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
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cutrell et al (US 2019/0155404) in view of Yoshida et al (US 2003/0130031).
Re claim 1, Cutrell discloses a system comprising: at least one processor and memory storing instructions (fig. 1, 118, 120) causing the processor to: receive game data of a game session in a virtual interactive environment (par. [0007], the computing system executes a VR application with the user being able to explore and interact with the VR world), the game data including at least user configuration data and a location of a virtual object on a virtual path within the virtual interactive environment ([0009], the position, direction of movement, and velocity of the virtual cane based on the rod is considered user configuration data, and the real-world positioning of the rod is reflected by a virtual cane in the VR environment); identify a navigation assist corresponding to the virtual path based on the game data ([0009] and [0010], when the VR application determines that the virtual cane impacts a virtual surface, the game applies a brake signal to the player); determine, based in part on the game data and the navigation assist, an assist indication type from among a plurality of assist indication types ([0009] and [0010], in addition to the haptic mechanism applied to the rod, auditory feedback can be provided to the user); determine a configuration of an assist indication based at least in part on the game data, the assist indication type, and the user configuration data ([0009] and [0010], the game is able to implement an assist indication based on the assist type and user situation); generate the assist indication based on the configuration of the assist indication (see above); and output, during gameplay, the assist indication corresponding to the virtual path of the virtual interactive environment of the game session (see above, during user navigation of the VR environment, the system outputs the preferred assist indications, e.g. auditory and haptic feedback based on the virtual path of the user).
However, Cutrell is silent on a navigation assist corresponding to a second virtual path based on the game data based at least in part on movement of the virtual object on the first virtual path and the assist indication is configured to direct the virtual object to move along the second virtual path.
Yoshida teaches a virtual driving game with assists in the form of virtual paths, much like Cutrell, wherein a reference travel line is based on the player’s current vehicle position, i.e. a first virtual path ([0106]). Based on the data, the game provides a variety of virtual paths designed to direct the player to move along the ideal driving line, i.e. a second virtual path (see figs. 7-23 and [0108] to [0112]), wherein various line designs, colors, shapes, words, etc. are used to direct players to follow the ideal driving path, including braking indications).
It would have been obvious to implement the virtual path of Yoshida with Cutrell in order to dynamically use the player’s current positional data to influence the assist indications in the game via virtual paths, increasing the efficacy and accuracy of the guidance, thereby increasing the player’s performance and enjoyment in the game.
Re claim 2, Cutrell discloses auditory, visual, and haptic rendering ([0009] to [0012], in addition to the haptic and auditory feedback, the visuals of the user in the VR environment provide visual feedback to users, e.g. a virtual cane in contact with a carpet, rowing in a kayak, and surgery).
Re claim 3, Cutrell discloses the user configuration data includes one or more accessibility settings ([0028] to [0031], the system supports multiple types of cane strategies for people with visual impairments, thus being considered accessibility settings).
Re claim 4, Cutrell discloses an auditory rendering of at least channel, direction, duration, intensity, frequency, tone, or volume ([0027]).
Re claim 5, Cutrell discloses the haptic signal output including signal data including at least one of duration, intensity, or frequency ([0026], since vibrotactile feedback is disclosed, there is an inherent duration, intensity, and frequency to the feedback).
Re claim 6, Cutrell discloses a visual rendering ([0009] to [0012], in addition to the haptic and auditory feedback, the visuals of the user in the VR environment provide visual feedback to users, e.g. a virtual cane in contact with a carpet, rowing in a kayak, and surgery).
Re claim 7, Cutrell discloses the one or more characteristics of the output of the assist indication is based in part on a distance between the virtual object and virtual path (see [0025], when the virtual cane hits a virtual object in the virtual space, the assist indication is output, therefore the assist indication is based on the distance between the path of the virtual cane and the virtual object in the virtual environment).
Re claims 8-20, see the rejections to claims 1-7.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 Kevin Y Kim whose telephone number is (571)270-3215. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Xuan Thai can be reached at (571) 272-7147. 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.
/KEVIN Y KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights