DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kweon (US 12,437,670) in view of Wallace (CA 3000969).
Referring to claims 1 and 11, Kweon discloses a method of providing training in a virtual reality training room (fig. 2, training location) for training a trainee (fig. 2, trainee), comprising:
presenting to a trainee a virtual training projection VIC (fig. 1, virtual reality-based gait training system 100; fig. 2, projector unit 120 project virtual walking environment information; 4:48-51), the VIC, the VIC includes a virtual robot VOB (fig. 1, control unit 140, detection unit 110; fig. 4, robot M; 4:61-67) that is configured to guide the trainee in the virtual training; and
executing instructions maintained on a non-transitory memory by a processor (fig. 1, storage 130, control unit 140) to:
rendering a virtual reality training room scene (fig. 3, gait training scene by projector 120; 4:55-60) that includes a specialized processing (figs. 8-10, different walking environments) on which to train the trainee,
presenting to the trainee an introduction (fig. 7, display information S510) to the VIC, and
presenting to the trainee one or more modules (fig. 7, project virtual walking environment information S525; figs. 8-10) associated with operation or assembly of the SPE, for each module:
Step A: presenting a step-by-step initial set of instructions (fig. 4, robot m moving and projecting different walking environments, such as stride length, walking speed, curved gait as in figs. 8-10) constituting one or more submodules for operating or assembling the SPE, organized by the VOB,
Step B: at the end of each submodule (fig. 7, output training result screen S545),
receiving inputs (fig. 7 select gain training program S515, difficulty level S520) from the trainee via an input device (fig. 1, user interface unit 150), the inputs representing the trainee’s virtual action in repeating the step-by-step instructions,
using the trainee’s received inputs, constructing a trainee action (figs. 8-10, such as stride length, walking speed, curved gait training; 8:59-9:11, change virtual walking environment according to difficulty level) including timing of the action (fig. 9, walking speed) and virtual location (figs. 8-10, virtual training environment) of the action and comparing the trainee action with an expected action (8:32-34, distinguish an abnormal gait pattern; figs. 11-12, classified left and right feet, classified footprint pattern).
Wallace discloses:
specialized processing equipment (fig. 3A, carpentry, masonry and foundation, plumbing, electrical 106A/B/C/D);
requesting the trainee to repeat the steps covered in said submodule (fig. 18A, continue; fig. 16C, restart activity); and
if the trainee action is within the expected action by a predetermined threshold (fig. 18A, workorder complete badges 414), processing to the next submodule Step A (fig. 18A, continue), and
if the trainee action is different from the expected action by the predetermined threshold (fig. 16C, activity failed), generating an error signal (fig. 16C, activity failed displayed; 7:45-46, failure feedback), and real-time customizing and rendering a new training for said submodule and presenting the new customized rendering to the trainee Step B (fig. 16C, restart activity).
Kweon and Wallace are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor in virtual reality training environment. Before the time of the filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, having the teaching of Kweon and Wallace before him or her to modify the virtual reality-based training of Kweon to include the skill-oriented interface of Wallace, thereafter the virtual reality-based training is used in skill-oriented applications. The suggestion and/or motivation for doing so would be obtaining the advantage of providing valuable feedback on performance of the trainee (para.0005) as suggested by Wallace. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Kweon with Wallace to obtain the invention as specified in the instant application claims.
As to claims 2 and 12, Kweon discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the VIC is presented to the trainee by one or more of computer screen, a tablet, a monitor, or a projection on a screen (fig. 4, projector; fig. 7, result screen S545).
As to claims 3 and 13, Kweon discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the input device is one or more of a mouse, a handheld controller, a virtual reality goggle, a touchpad, or a keyboard (5:59-61, keyboard).
As to claims 5 and 15, Kweon discloses the method of claim 1, comprising providing a status indicator to indicate status of the training based on progression of the one or more modules (7:30-46, visual, auditory or tactile feedbacks).
As to claims 6 and 16, Kweon discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the step of real-time customizing and rendering a new training includes varying the step-by-step instructions in each submodule (8:59-9:11, change virtual training environment).
As to claims 7 and 17, Wallace discloses the method of claim 6, wherein the variation of the step-by-step instructions in each submodule includes skipping one or more of the step-by-step instructions (fig. 16C, restart activity without introduction). See TSM analysis above in claim 1.
As to claims 8 and 18, Kweon discloses the method of claim 6, wherein in the variation of the step-by-step instructions in each submodule includes speeding up time (6:6-11, walking speed change) between each of the step-by-step instructions.
As to claims 9 and 19, Kweon discloses the method of claim 6, wherein the variation of the step-by-step instructions in each submodule includes slowing down time (6:6-11, walking speed change) between each of the step-by-step instructions.
As to claims 10 and 20, Kweon discloses the method of claim 6, wherein the variation of the step-by-step instructions in each submodule includes real-time adding a new step (fig. 7, cause obstacle to appear S535) in the step-by-step instructions.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 14 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
None of the prior art on record discloses a virtual reality-based training environment with the step of constructing the trainee action includes establishing a virtual 3-dimensional 3D space using an octree having a plurality of voxels with one or more voxels of the plurality of voxels being sensorized voxels which is configured to provide a proximity signal when the constructed virtual position via the input device indicates proximity to said sensorized voxels within a predetermined distance threshold as claimed in dependent claims 4 and 14.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
“virtual robot configured to …” in claim 1,
“sensorized voxels configured to …” in claims 4 and 14,
“rendering device configured to …”, “input device configured to …” in claim 11, and
“processor configured to …” in claim 14.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See M.P.E.P 707.05(c).
US 11,935,429 discloses a simulator with Octree structure representing its 3D space.
Super Mario Brothers instruction booklet (2009) teaches an environment to train a player to perform step-by-step operations in-module by-module format. An expected action by player will proceed to next module, and a failed result by player will render player a new module.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to examiner Cheng-Yuan Tseng whose telephone number is (571)272-9772, and fax number is (571)273-9772. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 09:00 to 17:30 Eastern Time. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alicia Harrington can be reached on (571)272-2330. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866)217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800)786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571)272-1000.
/CHENG YUAN TSENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2615
Prosecution Insights