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 .
This action is responsive to the Application filed on 03/25/2024, said application claims a priority date of 03/04/2022.
Claims 1-3, 5-8 and 11-21 are pending in the case.
Claims 4, 9 and 10 have been cancelled.
Claims 11-21 have been added.
Claims 1, 11 and 18 are independent claims.
Claim Objections
Claims 8 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 8 and 15 recite “…the identified the direction component…” where “…the identified direction component…” was apparently intended.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8, 17 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 8 and 17:
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the directional component" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 15 is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 21:
Claim 21 recites the limitation “the enhancing” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 11, 17-19 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ballard (US 2019/0278369 A1, published 09/12/2019, hereinafter “Ballard”) in view of Woods (US 2022/0137709 A1, filed 11/09/2021, hereinafter “Woods”) and further in view of Amorai-Moriya et al. (US 6,316,934 B1, issued 11/13/2001, hereinafter “Amorai”).
Independent Claims 1 and 11:
Ballard discloses a device for controlling a plurality of vibrators, comprising a controller and a non-transitory computer-readable recording storing therein an information processing program that causes the device [computer] to execute a process that causes the controller to (Ballard: Fig. 8, abstract, ¶ [0021], [0052]-[0054], [0057], [0060], [0064]):
control an amplitude of output vibration of each of the vibrators according to the area in which a target of a vibration source is positioned (The amplitude of different haptic devices are adjusted differently based on the position of the haptic source in the virtual content and can convey direction of the haptic source, Ballard: ¶ [0025]-[0027], [0033], [0038], [0041], [0043]).
Ballard does not appear to expressly teach a device and medium wherein:
a delay of the output vibration of each of the vibrators is controlled as well as the amplitude according to the area in which a target of a vibration source is positioned, and
the area corresponds to an angular region.
However, Woods teaches a device and medium wherein a delay of the output vibration of each of the vibrators is controlled as well as the amplitude (Woods: abstract, ¶ [0006], [0027], [0036], [0041]-[0042], [0050], [0071]-[0073].).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device and medium of Ballard wherein a delay of the output vibration of each of the vibrators is controlled as well as the amplitude, as taught by Woods.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to provide an effective means for conveying haptic feedback to the user via the vibrating device when interacting with the virtual environment (Woods: ¶ [0002], [0028], [0073]).
In implementing the delay feature of Woods in to the invention of Ballard, the directional vibration beam that causes a particular location of the vibration device to vibrate (as taught by Woods) would correspond to an indication of direction since the location of a vibration in the invention of Ballard is used to indicate the direction of the vibration source in the invention of Ballard. Accordingly, in combination, Ballard in view of Woods teaches a device and medium wherein a delay of the output vibration of each of the vibrators is controlled as well as the amplitude according to the area in which a target of a vibration source is positioned.
Ballard in view of Woods does not appear to expressly teach a device and medium wherein the area corresponds to an angular region.
However, Amorai teaches a device and medium wherein the position of an object in a three-dimensional space can be expressed in a polar system (Amorai: Fig. 1B, column 7 lines 30-32 and column 10 lines 6-15.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device and medium of Ballard in view of Woods wherein the position of an object in a three-dimensional space can be expressed in a polar system, as taught by Amorai.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to provide more flexibility on the type of coordinate system used to express the spatial position of an object within a three-dimensional space (Amorai: Fig. 1B, column 7 lines 30-32 and column 10 lines 6-15.).
In combination, Ballard in view of Woods and further in view of Amorai teaches a device and medium wherein the controller controls an amplitude and a delay of output vibration of each of the vibrators according to the angular region in which a target of a vibration source is positioned (The amplitude of different haptic devices are adjusted differently based on the spatial position of the haptic source in the virtual content and can convey direction of the haptic source, Ballard: ¶ [0025]-[0027], [0033], [0038], [0041], [0043]. The direction can be generated by using different delays for the vibrating devices, Woods: abstract, ¶ [0006], [0027], [0036], [0041]-[0042], [0050], [0071]-[0073]. The spatial position can be expressed using a polar system, Amorai: Fig. 1B, column 7 lines 30-32 and column 10 lines 6-15.).
Claims 8 and 17:
The rejection of claims 1 and 11 are incorporated. Ballard in view of Woods and further in view of Amorai teaches a device and medium wherein the controller:
controls an amplitude of output vibration of each of the vibrators such that a relationship between a first composite vibration position determined based on a vibration level of each vibrator in a first vibrator group of a plurality of vibrators and a second composite vibration position determined based on a vibration level of each vibrator in a second vibrator group of a plurality of vibrators agrees with the identified the directional component (The vibration from the plurality of haptic elements in the shoes (first vibrator group) and the vibration from the plurality of haptic elements in the game controller (second vibrator group) vibrate according to the direction of the haptic source, Ballard: ¶ [0033], [0038].), and
controls a delay of output vibration of each of the vibrators according to the directional component (Woods: abstract, ¶ [0006], [0027], [0036], [0041]-[0042], [0050], [0071]-[0073]).
