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 in this application and have been examined in response to application filed on 03/15/2024.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: par. [0005] of the specification discloses “…The one or more affordances can include providing additional time for a user to respond to a prompt within the interactive experience than when the mirror interface is not active. The one or more affordances can include providing for a delay between text announcements while the mirror interface is active. The one or more affordances can include providing additional audio describing the interactive experience than when the mirror interface is not active. The one or more affordances include providing additional instructions for the interactive experience than when the mirror interface is not active…” the word “than” does not make grammatical sense.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 9, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 9 discloses the limitation “wherein one or more affordances include providing additional time for the user to respond to a prompt within the interactive experience than when the mirror interface is not active.” The word “than” does not introduce a comparison between the limitation “wherein one or more affordances include providing additional time for the user to respond to a prompt within the interactive experience” and “when the mirror interface is not active”. Further clarification is rendered.
Claims 11-12 are rejected similarly as claim 9 above.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 13 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Humphrey et al. (US 2024/0118785 A1) in view of Ekron (US 2022/0366131 A1).
As to INDEPENDENT claim 1, Humphrey discloses a method of providing a user-interactive screen reader-compatible experience in a web browser, comprising: displaying an interactive experience in the web browser on a computing device of a user (fig.1, fig.10, [0025]; an immersive environment through a web portal is displayable on computing device).
processing elements of the interactive experience to generate corresponding screen reader-compatible elements ([0033], [0034]; elements are translated into screen reading compatible elements); and
presenting a mirror interface of the interactive experience in the web browser with the screen reader-compatible elements displayed on the web browser and accessible to the native screen reader (fig.1, fig.4A; a screen reader interface is displayed). Humphrey does not expressly disclose receiving an instruction to activate a native screen reader existing on the computing device within the web browser.
In the same field of endeavor, Ekron discloses receiving an instruction to activate a native screen reader existing on the computing device within the web browser (fig.6; the user is able to access accessibility adjustments).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teaching of Humphrey and Ekron before him prior to the effective filling date, to modify translating 3D experience in an accessibility environment taught by Humphrey to include an accessibility taught by Ekron with the motivation being to configuring user accessibility functions graphically.
As to claim 2, the prior art as combined discloses wherein receiving the instruction to activate the native screen reader includes sensing selection of a toggle displayed in the web browser (fig.6, “Screen-reader”; the user can toggle on and off the screen reader).
As to claim 3, the prior art as combined 3discloses sensing deselection of the toggle and removing the mirror interface from the web browser upon deselection of the toggle (fig.20A, fig.20B; accessibility adjustments can be toggled on and off).
As to claim 4, the prior art as combined discloses wherein processing elements of the interactive experience includes determining a priority of each element (Humphrey, [0028], [0029]; elements are arranged according to a priority).
As to claim 5, the prior art as combined discloses wherein elements having a higher priority are presented on the mirror interface before elements of a lower priority (Humphrey, fig.4A, [0028], [0029]; elements with a higher priority are displayed first).
As to claim 6, the prior art as combined discloses wherein processing elements of the interactive experience includes determining a type of each element (Humphrey, fig.4A, [0028], [0029]; different types of elements such as “SCENE OVERVIEW” and “ROOM INFORMATION” are organized by priority levels).
As to claim 7, the prior art as combined discloses where the type of each element includes text and buttons (Humphrey, fig.3, “316”, fig.4A, :402”; elements such as buttons and texts are disclosed).
As to claim 8, the prior art as combined discloses activating one or more affordances for the interactive experience within the mirror interface that enhance accessibility of the interactive experience (Ekron, fig.6; different accessibility affordances are available).
As to claim 13, the prior art as combined discloses processing elements of the interactive experience to generate the corresponding screen reader-compatible elements includes: determining which elements of the interactive experience are considered decorative (fig.4A, [0031]; room information such as lighting, windows and seats are decorative components); and not generating the corresponding screen reader-compatible elements for the elements of the interactive experience that are considered decorative (Humphrey, fig.4A; non-selected element groups are not generated).
As to claim 15, the prior art as combined discloses receiving user interactions with the mirror interface submitted by the user with a keyboard (Humphrey, [0008]; assistive keyboard inputs are utilized).
As to claim 16, the prior art as combined discloses continually updating the mirror interface as the user advances through the interactive experience (Humphrey, [0051], [0052]; the interactions are continuously updated as the user progresses through the scenario).
INDEPENDENT claim 17 is rejected under the same rationale addressed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claim 18 is rejected under the same rationale addressed in the rejection of claim 2 above.
As to claim 19, the prior art as combined discloses cause the system to determine a type of each element and a priority for each element (Humphrey, fig.4A, [0028], [0029]; elements are sorted by type and priority).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Humphrey-Ekron and Kim (US 2014/0337033 A1).
As to claim 10, the prior art as combined does not expressly discloses wherein the one or more affordances include providing for a delay between text announcements while the mirror interface is active.
In the same field of endeavor, Kim discloses wherein the one or more affordances include providing for a delay between text announcements ([0091]; announcements can be paused).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teaching of the prior art as combined and Kim before him prior to the effective filling date, to modify translating 3D experience in an accessibility environment taught by the prior art as combined to include a pausing function with the motivation being to listen to the text announcements at his/her/their pace.
Claims 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Humphrey-Ekron and Unity Manual 5.6 (“Unity” 03/07/2024).
As to claim 14, the prior art as combined discloses wherein processing elements of the interactive experience to generate the corresponding screen reader-compatible elements includes converting the corresponding screen reader-compatible elements from [UNITY] format to Hypertext Markup Language 5 format ([0029], 3D environment in UNITY are translated into an accessible format such HTML, the prior art as combined does not expressly disclose HTML5, however it is understood that HTML5 is an updated version of HTML). The prior art as combined does expressly disclose the 3D format is a Web Graphics Library format.
In the same field of endeavor, Unity discloses a Web Graphics Library (par. “What is Unity WebGL”; Unity WebGL allows web browsers to run Unity contents).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teaching of the prior art as combined and Unity before him prior to the effective filling date, to modify translating 3D experience in an accessibility environment taught by the prior art as combined to include an WebGL taught by Unity with the motivation being to run 3D contents in a web browser.
As to claim 20, see rationale addressed in the rejection of claim 14 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAOSHIAN SHIH whose telephone number is (571)270-1257. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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 at (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.
/HAOSHIAN SHIH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2179