DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 9 does not have clear antecedent basis for “the area.” (For examination, this limitation is interpreted to refer to “a predetermined real area.”) Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an interface” and “a processer” in claim 9.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, and 7-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chowdhary et al. (US 2014/0141889).
Regarding claim 1, Chowdhary teaches: A method for rolling out a virtual environment to a person, the method comprising the steps of:
determining a weather prevailing in a region of a predetermined real environment (Chowdhary [0114] “if it is raining in the location where the player is based, the virtual world may simulate a storm to emulate the real world”);
rolling out a virtual environment to a person, wherein the virtual environment is rolled out based on the determined weather (Chowdhary [0114] “if it is raining in the location where the player is based, the virtual world may simulate a storm to emulate the real world”).
Regarding claim 3, Chowdhary teaches: The method according to claim 1, wherein the person is situated in the predetermined real environment (Chowdhary [0114] “if it is raining in the location where the player is based, the virtual world may simulate a storm to emulate the real world”).
Regarding claim 4, Chowdhary teaches: The method according to claim 1, wherein the virtual environment is referenced to a predetermined time, and the weather prevailing at the predetermined time is determined (Chowdhary [0114] “if it is raining in the location where the player is based, the virtual world may simulate a storm to emulate the real world”). The current time meets the predetermined time.
Regarding claim 7, Chowdhary teaches: The method according to claim 4, wherein the weather prevailing at the predetermined time is determined based on a weather model (Chowdhary [0114] “the local weather conditions may be used to create the ambiance in the virtual world … the weather forecast model may be used for changes to gameplay”).
Claim 8 recites limitation(s) similar in scope to those of claim 1, and is rejected for the same reason(s). Chowdhary further teaches a computer product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon program code (Chowdhary [0042] “A game or other simulations may be stored on a storage media such as a DVD, a CD, flash memory, USB memory or other type of memory media”).
Regarding claim 9, Chowdhary teaches: An apparatus for rolling out a virtual environment to a person, comprising:
a data memory containing weather data relating to a predetermined real area (Chowdhary [0042] “a memory for storing a control program and data” [0114] “the local weather conditions may be used to create the ambiance in the virtual world”);
an interface for determining a geographical position in the area (Chowdhary [0077] “Smartphones like iPhone include a built-in GPS sensor, have data coverage via mobile cellular network or WiFi, and are widely used for engaging in the gameplay of virtual worlds … to determine the player location, e.g. using the Wireless Assisted GPS (A-GPS), WiFi network, using IP address, player provided information, using billing address zip/area code, etc.”); and
a processer configured to roll out the virtual environment in consideration of a weather prevailing at the geographical position (Chowdhary [0042] “a processor (CPU) for executing the control program” [0114] “if it is raining in the location where the player is based, the virtual world may simulate a storm to emulate the real world”).
Regarding claim 10, Chowdhary teaches: The apparatus according to claim 9, further comprising:
means for determining a geographical position of the person (Chowdhary [0077] “Smartphones like iPhone include a built-in GPS sensor, have data coverage via mobile cellular network or WiFi, and are widely used for engaging in the gameplay of virtual worlds … to determine the player location, e.g. using the Wireless Assisted GPS (A-GPS), WiFi network, using IP address, player provided information, using billing address zip/area code, etc.”).
Regarding claim 11, Chowdhary teaches: The apparatus according to claim 10, further comprising:
means for imparting a prevailing weather to the person (Chowdhary [0042] “a processor (CPU) for executing the control program” [0114] “if it is raining in the location where the player is based, the virtual world may simulate a storm to emulate the real world”).
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chowdhary et al. (US 2014/0141889) in view of Rimon et al. (US 2016/0093105).
Regarding claim 2, Chowdhary does not teach/suggest: The method according to claim 1, wherein the virtual environment is rolled out to the person immersively. Rimon, however, teaches/suggests the virtual environment is rolled out to the person immersively (Rimon [0050] “The HMD 102 provides a very immersive experience to the user”). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the virtual world of Chowdhary to be displayed on the HMD of Rimon for an immersive experience.
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chowdhary et al. (US 2014/0141889) in view of Obradovich (US 2006/0267929).
Regarding claim 5, Chowdhary is silent regarding: The method according to claim 4, wherein the predetermined time is a future time and the weather prevailing at the predetermined time is determined based on a weather forecast. Obradovich, however, teaches/suggests the predetermined time is a future time (Obradovich [0060] “system 332 provides the user with a weather forecast if the specified time is in the future”). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the virtual world of Chowdhary to be based on the future time of Obradovich for changes to gameplay in the future.
As such, Chowdhary as modified by Obradovich teaches/suggests the weather prevailing at the predetermined time is determined based on a weather forecast (Chowdhary [0114] “the local weather conditions may be used to create the ambiance in the virtual world … the weather forecast model may be used for changes to gameplay” Obradovich [0060] “system 332 provides the user with a weather forecast if the specified time is in the future”).
Regarding claim 6, Chowdhary does not teach/suggest: The method according to claim 4, wherein the weather prevailing at the predetermined time is determined based on historical weather data in the real environment. Obradovich, however, teaches/suggests historical weather data in the real environment (Obradovich [0060] “system 332 provides the user with a … weather history if it is in the past”). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the virtual world of Chowdhary to be based on the past time of Obradovich for changes to gameplay in the past.
As such, Chowdhary as modified by Obradovich teaches/suggests the weather prevailing at the predetermined time is determined based on historical weather data in the real environment (Chowdhary [0114] “the local weather conditions may be used to create the ambiance in the virtual world … the weather forecast model may be used for changes to gameplay” Obradovich [0060] “system 332 provides the user with a … weather history if it is in the past”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2014/0208239 – virtual window displaying real-time weather
US 2018/0096532 – VR simulation including predicted weather
US 2018/0272235 – virtual environment including local weather
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANH-TUAN V NGUYEN whose telephone number is 571-270-7513. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9AM-5PM ET.
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, JASON CHAN can be reached on 571-272-3022. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/ANH-TUAN V NGUYEN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2619