DETAILED ACTION
Reissue
The present reissue application is directed to US 10,413,839 B2 (“839 Patent”). 839 Patent issued on September 17, 2019 with claims 1-20 from application 16/116,034 filed on August 29, 2018, which is a continuation of parent application 15/783,664 filed on October 13, 2017 (now US 10,105,619 B2), and claims priority to provisional applications 62/408,667 filed on October 14, 2016; 62/424,587 filed on November 21, 2016; and 62/571,638 filed on October 12, 2017.
This application was filed on July 15, 2024. Since this date is after September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the current provisions. Furthermore, the present application is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This application is a continuation reissue of reissue application 17/476,865 (now US RE50,071 E).
This application presents broadened claims, which are permitted because Applicant filed these claims and demonstrated an intent to broaden within two years of the issue date of 839 Patent (see claims filed in parent reissue 17/476,865).
The most recent amendment was filed on July 15, 2024. The status of the claims is:
Claims 1-20: Canceled
Claims 21-38: New
This is a first, non-final action.
References and Documents Cited in this Action
839 Patent (US 10,413,839 B2)
US RE50,071 E
US 10,183,232 B2
US 10,188,962 B2
US 10,679,412 B2
US 10,449,443 B2
US 10,500,487 B2
US 10,549,184 B2
US 10,192,340 B2
US 10,192,339 B2
US 10,482,643 B2
Bretschneider (US 2016/0275722 A1)
Summary of Rejections and Objections in this Action
Claims 21-38 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 21-38 of US RE50,071 E.
Claim 34 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,183,232 B2.
Claim 34 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,188,962 B2.
Claims 21, 22, and 34 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 or claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 10,679,412 B2.
Claim 34 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,449,443 B2.
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 10,500,487 B2.
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,549,184 B2.
Claim 34 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,192,340 B2.
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 10,192,339 B2.
Claim 34 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,482,643 B2.
Summary of the Claims
839 Patent is directed to a method and apparatus for transforming spaces into a virtual reality attraction using a grid-based stage and fixed and moveable accessories. Claim 21 is representative:
21. A method comprising:
positioning one or more stage accessories at one or more discrete locations of a stage, the one or more discrete locations being defined by coordinates of a stage plan in advance;
via a motion tracking system, tracking location and/or movement of a human participant relative to a discrete location of at least one of the one or more stage accessories; and
via one or more computing systems, employing the tracked location and/or movement of the human participant to generate one or more effects of a simulated environment to be experienced by the human participant, the simulated environment to comprise one or more virtually represented objects corresponding to the at least one of the one or more stage accessories based, at least in part, on the tracked location and/or movement of the human participant and the one or more discrete locations defined by coordinates of the stage plan, wherein:
the stage comprises a stage platform having a pattern of markings identifying the one or more discrete locations along at least two dimensions; and
the stage comprises accessory mounts arranged on the stage platform to affix stage accessories at the pattern of markings.
Claims 21 and 34 are the independent claims. Claim 34 recites a system corresponding to the claim recited in claim 21.
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.
Examiner acknowledges that a terminal disclaimer over US 10,105,619 B2 was approved during the prosecution of 839 Patent. However, the following double patenting rejections involve previous reissue RE50,071 E and nine additional related patents: US 10,183,232 B2; US 10,188,962 B2; US 10,679,412 B2; US 10,449,443 B2; US 10,500,487 B2; US 10,549,184 B2; US 10,192,340 B2; US 10,192,339 B2; and US 10,482,643 B2.
Claims 21-38 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 21-38 of US RE50,071 E. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Reissue claims 21-38 essentially recite the same elements, steps, and limitations recited in claims 21-38 of US RE50,071 E, respectively, except reissue claims 21-38 recite generating “one or more effects of a simulated environment” instead of generating “one or more virtual reality (VR) representations that simulate a virtual environment” recited in claims 21-38 of US RE50,071 E. See, for example, independent claims 21 and 34 of US RE50,071 E and independent reissue claims 21 and 34 of the present application.
