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 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.
Claim(s) 24-33 and 36-41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stephens, Jr. (US 2013/0211587) in view of Ferrese et al. (US 2018/0330546) further considered with Connor et al. (US 2020/0246693) and Fateh (US 2017/0274279).
In regard to claims 24 and 36, Stephens, Jr. teaches a method for displaying a virtual reality, comprising: displaying a visual virtual reality at a display location via a visual display unit (paragraph 39 and elements 43); with a generating device at the display location, generating at least one surroundings property for the virtual reality (paragraph 39, olfactory from the robot); and wherein the surroundings property originates and is detected live at a recording location of the visual virtual reality and is received and generated live by the generating device at the display location (paragraph 39, olfactory from the robot is translated into a safe smell or data for human) but does not teach wherein the surroundings property detected at the recording location and generated at the display location is a wind direction, wherein the wind direction is detected via a wind direction sensor, and wherein the generating device includes multiple fans to generate the wind or the wind direction, wherein the generating device further includes a plurality of nozzles, wherein an odorant is emitted by each of the plurality of nozzles to present odor as the surroundings property, and wherein at least two of the multiple fans are assigned to each of the plurality of nozzles to achieve a directional dependence of the odor so that a user is presented with the odor coming from a specific direction.
Ferrese et al. teach wherein the surroundings property detected at the recording location and generated at the display location is a wind direction, wherein the direction is detected via a wind direction sensor (fig. 3 and paragraph 33).
The two are analogous art because they both deal with the same field of invention of head-up displays.
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the apparatus of Stephens, Jr. with the wind direction sensing and output of Ferrese et al. The rationale is as follows: Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to provide the apparatus of Stephens, Jr. with the wind direction sensing and output of Ferrese et al. because the wind direction data and feedback would provide the user with a more immersive augmented reality environment.
Connor et al. teach wherein the generating device includes multiple fans to generate the wind direction (paragraphs 78 and 80, one or more fans used to generate directional airflow) wherein an odorant is emitted by each of the plurality of scent emitters to present odor as the surroundings property (paragraph 78), and wherein one of the multiple fans are assigned to a respective scent emitter of the plurality of scent emitters (paragraph 78, scent emitters could be associated with one or more of the fans) to achieve a directional dependence of the odor so that a user is presented with the odor coming from a specific direction (paragraph 78, directional airflow used to communicate scent), and wherein the fans and the respective nozzles are spaced apart from the visual display unit (paragraph 43, directional airflow unit is a clip-on fitting) and are arranged around the user (fig. 7).
The three are analogous art because they all deal with the same field of invention of head-up displays.
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the apparatus of Stephens, Jr. and Ferrese et al. with the scent delivery system of Connor et al. The rationale is as follows: Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to provide the apparatus of Stephens, Jr., and Ferrese et al. with the scent delivery system of Connor et al. because the use of scent in a virtual environment would increase the sense of immersion (paragraph 78).
Fateh teaches a plurality of nozzles (elements 206).
The four are analogous art because they all deal with the same field of invention of head-up displays.
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the apparatus of Stephens, Jr., Ferrese et al. andConnor et al. with the scent delivery system of Fateh. The rationale is as follows: Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to provide the apparatus of Stephens, Jr., Ferrese et al. and Connor et al. with the scent delivery system of Fateh because the references show each element of the claim. The elements in each reference would perform the same function in combination as they do separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the scent delivery system of Fateh would work predictably and would provide a portable scent delivery system capable of being placed in a head-up display.
In regard to claim 25, Stephens, Jr. teaches transmitting visual data live from the recording location and displaying the visual data live for the visual virtual reality at the display location via the visual display unit (paragraph 36, real-time mission).
In regard to claim 26, Stephens, Jr. teaches wherein the surroundings property is transmitted live from the recording location to the display location (paragraph 36).
In regard to claim 27, Stephens, Jr. teaches wherein the surroundings property is detected at the recording location in real time, transmitted from the recording location to the display location in real time, received at the display location in real time, and generated at the display location in real time (paragraphs 27, 28 and 36).
In regard to claim 28, Stephens, Jr. teaches wherein the surroundings property detected at the recording location and generated at the display location further includes one or more of: a fragrance, temperature, or atmospheric humidity (paragraph 39, olfactory).
In regard to claim 29, Stephens, Jr. teaches wherein the surroundings property is detected at the recording location by a surroundings sensor (paragraph 39).
In regard to claims 30, 37, 38 and 41, Stephens, Jr. teaches wherein the virtual reality is displayed by a control unit at the display location (display screens 43), the control unit receiving the surroundings property via a data interface with the recording location (element 118 and paragraph 74).
In regard to claim 31, Stephens, Jr. teaches wherein the detection of the surroundings property at the recording location is carried out according to instructions from the control unit at the display location (paragraph 76).
In regard to claims 32 and 39, Stephens, Jr. teaches wherein the control unit requests the surroundings property from the recording location (paragraph 63, commands from the handler to the proxy are on as needed basis).
In regard to claims 33 and 40, Stephens, Jr. teaches wherein the control unit ascertains the surroundings property at the recording location via a surroundings sensor at the recording location (paragraph 39).
In regard to claims 34 and 42, Connor et al. teach wherein the multiple fans disperse the odorant (paragraph 72).
Fateh teaches the plurality of nozzles are configured to create a fragrance by dispensing the odorant from an odorant source (paragraph 39).
In regard to claims 35 and 43, Fateh teaches wherein the generating device includes a fragrance device in which the odorant is mixed from multiple basic substances (paragraph 38 and fig. 5. Multiple scents dispensed simultaneously).
Claim(s) 44, 45 and 47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fateh in view of Ferrese et al. and Connor et al.
In regard to claim 44, Fateh teaches a fragrance device for generating fragrances in a virtual reality system, comprising: a container that stores an odorant or basic substance used in mixing the odorant (element 206 and paragraph 39); a distributing unit comprising multiple nozzles (elements 204) for dispersing the odorant at a display location where a virtual reality is presented to present odor as a surroundings property (pumps element 204 and paragraph 38); and a control unit (paragraph 42) configured to control the distributing unit to disperse the odorant at the display location at a time coordinated with a visual display of the virtual reality (paragraph 43) but does not teach multiple fans.
Ferrese et al. teach wherein the multiple wind directions are detected via a wind direction sensor (fig. 3 and paragraph 33).
The two are analogous art because they both deal with the same field of invention of head-up displays.
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the apparatus of Fateh with the wind direction sensing and output of Ferrese et al. The rationale is as follows: Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to provide the apparatus of Fateh with the wind direction sensing and output of Ferrese et al. because the wind direction data and feedback would provide the user with a more immersive augmented reality environment.
Connor et al. teach distributing unit comprising multiple fans for dispersing the odorant at a display location where a virtual reality is presented, wherein the multiple fans are arranged around a user of the virtual reality system to generate multiple wind directions (paragraph 78), and wherein one of the multiple fans are assigned to a respective scent emitter of the plurality of scent emitters (paragraph 78, scent emitters could be associated with one or more of the fans) to achieve a directional dependence of the odor so that a user is presented with the odor coming from a specific direction (paragraph 78, directional airflow used to communicate scent) and wherein the fans and the respective nozzles are spaced apart from the visual display unit (paragraph 43, directional airflow unit is a clip-on fitting) and are arranged around the user (fig. 7).
The three are analogous art because they all deal with the same field of invention of head-up displays.
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the apparatus of Fateh and Ferrese et al. with the multiple odor dispersing fans of Connor et al. The rationale is as follows: Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to provide the apparatus of Fateh and Ferrese et al. with the multiple odor dispersing fans of Connor et al. because the multiple odor dispersing fans of Connor et al. would work equally as well in the apparatus of Fateh and Ferrese et al. as they do separately. The multiple odor dispersing fans of Connor et al. would work predictably and would allow for the even distribution of scent.
In regard to claim 45, Fateh teaches a plurality of the containers, each container having a different odorant or a different basis substance for mixing different odorants (paragraph 38 and fig. 5. Multiple scents dispensed simultaneously).
In regard to claim 47, Fateh teaches wherein the distributing unit is positioned within the display location (fig. 2A), and wherein the visual display is presented via a visual display unit worn by a user within the display location, the distributing unit being separate from the visual display unit (fig. 2A).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/3/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues on page 8 that the prior art fails to teach the fans and nozzles being spaced apart from the head-mounted display and arranged around the user. The applicant continues to argue the prior art fails to teach the one-to-one relationship between the fans and nozzles.
The claim states the fans and nozzles are spaced apart from the visual display unit. Fig. 2A of Fateh shows the fan and nozzles attached the entire unit but not the display specifically (element 206 is not attached to the displays which are on the lenses). Paragraph 43 of Connor shows the fans being a clip-on attachment to the display unit. The claim only states display unit which does not necessarily encompass the entire device. Figures 5 and 7 of Connor also show the fans being around the user as claimed.
Regarding the one-to-one relationship of the fans and nozzles, the claim states one of the multiple fans are assigned to a respective nozzle. The claim does not say the fan and nozzles are in one-to-one correspondence.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection 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 JOSEPH R HALEY whose telephone number is (571)272-0574. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am-5pm.
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, Amr Awad can be reached on 571-272-7764. 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.
/JOSEPH R HALEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2623
Prosecution Insights