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 Status
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 4-10, 13, and 19 have been amended and no new claims have been added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/28/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant’s representative presents arguments to address the rejections of claims 1-20 under double patenting and the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 101 (see Remarks, pg. 8-22). The arguments are addressed in the sections below.
Response to Double Patenting arguments
With respect to the double patenting rejection, the Applicant’s representative argues that the claims as amended are directed to an advisory based at least one the baseline movements patterns and the second spatial representations of motion of the player as opposed to the reference claims that are for determining baseline movement patterns for a computer simulation based on a first image and comparing those patterns to a second image that explicitly shows a head-mounted display (HMD) worn by a player (see Remarks, pg. 8-9). In particular, the Applicant’s representative argues that the differences between are patentably distinct because the present claims require separate non-overlapping analytical steps and physical metrics to advise a player of onset motion sickness. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The references claims recite a narrower embodiment that defines the second images, which must be taken at a different period of time, that correspond to second images generated by the camera showing a head-mounted display (HMD) worn by a player of the computer simulation as opposed to the embodiment of “subsequent camera images of the player over a second period of time which correspond to second spatial representations of motion of the player over the second period of time” as a broader embodiment of the narrower embodiment of the reference claim. Both claims recite the steps of analyzing and presenting an advisory based on the baseline movement patterns and the second images of the player that represent the second spatial representations of motions of the player (e.g., the second images of a head-mounted display (HMD) worn by a player of the computer simulation in the reference claim) as obvious variants of each other. It is further noted that the background of the instant application indicates that the detection of motion sickness is commonly associated with game players viewing computer games onscreen or using head-mounted displays (HMD) (see ‘Background’ of Specification) . It follows that the images of the player of the computer simulation is analogous to the images of the player of the instant application. For at least these reasons, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the rejection has been maintained below.
Response to arguments under 35 USC 101
With respect to the arguments under 35 USC 101, the Applicant’s representative traverses the rejection of claims 1-20 because i) the claims are not directed to a grouping of abstract ideas under Step 2A-prong 1 (see Remarks, pg. 9-15); ii) the claims integrate the claim into a practical application under Step 2A-prong 2 (see Remarks, pg. 15-19), and iii) the claims recite significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B (see Remarks, pg. pg. 19-20). The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s arguments which are addressed in the sections below.
Response to arguments under Step 2A-prong 1
With respect to Step 2A-prong 1, the Applicant’s representative argues that the claims are not directed to either a mental process and/or a certain method of organizing human activity under Step 2A-prong 1 (see Remarks, pg. 9-15). Specifically, the Applicant’s representative argues that the claims are not directed either a) a mental process because they cannot be practical performed in the human mind (see Remarks, pg. 11-13) and b) the claims do not recite a certain method of organizing human activity (see Remarks, pg. 13-15).
With respect to the mental processes argument, the Applicant’s representative argues that the claim 1 is implemented by: “receiving, by one or more processors, first camera images of a player of a computer simulation over a first period of time, wherein the first camera images correspond to first spatial representations of the player over the first period of time”, “presenting, by the one or more processors, an advisory based at least on the baseline movement patterns and the second spatial representations of motion of the player, wherein the advisory is respecting a precursor to motion sickness”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim recites, as amended, the step of: determining baseline movement patterns based on the first spatial representations which amounts to an observation, judgment, evaluation, and/or opinion which involve analysis that can be performed in the human mind. The additional limitations of “by the processor” does not change the nature of the limitation because a claim may still recite a mental process when it amounts to performing a mental process on a generic computer, in a computer environment, or using a computer as a tool to perform the mental process (see MPEP 2106.04(a)III). When the limitations are viewed as a whole, including the “receiving, by the one or more processors, first camera images of a player of a computer simulation” and “presenting, by the processor, an advisory…a precursor to motion sickness” recites steps similar to what the courts have indicated is directed collecting information, analyzing information, and displaying information of a computer simulation which is analogous other abstract concepts performed in a nascent technological environment. For at least these reasons, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the analysis under Step 2A-prong 1 has been maintained below.