Claim 21 of US RE50,071 E
Reissue claim 21
A method comprising:
positioning one or more stage accessories at one or more discrete locations of a stage, the one or more discrete locations being defined by coordinates of a stage plan in advance;
via a motion tracking system, tracking location and/or movement of a human participant relative to a discrete location of at least one of the one or more stage accessories; and
via one or more computing systems, employing the tracked location and/or movement of the human participant to generate one or more virtual reality (VR) representations that simulate a virtual environment to be experienced by the human participant,
the virtual environment to comprise one or more virtually represented objects corresponding to the at least one of the one or more stage accessories based, at least in part, on the tracked location and/or movement of the human participant and the one or more discrete locations defined by coordinates of the stage plan, wherein:
the stage comprises a stage platform having a pattern of markings identifying the one or more discrete locations along at least two dimensions; and
the stage comprises accessory mounts arranged on the stage platform to affix stage accessories at the pattern of markings
A method comprising:
positioning one or more stage accessories at one or more discrete locations of a stage, the one or more discrete locations being defined by coordinates of a stage plan in advance;
via a motion tracking system, tracking location and/or movement of a human participant relative to a discrete location of at least one of the one or more stage accessories; and
via one or more computing systems, employing the tracked location and/or movement of the human participant to generate one or more effects of a simulated environment to be experienced by the human participant,
the simulated environment to comprise one or more virtually represented objects corresponding to the at least one of the one or more stage accessories based, at least in part, on the tracked location and/or movement of the human participant and the one or more discrete locations defined by coordinates of the stage plan, wherein:
the stage comprises a stage platform having a pattern of markings identifying the one or more discrete locations along at least two dimensions; and
the stage comprises accessory mounts arranged on the stage platform to affix stage accessories at the pattern of markings.
Claim 34 of US RE50,071 E
Reissue claim 34
A system comprising:
a stage defining one or more predefined discrete locations;
a motion tracking system to track location and/or movement of a human participant relative to at least a location of at least one of one or more stage accessories positioned on at least one of the one or more predefined discrete locations defined according to coordinates of a stage plan; and
one or more computing systems to employ the tracked location and/or movement of the human participant to generate one or more virtual reality (VR) representations that simulate a virtual environment to be experienced by the human participant, the virtual environment to comprise
at least one virtually represented object corresponding to the at least one of the one or more stage accessories based, at least in part, on the tracked location and/or movement of the human participant and the one or more predefined discrete locations defined according to the coordinates of the stage plan, wherein the stage further comprises:
a platform having a pattern of markings identifying the one or more predefined discrete locations along at least two dimensions; and
one or more accessory mounts arranged on the platform to affix stage accessories at the pattern of markings.
A system comprising:
a stage defining one or more predefined discrete locations;
a motion tracking system to track location and/or movement of a human participant relative to at least a location of at least one of one or more stage accessories positioned on at least one of the one or more predefined discrete locations defined according to coordinates of a stage plan; and
one or more computing systems to employ the tracked location and/or movement of the human participant to generate one or more effects of a simulated environment to comprise
at least one virtually represented object corresponding to the at least one of the one or more stage accessories based, at least in part, on the tracked location and/or movement of the human participant and the one or more predefined discrete locations defined according to the coordinates of the stage plan, wherein the stage further comprises:
a platform having a pattern of markings identifying the one or more predefined discrete locations along at least two dimensions; and
one or more accessory mounts arranged on the platform to affix stage accessories at the pattern of markings.
The “simulated environment” and the “virtual environment” overlap in scope, with both claimed environments comprising “one or more virtually represented objects,” etc. Given claims 21-38 of US RE50,071 E, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to create reissue claims 21-38 by omitting/broadening limitations and slightly modifying terminology without affecting the recited functions (e.g., “simulated environment” instead of “virtual environment”).
Claim 34 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,183,232 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Reissue claim 34 essentially recites a subset of the limitations recited in claim 1 of US 10,183,232 B2, including a stage having a pattern of markings; accessory mounts for affixing accessories; a motion tracking system configured to track a participant; and a VR simulation engine (or one or more computing systems) configured to generate a simulated environment comprising at least one virtually represented object corresponding to an accessory. Given claim 1 of US 10,183,232 B2, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to create reissue claim 34 by omitting/broadening limitations and slightly modifying terminology without affecting the recited functions (e.g., “computing system” instead of “VR simulation engine”).
Claim 34 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,188,962 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Reissue claim 34 essentially recites a subset of the limitations recited in claim 1 of 10,188,962 B2 including a stage having a pattern of markings; accessory mounts for affixing accessories; a motion tracking system configured to track a participant; and a VR simulation engine (or one or more computing systems) configured to generate a simulated environment comprising at least one virtually represented object corresponding to an accessory. Given claim 1 of US 10,183,232 B2, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to create reissue claim 34 by omitting/broadening limitations and slightly modifying terminology without affecting the recited functions (e.g., “computing system” instead of “VR simulation engine”).
Claims 21, 22, and 34 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 or claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 10,679,412 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Reissue claim 34 essentially recites a subset of the limitations recited in claim 1 of US 10,679,412 B2 including a stage having a pattern of markings; accessory mounts for affixing accessories; a motion tracking system configured to track a participant; and a VR simulation engine (or one or more computing systems) configured to generate a simulated environment comprising at least one virtually represented object corresponding to an accessory. Given claim 1 of US 10,679,412 B2, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to create reissue claim 34 by omitting/broadening limitations and slightly modifying terminology without affecting the recited functions (e.g., “mounts” instead of specifically “peg holes”; “accessory” instead of “prop”; and “computing system” instead of “merged reality engine”).
Reissue claims 21 and 22 essentially recite a subset of the limitations recited in claim 15 of US 10,679,412 B2 including providing a stage having a pattern of markings and accessory mounts for affixing accessories; tracking a participant via a motion tracking system; and generating a simulated environment comprising at least one virtually represented object corresponding to an accessory. Given claim 15 of US 10,679,412 B2, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to create reissue claims 21 and 22 by omitting/broadening limitations and slightly modifying terminology without affecting the recited functions (e.g., “mounts” instead of specifically “peg holes”; “accessory” instead of “prop”; and “computing system” instead of “merged reality engine”).
Claim 34 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,449,443 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Reissue claim 34 essentially recites a subset of the limitations recited in claim 1 of US 10,449,443 B2 including a stage having a pattern of markings; accessory mounts for affixing accessories; a motion tracking system configured to track a participant; and a VR simulation engine (or one or more computing systems) configured to generate a simulated environment comprising at least one virtually represented object corresponding to an accessory. Given claim 1 of US 10,449,443 B2, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to create reissue claim 34 by omitting/broadening limitations and slightly modifying terminology without affecting the recited functions (e.g., “accessory” instead of “prop”).
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 10,500,487 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Reissue claims 21 and 22 essentially recite a subset of the limitations recited in claim 3 of US 10,500,487 B2 (which includes the limitations of its parent claims 1 and 2) including providing a stage having a pattern of markings and accessory mounts for affixing accessories; tracking a participant via a motion tracking system; and generating virtual reality representations that simulate a virtual environment comprising at least one virtually represented object corresponding to an accessory. Given claim 3 of 10,500,487 B2, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to create reissue claims 21 and 22 by omitting/broadening limitations and slightly modifying terminology without affecting the recited functions (e.g., “computing system” instead of “VR simulation engine”).
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,549,184 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Reissue claims 21 and 22 essentially recite a subset of the limitations recited in claim 1 of 10,549,184 B2 including providing a stage having a pattern of markings and accessory mounts for affixing accessories; tracking a participant via a motion tracking system; and generating a simulated environment comprising at least one virtually represented object corresponding to an accessory. Given claim 1 of 10,549,184 B2, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to create reissue claims 21 and 22 by omitting/broadening limitations and slightly modifying terminology without affecting the recited functions (e.g., “computing system” instead of “VR simulation engine”).
Claim 34 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,192,340 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Reissue claim 34 essentially recites a subset of the limitations recited in claim 1 of US 10,192,340 B2 including a stage having a pattern of markings; accessory mounts for affixing accessories; a motion tracking system configured to track a participant; and a VR simulation engine (or one or more computing systems) configured to generate a simulated environment comprising at least one virtually represented object corresponding to an accessory. Given claim 1 of US 10,192,340 B2, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to create reissue claim 34 by omitting/broadening limitations and slightly modifying terminology without affecting the recited functions (e.g., “computing system” instead of “VR simulation engine”).