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to provide an effective means for conveying haptic feedback to the user via the vibrating device when interacting with the virtual environment (Woods: ¶ [0002], [0028], [0073]).
Independent Claim 18:
Ballard discloses a system comprising:
a plurality of vibrators, and an information processing device comprising a controller for controlling the plurality of vibrators, wherein the controller (Ballard: Fig. 8, abstract, ¶ [0021], [0052]-[0054], [0057], [0060], [0064]):
controls an amplitude of output vibration of each of the vibrators according to the area in which a target of a vibration source is positioned (The amplitude of different haptic devices are adjusted differently based on the position of the haptic source in the virtual content and can convey direction of the haptic source, Ballard: ¶ [0025]-[0027], [0033], [0038], [0041], [0043]).
Ballard does not appear to expressly teach a system wherein:
a delay of the output vibration of each of the vibrators is controlled as well as the amplitude according to the area in which a target of a vibration source is positioned, and
the area corresponds to an angular region.
However, Woods teaches a system wherein a delay of the output vibration of each of the vibrators is controlled as well as the amplitude (Woods: abstract, ¶ [0006], [0027], [0036], [0041]-[0042], [0050], [0071]-[0073]. ).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Ballard wherein a delay of the output vibration of each of the vibrators is controlled as well as the amplitude, as taught by Woods.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to provide an effective means for conveying haptic feedback to the user via the vibrating device when interacting with the virtual environment (Woods: ¶ [0002], [0028], [0073]).
In implementing the delay feature of Woods in to the invention of Ballard, the directional vibration beam that causes a particular location of the vibration device to vibrate (as taught by Woods) would correspond to an indication of direction since the location of a vibration in the invention of Ballard is used to indicate the direction of the vibration source in the invention of Ballard. Accordingly, in combination, Ballard in view of Woods teaches a system wherein a delay of the output vibration of each of the vibrators is controlled as well as the amplitude according to the area in which a target of a vibration source is positioned.
Ballard in view of Woods does not appear to expressly teach a system wherein the area corresponds to an angular region.
However, Amorai teaches a system wherein the position of an object in a three-dimensional space can be expressed in a polar system (Amorai: Fig. 1B, column 7 lines 30-32 and column 10 lines 6-15.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Ballard in view of Woods wherein the position of an object in a three-dimensional space can be expressed in a polar system, as taught by Amorai.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to provide more flexibility on the type of coordinate system used to express the spatial position of an object within a three-dimensional space (Amorai: Fig. 1B, column 7 lines 30-32 and column 10 lines 6-15.).
In combination, Ballard in view of Woods and further in view of Amorai teaches a system wherein the controller controls an amplitude and a delay of output vibration of each of the vibrators according to the angular region in which a target of a vibration source is positioned (The amplitude of different haptic devices are adjusted differently based on the spatial position of the haptic source in the virtual content and can convey direction of the haptic source, Ballard: ¶ [0025]-[0027], [0033], [0038], [0041], [0043]. The direction can be generated by using different delays for the vibrating devices, Woods: abstract, ¶ [0006], [0027], [0036], [0041]-[0042], [0050], [0071]-[0073]. The spatial position can be expressed using a polar system, Amorai: Fig. 1B, column 7 lines 30-32 and column 10 lines 6-15.).
Claim 19:
The rejection of claim 18 is incorporated. Ballard in view of Woods and further in view of Amorai further teaches a system wherein the controller:
replays XR content (Ballard: Fig. 1, ¶ [0016]-[0018]/),
detects, from the XR content, a scene in which sound is generated from a target (Ballard: ¶ [0028]),
extracts a vibration parameter corresponding to the scene, the vibration parameter controlling the vibrators (Ballard: Fig. 6, ¶ [0026],[0029], [0049].),
enhances a signal obtained by processing a signal of sound generated from the target using the vibration parameter (Ballard: Fig. 6, ¶ [0026]-[0029], [0049].),
controls the vibrators using a vibration signal obtained by processing amplitude and a delay of a signal enhanced by the enhancing (Ballard: Fig. 6, ¶ [0026]-[0029], [0049]; Woods: abstract, ¶ [0006], [0027], [0036], [0041]-[0042], [0050], [0071]-[0073].).
Claim 21:
The rejection of claim 18 is incorporated. Ballard in view of Woods and further in view of Amorai further teaches a system wherein the information processing system further comprising:
an audio output device configured to generate sound in response to an audio signal output from the information processing device (Although not explicitly described, it is clear that the VR system has an audio output device since audio and sound are output to the user, Ballard: ¶ [0017], [0028]).
the controller:
controls the vibrators using a vibration signal obtained by processing amplitude and a delay of a signal enhanced by the enhancing on a signal of sound generated from the target (Ballard: Fig. 6, ¶ [0026]-[0029], [0049]; Woods: abstract, ¶ [0006], [0027], [0036], [0041]-[0042], [0050], [0071]-[0073].).
Claim(s) 5-7 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ballard in view of Woods, further in view of Amorai and further in view of Keller et al. (US 20170168773 A1, published 06/15/2017, hereinafter “Keller”).
Claims 5 and 14:
The rejection of claims 1 and 11 are incorporated. Ballard in view of Woods and further in view of Amorai does not appear to expressly teach a device and medium wherein the controller controls an amplitude and a delay of output vibration of each of the vibrators, based on user's vibration perception characteristic for the output vibration of each of the vibrators.
However, Keller teaches a device and medium wherein the controller controls an amplitude and a delay of output vibration of each of the vibrators, based on user's vibration perception characteristic for the output vibration of each of the vibrators (Keller: claims 4-6, ¶ [0025], [0035], [0043]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device and medium of Ballard in view of Woods and further in view of Amorai wherein the controller controls an amplitude and a delay of output vibration of each of the vibrators, based on user's vibration perception characteristic for the output vibration of each of the vibrators, as taught by Keller.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to better ensure that the particular user can perceive the haptic feedback generated by the VR device (Keller: claims 4-6, ¶ [0025], [0035], [0043]).
Claims 6 and 15:
The rejection of claims 5 and 14 are incorporated. Ballard in view of Woods, further in view of Amorai and further in view of Keller further teaches a device and medium wherein the controller calculates the user's vibration perception characteristic, based on characteristics of the vibrator and a user's state (Keller: ¶ [0032], [0037], [0043]).
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to better ensure that the particular user can perceive the haptic feedback generated by the VR device (Keller: claims 4-6, ¶ [0025], [0035], [0043]).
Claims 7 and 16:
The rejection of claims 5 and 14 are incorporated. Ballard in view of Woods, further in view of Amorai and further in view of Keller further teaches a device and medium wherein the controller measures the user's vibration perception characteristic by vibrating the vibrator for calibration in a user's posture state during content viewing (Examiner considers whatever is being displayed to the user via the VR headset during the calibration to be the content, Keller: ¶ [0013], [0025], [0027], [0032], [0037], [0042], [0043]. Examiner notes that the claim does not require that the device be aware of the user’s posture state, it just requires that the calibration occurs in a user’s posture state. The user will always be in a posture state whether calibration is happening or not.).
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to better ensure that the particular user can perceive the haptic feedback generated by the VR device (Keller: claims 4-6, ¶ [0025], [0035], [0043]).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ballard in view of Woods, further in view of Amorai and further in view of Zavesky et al. (US 2021/0287690 A1, published 09/16/2021, hereinafter “Zavesky”).
Claim 20:
The rejection of claim 18 is incorporated. Ballard in view of Woods and further in view of Amorai further teaches a system wherein the information processing system further comprising:
an audio output device configured to generate sound in response to an audio signal output from the information processing device (Although not explicitly described, it is clear that the VR system has an audio output device since audio and sound are output to the user, Ballard: ¶ [0017], [0028]).
Ballard in view of Woods and further in view of Amorai does not appear to expressly teach a system wherein the controller:
extracts an audio parameter related to audio processing corresponding to the scene, and
outputs, to the audio output device, the audio signal subjected to an enhancement process using the audio parameter.
However, Zavesky teaches a system wherein the controller:
extracts an audio parameter related to audio processing corresponding to the scene (Zavesky: claim 1, ¶ [0003]), and
outputs, to the audio output device, the audio signal subjected to an enhancement process using the audio parameter (Zavesky: claim 1, ¶ [0003]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Ballard in view of Woods and further in view of Amorai wherein the controller:
extracts an audio parameter related to audio processing corresponding to the scene, and
outputs, to the audio output device, the audio signal subjected to an enhancement process using the audio parameter, as taught by Zavesky.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to provide better authenticity when outputting audio associated with a scene (Zavesky: claim 1, ¶ [0003]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3 and 12-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Examiner has cited particular columns and line and/or paragraph numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
The examiner requests, in response to this Office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line number(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicants’ disclosure.
Houston et al., US 2011/0190058 A1 (Direction of a haptic signal can be controlled via amplitude and phase parameters of the haptic signal.)
Zhou et al., US 2014/0085414 A1 (The haptic feedback is generated based on the direction of an object in the displayed content, abstract)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3633. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 5:30 am - 2:30 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, Stephen Hong can be reached at (571) 272-4124. 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.
/DANIEL RODRIGUEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2178