With respect to a certain method of organizing human activity, the Applicant’s representative argues that the claims are not directed to a fundamental economic principle, commercial or legal interaction, and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (see Remarks, pg. 13-15). Specifically, the Applicant’s representative argues that the claims make no reference to a computer simulation but are directed to a technical process for presenting an advisory based at least on the baseline movement patterns and the second spatial representations of motion of the player, wherein the advisory is a precursor to motion sickness. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims, as amended, recite “receiving, by the one or more processors, wherein the first camera images of a player of a computer simulation over a first period of time” and “determining, by the one or more processors, baseline movement patterns based on the first spatial representations” and “receiving, by the one or more processors, subsequent camera images of the player over a second period of time” which recites steps and/or instructions for collecting information (e.g., data gathering) and a mental process that a doctor should follow when testing a patient (e.g., a player in a computer simulation) for a precursor for motion sickness. This is analogous to other examples of methods of organizing human activity that the court have found to be managing personal behavior that is directed to a grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)IIC). For at least these reasons, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and analysis under Step 2A-prong 1 has been maintained below.
Response to arguments under Step 2A-prong 2, the Applicant’s representative argues that the claims recite a technical improvement to the functioning of a computer simulation for a technical problem persists when computer simulation “gamers only react or take remedial measures after motion sickness sets in” (see Remarks, pg. 15-17). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted above, the claims recite a grouping of abstract ideas such as collecting information, analyzing information, and displaying the result of the collection and analysis. Although the claims recite a particular intended use and/or technological environment (e.g., a player in a computer simulation or a player of a computer game) by performing mental steps that are used by a doctor to diagnoses a potential motion sickness condition. The claims do not appear to recite any technical improvement to “one or more processors” and/or any details as to the improvement of how the data is analyzed or “spatial representations of motion of the player” are indicative of a precursor to motion sickness which amounts to a desired result that merely invokes a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f) and (h)). For at least these reasons, the Applicant’s argument that the claims recite a technical improvement to a computer including a computer running a computer simulation is not persuasive.
The Applicant’s representative further argues that the claims are similar to the fact in McRo because they “improve an existing technological processor” of computer simulation motion sickness mitigation. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are not similar to the facts in McRo but rather are found to be directed to a grouping of abstract ideas similar to Electric Power for collecting information, analyzing information, and displaying the result of the collection and analysis. Additionally, the claimed subject matter of computer simulation motion sickness mitigation recites an example of managing personal behavior because it recites a mental process that a doctor should follow when determining a precursor to motion sickness (e.g., comparing baseline patterns to the collected patterns) that indicate a precursor to motion sickness which is analogous to the courts decision that found a mental process that neurologist should follow when testing a patient for nervous system malfunctions (see MPEP 2106.04(a)IIC – citing In re Meyer, 688 F.2d 789,791-93). For at least these reasons, the claims are not found to be analogous to rules-based animations that the courts found eligible in McRo and the analysis under Step 2A-prong 2 has been maintained below..
Response to arguments under Step 2B, the Applicant’s representative argues that the additional elements such as “presenting, by one or more processors, an advisory based at least on the baseline movement patterns and the second spatial representation of motion of the player, wherein the advisory is respecting a precursor to motion sickness” amount sot significantly more (see Remarks, pg. 19). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional limitation for presenting an advisory based on the comparison of the baseline movement pattern and the second spatial representation of motion of the player, wherein the advisory is respecting a precursor of motion sickness is recite as a desired result for a computer-implemented function. The claims do not provide any details as to how the presenting of an advisory as a precursor to motion sickness provides a technological improvement to the underlying system. In contrast, as noted above, presenting information including particular types of information is a well-known and conventional use of a display. The claims do not provide any detail as to the particulars of the analysis but to a desired result of the computer functionality. Moreover, the advisory for a precursor of motion sickness is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process performed by a doctor to mitigate motion sickness in a patient which is found to be directed to managing human behavior. For at least these reasons the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the additional elements are not found to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea but rather steps and/or instructions towards the abstract idea itself. For at least these reasons, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the rejection under 35 USC 101 has been maintained below.
Response to prior art rejections under 35 USC 102/103
With respect to the prior art rejections, the Applicant’s representative argues that the claims which are rejections under 35 USC 102/103 do not teach the limitations of the amended claims (see Remarks, pg. 20-23). In particular, the Applicant’s representative argues that Watson does not teach the receiving of camera images of the player corresponding to consecutive spatial representations of motion of the player to establish baseline movement patterns or presenting, an advisory with respect to a precursor to motion sickness. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As disclosed in Watson, a camera may be configured to capture images of the interactive environment in which the user is located and can be analyzed to determine the location and movements of the user, the HMD, and the controller 118 to determine the location and orientation of the HMD and player in real-time during the game play. Additionally, Watson discloses that determining motion sickness utilizes physical characteristics of the user (e.g., player of the computer simulation) that include images for eye detection, motion sensors, gaze direction, biometric sensors and camera coupled to a computing device that monitors the motion of the user (see Watson, 0037-0040). Furthermore, Watson discloses that an advisory or a mitigating action may be made for detecting motion sickness by the system such as applying supplemental sound, reducing the intensity of the game, vibrating the headset, a gentle vibration delivered to the user which are indicative of visual, audible, and physical advisories to motion sickness presented to the user (see Watson, 0041, 0049). Furthermore, Watson discloses that the system track and generates profiles of the user to identify user characteristics that may indicate the user propensity to get motion sickness based upon past gaming experience and or other user characteristics. This is analogous to determining baseline movement patterns of the user based of the first spatial representations of the motion of the player and then subsequently taking images from the camera in the interactive environment to determine the location and movements of the user during the game play to detect motion sickness. Stated differently, Watson discloses the claimed receiving images of the camera of the player, determining motion sickness by baseline movement patterns of the user to the current movement of the user retrieved from the camera in the second period of time so that when motion sickness is detected to provide an advisory to the user. For at least these reasons, the Applicant’s argument with respect to the prior art of Watson is not persuasive and after further consideration the rejection has been maintained below.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,481,353 B1. An analysis of the claims is provided in the claim chart below:
Claim 1 of the instant application
Claim 1 of the ‘353 Patent
Similarities and Differences
1. A method comprising:
A method comprising:
Receiving, by one or more processors, first camera images of a player of a computer simulation over a first period of time, wherein the first camera images correspond to first spatial representations of motion of the player over the first period of time;
determining, by the one or more processors, baseline movement patterns based on the first spatial representations
determining, based on a first image generated by a camera, baseline movement patterns for a computer simulation;
The instant application recites a patently indistinct limitation that requires receiving first camera images of a player of a computer simulation and the additional elements of baseline movement patterns and showing a head-mounted display (HMD) worn by a player for establishing a baseline pattern for the player.
receiving, by the one or more processors, subsequent camera images of the player over a second period of time, wherein the subsequent camera images correspond to second spatial representations of motion of the player over the second period of time;
receiving a second image generated by the camera, the second image showing a head-mounted display (HMD) worn by a player of the computer simulation;
determining a potential for motion sickness based on comparing the second image and the baseline movement patterns;
The instant application recites a patentably indistinct embodiment that just requires based on the received images based on the second images in compared to received first images for determining a potential for motion sickness through a comparison of this set of images.
Presenting, by the one or more processors, an advisory based at least one the baseline movement patterns and the second spatial representations of motion of the player, wherein the advisory is respecting a precursor to motion sickness.
and presenting an advisory associated with the potential for motion sickness.
The instant application recites a patentably indistinct embodiment of the claim invention that is an advisory respecting the potential for motion sickness which is analogous to a precursor for motion sickness
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentable distinct from each other because the recite substantially the same subject matter of the patented claims. The differences in the claims amount to mere obvious variants such as “potential for motion sickness” in the ‘353 Patent as opposed to “precursor to motion sickness” in the instant application. However these differences do not change the scope of the claimed subject matter. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the application that the claims of the instant application are not patentably distinct from the claims of the ‘353 Patent..
Similarly, independent Claims 13 and 19 of the instant application are the more generic or broader claims and anticipated by independent Claims 13 and 19 of the ‘353 for substantially the same reasons.
Claim 2 of the instant application is anticipated by Claim 2 of the ‘353 Patent for substantially the same reasons.
Claim 3 of the instant application is anticipated by Claim 3 of the ‘353 Patent for substantially the same reasons.
Claim 4 of the instant application is anticipated by Claim 4 of the ‘353 Patent for substantially the same reasons.
Claim 5 of the instant application is anticipated by Claim 5 of the ‘353 Patent for substantially the same reasons.
Claim 6 of the instant application is anticipated by Claim 6 of the ‘353 Patent for substantially the same reasons.
Claim 7 of the instant application is anticipated by Claim 7 of the ‘353 Patent for substantially the same reasons.
Claim 8 of the instant application is anticipated by Claim 8 of the ‘353 Patent for substantially the same reasons.
Claim 9 of the instant application is anticipated by Claim 9 of the ‘353 Patent for substantially the same reasons.
Claim 10 of the instant application is anticipated by Claim 10 of the ‘353 Patent for substantially the same reasons.
Claim 11 of the instant application is anticipated by Claim 11 of the ‘353 Patent for substantially the same reasons.
Claim 12 of the instant application is anticipated by Claim 12 of the ‘353 Patent for substantially the same reasons.
Claim 14 of the instant application is anticipated by Claim 14 of the ‘353 Patent for substantially the same reasons.
Claim 15 of the instant application is anticipated by Claim 15 of the ‘353 Patent for substantially the same reasons.
Claim 16 of the instant application is anticipated by Claim 16 of the ‘353 Patent for substantially the same reasons.
Claim 17 of the instant application is anticipated by Claim 17 of the ‘353 Patent for substantially the same reasons.
Claim 18 of the instant application is anticipated by Claim 18 of the ‘353 Patent for substantially the same reasons.
Claim 20 of the instant application is anticipated by Claim 20 of the ‘353 Patent for substantially the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a grouping of abstract ideas without significantly more. The claims, as exemplified by independent Claim 1, recites limitations directed to a grouping of abstract ideas such as:
1. A method comprising:
receiving, by one or more processors, first camera images of a player of a computer simulation over a first period of time, wherein the first camera images correspond to first spatial representations of motion of the player over the first period of time; -certain method of organizing human activity and/or mental process;
determining, by the one or more processors, baseline movement patterns based on the first spatial representations; - certain method of organizing human activity and/or mental process;
receiving, by the one or more processors, subsequent camera images of the player over a second period of time, wherein the subsequent camera images correspond to second spatial representations of motion of the player over the second period of time; -certain method of organizing human activity and/or mental process;
and presenting, by the one or more processors, an advisory based at least one the baseline movement patterns and the second spatial representations of motion of the player, wherein the advisory is respecting a precursor to motion sickness. -certain method of organizing human activity and/or mental process.
The claims are found to recite a certain method of organizing human activity because they are directed to performing a mental process that doctors perform to test a patient (e.g., a player of the computer simulation) for a precursor of motion sickness which is analogous to managing human behavior. Moreover, the claims are found to recite a mental process because they recite an observation, judgement, opinion, and/or evaluation for motion sickness of a player that amounts to an abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing information, and displaying the result of the collection and analysis. For at least these reasons, the claims, as exemplified by independent Claim 1, are found to recite a grouping of abstract ideas under Step 2A-prong 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations such as: “”receiving, by one or more processors” “determining, by one or more processors” and “receiving, by the one or more processors, subsequent camera images” and “presenting, by one or more processors” which amount to invoking a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea, mere data gathering, selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated or insignificant application that is similar to what the courts have identified as being directed to insignificant extra solution activity, and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)). For at least these reasons, the additional limitations are not found to integrate the claims, as exemplified by independent Claim 1, into a practical application under Step 2A-prong 2.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because independent Claim 1 does not recite any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea but recite mere instructions to invoke a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea (e.g., one or more processors, computer simulation), recites insignificant extra solution activity, and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)). For at least these reasons, the claim when viewed as individual elements and/or as a combination of elements does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
With respect to independent Claims 13 and 19, the claims recite substantially the same subject matter as addressed with independent Claim 1 above. The analysis is incorporated herein. Independent Claim 13 additional recites “a processor system” which does not change and/or alter the analysis of independent Claim 1 as “a processing system” which recites a highly-generalized and commercially available general purpose computer, similar to Alice v. CLS, that is invoked merely as a tool to implement the abstract idea, perform insignificant extra solution activity, and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)). Independent Claim 19 additionally recites “A device comprising: at least one computer memory that is not a transitory signal and that includes instructions executable by at least one processor system” which when viewed individually and/or as a collection of elements amount to a invoking a highly-generalized commercially available device, similar to Alice v. CLS, that is invoked merely as a tool to implement the abstract idea, perform insignificant extra solution activity, and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)-(h)). For at least these reasons, independent Claims 13 and 19 are found for substantially the same reasons as discussed with respect to independent Claim 1 above, to be directed to a grouping of abstract ideas without significantly more.
With respect to dependent Claims 2-12, 14-18, and 20, the limitations have been reviewed and were found to recite at least one of: limitations that recite a grouping of abstract ideas, mere instructions to invoke a computer as a tool (see MPEP 2106.05(f), insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)); and/or provide a technological environment in which to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). For at least these reasons, claims 1-20 are found to be directed toa grouping of abstract ideas without significantly more.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 13-14, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Watson (US 2016/0228771 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Watson disclose a method comprising: receiving, by one or more processors, first camera images of a player of a computer simulation over a first period of time, wherein the first camera images correspond to first spatial representations of motion of the player over the first period of time (see Watson, camera 104 of Fig. 1, 0030-0032, 0054-0055, 0091, wherein the motion sickness detection module monitors the user by analyzing images taken by a camera aimed at the user; where in the first spatial representations of motion of the player are camera images of a prior instance of gameplay stored with a user profile for a baseline for detecting motion sickness);
determining, by the one or more processors, baseline movement patterns based on the first spatial representation (see Watson, Figs. 1-5, 0054-0056, 0060);
receiving, by the one or more processors, subsequent camera images of the player over a second period of time, wherein the subsequent camera images correspond to second spatial representations of motion of the player over the second period of time (see Watson, Fig. 1-3, 0030-0032, 0037-0041);
presenting, by the one or more processors, an advisory based at least on the baseline movement patterns and the second spatial representations of motion of the player, wherein the advisory is a precursor to motion sickness (see Watson, Fig. 3, 7A,0025, 0030-0031, 0037-0043, 0090-0094).
Regarding claim 3, Watson discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein the advisory is presented on at least one speaker (see Watson, Fig. 3, 7A, 0025, 0040-0043, 0090-0094, wherein the advisory is a supplemental sound presented on at least one speaker of the HMD)
Regarding claim 13, Watson discloses a processor system configured to (see Watson, Fig. 1, 0027): process first images received from a first time from at least one camera of a player of a computer simulation to determine a baseline movement patterns of the player (see Watson, camera 104 of Fig. 1, 0030-0031, 0054-0056, wherein the system tracks profiles of the user based upon historical camera images for a baseline movement pattern of the user for detecting motion sickness; 0091, wherein the motion sickness detection module monitors the user by analyzing images taken by a camera aimed at the user);
process second images received at a second time from the at least one camera of the player (see Watson, Fig. 1-3, 0037-0041); and
present at least one indication of motion sickness based on comparing the second images to the baseline movement patterns (see Watson, Fig. 3, 7A, 0025, 0037-0043, 0054-0056, 0090-0094, wherein the indication is a supplemental sound to decrease the motion sickness).
Regarding claim 14, Watson discloses the processor system of Claim 13, wherein the indication is presented on at least one video display and/or at least one speaker (see Watson, Fig. 3-4, 0053-0057).
Regarding claim 17, Watson discloses the processor system of Claim 13, wherein the processor system is configured to: after presenting the indication, continue to monitor player motion over time (see Watson, Figs. 3-4, 0053-0057, wherein the system tracks a profile of the user to identify characteristics to determine when to apply motion-sickness fighting methods); and based at least in part on continued monitoring of player motion over time, alter at least one display setting (see Watson, Fig. 4, 0056, wherein the device based on the monitoring may reduce the speed of change setting on the display, reduce the number of elements, reduce the colors, or event freezing the display, or add elements to the display to reduce motion sickness).
Regarding claim 19, Watson discloses a device (see Watson, Fig. 1, 0027) comprising:
at least one computer memory that is not a transitory signal and that includes instructions executable by at least one processor system to:
receive first images of a player of a computer game at a first time, the first images representing motion of the player at the first time (see Watson, camera 104 of Fig. 1, 0030-0031, 0053-0056, 0060, 0091, wherein the motion sickness detection module monitors the user by analyzing images taken by a camera aimed at the user),
determine a baseline movement pattern of the player based on the first images (see Watson, Fig. 1-3, 0053-0056);
receive second images of the player at a second time, the second images representing motion of the player at the second time (see Watson, Fig. 1-3, 0037-0041); and
responsive to the motion of the player represented by the first images and the second images, present an indication perceptible by the player that motion sickness may ensue based on the baseline movements pattern and the second images (see Watson, Fig. 3, 7A, 0025, 0030-0031, 0041-0043, 0091).
Regarding claim 20, Watson discloses the device of Claim 19, wherein the instructions are executable to: after presenting the indication, continue to monitor player motion over time (see Watson, 0053-0057, wherein the system tracks a profile of the user to identify characteristics to determine when to apply motion-sickness fighting methods); and based at least in part on continued monitoring of player motion over time, alter at least one display setting (see Watson, Fig. 4, 0056, wherein the device based on the monitoring may reduce the speed of change setting on the display, reduce the number of elements, reduce the colors, or event freezing the display, or add elements to the display to reduce motion sickness).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (US 2020/0124845 A1) in view of Watson (US 2016/0228771 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Smith discloses a method comprising:
presenting, by the one or more processors, an advisory, wherein the advisory is respecting a to motion sickness (see Smith, 0012-0013, 0015, 0018, 0065, 0077, wherein the motion sickness controller may prompt the user by presenting an alert or warning). Although, Smith discloses eye tracking sensors and that the system supports peripheral devices such as a camera to receive images of the user playing the computer simulation, it is silent as to i) receiving, by one or more processors, images of a player of a computer simulation over a first period of time, wherein the first camera images correspond to first spatial representations of motion of the player over the first period of time; ii) determining, by the one or more processors, baseline movement patterns based on the first spatial representation; iii) receiving, by the one or more processors, subsequent camera images of the player over a second period of time, wherein the subsequent camera images correspond to a second spatial representation of motion of the player over the second period of time; and iv) presenting, by the one or more processors, an advisory based at least on the baseline movement patterns and the second spatial representations of motion of the player, wherein the advisory is respecting a precursor to motion sickness.
Watson teaches a method of monitoring physical characteristics of a user while wearing a head-mounted display and cameras for tracking a gaze of a user that is wearing the HMD as the player of a computer simulation (see Wason, 0009-0010, 0030-0032, 0037-0040). Specifically, Watson discloses receiving, by one or more processors, images of a player of a computer simulation over a first period of time, wherein the first camera images correspond to first spatial representations of motion of the player over the first period of time (see Smith,0045, 0048, wherein the system relies on images of the eye taken without any physical contact; 0053-0054, wherein a player of a computer simulation is a virtual reality system including head-mounted display device; where the system tracks the profile of the user to identify user characteristics that may indicate the user propensity to get motion sickness; The game uses the user profile data to determine when to apply motion-sickness fighting methods which is analogous to a baseline patterns of the player). Watson further teaches determining, by the one or more processors, baseline movement patterns based on the first spatial representations (see Watson, Fig. 1, 0030-0032, 0054-0057, wherein the system tracks the profile of the user to identify user characteristics that indicate the user propensity to get motion sickness; the system develops a historical map that identifies levels of motion sickness for different areas of the game which may be applied to users playing the game). Furthermore, Watson teaches receiving, by the one or more processors, subsequent camera images of the player over a second period of time, wherein the subsequent camera images correspond to second spatial representations of motion of the player over the second period of time (see Watson, Fig. 1-3, 0030-0032, 0037-0041, wherein the images at the subsequent time are analogous to images received from the camera of the user in a computer simulation during the game); and presenting, by the one or more processors, an advisory based at least one the baseline movement patterns and the second spatial representations of motion of the player, wherein the advisory is respecting a precursor to motion sickness (see Watson, Figs. 1-5; 0041-0045, 0056, 0059-0060, wherein the detected motion sickness may present a mitigating physical, visual, or audible advisory to the player with the onset of motion sickness). One would have been motivated to incorporate the motion sickness detection and mitigation system of Watson to use known techniques from similar devices to yield the expected result of monitoring and reducing motion sickness in the user (see Watson, 0005-0006). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the motion sickness techniques of Watson with the system for detecting and mitigating motion sickness in a computer simulation of Smith at the time of filing the application. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the method to i) receiving, by one or more processors, images of a player of a computer simulation over a first period of time, wherein the first camera images correspond to first spatial representations of motion of the player over the first period of time; ii) determining, by the one or more processors, baseline movement patterns based on the first spatial representation; iii) receiving, by the one or more processors, subsequent camera images of the player over a second period of time, wherein the subsequent camera images correspond to a second spatial representation of motion of the player over the second period of time; and iv) presenting, by the one or more processors, an advisory based at least on the baseline movement patterns and the second spatial representations of motion of the player, wherein the advisory is respecting a precursor to motion sickness.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Smith and Watson teaches the method of Claim 1. The combination further teach wherein the advisory is presented on at least one video display (see Smith, 0077, 0092, wherein the alert may be a prompt that is overlayed to be displayed on the head-mounted display device which is a video display).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Smith and Watson teach the method of Claim 1. The combination further teach determining the first spatial representations of motion over the first period of time is based at least in part on the first images (see Smith, 0057, 0065-0069, 0094, wherein the sensor image data is captured and reported over 800 times per second; wherein the sensor data is measured across time to using known deviations of user to determine motion sickness; Watson, 0053-0055), the advisory being presented responsive to the motion over time (see Smith, 0065-0069, wherein the prompt is presented to deter or alleviate the symptoms of motion sickness; Watson, 0037-0045, 0056, 0060).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Smith and Watson teach the method of Claim 1. The combination further comprising determining, by the one or more processors, to present the advisory using at least one machine learning (ML) model (see Smith, 0068).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Smith and Watson teach the method of Claim 1. The combination further comprising: after presenting the advisory, continuing to monitor player motion over a second period of time that is after the first period of time (see Smith, Fig. 4-5, 0062, 0068-0074); based at least in part on continued monitoring of player motion over the second period of time, altering, by the one or more processors, at least one display setting (see Smith, Fig. 4-5, 0054, wherein the display is adjusted by narrowing the effective field of view and/or refresh rate; 0078-0083, 0092).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Smith and Watson teach the method of the method of Claim 7. The combination further teach wherein the at least one display setting comprises field of view (FOV) (see Smith, 0054, 0057, wherein the action taken to mitigate the motion sickness may be to change the effective field of view).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Smith and Watson teach the method of Claim 7. The combination further teach wherein the at least one display setting comprises refresh rate (see Smith, 0054, adjusting the refresh rate adjustment may mitigate any motion parallax).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Smith and Watson teach the method of Claim 7, comprising further receiving, by the one or more processors, manual input of altering the display setting (see Smith, 0060, 0078, wherein the user preferences may be input through a user interface setup or configuration menu).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Smith and Watson teach the method of claim 7. The combination further teach the method comprising automatically altering the display setting (see Smith, 0054, 0057-0058, 0065, 0073, wherein the head-mounted display may change display settings (e.g., spatial quality, effective field of view, refresh rate which may be adjusted for user-specific variances).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith and Watson as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Bulut et al. (US 2020/0337623 A1).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Smith and Watson teach the method of claim 4. Although, Smith and Watson teach providing an indication of motion sickness responsive to detection of motion sickness they are silent as to deriving at least one Fourier Transform of motion over time indicated by the images.
Bulut teaches a system and method of detecting motion sickness through using at least one Fourier Transform of motion over time indicated by the images from the camera directed at the user (see Bulut, 0006, 0048-0053, wherein the physiological signals of the users vital signs may be transformed by using a Fast Fourier Transform wherein the Fourier transform is used to generate vital signs of the user). Specifically, Bulut teaches the indication being presented responsive to the Fourier transform (see Bulut, 0006, 0048-0053, wherein the detection of motion sickness from the acquired sequence of video images alerts the subject so that they can react and avoid or reduce the effects and provide a course of action). One would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Bulut with the combination of Smith and Watson to yield the predictable result to detect the onset of motion sickness by the users vital signs (see Bulut, 0006). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the application to derive at least one Fourier Transform of motion over time indicated by the images and the indication being presented responsive to the Fourier transform.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith and Watson as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Bulut et al. (US 2020/0337623 A1).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Watson and Smith teach the method of Claim 10. Although, the combination teach wherein the manual input is entered into a UI, it is silent to using a slider element.
Zhou teaches a slider bar for providing multi-precision control of a user interface for a head-mounted display such as in a CR or AR system (see Zhou, Fig. 3, 0006, 0085-0086). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate a slider element into the user interface to yield the predictable result for fine control for adjusting parameters in the system (see Zhou, 0005-0006). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the application wherein the manual input is entered using a slider element of a UI.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watson as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Bulut et al. (US 2020/0337623 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Watson discloses the processor system of Claim 13. Although, Watson discloses providing an indication of motion sickness it is silent as to derive at least one Fourier Transform of motion over time indicated by the images.
Bulut teaches a system and method of detecting motion sickness through using at least one Fourier Transform of motion over time indicated by the images from the camera directed at the user (see Bulut, 0006, 0048-0053, wherein the physiological signals of the users vital signs may be transformed by using a Fast Fourier Transform wherein the Fourier transform is used to generate vital signs of the user). Specifically, Bulut teaches the indication being presented responsive to the Fourier transform (see Bulut, 0006, 0048-0053, wherein the detection of motion sickness from the acquired sequence of video images alerts the subject so that they can react and avoid or reduce the effects and provide a course of action). One would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Bulut to yield the predictable result to detect the onset of motion sickness by the users vital signs. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the application to derive at least one Fourier Transform of motion over time indicated by the images and the indication being presented responsive to the Fourier transform.
Claims 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watson as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Smith et al. (US 2020/0124845 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Watson discloses the processor system of Claim 13 but is silent to use at least one machine learning (ML) model to determine whether to present the indication.
Smith teaches a motion sickness processor system that is configured to use at least one machine learning (ML) model to determine whether to present the indication (see Smith, 0068). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use known techniques to yield the predictable result to adjust motion sickness detection for user-specific variances (see Smith, 0068). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the application to use at least one machine learning (ML) model to determine whether to present the indication.
Regarding claim 18, Watson discloses the processor system of Claim 13. Although, Watson discloses the display setting (e.g. adjusting colors, items, and speed of images) it is silent as to the display setting comprises field of view (FOV) and/or refresh rate.
Smith teaches a motion sickness processor system that adjust the display setting comprises a field of view (FOV) and/or refresh rate (see Smith, 0054, wherein to mitigate motion sickness or visual fatigue, the display settings by adjusting the effective field of view and/or the refresh rate). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use known techniques to yield the predictable result to mitigate motion sickness or visual fatigue of the user (see Smith, 0054). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the application wherein the display setting comprises field of view (FOV) and/or refresh rate..
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 RYAN HSU whose telephone number is (571)272-7148. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00-6:00 PM.
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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at (571) 272-4430. 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.
/RYAN HSU/EXAMINER, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights