the autonomous mode, automatically operating a motion simulated accessory within the vehicle based on either data associated with the immersive content or data indicative of current and future motion status of the vehicle; 183; user interfaces (e.g., 230), may include driving controls [operating a notion simulated assessor] (e.g., a physical or virtual steering wheel, accelerator, brakes, clutch, etc.) to allow a human driver to take control from the autonomous driving system (e.g., in a handover or following a driver assist action).
determining that the vehicle will no longer operate in autonomous mode based on at least one of the data indicative of current and future motion status of the vehicle or navigation path metadata; and 243; request may be reactionary (e.g., in response to a pullover event, sensor outage, or emergency), while in other cases the request may be sent to preemptively cause the remote valet service 1505 to take over control of the vehicle (based on a prediction that a pullover event or other difficulty is likely given conditions ahead on a route.
modifying a display of the immersive content based on determining that the vehicle will no longer operate in autonomous mode, 212; generate alerts for presentation on the vehicle's audio and/or graphic displays, such as to alert a driver of potential areas of concerns, prepare one or more passengers for a handover or pullover event,
Moustafa [834-835 combining overlapping including stitching i.e. transparency] teaches all of the limitations of claim but does not explicitly teach
wherein the modifying the display of the immersive content on the one or more displays of the vehicle includes adjusting a transparency of the one or more displays to cause the presentation of the immersive content to fade away while a real-world environment becomes visible.
However; Rochford 60 teaches the synchronization FOVs of virtual reality displays and their creation of an immersive, realistic experience, a transition animation may be used when synchronizing the follower FOV 504 to the master FOV 502. the display of the follower HMD 106 may fade to black and fade back in at the new “position” that matches the master FOV 502. FOV 504 can be zoomed out to a distant point of view that encompasses both the virtual location of the follower FOV 504 and the virtual location of the master FOV 502, and then zoomed in to the virtual location of the master FOV 502. HMD 106 causes a warning to be displayed in the follower FOV 504 to warn the operator of the impending transition. transition of the follower FOV 504 to match the master FOV 502.
Therefore, it was well known at the time the invention was filed and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings with a reasonable expectation of success in order to prevent motion sickness using adaptive display such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious.
2. (Original) The method of claim 1, wherein the data associated with the immersive content indicates motion status of items depicted within the immersive content. 204; augment or direct operation of devices within the vehicle, which may be used by the users while the vehicle is in motion through an in-vehicle environment adjustment phase 625. As an illustrative example, on a curvy road, it may be detected that a passenger is using a VR/AR headset, and the autonomous vehicle may signal the headset to cause the screen inside the headset to tilt to adjust the visual to make the ride and viewing experience smoother.
3. (Original) The method of claim 1, wherein the current and future motion status comprise a current acceleration and an anticipated deceleration, respectively. 926; whether the driver's acceleration/deceleration was within the expected acceleration/deceleration range after the hand off;
4. (Original) The method of claim 1, wherein the virtual journey view is at least one of a video game, a recording of a popular travel route, or
a gamification of the real-world environment surrounding the vehicle. 250; the view of the vehicle surroundings and road conditions that are displayed in near real-time; controls the vehicle (similar to video immersive games where the player sees the car's view and drives and control them with a wheel, handheld controller, etc.)
5. (Original) The method of claim 1, wherein a playback speed of at least a portion of the immersive content displayed on the one or more displays is based on the current motion status of the vehicle.250; the view of the vehicle surroundings and road conditions that are displayed in near real-time [playback speed 1 to 1]; controls the vehicle (similar to video immersive games where the player sees the car's view and drives and control them with a wheel, handheld controller, etc.)
6. (Original) The method of claim 1, further comprising:
styling the immersive content based on real-time conditions associated with a current real- world environment. 250; the view of the vehicle surroundings and road conditions that are displayed in near real-time [playback speed 1 to 1];
7. (Original) The method of claim 1, wherein operating the motion simulated accessory further comprises:
providing haptic feedback by way of the motion simulated accessory, the haptic feedback comprising at least one of simulating a motion associated with an item depicted within the immersive content. 592; vehicle can confirm driver engagement [simulating a motion] though the use of certain sensors and monitoring. For example, the vehicle can use gaze monitoring, haptic feedback, audio feedback, etc.