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 10,192,339 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Reissue claims 21 and 22 essentially recite a subset of the limitations recited in claim 3 of 10,192,339 B2 (which includes the limitations of its parent claims 1 and 2) including providing a stage having a pattern of markings and accessory mounts for affixing accessories; tracking a participant via a motion tracking system; and generating a simulated environment comprising at least one virtually represented object corresponding to an accessory. Given claim 3 of 10,192,339 B2, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to create reissue claims 21 and 22 by omitting/broadening limitations and slightly modifying terminology without affecting the recited functions (e.g., “computing system” instead of “VR simulation engine”).
Claim 34 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,482,643 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Reissue claim 34 essentially recites a subset of the limitations recited in claim 1 of US 10,482,643 B2 including a stage having a pattern of markings; accessory mounts for affixing accessories; a motion tracking system configured to track a participant; and a VR simulation engine (or one or more computing systems) configured to generate a simulated environment comprising at least one virtually represented object corresponding to an accessory. Given claim 1 of US 10,482,643 B2, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to create reissue claim 34 by omitting/broadening limitations and slightly modifying terminology without affecting the recited functions (e.g., “computing system” instead of “VR simulation engine”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-38 would be allowable if Applicant overcomes the double patenting rejections.
Bretschneider generally discloses, among other things, a method and system including positioning one or more stage accessories at one or more discrete locations of a stage, the one or more discrete locations being defined by coordinates of a stage plan in advance (e.g., a real object positioned at a modular panel on the floor or wall of a physical stage or “pod,” wherein the panels are located at predetermined, known coordinates of a stage plan; paragraphs [0024]-[0026], [0042]-[0043], [0047]-[0050]; Figures 8A-B). Bretschneider further discloses, via a motion tracking system (i.e., environmental tracking system 108; paragraph [0035]), tracking location and/or movement of a human participant relative to a discrete location of at least one of the one or more stage accessories; and via one or more computing systems (i.e., simulation server 118; paragraphs [0037] ad [0042]), employing the tracked location and/or movement of the human participant to generate one or more effects of a simulated environment to be experienced by the human participant, the simulated environment to comprise one or more virtually represented objects corresponding to the at least one of the one or more stage accessories based, at least in part, on the tracked location and/or movement of the human participant and the one or more discrete locations defined by coordinates of the stage plan (i.e., the virtual representation is an “overlay” shown to the user over a real object; Figures 7A-B and 8A-B; paragraphs [0049- [0050]; wherein the appearance of the object can be caused “by a control signal triggered by tracking the user which causes a panel to slide on the floor or wall,” see paragraph [0025], and the panel/object locations are located at predetermined, known coordinates of a stage plan).
However, regarding claims 21-38, the prior art does not specifically disclose or fairly teach the combination of all of the elements, steps, and limitations recited in claims 21-38 (including all of the limitations of any respective parent claims) particularly including:
positioning stage accessories at one or more discrete locations, defined by coordinates of a stage plan, of a stage comprising a stage platform having a pattern of markings and accessory mounts arranged to affix stage accessories thereto at the pattern of markings, the pattern of markings identifying the one or more discrete locations along at least two dimensions; and one or more computing systems employing the tracked location and/or movement of the human participant to generate one or more effects of a simulated environment with one or more virtually represented objects corresponding to the at least one of the one or more stage accessories that are affixed to the accessory mounts at discrete locations identified by the pattern of markings (e.g., claim 21); or
a stage comprising a platform having a pattern of markings identifying one or more predefined discrete locations along at least two dimensions; and one or more accessory mounts arranged on the platform to affix stage accessories at the pattern of markings; and one or more computing systems employing the tracked location and/or movement of the human participant to generate one or more effects of a simulated environment with at least one virtually represented object corresponding to the at least one of the one or more stage accessories that are affixed to the accessory mounts at discrete locations identified by the pattern of markings (e.g., claim 34).
Conclusion
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceeding in which this reissue application is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, and litigation. Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue application. These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Applicant is notified that any subsequent amendment to the specification and/or claims must comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b).
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 https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/interview-practice.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner, or as to the status of this proceeding, should be directed to Examiner Christina Leung at telephone number (571) 272-3023; the Examiner’s supervisor, SPE Patricia Engle at (571) 272-6660; or the Central Reexamination Unit at (571) 272-7705.
/CHRISTINA Y. LEUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3991
Conferees:
/DEANDRA M HUGHES/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3992
/Patricia L Engle/SPRS, Art Unit 3991