8. (Original) The method of claim 1, wherein operating the motion simulated accessory further comprises:
determining the current or future motion status of the vehicle exceeds a threshold; 926; whether the driver's acceleration/deceleration was within the expected acceleration/deceleration range after the hand off;
adjusting the immersive content to depict an adjusted immersive content item, the adjusted immersive content item having a motion status matching the current or future motion status of the vehicle; and 250; the view of the vehicle surroundings and road conditions that are displayed in near real-time [matching playback speed 1 to 1];
providing haptic feedback by way of the motion simulated accessory, wherein the haptic feedback is aligned with a motion associated with the current or future motion status of the vehicle. 592; vehicle can confirm driver engagement though the use of certain sensors and monitoring. For example, the vehicle can use gaze monitoring, haptic feedback, audio feedback, etc.
12. is rejected using the same rejections as made to claim 1.
13. is rejected using the same rejections as made to claim 2.
14. is rejected using the same rejections as made to claim 3.
15. is rejected using the same rejections as made to claim 4.
16. is rejected using the same rejections as made to claim 5.
17. is rejected using the same rejections as made to claim 6.
18. is rejected using the same rejections as made to claim 7.
19. is rejected using the same rejections as made to claim 8.
21-33. (Canceled)
34. The method of claim 1, wherein the immersive content comprises virtual reality content or augmented reality content. Rochford 30; the server 104 hosts a virtual reality session for one or multiple HMDs 106, and handles synchronization of the fields of view (FOV) of different HMDs 45; a virtual reality environment, including rendering text and/or graphics in the virtual reality environment.
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, 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 9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moustafa and Rochford as applied to claim above, and further in view of Alcaidinho 20190047498.
9. Moustafa and Rochford teach all of the limitations of claim 1 but does not teach, further comprising: modifying the display of the immersive content based on at least one of user gaze data, user head position data, or user head orientation data. However, Alcaidinho teaches 22; Based on the direction of gaze for the passenger, the projector 210 in the vehicle may project an image 220 such that it is within the direction of gaze of the passenger.
Therefore, it was well known at the time the invention was filed and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings with a reasonable expectation of success in order to prevent motion sickness using adaptive display such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious.
20. is rejected using the same rejections as made to claim 9.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moustafa and Rochford as applied to claim above, and further in view of Frolov US 20150190726.
10. Moustafa and Rochford all of the limitations of claim 1 but does not teach, further comprising:
adjusting a start location and end location of the virtual journey view to match a start location and end location of the autonomous mode segment. However, Frolov teaches 32; separate game scene, the visitors may believe they are on a lifelike ride within a virtual reality. 55; Controlling system 510 can control the operation of transportation system 505 and cause starting and stopping of the actuators, motors, engines, and/or drivers to cause visitors move inside the interactive amusement attraction. Skull Island.
Therefore, it was well known at the time the invention was filed and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide interactive amusement such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moustafa and Rochford as applied to claim above, and further in view of Tsang US 20180088682.
11. Moustafa and Rochford all of the limitations of claim 1 but does not teach, wherein the presentation of immersive content on the one or more displays further comprises:
adjusting the transparency of the one or more displays to cause the presentation of immersive content to fade in while the real-world environment becomes less visible. However, Tsang teaches 56; adjusting a position, a transparency, a size, and a blending effect of the second window to provide the semi-immersive virtual reality to the user with both the virtual reality and the keyboard simultaneously viewable on the display.
Therefore, it was well known at the time the invention was filed and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide a semi-immersive virtual reality such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SIHAR A KARWAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2747. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F; 11-7pm.
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, Ramon Mercado can be reached on 571-270-5744. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SIHAR A KARWAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights